Farseer Anath'lan wrote: There's a heap of "The Geneva Conventions say it's illegal" stuff floating round every western military it seems, because we got much the same spiel. The Red Cross publishes a summary of the GC, and it's less than 20 pages long. Most of it deals with the treatment of PoW, and occupied territories. This is all the GC really says about weapons:
"Conduct of combatants
The Protocol lays down the rules governing the conduct of com- batants during hostilities. The basic principle underlying these rules is that the right of the warring parties to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited. It follows that it is prohib- ited to use arms, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (P.I, 35).
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resorting to perfidy (P.I, 37). The recognized emblems (red cross, red crescent and red crystal emblem, white flag, protective emblem of cultural property, etc.) must not be misused (P.I, 38 / P.III, 1, 2). The use of nationality emblems of adverse parties or other States not party to the conflict is prohibited (P.I, 39). The Protocol thus affirms that the law of armed conflict requires a degree of fairness on the part of the combatants.
It is prohibited to refuse quarter (P.I, 40). An adversary who is not or no longer able to take part in hostilities, who has surrendered or who clearly expresses the intention of surrendering, must not be made the object of attack (P.I, 41, 42). A captor who lacks the means to evacuate his prisoners must release them (P.I, 41)."
See, the funny thing is the rules lawyer in me says,
Well, anything that causes "unnecessary suffering" seems like it would make FMJ illegal and hollow points preferred. Under the logic that a soldier is more likely to survive a FMJ round and thus suffer while he lays injured. A hollow point is more likely to end the suffering quickly. Or if body armor is involved we must obviously switch to API or APX rounds.
Tongue firmly in cheek from myself as I think these rules are dumb, but if someone actually cared about them then this would make more sense than sticking to FMJ only.
catbarf wrote: Forgot to reply to this earlier- yeah, the CETME is the most cost-effective battle rifle nowadays, but I don't think it's the best example among the big four (G3, FAL, AR-10, M14). The roller-delay is great for a subgun but pretty violent for a rifle caliber, and it mangles brass if reloading is a concern.
I'm pretty partial to the FAL. Most aren't any better than 3 MOA and using steel-case ammo can be risky, but the adjustable gas system makes them exceptionally soft shooters, and the controls and layout feel surprisingly modern considering its age. DSA makes decent new ones, or builds on old Imbel receivers can still be found for $1-1.5K.
I'm partial to the CETME for the price and the Spanish lineage. I mean, I did write a book on the Spanish Civil War, so it's clearly an area of interest to me.
The Spanish made some solid weapons and they're relatively cheap. While the Spanish don't get a ton of respect in military firearms discussions, they adopted autoloader sidearms before the British or the French. Indeed, the French came to them cap in hand during the Great War.
I mentioned our zombie discussion to a coworker who once worked maintenance for battlefield recovery and he found it funny. He noted the many, many ways his equipment could ruin zombies, even without using their weapon mounts.
Again, zombie stories have to be set in an imaginary world where these things are not intensively studied by bored GIs in support arms who are absolutely certain that they could outperform the infantry.
Haighus wrote: I thought there were also treaties about landmines, but with not great signature coverage so plenty of nations still use them.
I'm not convinced landmines are obsolete in modern warfare. They are cheap and therefore can achieve massive coverage, as seen in Ukraine. Breaching defended minefields is very challenging.
They're absolutely not obsolete, but they have (or are supposed to) very strict requirements for their employment. The world is moving towards anti-personnel mines, at least, not being acceptable. And the Ottawa treaty has 164 of the 200 or so nations of the world as signatories - the issue is the US, Russia and China refuse to hold themselves accountable.
And Yes, the Claymore mine can absolutely be set to trip mode. It's not just a clacker mode.
And also take a grain of salt with an Airforce MP telling me how their Shotgun training qualifies them as an expert of laws of war.
Right, but it's not quite as easy as "press a button". It requires a whole new triggering mech to come with it. And the signatories of the Ottawa Treaty treat a trip-mode claymore as a landmine, and therefore prohibited. The Claymore not being a mine is based wholly around it being a clacker operated mech, and that is very much NOT a sheer technicality, it's entirely consistent with the treaty.
Yeah, I'm not going to assume anyone outside of a lawyer specialising in the Laws of War is an expert, because the number of things I've been told that are just downright EASILY verifiably false have come from everyone. Combat corps shoot well. Or are supposed to. That's it. It's not like they get a course in the laws of war. They might get a 15 minute power point presentation telling them not to shoot PoWs.
Well, anything that causes "unnecessary suffering" seems like it would make FMJ illegal and hollow points preferred. Under the logic that a soldier is more likely to survive a FMJ round and thus suffer while he lays injured. A hollow point is more likely to end the suffering quickly. Or if body armor is involved we must obviously switch to API or APX rounds.
Tongue firmly in cheek from myself as I think these rules are dumb, but if someone actually cared about them then this would make more sense than sticking to FMJ only.
It IS interesting though, and yeah, it's quite the line to walk. I think the difference being between suffering, and unnecessary suffering, is an interesting one, and I sort of land like this - I would hate to be shot by FMJ. But I'm probably going to survive, and I'll take the suffering, because being alive is basically always better than being dead. SO I'd rather cop an FMJ than a hollow point. But I don't want to get hit by white phos, because that falls into unnecessary suffering - I'm probably going to prefer being dead than having my skin burning with no way to put it out.
And Yes, the Claymore mine can absolutely be set to trip mode. It's not just a clacker mode.
And also take a grain of salt with an Airforce MP telling me how their Shotgun training qualifies them as an expert of laws of war.
1: Not an Air Force MP. It was an Army recon platoon tasked to guard an army airfield. B. Not sure where I claimed to be an expert on law of war. I was an expert on tanks and the rounds we used as a tanker, and know all our training had to conform to law of war requirements and did have to sit through way too many law of war training sessions.
Even with 'trip mode' you need an electric charge to set off the blasting caps, or an entirely different mechanism than the provided blasting caps.
Forgot to reply to this earlier- yeah, the CETME is the most cost-effective battle rifle nowadays, but I don't think it's the best example among the big four (G3, FAL, AR-10, M14). The roller-delay is great for a subgun but pretty violent for a rifle caliber, and it mangles brass if reloading is a concern.
Yeah, my HK91 does shred some brass. Shocked me the first time, was not expecting that.
I was watching a video about how the US spent $380 million developing the xm-29 grenade launcher, but then realized that it violated international treaty and was a warcrimes stick.
Long story short, it was a smaller, 25mm grenade launcher for urban combat. It could program grenades to detonate mid-air at a set distance from the shooter, effectively letting you snipe targets hiding behind walls.
The problem? Explosive ammunition is a war crime. In order to be legal, explosive rounds must be large enough to classify as "ordinance", which requires rounds to be at least 37mm in diameter, or 400 grams in mass. These mini-grenades were neither.
The program was quietly canceled (despite good reviews by troops) and swept under the rug. One of those times weapons developers and politicians really should have consulted with lawyers first.
First, the XM29 was the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) program which started in the early 90s, and consisted of a 20mm airbursting launcher with an underslung rifle. The program was cancelled in 2004 and its constituent components were separated out into the XM8 (a 5.56 rifle) and the XM25 (the standalone launcher, scaled up to 25mm), the latter of which was soldiered on until cancellation in 2013. So that's twenty full years of development in which, apparently, nobody thought to check legal.
In reality, the prohibition on explosive ammunition under 400g stems from the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868, but there is no caliber restriction in it (37mm was just the most common artillery caliber of the time that exceeded the 400g requirement) and more importantly the Declaration was only adopted by a handful of signatories and is not considered legally binding today. Many of its terms were adopted in the Hague Conventions but with alteration; the use of incendiary and explosive ammunition is explicitly permitted for non-small-arms (like autocannons), and the 400g mass requirement did not carry over. Expanding ammunition is banned, and explosive bullets are customarily understood to cause excess suffering to no military advantage under the same principle. But grenades, autocannon rounds, anti-materiel rounds, and airbursting munitions are understood to have no viable non-explosive equivalent, and are therefore militarily justified. This was further codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which established three guiding principles specifically because setting hard numbers inevitably leads to loopholes.
The XM25 was cancelled because it didn't do anything well enough to justify the bulk and expense. Troops didn't find it more useful than an underbarrel 40mm launcher, and the initial deployment trials came back with well over a thousand recommendations for improvement.
And while we're at it, 40mm grenades have a typical projectile mass of 200-300g, which is a violation of the St Petersburg Declaration, yet in common use across all of NATO. South Africa actively fields the Inkunzi PAW-20, a 20mm grenade launcher. China fields and exports a variety of 35mm launchers. Under the Hague Conventions, caliber and projectile weight do not matter, only the intended purpose of the munition.
Kind of like vampire movies, etc. "What is this strange, new inexplicable thing that has an entire genre of entertainment built around it? How do we respond to it without betraying obvious and easily exploited conventions?"
The simple option is the convention is either wrong, or only partially correct.
For example: Zombies can be put down with salt in mythology, but movies rarely use this option. Conversely, sunlight harming vampires is almost entirely the invention of cinema.
But, this is getting OT for the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Seems amazing we developed the M1028 canister round for the Abrams if they are 'illegal'. More amazing we used them.
I was under the impression that AMP replaced CAN, or was that delayed by COVID?
BaronIveagh wrote: The simple option is the convention is either wrong, or only partially correct.
For example: Zombies can be put down with salt in mythology, but movies rarely use this option. Conversely, sunlight harming vampires is almost entirely the invention of cinema.
But, this is getting OT for the thread.
Not at all. This is about firearms and their uses. Totally within topic to debate what works best for downing certain things.
My point is that zombie lore is deeply embedded in military types and if they notice people shambling around who feel no pain and only die from head shots, they will come to certain immediate conclusions.
The discussion of the grenade launcher ties into this. As noted, the concept of an infantry squad equipped only with rifles is a Hollywood thing, based on keep the prop budget low. This also explains why revolvers and manually operated shotgus remain popular choices - blank ammo for them is cheap and easy to use because it doesn't have to cycle the action.
