Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: davidpt40 on September 14, 2003, 04:56:59 AM
-
Heres something I've pondered. Why werent individual U.S. troops armed with BARs rather than the M1? The model 1918a1 BAR could fire semi and fully automatic. It used the same round as the M1 and could also use a bipod.
It seems to me the BAR is just an earlier version of the M14.
edit: inadvertantly typed tripod instead of bipod
-
It was also extremely heavy.
-
Well.. why weren't the troops armed with SAW/M60 rather than M16s, after all those had alot of ammo, automatic fire... :)
Might work out in CS and americas army... but not in real life
-
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, fully equipped, a BAR weighs 40 pounds.
I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?
Army units had 1 BAR gunner per squad. Marine units were organized a bit different. Each squad of 12 men had 3 BAR gunners.
-
When you consider that a rifle weights about 20 pounds and is much more flexible/faster to use in combat than a BAR, which would you choose?
With BAR's you'd be in deep poop at close combat. (makes America's Army use of SAW seem silly, when they do merry go round while shooting with it :D)
-
What was the cost of a BAR? i would have thought it was more expensive than the garand. Maybe that was a factor too.
-
Clyde of 'Bonnie and Clyde' fame used a BAR. And it was only with full ammo and bipod that it weighed 40 pounds.
I'm not understanding your comparison of the BAR to the SAW/M60 Fishu. To me, the BAR seems alot like a heavy M14. For close combat, I think an automatic rifle would be more effective than a semi-auto weapon (M1).
-
M1 garand...11 pounds and change.
BAR...18.5 pounds.
Outfitted with all the ammunition...BAR Belt of 12 mags (240 rounds) you've got some weight. Add it to all the other gear you needed to carry...you get the picture.
Even smaller M1A1 Thompson's were very expensive to manufacture, and hence replaced with the M3 Greasegun.
Anyway...i just realized i was going to give a thorough analysis on costs, practicality, and a list of sources and a healthy dose of common sense. I changed my mind. I'll just say this...
I've fired both, and used each in a course to simulate some sort of combat conditions (i was not being shot at, and my enemy was an assortment of paper plates, targets, and milk jugs) while running, diving, and firing from all firing positions. The M1 was much easier to use, was very easy to load and fire on the go, and very accurate. The BAR (Modified M1918A2 for semi-auto) was fun, i sprayed a lot of rounds in burst and semi automatic. When it was all said and done, i fired 72 rounds from the garand and 150 from the BAR and scored more hits percentage-wise with the garand (65, a "hit" on a paper target being in a scoring ring which is a 10" radius) and something along the lines of 75 with the BAR. Conclusion...If i'm going to be running around carrying my house, the week's food supply, and all my earthly possessions while having a bunch of guys shooting at me...i'm taking the M1.
Also had to chance to fire an M1 Carbine, AR-15, Thompson, and 1903 Springfield in similar (not pseudo-reenacting) circumstances though strictly target, and my favorite out of all of them for a combat weapon would still be the M1 garand or Thompson. Both very intimidating weapons and the Thompson behaved okay at a range of 50 yards (as it was designed for that and closer ranges) while the M1 a bowling pin or enemy milk jug stands no chance within 300 yards with iron sights.
-
Excellent post Golfer!
When it was all said and done, i fired 72 rounds from the garand and 150 from the BAR and scored more hits percentage-wise with the garand (65, a "hit" on a paper target being in a scoring ring which is a 10" radius) and something along the lines of 75 with the BAR.
Think it was Halsey who said "Never send a Marine where you can send a bullet". Didn't realize the BAR was that light- 18.5 pounds.
I bet U.S. doctrine had alot to do with troops being issued semi-auto rifles. German squads at the end of the war that were issued with STG44s did very well against the Russians.
But from what I understand about squad level combat, full auto fire is mainly for suppression fire. During Vietnam, some unit was ordered to only fire their M16s semi-automatic. Kill rate went up, ammo usage and friendly fire incidents went down.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
I'm not understanding your comparison of the BAR to the SAW/M60 Fishu. To me, the BAR seems alot like a heavy M14. For close combat, I think an automatic rifle would be more effective than a semi-auto weapon (M1).
Well, BAR is basically M60/M249 of the WWII for US squads.
a squad support weapon.
BAR uses .30-06 round, which will give quite a kick, therefore you really don't want to use automatic fire without support.
....and the support usually is something solid you can lay the weapon on.
Your body isn't too good of a support for the .30-06 automatic fire, if you want to hit something.
The closer you get, the worse BAR gets... in close quorters it'd be way too heavy to be used effectively alone.
It's a cumbersome weapon compared to M1 and that means you'll be slower in your moves.
Not a good thing if a single shot can make the difference between life and death.
So... the BAR is best used when supported, while M1 rifle could be used effectively without support.
The alternative to M1 rifle is the Thompson SMG, albeit wildly inaccurate at any further distance than close, but much better than either of the two others up close and alot less recoil, which makes it possible to use automatic fire effectively.
When you're moving, you want to have lighter and smaller weapon, which makes it possible to react quicker on threats.
-
The Garrand is the most accurate and rugged full power semi auto battle rifle ever made. The reason for its accuracy is the gas piston or, where the gas piston takes its gas from... the port in the barrel is allmost at the muzzle.. this allows the bullet to be gone before the barrel whips. This is a long stroke system that is allso very gentle to shoot with the powerful ought six round.
lazs
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?
1 pound is to much to carry.
-
Originally posted by Monk
1 pound is to much to carry.
hehe true...so true..
-
The story's I've heard about the BAR (And they are just that, storys) always pointed out that it took 1 guy to just hold the darn thing down on full auto. Another to aim & pull the trigger & try to absorb the recoil.
On the other side of the coin, I've seen a buddy of mine shoot a Ruffed Grouse out of the air at night with an M1 Garand.
1 shot, wait 2 seconds, poof, 1 grouse hits the ground. Walked a hundred yards & he did it again. Its so dark I can't see to walk much less see a ruffed grouse takeing off in front of me.
Went to clean the birds, both were perfect head shots, no meat damaged.
(The kid could shoot :) )
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, fully equipped, a BAR weighs 40 pounds.
I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?
Army units had 1 BAR gunner per squad. Marine units were organized a bit different. Each squad of 12 men had 3 BAR gunners.
BAR was also a very poor LMG, too heavy, mag too small, no barrel change....40 lbs plus the ammo to feed it is just way too much...Bren and MG34/42 were far superior as can be seen by the fact that they are still in use 60 years on.
-
The history channel ran a "Tales of the Gun" special which had what the editors rated as the "Top 10 guns in history" or something like that. Basically, guns that revolutionalized the face of weaponry. Which guns would make that list for you?
This is what I guessed before seeing the show:
The Brown Bess
Kentucky Long Riffle
Gattling Gun
Winchester Model 92
German Mauser
Colt 1911
B.A.R.
AK-47
The first Machine Gun (German... can't recall what it's called)
M1 Carbine
I think I had like 70% or so. The BAR was second overall.
MiniD
-
Most of the other people have already stated the reasons:
1. The rifle and it's ammo was heavier
2. It was not as accurate
Plus, most Marines I've talked to threw the bipod away. They used it as a rifle.
-
The first thing you have to remember is Full Auto is basic "Spray and Pray". If you have a wave of enemy attacking you stand a good chance of wounding more enemy with a full auto burst. In Semi-Auto you change to basic "Sniper" tactics. 1 shot 1 kill. You also run thru a LOT of ammo in full auto, so you better have a good supply with you. Sucks to run out of ammo in a firefight.
-
I don't think the BAR really should be included in the top ten, as someone said the Bren or MG34 is better. The inability to change barrels is a big flaw in my opinion. It makes it almost useless in the sustained fire support role which after all the main use of the machine gun. Having said that I've only fired the Bren but that was a sweet handling machine gun. Accurate and reliable but heavy. Being magazine fed was a flaw too.
I was an infantryman and weight does count. What is often forgotten when people try out a weapon on the range is that the infantryman will be carrying a lot of weight, helmet, ammunition, rifle. After a few hours it all begins to feel twice as heavy. I never envied the radio operator or the section machine gunner. Usually the biggest guys in the unit got the job.
The other reason that not everyone got a machine gun to play with was simple tactics. The idea was that an infantry assault would take place while the machine gunners covered them by keeping the enemy's heads down. Try running a hundred yards carrying 40 pounds of dead weight in your hands.
In any case the US forces with the semi automatic capability of the M1 Garand had a lot more firepower thatn any other army without the BAR.
With the development of the assault rifle the machine gun seemed on the way out. But everyone seems to have some kind of support weapon like the SAW these days.
-
Its not 'one or the other'. Having full auto gives you options. A 3 or 4 round burst might kill an enemy rather than wounding or missing him if only a single shot was fired.
Having a bi-pod also makes the BAR a much better defensive weapon than the M1.
The M1 evolved into the M14 (7.62mm but slightly shorter round than m1/bar ammo). It took about 15 years for this happen. If the U.S. was looking for a fully automatic 7.62mm battle rifle, seems like they could have just used the BAR (which had been around since 1918).
I think it was doctrine, not weight or inaccuracy, that prevented troops from being equiped with it. The rifle itself was only 18 pounds, and it would have made the whole squad automatic rather than semi-auto.
-
David, the BAR was a much more complicated weapon than the M1. Which means it was more expensive. And because of how they were designed the M1 is a much more accurate weapon. I've shot both (actually I own a M1 and my dad owned a BAR). It was also 4 inches longer, making it more unwieldy. Also consider this, I've shot the BAR from the shoulder and it's very hard to keep a full-auto 30-06 anywhere the target. That's one of the reasons they went to .308.
-
could you imagine a whole squad dragging around with B.A.R.s and all the ammo you would need? Well if ya didnt need anything else (like clothes) I guess but after a 100yrd sprint I think they would be done for the day........
The best auto rifle in WWII was the STG 44 anyway... was light, accurate and the recoil was reasonable.
-
The role you believe would had been ideal for the BAR was very well performed by the Thomson.
The US G.I unit were the best armed soldiers during WWII. They had a weapon that did what it was meant to do very well. The BAR was a support weapon, it was meant to make the enemy take cover while the riflemen took position, and the person with the Thomson to move forward.
A squad full of BARs would have been a mess. The BAR really was not the assault rifle you are thinking it is.
-
For the civilians on this thread...
1. You need HUGE amounts of ammo in a firefight.
2. Most of the time you never see anybody to shoot at.
3. You NEVER fire on full auto with an assault rifle
4. After 200 rounds of lmg fire you have to change the barrel
5. Each member of the section carries about 200 rounds of belted ammo for the LMG
6. The LMG team are the killers, everyone else is just there for support.
We used to use the MAG as our LMG team supported by BREN's chambered for 7.62 x 51 - was easier to do an assault with the Bren while the MAG could put down serious fire. Bren was easier to carry but not being belt fed was a problem.
Burst fire is fired in 3 to 5 rounds bursts, no more.
Hit someone with a 7.62 x 51 just about anywhere and they are as good as dead - if not dead they will certainly have lost all interest in the fight.
Most people have no idea just how fit you have to be to be a combat infantryman - we used to run 10 clicks every morning sharing a 8 foot length of telephone pole between two men.
http://www.lib.sun.ac.za/military/military.exe?ML=1&EX=Smoke61
-
You're missing a few things about the BAR. First off, the fore-end was made from wood and perilously close to the barrel. Too much automatic fire would cause the fore-end to start smoking, and possibly burst into flames. At 18 pounds loaded and four feet long, it was neither handy nor very packable. To boot, the magazines only held 20 rounds a piece; not effective in terms of providing fire support. To pull a "then and now" comparison, back then the average BAR man packed his gun along with twelve magazines (240 rounds). A modern SAW gunner carries his gun (15 lbs) and 300 rounds. The weight difference between the two being in the neighborhood of twenty pounds. The BAR was designed during WWI for infantry support, and like most weapons during the first year of WW2, it got pressed into service because we didn't have anything better.
For defense in a fixed emplacement, with at least several canteens (to cool the gun) and a constant ammo supply, the BAR was still an ad-hoc solution. The twenty-round mags didn't allow for sustained fires, the gun's fore-end was made of wood, and you couldn't change barrels to get rid of the heat. If given a choice, I'd take the extra seven pounds and pack a captured MG-42. Belt-fed, barrels could be changed in under five seconds, and no wood at all to catch fire. Or, I'd pack a Bren. Four lbs heavier than the BAR, but a few inches shorter and fed from 30 round mags. To boot, there's nothing flamable forward of the grip.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/lie.gif)
-
Almost everything's been covered. Ive never fired a BAR, but I have fired M1's, and while the semi automatic fire is a great feature in a combat situation, I still prefere the Mauser 98K. Apparently the Germans did too, becase you never heard of any Wehrmacht soldiers picking up disgarded M1's to replace them.
PS: David, there are 3 automatic riflemen in each Marine squad because one is assigned to each fireteam of 4 men. Watching a squad advance is impressive considering the amount of firepower that can be brought to bear by only 3 men (armed with the M249 today).
Alot of people have fired Thompsons apparently - but I wonder - has anyone here fired an MP38 or MP40?
Id like to get my hands on one of those two and an StG44 for a day.
-
Ok lets get down to facts here-
(1) Post-Vietnam study showed that the 3 round burst was the most effective type of firing for kills. Fully automatic fire is needed for supression.
(2) U.S. forces in World War II were unable to effectively supress German troops due to lack of long firing automatic weapondry. (source:Study cited by Stephen Ambrose- Citizen Soldiers).
(3) German squads were based around Mg34 or Mg42 machine guns. U.S. squads were based around the BAR. How can you say the U.S. had the best armed troops Animal?
(4) Standard tactic of U.S. army was somethng called "Shoot and Scoot". BAR would fire on enemy position, troops would try to flank the enemy while BAR was supressing them. Didn't work very well because of (a) poor supressing fire and (b) most of the time you don't know where the enemies sides and flanks are.
(source:Study cited by Stephen Ambrose- Citizen Soldiers)
(5) The Marines used 3 BARs per squad. They usually modified them to also fire semi-auto.