It is interesting that all three fatalities on set involving firearms (Alec Baldwin, Brandon Lee and John Erik Hexum) involved revolvers. I don't think it speaks to their lack of safety, merely that because they are so cheap and easy to use, armorers are more casual with them (or less qualified armorers are employed).
Getting back to the military, these support weapons are expensive to show on film (especially rotary aviation and tube artillery), but it's there. I'm not saying they would call up heavy artillery, but mortar sections would require minimal difficulty to activate once the nature of the threat became known. They'd be plenty enough to deal with zombies.
In the immediate contact, grenade launchers and various automatic weapons would be employed. The US does not have "leg" infantry, so if troops get activated, they're going to have vehicle-mounted heavy weapons of some sort.
My point is that zombie lore is deeply embedded in military types and if they notice people shambling around who feel no pain and only die from head shots, they will come to certain immediate conclusions.
No, Hollywood's version of zombie lore is embedded. Which was my point.
Further, the first conclusion they're going to probably come to isn't "Oh, Zombies" it's "Oh, Body Armor" unless they're *much* closer than they should be to said Zombies.
As far as support weapons, the estimates I was running off of when I said the *entire* United States military does include the now mothballed Iowa class battleships, which most other vehicle mounted weapons ain't gak compared to.
Let me explain: FIBUA, buildings block shrapnel, so mortars are not going to be as effective as you seem to think. And that's assuming that it didn't impact on a roof and render itself useless. The M120 is potentially lethal out to 200 odd feet, but the area where we're making kibble is much smaller, at about 14 feet, as they contain Comp B. This has a sustained fire rate of 4 rounds per min. Assuming that Zed is packed cheek to jowl, this would deal with about 25 targets, max, under ideal circumstances, which, most likely, do not exist in the field. These mortars will be *the* most effective weapon that mechanized infantry can deploy, under the circumstances.
The ultimate problem is, that this is a numbers game the US military can't actually win. In this scenario, it'd be like the entire population of London, men, women, kids, dogs, cats, were assaulting your position.
Quantity has a Quality all it's own.
This doesn't even get into the part where the men they lose, become zombies themselves, and to what degree those are, themselves, combat effective. The possibility of "Night of the Living Death Squad" isn't something to write off, either.
How do the zombies defeat a deployed coil of razorwire? Eventually it will be covered in zombie corpses but the resulting flesh wall is still going to majorly slow down the zombies that have to climb it.
Unless they are of the supernatural variety of course, but that is a different kettle of fish.
I'm confident that none of us use our firearms against zombies. I tend to agree that zombies/star wars/hollywood, and militaria outside civilian legal firearms is off topic. People do like to talk about those things and it can be interesting but I do wonder why no one just makes a "How I would own the zombies IRL" type thread. There is clearly enough interest.
Now for *my* take on the US govt vs zombies! I'd think it would take some time before enough of a consensus could be reached where they would actually start using tanks and mortars on "infected" US citizens rather than hunker down and work on a cure. Even in Last of Us where that fungus expert instantly understood the threat after one autopsy and told the official to immediately start bombing the city, the government has decide to order that and those orders have to be obeyed all the way down the chain. I don't see that many people chomping at the bit to become potential mass murderers.
Regarding the Geneva Convention, what do you think the rationale is behind the new 9mm M1153 ammo for the M17/18s? They are 147g "Black Talon"/Ranger T style hollow points, with the jacket forming a second set of petals.
Regarding the CETMEs, it looks like a lot of those are still Century parts guns, and may be very similar to my C91 Century parts gun, and those are cheap for a reason. The build quality is not exactly up to "HK precision" standards and you might want to inspect one before you buy it. Check the weld on the cocking tube, the fit of the stock and trigger housing/lower, and try to cock it. The newer ones and the Atlantic version may be better, I don't know. The PTRs are better. I don't really regret buying mine, but would not have made the purchase with the all information available in 2024.
BaronIveagh wrote: No, Hollywood's version of zombie lore is embedded. Which was my point.
Hollywood didn't make it up, they adapted it from books and then modified that even more. And as we all knows, there are many, many flavors of zombies. And vampires. One could do a whole thread tracking down the tropes, etc.
Further, the first conclusion they're going to probably come to isn't "Oh, Zombies" it's "Oh, Body Armor" unless they're *much* closer than they should be to said Zombies.
Right, but if chest shots don't work, they'll try head shots. Or sweep at leg level. They're not just going to mindlessly do the same thing without any feedback...you know, like zombies.
The ultimate problem is, that this is a numbers game the US military can't actually win. In this scenario, it'd be like the entire population of London, men, women, kids, dogs, cats, were assaulting your position.
But why? Are they looking for brains, angry about the playoffs? Why wouldn't they disperse? And if they do concentrate, they get really easy to obliterate.
The larger point is that most of the zombie stuff just fast-forwards to the last stand because that's the story the authors want to tell and also because it's hard to figure out how you get there from a standing start. Which is why, though I enjoy the discussion," I don't want zombie stuff because I see the contrivance and it turns me off.
This doesn't even get into the part where the men they lose, become zombies themselves, and to what degree those are, themselves, combat effective. The possibility of "Night of the Living Death Squad" isn't something to write off, either.
Obligatory:
"Fleshy-headed mutant...are you friendly?"
"No way, eh. Radiation has made me an enemy of mankind."
Regarding the CETME (or really any purchase), doing the research is very important. I always do a deep dive to confirm if what I want is really what I want, and finding a physical specimen (even if it isn't the exact make and model) is very useful.
Gun boards are a mixed bag, as we've discussed. Either the M-16 is a plastic abomination that should never have been adopted and can't reliably harm bunnies, or your tacticool setup will dominate the woodlands.
Further complicating things are make/manufacture. It's not enough to buy a "platform," you have to buy a certain version of it - and if it's surplus, pay very close attention to those tiny markings!
My beloved 172nd would love to argue to point that the US doesn't have "leg" infantry. All you worthless non-jumpers are "legs". We "allow" you to call yourselves infantry because you've demonstrated which one of your booger hooks make the bang switch go from safe, to rock and roll.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: My beloved 172nd would love to argue to point that the US doesn't have "leg" infantry. All you worthless non-jumpers are "legs". We "allow" you to call yourselves infantry because you've demonstrated which one of your booger hooks make the bang switch go from safe, to rock and roll.
One of the funniest things I saw when at Braggistan:
Had to explain to my 13 year old daughter what a Leg was. Then I had to explain that I loved her, even though she was a nasty rotten Leg.
As my grandfather once observed, he'd happily chase the enemy on foot, swim after them, chase them in boats, but he'd be damned before he flew after them ever again.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'd love to get a 7.62mm "battle rifle" at some point. I think the CETME is probably the most cost-effective option, and it dovetails with my Spanish inclinations, which is nice.
A tangent but battle/assault nomenclature etc. is why I never engage in firearms discussion on social media. Turns out for many internet denizens they aren't doctrine terms but US political ones. I don't even think they are using the terms incorrectly in a correct way (mixing up a bunch of illiterate terms used by control enthusiasts with a bunch of illiterate terms used by enthusiasts).
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'd love to get a 7.62mm "battle rifle" at some point. I think the CETME is probably the most cost-effective option, and it dovetails with my Spanish inclinations, which is nice.
A tangent but battle/assault nomenclature etc. is why I never engage in firearms discussion on social media. Turns out for many internet denizens they aren't doctrine terms but US political ones. I don't even think they are using the terms incorrectly in a correct way (mixing up a bunch of illiterate terms used by control enthusiasts with a bunch of illiterate terms used by enthusiasts).
Even firearms enthusiasts can have lengthy arguments about this given reality tends not to fall into neat categories, and doctrinal intention often does not line up with how weapons were used by troops at the front (WWII US tank destroyers are a great example of this).
Is the M1 carbine an assault rifle? Is the FG42 a battle rifle? Discuss
catbarf wrote: And speaking of fuddlore, 'modern rifles are designed to wound' is one of those chestnuts of wisdom that seemingly everybody knows- except the ordnance board at APG. Suffice to say that the institution that rejected the .276 Pedersen, .280 British, and 9x19 on grounds of insufficient lethality did not do a sudden and temporary 180 on their stance during the 1960s. Methinks they were swayed more by the fact that when a barely-stabilized M193 hits flesh at 3000fps, it blows apart in a way that FMJ .308 doesn't and produces comparable terminal effect.
I think because it is repeated to recruits in training and stated in briefs to staff and politicians. People then take that with them and spread it. Of course rounds are selected for terminal effect against whatever criteria the assessment is given (range, body armour to defeat, etc. etc.). You then have stuff like (I want to say Swedish) rounds that are designed to minimise fragmentation to be a more humane way of killing people. In line with that whole unnecessary suffering thing. Indeed if we were presented with a weapon whose brochure stated is all about maiming people instead of killing them (the new XR13 will cause widespread brain damage in a single application with zero loss of life!) our lawyers would have a fit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haighus wrote: I thought there were also treaties about landmines, but with not great signature coverage so plenty of nations still use them.
I'm not convinced landmines are obsolete in modern warfare. They are cheap and therefore can achieve massive coverage, as seen in Ukraine. Breaching defended minefields is very challenging.
Yep. We are big fans but have to go through hoops to use versions of them.
To go back to firearms and uses though, and the US, it is fascinating that for home defence landmines/booby traps seem to be treated very differently to using a sidearm (no ideal about cannon ). I really don't get the patchwork of laws you lot have! Got to say being risk adverse it would turn me off firearm ownership there.
To go back to firearms and uses though, and the US, it is fascinating that for home defence landmines/booby traps seem to be treated very differently to using a sidearm (no ideal about cannon ). I really don't get the patchwork of laws you lot have! Got to say being risk adverse it would turn me off firearm ownership there.
Cannon, weirdly, depends on the date of manufacture (Before 1898 or after) and ammunition type (artillery munitions not being something one buys at Walmart, anyway).