(6) Tommy gun had effective range of 50yrds. Most combat engagements take place at 300yrds or less.
So the reasons why I think U.S. troops should have each been issued BAR:
(a) Capable of firing 3round bursts (due to full auto)
(b) Capable of full auto supression
(c) Bipod could be attached
(d) Magazine fed
And the reasons against it are:
(a)Bit too heavy
(b)Inaccurate on full auto
-
But WWII was an offensive war - he who moves forward wins.
Yes, the Germans had the best machinegun, but that is mostly a defensive weapon - the Americans had the Garand - an extremely versatile rifle, the Thomson - best SMG in the war combined with the very light and accurate carbine and troops could move forward and around Mg42 nests, and of course the BAR which was a great rifle for the troops that could handle it and use it as accurate supression weapon.
(6) Tommy gun had effective range of 50yrds. Most combat engagements take place at 300yrds or less.
It was meant to be used by agressive and fast runners. Sort of a quarterback weapon. While the riflemen are fighting at 300yards, the agile submachinegunner had to be running forward and around the enemy to get in range and either distract them for the riflemen to finish the job, or hose them down themselves with .45
US tactics were not based around the light machinegun, like the germans did. That is a defensive tactic. US tactics were based around the rifleman - and they had the best rifle.
The BAR was a fine weapon, but not all G.I's were 6 foot tall with the stamina of a bull. Maybe it should have been issued as a standard weapon for the Aussies though ;)
The G.I's had some crappy tanks, but on a small arms level, they had the best equipment for fighting a mobile war.
Sorry pal but there is no arguing that another rifle should have replaced the Garand. It was the perfect rifle for the job and I have not read or heard a US veteran say he would have liked to switch his for anything, except maybe a thomson which was seen as a bad-mother****er gun, but that weapon required a certain breed of maniac to use properly, people who were able to run forward in spite of apparent certain death. Unlike the ETO, were Thomsons were given to officers and people of rank, in the PTO you had to earn it with some crazy deeds in the field. G.I's in the Pacific say they never asked soldiers how they got their Thomson.
-
Animal,
MG34 and 42 weights 23-26lbs with a bipod and then add the weight of 75 round drum or 50 round *assault belt*
MG34/42 were very similar for germans as BAR for US and Bren for brits and they used it somewhat same..
Difference is that germans used MG34/42 from squad support weapon to a fortress weapon, whereas americans for example had machineguns which weren't very adaptable to work as a squad support weapon with the same flexilibity as BAR or MG34/42.
MG34/42 had different kinds of mounts, varying from simple bipods to different kinds of tripods.
So I'd say you have very errorneous view of the usage of MG34/42.
It was pretty much superior to BAR in most aspects.
-
I thought the Mg34/42 were comparable to the American Browning machinegun, not to the BAR.
The BAR being basically a big rifle operated by a single person that could be used on the move, and the MG42 a machinegun that had to be deployed to be used effectively.
-
Flakbait said this:
You're missing a few things about the BAR. First off, the fore-end was made from wood and perilously close to the barrel. Too much automatic fire would cause the fore-end to start smoking, and possibly burst into flames.
And that's stupid. Carry on.
-
Originally posted by Animal
I thought the Mg34/42 were comparable to the American Browning machinegun, not to the BAR.
The BAR being basically a big rifle operated by a single person that could be used on the move, and the MG42 a machinegun that had to be deployed to be used effectively.
American M1919 models and M1917 were quite much heavier than MG34/42 and were only belt fed
Of the M1919 models, A6 was suppose to be faster to deploy and expose the operators less, however it was unable to maintain sustained fire as the A4 and wasn't either any lighter.
A4 was far more numerous than A6.
MG42 is pretty much still in active use today - the german army uses MG3, which is almost the same as MG42, except chambered for different caliber and some minor details changed.
To my knowledge MG3 is used the same way as M60 and M249, which could be said to be the todays BAR/Bren.
I'd say MG34/42 were amazingly adaptable machineguns.
Germans used those in various kind of platforms and actions.
MG34/42 werent the only squad machineguns used by the germans, they did also have a fair number of Zb.26's, which is the Czech version of Bren, or actually, the weapon which of Bren originated.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, fully equipped, a BAR weighs 40 pounds.
I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?
LOL I remember leaving my toothbrush out of my pack because it was too heavy.
-
Ok, let's set up a BAR scenario that you can understand:
Our hero, up on a hill is provided with an excellent field of fire and a BAR. He sees some approaching Germans and starts to shoot them. He is firing in short bursts and conserving his ammo. The Nazis are dropping like flies. There is one group of Krauts left for the hero to kill. They are firing an MG 34. The BAR runs out of ammo and the Nazis are so hungry for the kill, they shoot the BAR gunner even though he has run out of ammo and hasn't had a chance to pop in a new magazine.
Damn Nazis, they would kill each other just to club a baby seal.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Ok, let's set up a BAR scenario that you can understand:
Our hero, up on a hill is provided with an excellent field of fire and a BAR. He sees some approaching Germans and starts to shoot them. He is firing in short bursts and conserving his ammo. The Nazis are dropping like flies. There is one group of Krauts left for the hero to kill. They are firing an MG 34. The BAR runs out of ammo and the Nazis are so hungry for the kill, they shoot the BAR gunner even though he has run out of ammo and hasn't had a chance to pop in a new magazine.
Damn Nazis, they would kill each other just to club a baby seal.
you said the enamy is approaching, kill them before they set up the MG 34, the BAR is not belt fead and can fire on the run.
It is and was out of date but provided a very moble yet small clip auto weapon , moble was the key here we were advancing they were defending. As a MG it was not to be used as such, the Browning .30 aircooled was the counter to the MG 34. The MG 34 and its brother were a better MG IMHO.
The BAR was not really used much after WWII for all the reasons stated on other posts.
Not bad just not great as a MG, better as a fast long range auto weapon.
one mans opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
-
Damn, you got me there. I have no idea what I was talking about. Or, maybe, I do and people here just don't pick up on subtle references. I guess the guys in my squad were correct about that. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95881)
-
The 1919, otherwise known as the Browning thirtycal was the air-cooled version of the 1917. Same action, just replaced the water jacket with a heavier barrel and a shroud. The 1919 was designed to be used with a tripod, however, towards the end of the war the 1919A6 also came with a detachable buttstock and a bipod so it could be used prone. There was also a move to switch from cloth belts to metal links.
(http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/graphics/mgun_browning1917.jpg)
1917
(http://www.spencerrifle.com/1919brng.jpg)
1919
(http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/Pictures/Machineguns/Browning1919A6.jpg)
1919A6
Many of the design attributes of the MG42 also found their way into the M60.
BTW, here is part of a great article discussing the BAR:
Battle-Proven BAR
Even in its final M1918A2 configuration, the highly regarded BAR was less than perfect. The location of its bottom-fed magazine limited capacity and 20 rounds is just not enough for a squad automatic. None of the models fielded by the U.S. Armed Forces had quick-change barrels. Melvin M. Johnson, Jr., designer of the Johnson M1941 semiautomatic rifle and Models 1941 and 1944 Light Machine Guns, stated that a BAR barrel could withstand 75 to 100 rounds per minute for up to 300-400 rounds without serious damage to the barrel. In one test the barrel was ruined after 1,000 rounds of firing at this rate.