In a SHTF moment, where the world goes to hell, the only thing I'd want is a reliable 9mm. Easily the best cartridge for the weight, class, and ease of use. You can literally find it anywhere on the planet as every major country uses some form of it, be it police forces, military, government armament, or as with the US, sold in most every store. There is no catching up to the availability of the 9mm no. You may have made the case for the 7.62x39, but again, weight, ease of use, ability to find. Nope, best weapon in a world gone to hell scenario is some form of 9mm carbine or short rifle. Anything that needs longer range than is provided can be avoided all together.
Booby traps are one of those things which will most definitely get you in trouble, there are a few cases in the US where that happened so it is pretty well established as a no no. Though I must confess I personally don't see a ton of moral distinction between setting up a deadly booby trap which kills an intruder and you personally opening fire on said intruder and killing them.
Land mines are destructive devices which have to be registered and tax stamped, and I doubt anybody who does own any is going to be casually using them to defend their home.
Cannons, as in black powder cannons, aren't legally considered firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know. Neither are black powder small arms.
Grey Templar wrote: Booby traps are one of those things which will most definitely get you in trouble, there are a few cases in the US where that happened so it is pretty well established as a no no. Though I must confess I personally don't see a ton of moral distinction between setting up a deadly booby trap which kills an intruder and you personally opening fire on said intruder and killing them.
Land mines are destructive devices which have to be registered and tax stamped, and I doubt anybody who does own any is going to be casually using them to defend their home.
Cannons, as in black powder cannons, aren't legally considered firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know. Neither are black powder small arms.
I think, again, it comes down to indiscriminate triggering vs a conscious decision to open fire. Would kind of suck to blow up a kid who was chasing a ball into your yard - sure, technically trespassing, but also... yeah.
Then add the factor of things like paramedics or firies attending your property for your benefit and getting killed or maimed, and, again, I can see why indiscriminate weapons are frowned upon.
It's also why cluster munitions are banned, but America still uses them. Because some of those little freedom pellets don't always spread dreams and hope, and some farm steps on them 2 years later and accidentally kills himself and 3 other people. Incredibly stupid design for a weapon. It's like the self dispersing landmine ordinance. You let it fly/glide onto/over the target from a sufficient height, raining landmines with internal clocks that are SUPPOSED to self detonate after a set period. Guess what impacting the earth at a high rate of speed does to internal clocks?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's also why cluster munitions are banned, but America still uses them. Because some of those little freedom pellets don't always spread dreams and hope, and some farm steps on them 2 years later and accidentally kills himself and 3 other people. Incredibly stupid design for a weapon. It's like the self dispersing landmine ordinance. You let it fly/glide onto/over the target from a sufficient height, raining landmines with internal clocks that are SUPPOSED to self detonate after a set period. Guess what impacting the earth at a high rate of speed does to internal clocks?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's also why cluster munitions are banned, but America still uses them. Because some of those little freedom pellets don't always spread dreams and hope, and some farm steps on them 2 years later and accidentally kills himself and 3 other people. Incredibly stupid design for a weapon. It's like the self dispersing landmine ordinance. You let it fly/glide onto/over the target from a sufficient height, raining landmines with internal clocks that are SUPPOSED to self detonate after a set period. Guess what impacting the earth at a high rate of speed does to internal clocks?
only really if you can't make clocks.
Well, apparently we can't because mud is still going pop in Laos and Cambodia, if we want to go 50+ years back. Iraqistan and Afghanistan are both in the last 20 years and those pop rocks are still killing kids. You know what. US AIRFORCE DOESN'T GET ANY MORE TOYS OR MONEY TILL IT PICKS UP ALL IT'S TOYS.
Cannons, as in black powder cannons, aren't legally considered firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know. Neither are black powder small arms.
Even non black powder artillery. It's weird. I've seen British deck guns from 1893 for sale, and they're basically 75mm, but because they're made before a particular date, and the ammunition isn't commonly available, they don't fall under FFA.
I have seen some great content online about black powder weapons. So would that extend to black powder revolvers? Is it the design or the year they were made?
I am currently trying to work out how smoothbore cannon can be used in home defence scenarios, hunting and recreational shooting. Not sure on the first, flushing game on the second, and showing off on the third?
Really though I want to see one of those US TV series on biker gangs or similar using cannon to target the opposing gangs club!
The_Real_Chris wrote: I have seen some great content online about black powder weapons. So would that extend to black powder revolvers? Is it the design or the year they were made?
It's three separate exemptions.
Firearms manufactured before 1898 are automatically considered antiques and legally unregulated at a federal level. That's date of manufacture, not design. Modern replicas of antiques are also exempted, provided they do not accept modern (still-in-production) ammunition. And lastly, muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns, or handguns that cannot be converted to centerfire ammunition are exempted.
So: Mosin-Nagant made in 1897, antique, can be shipped to your door with no background check. Mosin-Nagant made in 1899, modern firearm, follows all the normal rules. Modern replica of a Colt Dragoon, doesn't use cartridges, antique. Modern replica of an obscure pinfire revolver, uses obsolete ammunition, antique. Modern replica of a Colt 1873 in .45 Long Colt, not an antique. Original Colt 1873 in .45 Long Colt, antique. Modern replica of a Colt Dragoon with a centerfire conversion cylinder, not an antique- but neither the Dragoon itself (antique) nor the conversion cylinder (part) are legally regulated until you combine them.
Then states have their own laws enforced separately from federal law, so for instance, in New York you can purchase a black powder revolver since it is considered an antique, but if you also possess ammunition for it, then it's considered a handgun and requires a pistol permit.
I am currently trying to work out how smoothbore cannon can be used in home defence scenarios, hunting and recreational shooting. Not sure on the first, flushing game on the second, and showing off on the third?
Serial numbers help, many times a year will be stamped, plus certain characteristics can help you guess around what year it might have been manufactured. Tracking precisely years according to serial numbers and gun types is a level of gun nerdism I am actually jealous of and wholeheartedly amazed at.
So what happens if you bought what you believed to be an 1897 in good faith, but it turns out it’s an 1899 somebody had tampered with? I’m hoping in such specific cases there’s room for benefit of the doubt?
Well, assuming you indeed got the wool pulled over your eyes then yeah probably nothing. But the mere fact that its been found out likely means that someone is in trouble for something else already.
This is one of those laws that people only get in trouble for if they're doing something else illegal as well.
I would not be surprised if nobody has ever done this so it remains a purely hypothetical scenario.
In France I'd probably say you're fine, if the gun is registered as a 1880 one but it is not, then for all intents and purposes from that point on it will be treated as such.
That doesn't mean that, as laws change regularly, its new category cannot be up or down graded to a more or less restrictive regime. Shooting ranges are normally (not always) notified and will let you know, if not, gunsmiths should when selling the gun over to someone else.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So what happens if you bought what you believed to be an 1897 in good faith, but it turns out it’s an 1899 somebody had tampered with? I’m hoping in such specific cases there’s room for benefit of the doubt?
Unless something substantial changed between years, if both the date stamp and serial is changed, then most of the time, the police can't tell the difference either.
I knew Dick Vandal down in Pittsburgh. Those who know, know.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So what happens if you bought what you believed to be an 1897 in good faith, but it turns out it’s an 1899 somebody had tampered with? I’m hoping in such specific cases there’s room for benefit of the doubt?
At that point the buyer would have been the victim of fraud, because saying something is older than it is can have pretty big commercial implications. Duping someone into believing their 1937 Mauser C96 is from 1897 has some serious criminal liabilities, irrespective of firearms laws.
The thing is, how would one prove it wasn't from 1897? Some weapons don't have reliable serial number ranges, nor are they date stamped, so "best guess" is what applies.
And the more archaic, the better. The truth is that someone buying an antique, ludicrously long rifle isn't going to invite much government scrutiny unless they're doing something else with it that they shouldn't.
On another topic...
I've been offline for a few days, and I saw a reference to one of my posts and nomenclature. Here in the US, "battle rifle" is generally shorthand for: military surplus, 7.62x51mm caliber (or greater). That is, a rifle likely used "in battle" before the days of 5.56mm and other more modern cartridges. It also also usually semi-automatic (either by design, or required by law).
The descriptor thus applies to rifles like the M14 (or civilian M1A), CETME, G3, and FAL (and their variants). Think of it as "early Cold War vintage," which is a somewhat distinct class of firearms.
It's like wanting a bolt-action rifle from WW I and WW II - yes, there are some hard lines, but also a lot of overlap. The Commonwealth countries that didn't switch to the No. 4 - are those WW I or WWII rifles?
On such details firearms collectors waste endless hours.
I have also seen battle rifle widely used for the earlier M1 Garand, Soviet SVT rifles, and German G40/41/43 rifles. Essentially the same concept of semi-automatic with full powered rifle cartridge.
I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.
I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.
Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.
I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.
Grey Templar wrote: I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.
I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.
Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.
I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.
Seems a bit odd to me that under that definition you would exclude an SVT40 because it doesn't have selective fire, but would include the AVT variant which did. Especially as this had the same fate as the later NATO battle rifles in being limited back to semi-auto only as soon as everyone released how hard it is to make a useful full-auto battle rifle (I think pretty much only the FG42 pulled it off).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.
Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.
Grey Templar wrote:Yes, there is someone who is/was working on replicas, but I dont think they are doing anything anymore.
I have encountered the opinion that the FG42 is not a gun that could be made today with modern safety tolerances- it slews too close to just strong enough. The designers got it just right. That may make it difficult to produce realistic replicas that are functional and safe to an acceptable degree for liability purposes.
Grey Templar wrote: I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.
I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.
Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.
I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.
Seems a bit odd to me that under that definition you would exclude an SVT40 because it doesn't have selective fire, but would include the AVT variant which did. Especially as this had the same fate as the later NATO battle rifles in being limited back to semi-auto only as soon as everyone released how hard it is to make a useful full-auto battle rifle (I think pretty much only the FG42 pulled it off).
I never said I was including the AVT over the SVT. Though I guess it would actually kinda fit the definition too. Though again I don't think being select fire is a requirement to be a battle rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.
Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.
Grey Templar wrote:Yes, there is someone who is/was working on replicas, but I dont think they are doing anything anymore.
I have encountered the opinion that the FG42 is not a gun that could be made today with modern safety tolerances- it slews too close to just strong enough. The designers got it just right. That may make it difficult to produce realistic replicas that are functional and safe to an acceptable degree for liability purposes.
I have never heard anything about the poor quality of FG42s. If anything I have heard the opposite. That they were made quite durably, if expensively which was the main drawback.
The main issue with replicating the FG42 is that the sheet metal stamping is expensive to set up, and the demand for reproductions might be too low to justify it. Though with PSA making their STG44 replicas maybe they'll try out the FG42 eventually.
Grey Templar wrote: I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.
I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.
Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.
I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.
Seems a bit odd to me that under that definition you would exclude an SVT40 because it doesn't have selective fire, but would include the AVT variant which did. Especially as this had the same fate as the later NATO battle rifles in being limited back to semi-auto only as soon as everyone released how hard it is to make a useful full-auto battle rifle (I think pretty much only the FG42 pulled it off).
I never said I was including the AVT over the SVT. Though I guess it would actually kinda fit the definition too. Though again I don't think being select fire is a requirement to be a battle rifle.
You didn't, I was extrapolating from what you'd listed as criteria. If select fire isn't a requirement then the G43 would also fit the bill.
I agree these are inferior weapons though, they were definitely working out kinks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.
Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.
Grey Templar wrote:Yes, there is someone who is/was working on replicas, but I dont think they are doing anything anymore.
I have encountered the opinion that the FG42 is not a gun that could be made today with modern safety tolerances- it slews too close to just strong enough. The designers got it just right. That may make it difficult to produce realistic replicas that are functional and safe to an acceptable degree for liability purposes.
I have never heard anything about the poor quality of FG42s. If anything I have heard the opposite. That they were made quite durably, if expensively which was the main drawback.
The main issue with replicating the FG42 is that the sheet metal stamping is expensive to set up, and the demand for reproductions might be too low to justify it. Though with PSA making their STG44 replicas maybe they'll try out the FG42 eventually.
Oh, I wasn't saying FG42s are poor quality, only that they are built close to the limit. The fact they are safe is a testament to their excellent engineering (by the final versions, the initial runs were prone to breaking under automatic fire and the design was continually tinkered with). However, the tolerances accepted in rolling them out were fine for a military in the 1940's (who would sue the Nazi goverment if their rifle blew up...?) but a modern company has to be pretty sure their replica doesn't cross that limit and be unsafe. It would add expense to setting up manufacturing that would make it less attractive to do.
They are essentially a light machine gun that is light enough to use as a standard rifle, yet still reasonably controllable with automatic fire. No one else seems to have managed to thread that needle.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, looking at the issues the initial rifles had, there may be something of a survivorship bias in that the good examples have survived WWII with the ones built beyond tolerances failing early.
Right at the beginning he talks about their being replicas available, and I think Ian even featured them on a different video.
The durability of surplus firearms is something of an interesting topic. In discussing the Lahti pistols, people usually offer cautions about their alleged fragility, but if you think about it, they're actually remarkably durable.
The famous incident where one of them suffered a catastrophic failure in is very much overblown. Those weapons had been in service for decades, and the Swedes were putting +P+ SMG rounds through them. Contrast that with the M9 (Beretta 92), which was having slides crack in a matter of months when using SMG loaded ammo.
Most of the Lahti's in the US are Swedish M40s that were issued to exiled Danes, then sold on the surplus market as soon as liberated Denmark could get their hands on the FN GP 35, so they're hardly at the end of their service life. But people insist the design is flawed, so everyone uses 9mm light loads.
Yeah, the FG42 is definitely an engineering marvel. It somehow being both easily controllable and light is somewhat miraculous.
I think Ian does mention it in that video or the main video on the FG42 but it is somewhat of an oddity that nobody adopted the FG42 after the war considering how good it really was. Even a derived gun making some improvements or using another caliber would have made a lot of sense.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, the FG42 is definitely an engineering marvel. It somehow being both easily controllable and light is somewhat miraculous.
I think Ian does mention it in that video or the main video on the FG42 but it is somewhat of an oddity that nobody adopted the FG42 after the war considering how good it really was. Even a derived gun making some improvements or using another caliber would have made a lot of sense.
Apparently the M60 is derived from it.
Again though I reckon this is a case of survivorship bias. If an FG42 is still floating around in working condition today, it was probably one of the good ones, and not one where the receiver cracked after using it for automatic fire in WWII which got replaced with an MP40.
Again though I reckon this is a case of survivorship bias. If an FG42 is still floating around in working condition today, it was probably one of the good ones, and not one where the receiver cracked after using it for automatic fire in WWII which got replaced with an MP40.
It's also being fed the finest, premium ammunition and being meticulously maintained. No one is firing it to the point of overheating in a panicked skirmish.
The problem with the FG42 is that same as so many other German designs - complex, difficult to produce and therefore unsuitable to make by the million (or even half-million).
Post-war Allied arms experts saw it for what it was: a boutique weapon built by an eccentric regime obsessed with miracle gadgets.
I'm going to add that while I've enjoyed Ian's videos over the years, it's very clear that he doesn't really understand how the military works on an individual level. His weird effort to rehabilitate the Chauchat speaks volumes in this respect.
The M60 machine gun began development in the late 1940s as a program for a new, lighter 7.62 mm machine gun. It was partly derived from German guns of World War II (most notably the FG 42 and the MG 42)
Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the above is wrong?
Edit: not saying I necessarily agree with Wikipedia, but they cite a couple of books and it seems like a reasonable claim for the furniture and stamping procedure to be derived from the FG42.
I'm going to add that while I've enjoyed Ian's videos over the years, it's very clear that he doesn't really understand how the military works on an individual level. His weird effort to rehabilitate the Chauchat speaks volumes in this respect.
244000 in French service in WWI also speaks volumes? They were pretty effective in French use and better than only having Lebel and Berthier bolt-actions.
The poor 30-06 conversion does seem to be gak though.
Grey Templar wrote: I have never heard anything about the poor quality of FG42s. If anything I have heard the opposite. That they were made quite durably, if expensively which was the main drawback.
The main issue with replicating the FG42 is that the sheet metal stamping is expensive to set up, and the demand for reproductions might be too low to justify it. Though with PSA making their STG44 replicas maybe they'll try out the FG42 eventually.
I wonder if additive 3D printing using something like laser sintering can be used to resurrect these old firearms.
I'm going to add that while I've enjoyed Ian's videos over the years, it's very clear that he doesn't really understand how the military works on an individual level. His weird effort to rehabilitate the Chauchat speaks volumes in this respect.
I think very few commentators, and even entire gun cultures don't understand the role of an infantryman within a complex military system.
Rifles though are even harder given how much militaries have changed. A limited run 250,000 bespoke complex high performing rifles are now I think more doable given the small size of many armies compared to the high points of large conscript and volunteer armies. You just need (ha, as is we all have serious ones) a plan on how to do that mass if required. Probably today for a NATO nation that means something like an M4 given the large potential production capacity from all the different suppliers.
Haighus wrote: 244000 in French service in WWI also speaks volumes? They were pretty effective in French use and better than only having Lebel and Berthier bolt-actions.
Yeah, it says the French were completely unprepared for the kind of war they got and lacked the industry to produce anything else.
See also Ruby pistols. Or, for that matter, Sten guns.
The poor 30-06 conversion does seem to be gak though.
The measure of the Chauchat's awfulness is how it was dumped on dirt-poor militaries and saw no evolutionary development. The Sten actually got some product improvement because the design had potential, and in due time became the Sterling.
Compare a Chauchat against any other LMG and it sucks. I recall a video when Ian was in the throes of his trying to prove it was somehow better at things than the BAR or Lewis gun, and when he switched from the Chauchat to the Lewis he unconsciously grinned at the superior experience and then tried to walk it back. Well yeah, Lewis guns didn't suck. BARs didn't suck. Chauchats did, and I think in his first experience of shooting one, he had all manner of problems and the owner grinned and said "Yeah, it's a piece of junk."
Small Arms of the World (9th edition) says that the M60 has the belt feed of the MG42 and the operating system of the FG42, but notes that the FG42 borrowed heavily from the Lewis gun.
I can think of a bunch of weapons that were successful within their niche but didn't see further development. The Madsen light machine gun was a highly effective design, but was not iterated upon after the war. The FAL was one of FN's most successful products, but none of their subsequent designs reused its tilting-bolt action. The Mauser C96 was a commercial success with many imitators and zero derivatives. The Maxim was the most successful machine gun ever but its short-stroke recoil operation was an evolutionary dead end. Even the Sten didn't last more than a few years; it was little more than a last-ditch simplification of the obsolescent MP28/Lanchester, while the Sterling was a ground-up redesign that only maintained the basic concept of an open-bolt 9mm tubegun.
Lack of further iteration can be for a number of reasons, be it expense of manufacture, complexity of design, unsuitability of the action for other cartridges, obsolescence due to competition or technological advances, easing of wartime pressure, loss of doctrinal relevance, or sheer political circumstances. Just saying, that's not a good litmus test for design quality.
In any case, the Chauchat is still not a good gun from a pure performance standpoint, but I don't think I've ever heard it described as such. It's merely the one that could be manufactured in staggering numbers with minimal tooling under foreign occupation and, more importantly, was praised by men who used it in combat in stark contrast to its modern reputation, and frankly I think it's worth rehabilitating (to some degree) on that basis alone. How a gun stacks up against its peers in a head-to-head comparison on a flat range is the sort of trivia that has little to do with what makes a gun successful in the real world.
Grey Templar wrote:but it is somewhat of an oddity that nobody adopted the FG42 after the war considering how good it really was.