Semiautomatic accuracy was degraded by the open-bolt firing mechanism which caused the reciprocating group to slam against the rear of the barrel to jar the weapon at the moment of primer ignition. In juxtaposition, full-auto fire off the bipod was almost too accurate. At the standard 1,000-inch machine-gun target, the M1918A2 BAR could place one full 20- round burst into a 2x3-inch rectangle.
This is a direct consequence of the bipod's location at the muzzle. Group dispersion of this size is superior to that of the M1917A1 water-cooled Browning machine gun mounted on its tripod. As a result, at combat ranges of 200 to 600 yards the M1918A2 BAR almost comes close to lacking a useful distribution of fire. In addition, with the bipod attached to the muzzle, it becomes more difficult for the operator to engage flanking targets. At almost 20 pounds the M1918A2 BAR is too heavy for anything other than snap shooting from a standing shoulder mount.
From here: http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/articles/14.htm
-
Originally posted by Scootter
you said the enamy is approaching, kill them before they set up the MG 34, the BAR is not belt fead and can fire on the run.
You can have 75 round drum and 50 round 'assault belt' on the MG34.
The setup time becomes next to none.
-
the Thomson - best SMG in the war combined...
I thought the Russians had the best SMG of the war - that saw-tooth thing with the large magazine (67 rounds?). No other army used SMGs in numbers like the Soviets did.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I thought the Russians had the best SMG of the war - that saw-tooth thing with the large magazine (67 rounds?). No other army used SMGs in numbers like the Soviets did.
I know for a fact that the tommy gun was not the best SMG..
Bias or not, but I'd say the Suomi SMG was the best :D
PPSh 41 was a spray gun compared to it...
-
Originally posted by Fishu
You can have 75 round drum and 50 round 'assault belt' on the MG34.
The setup time becomes next to none.
Good point, how widespread was the us of drum? I had forgotten about this item as I dont see it that oftem in photos.
-
Jeeze mathman, your joke was so horrible that I actually feel sorry for you :(
Oh, and the BAR was used up until the end of the Vietnam war. South Vietnam was the last country to use it I believe. It was most likely used as an individual rifle and not a machine gun at that time.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Good point, how widespread was the us of drum? I had forgotten about this item as I dont see it that oftem in photos.
I don't know any numbers, but from what I've read along the years, the drums existed in fair numbers.
Probably wouldn't be either too much of a trouble to run around with 50 round belt either.... not sure if its a normal 50 round belt (germans had 50 round belts which could be linked together) or some specifially modified for assaulting.
Heres a picture of MG34 with the drum:
(http://www.lssah.com/images/mg-34.jpg)
Let's add the picture of Zb.26 as well:
(http://www.lssah.com/images/zb26.jpg)
These pics are from http://www.lssah.com , they have some nice single pictures of weapons and other equiptment.
along with some pictures of restorated vehicles :D
-
Hey fishu, why did the slow the ROF on the MG42 from 1200rpm to 600rpm on the MG3?
Also, does anyone here remember an AH BBS member who was a squad leader in the U.S. Army during the 80s? I bet he could shed some insight on my BAR question.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Hey fishu, why did the slow the ROF on the MG42 from 1200rpm to 600rpm on the MG3?
Also, does anyone here remember an AH BBS member who was a squad leader in the U.S. Army during the 80s? I bet he could shed some insight on my BAR question.
To my knowledge MG3 does have 1200rpm cyclic rate and nowhere have I seen mention about 600rpm.
Where'd you find those claims?
-
weird what troops think is a great enemy weapon. The gernans rarely picked up captured Garrands even tho they were far superior to the 98 as a battle rifle.. they rarely picked up the thompson or m3 grease gun even tho it was a great sub gun.. also.. they never used the 1911 pistol even tho it was far superior to the luger and just as good or better than the p38... we never picked up or used mg34's even tho we were scared to death of em.. They never used captured 50 cals even tho they were scared to death of em...
the germans LOVED the m1 carbine with it's underpowered round. It was light tho and you could carry a ****load of captured ammo and then throw it away I guess and pick up a mauser. It was all about the ammo compatability. The mg's and 98's used the same round. you wouldn't want to be the one guy with a Garrand and a bandolier of ought sixes in a fire fight. the luger and p38 used the same pissant 9mm as the mp40. 1911 used the 45 acp same as grease gun.
lazs
-
Your right fishu, I did some checking and the cyclic rate is 1200rpm. I must have confused the MG3 with U.S. weapons.
Lazs, wouldn't the sound a gun makes be a discouraging factor too? The MG42 has a very distinctive noise, as does almost any weapon. Might cause alot of friendly fire incidents.
-
yep.. that is the case too. In vietnam AK 47's were outlawed for recon or regular troops. even the tracers were a different color.
in WWII the germans used to listen to the "ping" that meant the Garrand had ejected it's clip...Gi's took to throwing an empty clip against something hard to get the german soldier to think he was dry... the Garrand would fire under any circumstance allmost and you could fire 8 rounds semi automatic and very controlled... teh garrand is a long stroke gas system that is very gentile and with no magazine hanging down you can fire prone and not give away your position or have your arms (or worse) exposed when you work the bolt like bolt action rifles.
The real disadvantage of the garrond was it's inability to add to the clip once it was inserted.. if you fired two rounds you now had 6 let with no real way to replace the used rounds except to dump the whole clip... you also could not load clips withn less than 8 rounds. None of these things were looked at as disadvantages tho by the troops... weight was.
lazs
-
I wonder how you reload your bolt-action rifle, lazs2 :)
-
Fishu, I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but you cannot add more ammo to a Garand clip once you've started firing. There is a spring-loaded plate in the bottom that pushes the cartridges up to be taken by the bolt. You can't push the top cartridges down to add more.
if that made any sense :)
-
fishu... what are yu talking about?
single rounds can be loaded in bolt action rifles magazines... they can be recharged at any point... some bolt action rifles even have a magazine cutoff that keeps the magazine full while you load individual rounds in the chamber.
lazs
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Jeeze mathman, your joke was so horrible that I actually feel sorry for you :(
What a coincidence, that's the way I feel whenever I read ANY of your posts. I would avoid them, but its like a wreck on the freeway, you just have to look sometimes.
-
Lazs2,
I mean't this:
"you can fire prone and not give away your position or have your arms (or worse) exposed when you work the bolt like bolt action rifles."
I just wonder how you pull the bolt if you expose yourself that well
but since you said this:
"single rounds can be loaded in bolt action rifles magazines... they can be recharged at any point... some bolt action rifles even have a magazine cutoff that keeps the magazine full while you load individual rounds in the chamber. "
I might add that the rifles usually had also capability to accept bullet strips aside single bullets.
Kar98 could loaded with one 5 round strip and Lee-Enfield loaded with 2 strips.
No need to add rounds invidually if you had the strips
-
working the bolt causes more movement than simply pulling the trigger.
I am aware that the magazines for bolt rifles can be loaded with stripper clips but they also can be loaded individually.. in the case where you fire on or two rounds you might want to replace them without dumping the whole magazine as is the case with the Garrand.
lazs
-
The BAR was used in the Swedish armed forces, using the 6.5 mm round. A beauty to fire and very accurate!
It went under the name "KG m/21" (KG stands for KulspruteGevär) and "KG m/37" after the incorparation of a quick change barrel.
I have yet to get one for my collection, but I have shoot with it a couple of times: it works and handels very well. Though I dont know what diffrence there is between the US BAR and the Swedish BAR, more then maybe the swedish BAR might be a bit lighter (the KG m/21 nearly 9 kilograms, about 20 pounds and the KG m37 nearly 10 kilograms, about 22 pounds.)
Talking about other machineguns, someone mentioned that there is no quickchange barrel to BAR, in the US issue.
BUT theres was no quickchange barrel to the 1919a1 or the Browning M2 either. You can change the barrel, but it is not a fast operation. ( I have shoot enough to bend the barrel in a 1919a1, with blanks and it took about 1000 rounds to accomplish this).
-
Originally posted by lazs2
working the bolt causes more movement than simply pulling the trigger.
I am aware that the magazines for bolt rifles can be loaded with stripper clips but they also can be loaded individually.. in the case where you fire on or two rounds you might want to replace them without dumping the whole magazine as is the case with the Garrand.
lazs
There is something very odd: That the US was one of the first countrys in the world to issue an half automatic weapon as a standard GI issued gun.
For many years, the Military was worried about the ammo consumtion that reapeting guns like the Krag and the 1903 springfield would be able to perform.
So, there was this piece of metal put into the gun, stoping the GI man from using the magasin other then in an emergency. Only then he could take away the metal magasinblock or when ordered to take it away.
I am pretty shure that they had to change the M16, because of the same issue: To high Ammo consumtion.
The differance between an automatic rifle and a bolt acton rifle is: accuracy. It is also a differance in prize of manufacture.
The weight and the reability is also a issue.
(I am pretty sure that the Marines would have killed to get an boltaction rifle instead of the Automatic Reising they where issued in the beginning of the WWII.)
And a question: why are there not that many semiautomatic rifles used by hunters? If the movement of the bolt or another action, causes that much of a disaim?
The movement of the bolt is operated as the gun is on its way down from the recoil. A semiautomatic rifle has also a movement from the recoil, making it to move out of aim after every discharge.
So the second or two, you might loose by moving the bolt, might be won by the fact that you can be sure that it will fire.
-
The change to M16 was pretty much due to the ammo consume vs. usefulness.
There was no use of shooting M16 on auto, when it didn't hit anything.... instead there was more use to shoot it semifire, when it actually hit something.
It must be easy and give a confident feeling to shoot on auto, but it isn't hitting much.
-
Crabofix:
The magazine stop you're refering to can be found on British Lee-Enfield SMLE from WWI. One of the purposes behind the magazine stop was to keep soldiers from stopping and firing when they ran out of the trenches. They were to fire one shot and then run over and stab the Hun. Remember what they were taught back then, "Lead is stupid but steel is smart."
Secondly, about hunting rifles being mostly bolt-action. While Browning makes a hunting semi-auto, called the BAR btw, there aren't many in use. There are many reasons for that:
1. The commercial use semi-auto is a relatively new thing. Especially one that was reliable.
2. Most states only allow you to have 3 cartridges in the gun at one time anyway.
3. Bolt actions are usually considered to be more accurate
4. As a part of #3, if the goal is a one-shot kill, why bother with a semi-auto anyway?
5. While it is effective for the smaller calibers, no one wants to shoot a semi-auto .416 Remington Magnum. In fact, I believe that .338 Win Mag is the biggest caliber Browning offers the BAR in. I don't believe that a semi-auto action that would handle the bigger cartridges would be pratical.
-
Dune, I was more refearing to the use of the "trapdoor" springfield for such an extented time, a single loader.
Like a Indian Prince ones said when he was demonstrated the Maxim machinegun- "Very good, but my country would go broke just a couple of hours"
A watercooled machinegun just shoots as long as it has water and ammo. Eventully you have to change the barrel as it is worn out.
Yes, I think that you are right when it comes to the WWI trenchwarefare. Just as the BAR was made to fill another theory of the: "walking fire", a French idea of how to rule the trenches- By men walking and firing from the hip. very good theory, but not a practical one.
By the way, the barret is a semiauto, cal. 50. BMG
-
I have fired both the Mp40 and Tommy Gun - I felt the Tommy gun was better to fire and more controlable on full auto. Though I gotta be honest and say something got into my eye when I was shooting the Mp40 and I wasnt able to aim as well as i would have liked. :(
-
The Garrand is extremely accurate... the cartridge it fires is a good one.. 0ught six.. the rifle is accurate because it takes its gas for the piston from very close to the muzzle. It is more comfortable to shoot than even a lower powered bolt rifle because it is well.... gas powered.. more ever... it is a long stroke piston... long gentle push as oppossed to some latter semi autos.. It is extremely reliable and rugged. It is perhaps easier to clear a bad round than some bolt guns... it is heavy tho.
in matches then and... now... the Garrand outshoots most bolt rifles and all semi autos.
It is fun to shoot... you can fire eight rounds from the hip in as many or less seconds (try that with a K98 mauser).
M16 is now 3 round burst.. this would seem about ideal for the 223 round.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dune
Crabofix:
Secondly, about hunting rifles being mostly bolt-action. While Browning makes a hunting semi-auto, called the BAR btw, there aren't many in use. There are many reasons for that:
1. The commercial use semi-auto is a relatively new thing. Especially one that was reliable.
2. Most states only allow you to have 3 cartridges in the gun at one time anyway.
3. Bolt actions are usually considered to be more accurate
4. As a part of #3, if the goal is a one-shot kill, why bother with a semi-auto anyway?
5. While it is effective for the smaller calibers, no one wants to shoot a semi-auto .416 Remington Magnum. In fact, I believe that .338 Win Mag is the biggest caliber Browning offers the BAR in. I don't believe that a semi-auto action that would handle the bigger cartridges would be pratical.
Well my father still uses his Remington 1100, I use an 11-87 that I've had since i started hunting. My uncle on the other hand...Browning Auto 5. i LOVE that gun (deisgned in early 20th century as a sporting gun i might add...so its not THAT new of a concept). His is a Belgian Browning he picked up when he was stationed in germany in the service as a crew chief on UH-1's. I've fired 3 rounds with it, at the same deer, on the run, and had all 3 rounds land within 4 inches of one another in a triangle pattern right in the vital area. This deer, I might add, was a 190lb (dressed) 10point with a 22" spread. I don't even get it when he dies...hes being buried with it...grr...so he says. But the only time i've had a mechanical problem with my 11-87 was the rear sight came loose and i didnt know it (until i shot 6 times at a coyote over the course of 2 passess and killed a good number of trees) was because at that time i had wood stocks and used a chap. Now i've replaced those with synthetic stocks, and a pistolgrip shoulder stock (looks like an M16) thats very comfortable to hold and allows you to really "get down" into the sights. As for accuracy...the 11-87 i use to win Slug Shoots at our annual turkey shoot at the hunting club. 40 yard freehand position if i don't win 3/5 and am not touching black its not a good day. there are some excellent shots at the club and in order to win you must be IN the black, i learned this lesson when i was much younger spending all my dads money :) It's versatile too...pop the rifled slug barrel off and swap it for a shot barrel and head out to the trap range for an Annie, Bushwacker or Protector (fun with my uncle whos got himself a $1500 browning trap gun also...we are a good team). Another accuracy point, in the last 2 gun hunting seasons (ohio is shotgun only) I've bagged 7 deer, 2 bucks/5 doe, and have fired only 7 rounds. There is an 8th and 9th deer, both doe, taken in the last 2 primitive seasons, but thats with my Thompson Center Grey Hawk .50 caliber firing nothing more than 100grains of powder and a little round ball.