The fire control mechanism of the FG42 to enable both closed-bolt semi-auto and open-bolt full-auto is an extraordinarily overcomplicated design, and despite the heavy use of stampings it has a lot of fiddly machined parts and complex geometries. They're also relatively fragile, and Haighus is spot-on about survivorship bias among extant examples.
It's a technological marvel that meets the highly specific and arbitrary criteria it was subject to. It's not an ideal infantry rifle, for many of the same reasons as the MP44.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:The 60 is derived from the MG34. Not the FG42. At All.
The T44 prototype that evolved into the M60 was essentially an FG42 fed by an MG42 feed tray turned sideways. The end product carries little from the FG42 (the gas system was redesigned into a self-regulating piston and the FCG was ditched entirely), but there was never any MG34 pedigree in the design.
You wouldn't have to adopt it unchanged. It could definitely have had a few tweaks to make it better, like no switching between open and closed bolt operation and strengthening a few components.
catbarf wrote: In any case, the Chauchat is still not a good gun from a pure performance standpoint, but I don't think I've ever heard it described as such. It's merely the one that could be manufactured in staggering numbers with minimal tooling under foreign occupation and, more importantly, was praised by men who used it in combat in stark contrast to its modern reputation, and frankly I think it's worth rehabilitating (to some degree) on that basis alone. How a gun stacks up against its peers in a head-to-head comparison on a flat range is the sort of trivia that has little to do with what makes a gun successful in the real world.
It met a need. It was a last-ditch weapon and pretty much the only option the French had, just like the Ruby.
No one disputes that, my point was that Ian's efforts to rehabilitate it involved actively denigrating competing contemporary designs. It was silly and there is a point where affectation starts to encroach upon intellectual dishonesty.
I think looking at subsequent service as well as development are fair ways to judge the success (or failure) of a design. The C96, by contrast, also was very much of its time, yet it somehow had a 40-year production run and spawned countless imitators. One sees it's design impact on the Lahti/M40 as well. Total production numbers of its derivatives are impossible to know, but clearly more than a million units were produced. Is that Browning Hi Power level success? No, but it's pretty good.
As for the FG 42, something we have to keep in mind is that wartime weapons aren't built to last. That's a "nice to have," but when you're losing 100,000 weapons a month to attrition, you aren't really concerned about a 50 year service life. That concept also justifies the Chauchat's existence - at a time when weapons were being consumed as fast as they could be built, longevity was besides the point.
In peacetime, however, longevity matters, so weapons need to be durable enough to train with and also have something left over for "the day" when the real fighting starts. Sometimes, a design seems sustained by sheer inertia. I've read lots of criticisms about the BAR, but it just kept trundling along until they finally found something that filled its niche.
The Bren gun was like that - lurking in armories long after its official replacement.
I find that kind of longevity fascinating. Consider the German Gewehr 88, the Commission Rifle. Almost immediately superseded by the Mauser, the Germans were stuck with tons of rifles and useless tooling. Happily, Imperial China was looking to 'get modern,' and that was just the thing for them.
And so was created the famous Hanyang rifle, which eventually was rechambered for 8mm Mauser and remained in production until 1943 (yes the Commission was also 8mm Mauser, but it was a different cartridge). The ultimate example of "good enough." I mean, we can say the same of the Mauser rifles, improved, modified, and cranked out by the millions and during WW II, the armies of Germany, Japan, America and China were all using them. Crazy stuff.
And yeah, I have a hankering for one of the Chinese rifles. Also a Spanish Mosin (Franco emptied out his closet before import stamps were a thing, you see).
Well, one of the two main contemporaries to the Chauchat was the MG08/15, which weighed about twice as much at a whopping 18kg. I think it is fair to say the Chauchat was more useful than that as a light machine gun. Especially as the French military produced about two Chauchats for every MG08/15.
I'd argue the BAR was a weapon far past its use-by date in WWII and it shouldn't have been kept going for so long. I think the US army would have been better served by replacing the BAR with a (then) modern light machine gun instead of replacing Springfields with M1 Garands.
Everybody having a semi-auto rifle is far far better than slightly improving your LMG choice and keeping bolt actions. While the BAR was certainly outdated in its original concept, it was still perfectly acceptable as an LMG. And having the overall firepower increase that semiauto gives you when everybody else is using bolt actions is huge.
Everybody having a semi-auto rifle is far far better than slightly improving your LMG choice and keeping bolt actions. While the BAR was certainly outdated in its original concept, it was still perfectly acceptable as an LMG. And having the overall firepower increase that semiauto gives you when everybody else is using bolt actions is huge.
The BAR was not a good light machine gun by WWII, and most squad firepower was from the LMG. BARs had small magazines and no quick-change barrel, so they couldn't put out the sustained fire of a gun like the Bren or MG34 (in LMG configuration). I am confident that a squad of bolt-action riflemen with a single LMG puts out more firepower than a squad of US soldiers with M1 Garands and a single BAR.
The US also came to this conclusion, because they started increasing the number of BARs per squad, starting with 1 and ending up with 3 by the end of the war. Given that the BAR was nearly as heavy as a Bren, carrying 3 around to get adequate firepower is a big weight penalty on the squad.
Obviously, semi-auto rifles and a good LMG is better than both, but if you had to focus on one first (which most nations did coming into WWII) I think upgrading the LMG before the rifles is the smarter choice.
The BAR was great in 1918, where it was the perfection of the walking fire concept. That concept was obsolete by WWII. Incidentally, referring back to the earlier conversation, that makes the BAR doctrinally heavily inspired by the Chauchat, although not mechanically.
Everybody having a semi-auto rifle is far far better than slightly improving your LMG choice and keeping bolt actions. While the BAR was certainly outdated in its original concept, it was still perfectly acceptable as an LMG. And having the overall firepower increase that semiauto gives you when everybody else is using bolt actions is huge.
The BAR was not a good light machine gun by WWII, and most squad firepower was from the LMG. BARs had small magazines and no quick-change barrel, so they couldn't put out the sustained fire of a gun like the Bren or MG34 (in LMG configuration). I am confident that a squad of bolt-action riflemen with a single LMG puts out more firepower than a squad of US soldiers with M1 Garands and a single BAR.
The US also came to this conclusion, because they started increasing the number of BARs per squad, starting with 1 and ending up with 3 by the end of the war. Given that the BAR was nearly as heavy as a Bren, carrying 3 around to get adequate firepower is a big weight penalty on the squad.
Obviously, semi-auto rifles and a good LMG is better than both, but if you had to focus on one first (which most nations did coming into WWII) I think upgrading the LMG before the rifles is the smarter choice.
The BAR was great in 1918, where it was the perfection of the walking fire concept. That concept was obsolete by WWII. Incidentally, referring back to the earlier conversation, that makes the BAR doctrinally heavily inspired by the Chauchat, although not mechanically.
Not sure where you're getting your facts, but the Bren was hot doo doo, underpowered, prone to being a finicky princess, and barely maintained a level of accuracy worthy of a shotgun, let alone an LMG. The BAR was accurate, had higher power than most other squad based LMGs, and was generally more effective in every catagory. Not even hating here, or nostalga teaming here. I hated most of the US WW2 arsenal, but the BAR was not a bad design.
I have seen the Bren called the "best LMG of WW2" many, many times.
How would the BAR have higher "power" than other LMGs when they are all using roughly comparable full-power rifle cartridges?
The BAR is different to the Bren, definitely, and certainly had its niche, but a 20 round bottom-feeding mag has to be inferior to a 30-round top-feeding mag in most LMG scenarios, particularly with a #2 on the gun to change the mags.
Wow... Manufacturing of the Bren stopped in India in 2012! Thats quite a long time... Is it only beaten by the MG42/MG3 that still appears to be in production in various places.
To be clear, I'm not saying the BAR is a bad design. I think it was a very good design for its role. The problem is that it was not designed as a squad LMG, which is what it got shoehorned into in WWII. The role of walking fire was obsolete and the BAR with it.
Haighus wrote: Well, one of the two main contemporaries to the Chauchat was the MG08/15, which weighed about twice as much at a whopping 18kg. I think it is fair to say the Chauchat was more useful than that as a light machine gun. Especially as the French military produced about two Chauchats for every MG08/15.
Given the fragility of Chauchat's construction, I'm pretty sure that at any given moment, more MG08/15s were in service than Chauchats. Less mobility, but much better reliability and a higher and more sustained rate of fire.
Maybe in open hillsides the Chauchat had the edge, but in positional warfare, the MG08/15 was unquestionably superior. Remember, if the Chauchat was any good, the Germans could have copied it.
Everybody having a semi-auto rifle is far far better than slightly improving your LMG choice and keeping bolt actions. While the BAR was certainly outdated in its original concept, it was still perfectly acceptable as an LMG. And having the overall firepower increase that semiauto gives you when everybody else is using bolt actions is huge.
This was proven in Korea. Decisively. Commonwealth troops using turnbolts were at a severe disadvantage against massed Chinese infantry attacks. Americans could put down much more fire much faster.
Haighus wrote: Well, one of the two main contemporaries to the Chauchat was the MG08/15, which weighed about twice as much at a whopping 18kg. I think it is fair to say the Chauchat was more useful than that as a light machine gun. Especially as the French military produced about two Chauchats for every MG08/15.
Given the fragility of Chauchat's construction, I'm pretty sure that at any given moment, more MG08/15s were in service than Chauchats. Less mobility, but much better reliability and a higher and more sustained rate of fire.
Maybe in open hillsides the Chauchat had the edge, but in positional warfare, the MG08/15 was unquestionably superior. Remember, if the Chauchat was any good, the Germans could have copied it.
Less mobility is a pretty big deal for a squad support weapon. No major WWI army had trouble in defensive fire with heavy machine guns. The MG08/15 was a whopping 18kg/40Ib, so it was not easy to lug in support of assaults.
I don't think copying weapons is a good metric of anything in most wars of the 20th century. It is incredibly rare to see weapons copied in wartime, even for obviously good and feared designs like the MG42. This is especially true if factoring in cartridge changes, such as from 8mm Lebel to 7.92mm Mauser. You can see the challenges in switching between cartridges by looking at the mess that is the Chauchat in .30-06!