-
Lazs2
I love to shot my Semiauto Ljungman m/42 in 6,5x55 swe. I also Love to shoot my HK G3 rifle, I love to shoot my M16, I love to shoot my FN FAL, I love to shoot my my m/37/39, I love to shoot my Soumi, I love to shoot all the models of m/45 carl gustav, I love to shoot my HK Mp5, on targets.
But if I really want to Be sure to hit something thats alive, I use one of the Boltactions, in 6,5x55 swe.
Yes I bet that the Garand is as accurate as a quality Boltaction rifle, yes maybe in your dreams or infront of the computer.
It would be very nice to see a shootout between an Ljungman m/42 and a Garand, standard GI issue. on targets.
-
Golfer, I was talking only about rifles. Not about shotguns. While I'm a O/U shotgun fan, the Auto-5 is one of the most elegant and ruged designed weapons ever.
-
A Garrand is as accurate as any military bolt action and more accurate than most semi autos.
I love to shoot my brothers k98 and naggant and my SMLE but they won't group like my Garrand. How well does your Garrand shoot crab?
I Know that it won't shoot as good as a benchrest quality bolt gun but... It will outshoot the venerable 03 springfield for the most part. I have shot FN's and HK91/93's and they were great guns but a good Garrand will still outshoot em all else being equal.
I can tell you why the latter semi autos lack inherant accuracy... can you give me a reason why a Garrand should be less accurate than a military bolt gun? Or a FN or HK say?
maybe you should ask the guy who is selling you all those guns?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A Garrand is as accurate as any military bolt action and more accurate than most semi autos.
I love to shoot my brothers k98 and naggant and my SMLE but they won't group like my Garrand. How well does your Garrand shoot crab?
I Know that it won't shoot as good as a benchrest quality bolt gun but... It will outshoot the venerable 03 springfield for the most part. I have shot FN's and HK91/93's and they were great guns but a good Garrand will still outshoot em all else being equal.
I can tell you why the latter semi autos lack inherant accuracy... can you give me a reason why a Garrand should be less accurate than a military bolt gun? Or a FN or HK say?
maybe you should ask the guy who is selling you all those guns?
lazs
Lazs, I dont own a Garrand, so you might be right, that your Garrand might outshoot a quality boltaction rifle, but then you are very lucky to be the owner of that gun.
My Ljungman, shoots very nice, but it can not compare with the m/96 mauser in same caliber.
Most of the Mauser guns where made early of the 1900 and the accuracy was very important to all armys that bought the guns.
Spain, Turkey, Hungary, Sweden, Argentina, Greece, you can get a very long list. The mauser in Sweden was´nt declared obsolete until 1994. It served a very long time.
Why the semiauto is less accurate has mainly to do with the locking of the bolt and the movement of the bolt.
Now a semiauto can be made very accurate, but it will be an expensive gun, compared to a boltaction.
The automatic gun is mainly heavier, pull on the trigger is often heavier. (now I am talking about army issued weapons, not civilian.)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A Garrand is as accurate as any military bolt action and more accurate than most semi autos.
I love to shoot my brothers k98 and naggant and my SMLE but they won't group like my Garrand. How well does your Garrand shoot crab?
Never fired the Garand so can't comment on it's accuracy. But even if it is slightly less accurate than the Kar98 or SMLE I think the Garand is a better military rifle than the others simply in the weight of fire it can lay down which is the whole point as anyone who was an infantryman can confirm. Indeed weight of fire seems to be the current military philosophy these days. I do think that the relative lack of effectiveness of the BAR was more than compensated for by the Garand in WW2, an American infantry unit must have put down twice or three times as much fire as a comparable bolt action equipped unit. In combat that makes all the difference. Accuracy is fine and dandy but in the heat of the moment three aimed shots are better than one.
The SMLE is a fast firing bolt action rifle due to it's short bolt. In fact during WW1 the Germans thought the British had more machine guns than they actually had because of that feature and the excellent rapid fire training of the Tommies.
The first rifle I fired was the SMLE no. 4. We were taught rapid fire. They key to it is to use finger and thumb on the bolt only. I still wince when I see someone use the palm of the hand to close a bolt.
LAZS: If I may ask what type of SMLE does your brother have? Is is a no. 4 and where did he get it from? I ask because I know the Irish army sold a lot of their SMLE no.4's in the nineties to the sporting market in America. Believe it or not it was standard equipment for the reserve until the late eighties in theory. In practice we used the FN FAL most of the time. Today they use the Steyr, same as the regular army.
I actually remember seeing brand new SMLE's made in the fifties but still in the box during the eighties. I presume they were the ones sold to America. Most of the older rifles were taken out to sea and dumped. It would be nice to think some of the rifles I used were still in service somewhere.
-
The BAR was the current-day Squad Automatic Weapon for the U.S. military. As a SAW it was totally outmatched by the MG 34 and MG 42. It wasn't belt-fed and didn't have quick change barrels so in combat the volume of fire it could deliver was nowhere near what the SAW of a German squad could put out. The comment about 'BARs outflanking and outmaneuvering MG 42s' either has to be talking about MG 42s configured as a 'HMG' (tripod, telescopic sight for sustained long range enfilade firing, etc.) or it's propoganda. The Germans wrote the book on infantry tactical doctrine, fire and maneuver, etc. from the later days of WW1 thru the entirety of WW2.
The M1 Garand was by far the best standard issue rifle of WW2. You can't count the StG 44 in the competition because it wasn't near standard issue. In a CQC situation you'd have a huge advantage if you had a semiautomatic M1 Garand and your opponent had a bolt-action rifle. Also 8 or 10 guys with M1 Garands that knew how to shoot and were aggressive enough to shoot (this was actually a problem sometimes for the U.S. Army in NWE during the last year of WW2 due to the high % of inexperienced infantry replacements going 'into the line' and the lack of experienced battlefield NCOs and Officers) are going to generate a much greater volume of fire than an equivalent # of bolt-action rifle armed soldiers. The Germans picked up M1 Garands whenever they got the chance as long as usage of the weapons was feasible from an ammunition availability standpoint. Fortunately for U.S. soldiers the only time this was really an option was during the 'Battle of the Bulge' but during that 'battle' there were a lot of German soldiers using M1 Garands as ammunition and Garands were easy to accquire. I think the main reason they didn't use captured American M2 .50 HMGs was a lack of available ammunition. They used captured Russian 12.7mm HMGs on the Eastern Front I'm guessing it was easier to get ahold of ammunition for them.