Everybody having a semi-auto rifle is far far better than slightly improving your LMG choice and keeping bolt actions. While the BAR was certainly outdated in its original concept, it was still perfectly acceptable as an LMG. And having the overall firepower increase that semiauto gives you when everybody else is using bolt actions is huge.
This was proven in Korea. Decisively. Commonwealth troops using turnbolts were at a severe disadvantage against massed Chinese infantry attacks. Americans could put down much more fire much faster.
From my understanding of that conflict, Commonwealth forces performed very well in defensive operations against Chinese attacks, and were frequently deployed to rearguard positions when the 8th Army was falling back from the Yalu river (Commonwealth troops often being frustrated with adjacent US units not holding their ground in this period, probably largely due to doctrinal differences). They also performed well in defensive actions against massively-greater numbers in the battles of Imjin River and Kapyong. Commonwealth units alsohad a lower rate of casualties as a proportion of total soldiers deployed than the US forces. None of this suggests a lack of infantry firepower in comparison to their US counterparts. Indeed, the Glosters were overwhelmed at Imjin only once they ran out of ammunition.
The thing with the BAR is that it should really be viewed as "its a garand with more ammo and very controllable full auto" rather than "this is an old walking fire MG which we are desperately using as an LMG".
You can quite easily use a BAR just like you'd use a garand, but you have the option of full auto too. In that sense, its more of a "we will compensate for not having a true LMG by having 3 of our soldiers use this select-fire rifle"
I would say that in a 12 man squad, having 3 BARs, 2-3 Thompsons, and 6-7 garands is far far more effective firepower than this theoretical 1 LMG, 2-3 Thompsons, and 9-10 M1903s.
You also have the advantage of spreading out your squads automatic firepower. Instead of 1 dude carrying it its divided over 3. Making you more resilient to combat losses and if one guy is reloading the other 2 can still be ready to go rather than your entire squad being without LMG cover for the duration. And the BAR can be comfortably run by 1 dude if necessary, you don't need to have assistant gunners.
In terms of firepower, going from semi-auto to select fire is a small jump. Jumping from bolt action to semi-auto is massive. I would actually say that 12 men with Garands would be better than 11 men with bolt actions and 1 dude with an LMG.
Here's the thing about the Bren being in existence for the last 30 years. The entire military budget of the UK (68.5B) is roughly the cost of one of America's smaller state's budgets for Roads and bridges. That's why it's been in use for so long. I mean be honest. We're talking about a country that has been at best, the laughing stock of World Military technological advancement in the last 50 years. Their last great advance was WW2. And most of that was a spit polish of stuff they had from the last WW.
No, the BAR was not a piece of crap, and yes, the 30-06 was pushing a heavier bullet with more powder, than the .303 British standard round. Also, again, 90% of all ammo the British had wasn't "Fresh off the factory line", and wasn't prone to perfect performance, where on the other hand, literally everything the US used in WW2, was fresh off the line, because it was built specifically for that war.
I don't know where you get this mad-on for the BAR, but seriously. Take a step back. The Bren was a good weapon, the BAR was a good weapon. We don't need to get into a measuring contest over this.
Different armies have/had different doctrines and use different tactics. Most armies had LMGs at the squad level, some had MMGs at the platoon level in a designated weapons squad, and some had both.
I would argue that the use of the Browning Automatic Rifle at the squad level was deliberate, and that the M1919A6 variant with stock and bipod was really the "stopgap" LMG solution for units that needed that capability at a squad level such as Army Rangers and Airborne.
And that same line of thinking continues to this day. For instance, late WWII US Marine squads had 3 fireteams each with an Automatic Rifleman (BAR). Modern USMC squads still have 3 fireteams each with an Automatic Rifleman who now carries the same gun as everyone else (HK 416) and just carries more ammo and has a different role.
On that note, probably no one has a $300k FG-42 or transferable Chauchat/Bren/BAR/MG-08. If you do, I'd love to see pics. Does anyone have/use a piston AR-15 such as an HK416 or Sig MCX? How about the 60 rd quad stack AR mags they were testing for those "Automatic Riflemen"? I'm also curious if anyone uses the medium weight 5.56 ammo with bonded bullets such as Critical Defense, Gold Dot, Ranger, even Fusion, and how those perform at extended ranges. I'd like to replace my crappy battle rifle with something else and after shopping around a second "heavy" AR is a real possibility.
Haighus wrote: Less mobility is a pretty big deal for a squad support weapon. No major WWI army had trouble in defensive fire with heavy machine guns. The MG08/15 was a whopping 18kg/40Ib, so it was not easy to lug in support of assaults.
I don't think copying weapons is a good metric of anything in most wars of the 20th century. It is incredibly rare to see weapons copied in wartime, even for obviously good and feared designs like the MG42. This is especially true if factoring in cartridge changes, such as from 8mm Lebel to 7.92mm Mauser. You can see the challenges in switching between cartridges by looking at the mess that is the Chauchat in .30-06!
Was the Chauchat an offensive juggernaut? Did French offensives benefit from its lighter weight?
If having an agile, light-weight squad support weapon was so useful, where was this shown on the battlefield? The Chauchat's advantages were (and are) largely hypothetical.
Copying weapons is one metric; length of service is another. The Chauchat fails on both counts.
As for Korea, it is inarguable that a unit armed with bolt-action rifles is going to be at a disadvantage vs units using self-loading rifles. There's a reason why bolt rifles went out of fashion.
It is also known that - especially during the early phases of the conflict - American infantry had gotten lax in terms of individual marksmanship, relying instead on air, armor and artillery to support them. To their credit, the Commonwealth forces had maintained that proficiency.
My father, who served in the shadow of Korea, noted that an entire week of his Army training focused on close assault and hand-to-hand combat. Thus proving, once again, that armies always prepare to fight the last war.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Given the fragility of Chauchat's construction, I'm pretty sure that at any given moment, more MG08/15s were in service than Chauchats. Less mobility, but much better reliability and a higher and more sustained rate of fire.
Maybe in open hillsides the Chauchat had the edge, but in positional warfare, the MG08/15 was unquestionably superior. Remember, if the Chauchat was any good, the Germans could have copied it.
Commissar, you're veering into 'source: I made it up' territory here. By the end of the war the Chauchat was being issued at a fireteam level, and there is no evidence that any inability to keep the guns in operation led to proportionally lower rates of issue.
As for the Germans copying it: they did. Here's a photo of one of the prototypes:
I couldn't tell you exactly why it wasn't put into full production- it's entirely possible that making it work with the differing feed geometry of 8mm, lest they run into similar issues as the US .30-06 conversion, would have required too much R&D- but the German military did see enough merit in them (used, alongside small numbers of Madsens, by 'musketen' teams to counter breakthroughs) to pursue reverse-engineering.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Was the Chauchat an offensive juggernaut? Did French offensives benefit from its lighter weight?
If having an agile, light-weight squad support weapon was so useful, where was this shown on the battlefield? The Chauchat's advantages were (and are) largely hypothetical.
This thread has some translated comments from Pétain's survey (conducted across the French army) in May of 1917, a few of which praise the use of the Chauchat for walking fire and for defending against counter-attack in newly-taken lines. As mentioned above, the Germans also made use of captured Chauchats for certain mobility-oriented roles (rapid counter-attack).
As far as lightweight magazine-fed machine guns in general, you will also find much more glowing praise in primary sources for the Madsen light machine gun in this role, which was similarly lightweight but without all the problems.
Edit: Also, if we're comparing to the MG08/15 specifically- I have to point out that most of the major belligerents fielded Maxim guns, and all of them identified a need for light machine guns that could keep up with the infantry, but only Germany decided the ideal solution was to put a stock and bipod on a Maxim. If you really insist on evaluating guns on the basis of 'who copied it' and 'how long did it stick around' (to be clear, neither are actually useful metrics), the MG08/15 that was copied by nobody and replaced as soon as treaty limitations allowed was certainly no better than the Chauchat.
Again, not saying the Chauchat was a good weapon, but there is an awful lot more praise for it in primary sources than in National Interest 'Worst Guns of WW1' articles and the like, and the automatic rifle concept was clearly valid and had many (better) designs along similar lines. The nullachtfünfzehn wasn't just a dead-end design, the idea of a water-cooled 50lb (loaded) LMG was complete dead-end as a small arms concept altogether. It's a low bar for comparison.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: and yes, the 30-06 was pushing a heavier bullet with more powder, than the .303 British standard round.
Fezzik I dunno where you're getting your info but you should find better sources.
M2 .30-06 is a 152gr projectile going 2800fps.
MkVII .303 is 174gr projectile going 2440fps. Heavier round, lower velocity. About 7/8 the kinetic energy, but better terminal effect due to bullet design.
catbarf wrote: Commissar, you're veering into 'source: I made it up' territory here. By the end of the war the Chauchat was being issued at a fireteam level, and there is no evidence that any inability to keep the guns in operation led to proportionally lower rates of issue.
As for the Germans copying it: they did. Here's a photo of one of the prototypes:
I couldn't tell you exactly why it wasn't put into full production- it's entirely possible that making it work with the differing feed geometry of 8mm, lest they run into similar issues as the US .30-06 conversion, would have required too much R&D- but the German military did see enough merit in them (used, alongside small numbers of Madsens, by 'musketen' teams to counter breakthroughs) to pursue reverse-engineering.
My sources are small arms guides, particularly Smith and Smith (and later Ezell), plus numerous videos of the things not functioning well.
I'll allow for age, but more robust designs show no such problems.
This thread[/url] has some translated comments from Pétain's survey (conducted across the French army) in May of 1917, a few of which praise the use of the Chauchat for walking fire and for defending against counter-attack in newly-taken lines. As mentioned above, the Germans also made use of captured Chauchats for certain mobility-oriented roles (rapid counter-attack).
People complimented the M3 Lee/Grant as well because at the time of its introduction, it was better than a Crusader or (chuckle) Covenanter. But it's time in front-line service was short.
As far as lightweight magazine-fed machine guns in general, you will also find much more glowing praise in primary sources for the Madsen light machine gun in this role, which was similarly lightweight but without all the problems.
Absolute agreement, and the long service life of the Madsen, and its many users speak to its quality. Which is my point.
Edit: Also, if we're comparing to the MG08/15 specifically- I have to point out that most of the major belligerents fielded Maxim guns, and all of them identified a need for light machine guns that could keep up with the infantry, but only Germany decided the ideal solution was to put a stock and bipod on a Maxim. If you really insist on evaluating guns on the basis of 'who copied it' and 'how long did it stick around' (to be clear, neither are actually useful metrics), the MG08/15 that was copied by nobody and replaced as soon as treaty limitations allowed was certainly no better than the Chauchat.
My contention is that the MG08/15 was bad and the Chauchat was worse.
And I'm not sure what other metric one can use to measure the quality of a weapon. If the world copies it, it probably is good. If it remains in service for decades across multiple countries, that is a measure of quality.
Lots of weapons are developed in wartime conditions and typically they either get refined in some way (once the crisis is past) or dropped like a hot rock. France's "last ditch" came in 1915, when everything they could find was thrown into the war effort. The Chauchat was part of that, and it was (literally) better than nothing. The Ruby pistols were a similar expedient, and - strange to say - got the French Army hooked on .32 caliber pistols for some reason.
Again, not saying the Chauchat was a good weapon, but there is an awful lot more praise for it in primary sources than in National Interest 'Worst Guns of WW1' articles and the like, and the automatic rifle concept was clearly valid and had many (better) designs along similar lines. The nullachtfünfzehn wasn't just a dead-end design, the idea of a water-cooled 50lb (loaded) LMG was complete dead-end as a small arms concept altogether. It's a low bar for comparison.
My original point was that the efforts to rehabilitate it use a lot of special pleading. Objectively setting it against other LMGs, it was terrible. Comparing it to sledge-towed weapons demonstrates why it was made, but efforts to somehow say it was superior to the Browning, the Lewis - or as you point out, the Madsen - is so absurd as to border on dishonesty.
Grey Templar wrote:The thing with the BAR is that it should really be viewed as "its a garand with more ammo and very controllable full auto" rather than "this is an old walking fire MG which we are desperately using as an LMG".
You can quite easily use a BAR just like you'd use a garand, but you have the option of full auto too. In that sense, its more of a "we will compensate for not having a true LMG by having 3 of our soldiers use this select-fire rifle"
I would say that in a 12 man squad, having 3 BARs, 2-3 Thompsons, and 6-7 garands is far far more effective firepower than this theoretical 1 LMG, 2-3 Thompsons, and 9-10 M1903s.
You also have the advantage of spreading out your squads automatic firepower. Instead of 1 dude carrying it its divided over 3. Making you more resilient to combat losses and if one guy is reloading the other 2 can still be ready to go rather than your entire squad being without LMG cover for the duration. And the BAR can be comfortably run by 1 dude if necessary, you don't need to have assistant gunners.
In terms of firepower, going from semi-auto to select fire is a small jump. Jumping from bolt action to semi-auto is massive. I would actually say that 12 men with Garands would be better than 11 men with bolt actions and 1 dude with an LMG.
I think to suggest that an LMG is just a select-fire rifle with full auto capability is hugely mistaken. An LMG or a GPMG in a squad support role is capable of far greater sustained fire than an automatic rifle. Given the fact that squad machine guns have persisted into the assault rifle era and are still part of the default squad organisation today highlights how useful they are.
If you take a British rifle section of the era, the LMG effectively is the squad. Everyone else is there to support the gun, and if the section had a single member left, they were expected to be carrying the Bren. All members received more training on the Bren than they did on their own rifle, and carried more ammo for the Bren than their own rifle. There was about 20x more ammo carried for the LMG than there was for each rifle, to demonstrate how much more firepower it carried. In addition, whilst a Bren could be comfortably reloaded by the gunner, with an assistant this was quick enough that there was no noticeable loss of downrange firepower. Beltfed guns can be a little slower on the reload but reload less often. German squads carried a similar ratio of ~20:1 MG ammo to rifle ammo.
Interestingly, the US military agreed with this approach on some troops- US paratroopers used the M1919A6* later in the war and carried a similar ~20:1 ratio of MG ammo vs rifle ammo, and they used semi-auto rifles. The MG was still the majority of the squad firepower. In comparison, both the US army and US marines loadouts had a much smaller ammo allocation to a BAR in comparison to the riflemen (~7x for army BARs and ~4x for marine BARs). It just wasn't as suited to sustained firepower.
The above is with the caveat that the exact loads vary somewhat by non-standard loads and due to the number of subguns or M1 carbines carried.
I do think there is something to the US marine approach of 3 BARs for very aggressive troops in the assault, especially as it can be fired effectively from the shoulder. However, the BAR doesn't have huge weight savings over contemporary LMGs so I think it is a relatively marginal benefit in that niche. On the defensive the issues with sustained firepower come into play more heavily. The modern US marines have adopted a similar approach again today with the M27 IAR so clearly the concept does have merits in some contexts.
Again, I think the BAR is a great design in 1918, one of the best in the world. I just think it was obsolescent in WWII.
*Still a very heavy stopgap design modified from a medium machinegun.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Haighus wrote: Less mobility is a pretty big deal for a squad support weapon. No major WWI army had trouble in defensive fire with heavy machine guns. The MG08/15 was a whopping 18kg/40Ib, so it was not easy to lug in support of assaults.
I don't think copying weapons is a good metric of anything in most wars of the 20th century. It is incredibly rare to see weapons copied in wartime, even for obviously good and feared designs like the MG42. This is especially true if factoring in cartridge changes, such as from 8mm Lebel to 7.92mm Mauser. You can see the challenges in switching between cartridges by looking at the mess that is the Chauchat in .30-06!
Was the Chauchat an offensive juggernaut? Did French offensives benefit from its lighter weight?
If having an agile, light-weight squad support weapon was so useful, where was this shown on the battlefield? The Chauchat's advantages were (and are) largely hypothetical.
Copying weapons is one metric; length of service is another. The Chauchat fails on both counts.
In addition to Catbarf's point, I think it is a bold claim that manouevre warfare was not critical in the First World War. The very concept of small unit fire and manoeuvre used today was born in WWI (albeit at squad and platoon level rather than fireteam level as seen later). The 100 days offensive would not have been as successful without that hard-won knowledge.
As for Korea, it is inarguable that a unit armed with bolt-action rifles is going to be at a disadvantage vs units using self-loading rifles. There's a reason why bolt rifles went out of fashion.
Sure. I'm not disputing that a unit equipped with bolt actions has less firepower to a unit equipped with semi-auto rifles.
But we are not discussing such units. We are talking about a squad equipped with a proper portable MG supported by bolt actions vs a squad equipped with semi-auto rifles and a heavy automatic rifle (which is not an MG) or two or three automatic rifles. Firepower in infantry sections does not seem to have been an issue for Commonwealth troops in Korea.
It is also known that - especially during the early phases of the conflict - American infantry had gotten lax in terms of individual marksmanship, relying instead on air, armor and artillery to support them. To their credit, the Commonwealth forces had maintained that proficiency.
My father, who served in the shadow of Korea, noted that an entire week of his Army training focused on close assault and hand-to-hand combat. Thus proving, once again, that armies always prepare to fight the last war.
So you are suggesting that US troops performed poorly because they couldn't hit, rather than lacking firepower? Surely that highlights the importance of suppressive weaponry providing a beaten zone of fire?
Haighus wrote: So you are suggesting that US troops performed poorly because they couldn't hit, rather than lacking firepower? Surely that highlights the importance of suppressive weaponry providing a beaten zone of fire?
My point was that US infantry doctrine and training were found deficient during the opening months of the conflict, which could account for discrepancies in casualty rates. The Commonwealth had better infantry doctrine, which compensated for less firepower.
Anyway, arcane LMG debates aside, last weekend I took my new deer rifle out to the range and sighted it in. This is a CVA Scout, a single-shot, break-action weapon, chambered in .44 magnum. I went out to the DNR range (that is, state-funded), and got a sense for its feel and got a reasonable group at 25 yards. The next step is to lock it in at 50 yards, which is the expected range of next fall's hunt.
It's a very basic, affordable rifle, complies with local hunting regulations, and the recoil is quite reasonable. I've shot .44 mag through a revolver and it can be...punishing. Through a rifle it still has some oomph, but isn't bad at all. The trigger was very nice.
Alas, I decided to take a canoe home, and it (and all my other guns) were drowned deep.
There are several bodies of water that should - according to local claims - be lined with layers of steel because of all the weapons that have vanished into their rather shallow depths.
Anyhow, the CVA Scout has lived up to my expectations of being handy, easy to use, inexpensive and accurate.
There are several bodies of water that should - according to local claims - be lined with layers of steel because of all the weapons that have vanished into their rather shallow depths.
Lake Erie would have more metal under the waves than Iron Bottom Sound.
(I mean, it *does*, because it's one of the Great fething Lakes and an epic ship eater on the scale of the Bermuda Triangle, but they're ships, not guns)
There are several bodies of water that should - according to local claims - be lined with layers of steel because of all the weapons that have vanished into their rather shallow depths.
Lake Erie would have more metal under the waves than Iron Bottom Sound.
(I mean, it *does*, because it's one of the Great fething Lakes and an epic ship eater on the scale of the Bermuda Triangle, but they're ships, not guns)
It is for Lake Superior but applies to all the Great Lakes, in the words of Gordon Lightfoot:
"Superior, they said, never gives up her dead
When the gales of November come early."
On that? How easy/advisable is it to try to restore a shooter that’s been in a lake for a decade or more?
I appreciate I’m gonna end up on a list somewhere from this question. But the power that be will just need to appreciate the only person in danger of me being near a shooter, is me.