There's lots of pictures taken during the 'Battle of the Bulge' where you have groups of Germans that have either a German or an American automatic or semiautomatic weapon. It isn't uncommon to see photographs of German soldiers also not issued a pistol carrying M1911s during the 'Battle of the Bulge' (and on the Eastern Front nearly every German soldier carried some type of captured pistol). As far as German use of captured American weapons in general I think ammunition availability was the primary consideration. I don't think ammunition incompatability would have kept the Germans from using an American rifle when their SAWs were German. From the top down 2 SAWs was standard for the Germans by the 2nd half of WW2 so MG belts were easily available at the squad level. And if you are having to take individual rifle rounds from your Kar 98k to 'belt up' for your SAW gunners - things are almost 'over' anyways. I think the battle issue for German riflemen was something like 100 rounds on the rifleman and another 100 rounds per rifleman with the company ammunition train. Your SAW gunners would burn through that very quickly if you were down to issued rifle ammunition alone.
The Germans also really liked the Soviet PPSh-41 SMG. In the latter half of WW2 it was close to standard issue on the Eastern Front due to the large volume of weapons and ammunition that had been captured. The odd thing is that German reconaissance units heavily favored the PPSh-41 SMG, and Russian reconaissance units heavily favored the MP-40 SMG. I think that might have something to do with doctrine - German reconaissance units were used in an offensive role far more often than most other Nations reconaissance units. The PPSh-41 SMG was superior in terms of volume of fire due to having a large drum magazine. The MP-40 SMG was far lighter, and the Russians used their reconaissance units in 'LRRP' style operations far more than anyone else during WW2.
I haven't shot an M1 Garand (yet). But a high % of the U.S. military snipers that I know fairly well have match M1 Garands with a scope at home. They think very highly of that weapon.
I have fired the M14 a great deal. Can someone who has fired both weapons tell me how this compares to the M1 Garand? I recall hearing that the M14 was heavily based on the M1 Garand.
They went with 3RB on the general issue -16s because the volume of fire isn't much reduced from a fully automatic -16 when you consider you only have 30 rounds in the magazine to start with.
Any modern battle/assault rifle is difficult to hit with when firing 'full auto' unless you are using short bursts or you are firing at short range. If you are firing in short bursts already...3RB is basically the same thing. Even with a fully automatic M4 most of the time you are using it as a semiautomatic weapon. If you know what you are doing a semiautomatic M4 can get the job done in 99% of the situations you are likely to face as a non-auto weapons guy. Auto weapons guys have different responsibilities and need the big barrel and the belted rounds to compensate for their tiny weeeeeee-eeeer I mean do their job. :)
Schadenfreude has it right - in an unrestricted land warfare situation (i.e. not CQC, etc.) your auto weapons guys are your killers (and they never let anyone forget it ehehehe). During some training a couple of years ago there was a platoon that had almost double the normal # of auto weapons - out of 17 guys they had 6 M60E3s (the whining from the guys in that platoon that weren't commo guys - and thus had to carry belts for the 60 gunners - was whining the likes of which I have not heard since). So you have several platoons training in the same area over a several-day period. At night, you always knew if it was them or one of the other 'normal' platoons that was popping an ambush on the instructors.
Mike/wulfie
-
Ok... made me look at the smelly.... the safe is 10 feet from my puter. It is stamped Ma VII I would guess that is a mark 7? it is Australian. Using a couple of tea sipping fingers to work the bolt is great till the chamber gets dirty then you better tug on that sucker.
Wulfie is pretty much on about the weapons as I understand it. I have shot the m14 and Garrand but am no great rifle shot... the guys that were said that it was close with the edge going to the Garrand... .308 maybe a tad more inherent accuraccy and the Garrand a more accurate rifle.
Ok... so crabofix... The Garrand uses a two lug locking system as does most bolt action rifles... headspace is the same... one locking lug is huge while the other is not much... now... all two lug bolts are pretty much one lug bolts cause they never touch at the same time in even good quality guns much less military guns
We are talking about military guns here crabofix... I stand by what I said.. in issue form the Garrand was every bit, and most likely more, accurate than the bolt guns of the day... If you want to talk about match guns we can do that too.
The reason the Garrand is as accurate is because of where it takes it's gas to operate the system. It is at the end of the barrel. The barrel doesn't get the harmonics that most autos do... even if it got some slight ones due to improper stock fitting or somethoing... it wouldn't matter as the bullet is allready downrange when the barrel "whips" The M14 uses a more modern and somewhat less accurate system. Short piston/operating rod and gas takeoff closer to midway down the barrel.
lazs
-
I have to agree with Lazs on this one. I've only fired 4 different Garands, but they've all been more accurate than my Savage 30/06 bolt action and my Remington Model 700 7mm STW. They were not as accurate as my Remington Model 700 .308 Police.
Also, they are one of the most comfortable to fire 30/06 rifles I've ever fired. A Garand is definately on the "to get list", but it's second to a .45 ACP right now.
MiniD
-
Lazs, a mk VII? I thought it only went up to VI. Probably some kind of Aussie sub type.
Wulfie said:
It isn't uncommon to see photographs of German soldiers also not issued a pistol carrying M1911s during the 'Battle of the Bulge' (and on the Eastern Front nearly every German soldier carried some type of captured pistol).
Are you sure they are M1911's? It's just that I've seen photos of Germans carrying Browning Hi power's in Battle of the Bulge photos. The Germans issued them quite widely, after all they had possession of the FN factory in Belgium and the battle actually took place in Belgium. Otherwise I don't doubt they used M1911's.
-
cpxx... don't know about the smelly.. I don't have any history stuff on em by serial number... it says "Ma VII" and it is marked Australia. It was in what looked like unfired condition and if was a whopping $120 a couple of years ago.
deja... get the Garrand and a good .45... they are both fun guns. As you say, the Garrand is the softest, most pleasant shooting high powered rifle I have ever shot. .45's are fun but... only if they are accurate. don't expect to reach out there very far tho.
Oh... speaking of FUN guns....since my son gave me the Witness.... figured I could buy a gun.. Bought a Norinco 97 trench gun... copy of a model 97 Winchester trench gun (12 guage shotgun). I have a 97 but it is cherry and I don't want to cut it up into trench gun configuration. These are really cool pump guns. heavy, reliable and fun... expossed hammer... no safety... They will even fire without releasing the trigger (no disconnector) although you would be one tough hombre to do that with a short 12 guage.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... made me look at the smelly.... the safe is 10 feet from my puter. It is stamped Ma VII I would guess that is a mark 7? it is Australian. Using a couple of tea sipping fingers to work the bolt is great till the chamber gets dirty then you better tug on that sucker.
Wulfie is pretty much on about the weapons as I understand it. I have shot the m14 and Garrand but am no great rifle shot... the guys that were said that it was close with the edge going to the Garrand... .308 maybe a tad more inherent accuraccy and the Garrand a more accurate rifle.
Ok... so crabofix... The Garrand uses a two lug locking system as does most bolt action rifles... headspace is the same... one locking lug is huge while the other is not much... now... all two lug bolts are pretty much one lug bolts cause they never touch at the same time in even good quality guns much less military guns
We are talking about military guns here crabofix... I stand by what I said.. in issue form the Garrand was every bit, and most likely more, accurate than the bolt guns of the day... If you want to talk about match guns we can do that too.
The reason the Garrand is as accurate is because of where it takes it's gas to operate the system. It is at the end of the barrel. The barrel doesn't get the harmonics that most autos do... even if it got some slight ones due to improper stock fitting or somethoing... it wouldn't matter as the bullet is allready downrange when the barrel "whips" The M14 uses a more modern and somewhat less accurate system. Short piston/operating rod and gas takeoff closer to midway down the barrel.
lazs
Well Lazs.
Seams like the Ljungman and the Garand works in about the same way.
The k 98 uses 3 lock lugs, I belive (my memory might fail, though) - the swedish m/96 uses only two. But it fires a less powerfule round.
I have shoot most of the military semi-automatics/automatics, except the Garand/M14.
But as I said, I prefare a boltaction, when ever it comes to hunting and that second shoot, if needed, is very rapidly repeated and discharged. the movment of the bolt comes automaticly and it sits in the back bone.
I dont think (this means, this is my "opinion" nothing else) that the second shoot would be more accurate or a lot faster with an semiauto.
I dont know if you spend much time on the running target riflerange, but I take a couple of sessions every year, before the yearly moosehunt.
So, I think that we have an issue here about opinons, not facts.
I still state that the boltaction is more accurate then any semiautomatic issued and used during WWII, even though I never fired or have any experiance with the Garand.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
deja... get the Garrand and a good .45... they are both fun guns. As you say, the Garrand is the softest, most pleasant shooting high powered rifle I have ever shot. .45's are fun but... only if they are accurate. don't expect to reach out there very far tho.
Oh... speaking of FUN guns....since my son gave me the Witness.... figured I could buy a gun.. Bought a Norinco 97 trench gun... copy of a model 97 Winchester trench gun (12 guage shotgun). I have a 97 but it is cherry and I don't want to cut it up into trench gun configuration. These are really cool pump guns. heavy, reliable and fun... expossed hammer... no safety... They will even fire without releasing the trigger (no disconnector) although you would be one tough hombre to do that with a short 12 guage.
lazs
Yah... I'm just not going to be able to come up with the $1300 for a decent Garand nor $1100 for a decent .45 for a bit. They're definately on the to-do list, however an immediate purchase would result in me having a sudden case of death followed by a short jail term for the wife.
Right now my "FUN" gun is the AR-15. It's a pleasure to shoot and is more modifiable than anything out there with the possible exception of the 10-22. Rounds are cheap and the gun is accurate. I get out the 700 .308 when I want to get real accurate outside of 200 yards. < 1" groups at 200 yards with a bi-pod and 5 rounds in the same hole at 200 yards off of a bench.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh... speaking of FUN guns....since my son gave me the Witness.... figured I could buy a gun.. Bought a Norinco 97 trench gun... copy of a model 97 Winchester trench gun (12 guage shotgun). I have a 97 but it is cherry and I don't want to cut it up into trench gun configuration. These are really cool pump guns. heavy, reliable and fun... expossed hammer... no safety... They will even fire without releasing the trigger (no disconnector) although you would be one tough hombre to do that with a short 12 guage.
lazs
This is mine:
(http://www.hunt101.com/img/040348.jpg)
It's an original US Army issue M97. My dad bought it in the late 50's through the mail. He shot the hell out of it and gave it to me. I've had it reblued and a new buttstock put on it. It has the US Armory bomb stamp on the receiver.
-
If you get a Garand, do not go with a new springfield, or one built on a "new" reciever.
From what I hear they are junk and not safe to fire.
(http://www.fulton-armory.com/StockFit640_50.jpg)
Won't fit into well worn GI stocks
(http://www.fulton-armory.com/RIghtLugFit-IHC-359_50.jpg)
.(http://www.fulton-armory.com/RightLugFit359_50.jpg)
Bolts do not fit right. The one marked with a IHC is the original.
(http://www.fulton-armory.com/FiringPinRecessComparo527_50.jpg)
Relief cut for firing pin not cut right.
I got these pics from the Fulton armory site. They have sold me all my Garand parts and I am going to send mine off soon for them to rebuild
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Are you sure they are M1911's? It's just that I've seen photos of Germans carrying Browning Hi power's in Battle of the Bulge photos. The Germans issued them quite widely, after all they had possession of the FN factory in Belgium and the battle actually took place in Belgium. Otherwise I don't doubt they used M1911's.
Germans were humans just like americans and could've picked up M1911's like americans did pick Lugers.
Also regular soldiers weren't usually issued with a pistol in any official form, but their rifle and getting a pistol must've increased confidence.
Good way of getting a pistol and a nice trophy: luger/colt.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
They will even fire without releasing the trigger (no disconnector) although you would be one tough hombre to do that with a short 12 guage.
lazs
A friend of mine used to do this in college. Stocked the freezer with "early season" pheasant.
Catch the young 'uns graveling on the road just before sundown, throw the pickup sideways with brakes and wheel and just pump that old 97 as fast a you can.
Freezer fills pretty fast.
-
deja.. I bought my Garrand for $400. A guy had inherited about 60 guns and 10 of em were Garrands. It is in very good condition and shoots well. I have seen CMP Garrands that were perfect for the $400 the government sells em for. A CMP gun is a great start. There are also a lot of companies out there that will accurize the CMP guns but really... they are plenty accurate. You can bed the action if you want to get fussy. I just like to make them clips ping out the top once in a while.
Dune.. Nice shotgun. My '97 is a 1949 full choke 12. The Norrinco has the bomb proof mark on it and the the bayonet lug... It looks exactly like your gun from 20 feet away.. up close, it looks exactly like your gun if you imagine your gun being made by semi skilled chinnese with chisels and bastard files.
I have had lugers and they are crap. They are extremely accurate crap tho. P38 is much better gun. 1911 Colt is far superior tho for what I would want a pistol in a war for. No way to carry a luger safely and still get it into action quickly... and you better pray it didn't get dirty.
lazs
-
Germans had a wide issue of pistols, steyr, frommel, FN, VIS, Walter. If I remember right they even issued Norwegian made 45 cal. Colts. So the Guns seen on photos might not been "captured" items.
I have yet not seen any photos of Germans carrying Garands or other US equiptment. I think the reason of this was that when ever Germans encountered US forces they retreated (except during the Ardenner ´44).
I know that the English stengun was popular and was later in the war, copied. There was also a exact replica of the Sten made for the German resistans "werewolfs".
The Soviet ppsh was even rechambered by the Germans to 9mm para. and reissued to easternfront. Though the 7,63 soviet is a very, very nice round, very fast and accurate (.30 mauser).
I have a SIG 210 chambered for this round (.30 mauser) and it is extreamly accurate.
-
I've seen pictures of GIs carrying Stg44s and MP40s. Stg44s were very highly prized.
-
david,
are you sure you havent just seen a Carbine instead of StG44?