Hard to say. Depends on shoota, state of said shoota, availability of spare parts, what parts need replacement ( as in, do you need special tools or does it require a particular treatment?)... Really can't say
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On that? How easy/advisable is it to try to restore a shooter that’s been in a lake for a decade or more?
I appreciate I’m gonna end up on a list somewhere from this question. But the power that be will just need to appreciate the only person in danger of me being near a shooter, is me.
There are multiple factors at work. One is the water - fresh or salt? Another is depth.
The Great Lakes - as the saying goes - are sometimes frozen, but always fresh. One reason why we have so many shipwrecks is that fresh water is less dense than saltwater. This (apparently) throws people off when determining the maximum safe load for freighters. I'm told that swimming in salt water is easier for this reason. All you Brits can laugh, but I've never gone swimming in salt water. Why would I? My home is almost entirely surrounded by fresh water.
I've seen some firearms restoration channels on youtube, and the very term "restoration" is fairly elastic because if you swap out enough parts, it's a rebuild, not a restoration.
That being said, steel is pretty easy to evaluate. If there is no visible corrosion, no rust, if the parts work, it's likely not a problem. Firearms are typically blued to resist corrosion, and conscientious owners also regularly oil and lubricate them, creating another barrier. The most important parts - the frame and barrel - are likely to be the most resistant, and the fragile ones (springs) can be replaced without much trouble.
Salt water absolutely destroys anything made of steel, bluing or not, so restoring something that has been in that for any amount of time is basically hopeless. Unless the gun was made of brass or had a titanium nitride coating its gone. Even a few drops of sweat will cause rust within a few hours.
Freshwater is much kinder and it'll boil down to how oxygenated the water is along with the temperature. A lox oxygen environment(like being buried in mud at the bottom of a lake) could keep a gun in fairly decent condition. And if the barrel is chromed it could potentially be undamaged, though any springs are unlikely to be as lucky as those are usually untreated steel.
If you're going to be pedantic and only consider the receiver, guns like glocks or ARs with polymer receivers will technically not care about any kind of water(nor would any aluminum receivers). Just replace the metal parts and good as new.
As an anecdote to this, salt being too aggressive to firearms, the FAMAS F2 designed for the Navy actually swapped a lot of metal parts for plastic ones to better resist salt induced corrosion.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: As an anecdote to this, salt being too aggressive to firearms, the FAMAS F2 designed for the Navy actually swapped a lot of metal parts for plastic ones to better resist salt induced corrosion.
Presumably the plastic parts were more fragile?
Corrosion works in strange ways, and it is dependent on local conditions. There are in fact functional firearms that have been salvaged of salt water, with the rifles of the U.S.S. Maine being an example. It just depends where and when.
The salt/fresh water thing works in weird ways. I've read that fresh water rots wood while salt water preserves it, and that sailing ships had to be 'rinsed' with salt water after rainfall. But at the same time, wood in fresh water can be remarkably well preserved. Many years ago Michigan passed a revised salvage law specifically because technology had reached a point where it was possible to salve logs from shipwrecks and river floats that happened a century ago. This was old growth timber, it had been packed down into the bottom, and was worth a fortune because of how rare such things are today.
The finish will also matter - "in the white" guns will suffer more quickly than ones that have been parkerized.
When I was a kid, I went on a tour of the salt mines beneath Detroit. Lots of perfectly preserved (but broken) equipment down there. I mean, salt is everywhere, but there's no moisture. They left the equipment where it was because it wasn't worth disassembling it and bringing it to the surface, so there was this museum of sorts.
I'm no expert in navy stuff, so I unfortunately can't delve in too much details, but fact remains that they did decided to swap as many metal parts as possible on the navy FAMAS. If somebody has got any experience in the navy and would like to give me more insight or why the french navy made a dumb move if it is useless, I'll be glad to listen.
I mean, swapping parts out for plastic isn't dumb if your goal is to increase resistance to hostile environments. Its only dumb if you also compromise the integrity of the gun, and then its not the idea that is the problem.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: I'm no expert in navy stuff, so I unfortunately can't delve in too much details, but fact remains that they did decided to swap as many metal parts as possible on the navy FAMAS. If somebody has got any experience in the navy and would like to give me more insight or why the french navy made a dumb move if it is useless, I'll be glad to listen.
My assumption is that the plastic resisted corrosion better but had some downside, such as a short service life. On or near a ship swapping them out frequently would not be a problem and their corrosion resistance would actually make them more reliable than otherwise longer-lived metal components.
Knowing a bit of France's position on the geopolitical stage, a desert deployment would not have the same risk profile - dust intrusion rather than rust is the main hazard, so plastic parts (which also might get soft in the heat) would not work.
Corrosive ammo creates salts as residue, and they have to be "boiled out" - flushed with hot water. It's a tribute to the discipline of British (and Commonwealth) troops that they were still using corrosive ammo in WW II and yet finding an Enfield with a shiny, nice bore is a non-event.
The bores on Mosins and Mausers, by contrast, are of more varying quality.
And the same is true of salt water, sweat, etc. It's not just exposure, it's the extent, duration and then other environmental factors. I think one of the reasons why people obsess about it is that safes, locked cases, etc. tend to be moisture traps. Unless you have some form of dessicant, they can be rust incubators.
I had a shotgun that I kept for years without any rust issues. I wiped it down after handling, but a bigger factor was the fact that it was in a very climate-controlled environment.
When it was in a 'natural' setting (no A/C), the same countermeasures failed because we had days where everything was dripping with humidity. Preserving its (damaged) finish then became a minor obsession, with frequent inspections and applications of rust inhibitors.
Another environmental change (A/C in the house) and it was a non-factor. I live in a fairly wet state, but have a whole house dehumidifier and if any of my guns lasted beyond their first outing (talk about an expensive hobby!), the chief issue is that the lubricant/protectant dries on them, so I need to be sure to give them fresh lubrication prior to use.
I've had the issue with my mosin locked in the safe 3 weeks while I was partaking in manoeuvres. Nobody home took it out of the same and it had been pouring the better part of these last 2 weeks. When I came and checked the barrel, I swear I could have fainted. Repetead cleaning, shooting, cleaning, finally helped, but seeing the cases after being shot, the chamber definitely took some damage. Fortunately, it is located at the top of the cartridge neck so no overpressure.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: I've had the issue with my mosin locked in the safe 3 weeks while I was partaking in manoeuvres. Nobody home took it out of the same and it had been pouring the better part of these last 2 weeks. When I came and checked the barrel, I swear I could have fainted. Repetead cleaning, shooting, cleaning, finally helped, but seeing the cases after being shot, the chamber definitely took some damage. Fortunately, it is located at the top of the cartridge neck so no overpressure.
Yikes! That's awful!
There are dessicant packs you can buy that are reusable. It changes color when it is saturated and you put it in your oven on low heat for a few minutes to dry it back out. I have one and I've only had to cycle it once because the dehumidifier and air movement in the house are so effective. I also save all the packs I get in packaging and throw them in the safe.
Another element is to store guns "wet." This went against my Army training, when we were told to clean them until they were shiny and not load them up with oil before returning them to the armory. I do the opposite - before putting them away, they get a final wipe down (especially including the bore) to give extra protection.
Oiling steel to prevent rust is standard in blade collecting.
I guess it could trap dust and grit in the moving parts of a firearm though that could need to be cleaned before using the gun. Most swords don't have actions. So in the context of military weapons, I can see why they'd opt for clean, ready-to-use firearms and control the storage environment instead.
Putting weapons away dry in a military context is also soldiers avoiding future cleaning, when the oil bleeds carbon from some unaccessible nook or cranny, that a gleeful SNCO will use as a reason to keep the detachment late scrubbing perfectly clean weapons 🙃
We had one who liked to use dental picks for his inspections.
To be fair, being a gun owner besides the army myself, I never did this and didn't endorse cleaning more than needed.
@Commissar I've got a set of such bags, I must say, that is awesome. Unfortunately as I was away no one dried them, which cause my mosin this much suffering :/. But I've now taken up the habit of oiling guns good and proper before putting locking them in the safe to ensure double factor protection.
hen I'm home, I usually have the guns take a bit of fresh air outside the safes as well.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote: Putting weapons away dry in a military context is also soldiers avoiding future cleaning, when the oil bleeds carbon from some unaccessible nook or cranny, that a gleeful SNCO will use as a reason to keep the detachment late scrubbing perfectly clean weapons 🙃
We had one who liked to use dental picks for his inspections.
Absolutely! We were told that if we put them away wet, the carbon they pulled out would result in a black sump. Not something you want the brigade sergeant major to see!
I got to be very good at rifle cleaning, and to this day, I recall with pride how the CSM held up his white-gloved finger after swiping the chamber of my weapon and said "That is a clean rifle!" to the complete satisfaction of my NCOs, who gazed at me with strange new respect.
In civilian life, such considerations are irrelevant. I know I'm never going to return a perfectly clean patch on weapons that saw action a generation before I was born. My keeping them well lubricated, I protect them from corrosion and excess wear.
I do not understand people who see how long you can fire an unlubricated weapon until it locks up. Who does this?
I always bring oil to the range and I can't count the times that I solved someone's weapon malfunctions by simply squirting CLP into the moving parts.
I always bring oil to the range and I can't count the times that I solved someone's weapon malfunctions by simply squirting CLP into the moving parts.
I used to keep a squirt bottle of CLP hanging behind my seat on my tank. Used it very liberally on my .50 and that thing never jammed, even in some pretty crappy conditions. Always take a bottle to the range to this day.
Oh God you are right, 50. Cal really needed to be generously oiled to function correctly. The very one time I hadn't time to do that properly, the ammo belt got stuck.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The salt/fresh water thing works in weird ways. I've read that fresh water rots wood while salt water preserves it, and that sailing ships had to be 'rinsed' with salt water after rainfall. But at the same time, wood in fresh water can be remarkably well preserved. Many years ago Michigan passed a revised salvage law specifically because technology had reached a point where it was possible to salve logs from shipwrecks and river floats that happened a century ago. This was old growth timber, it had been packed down into the bottom, and was worth a fortune because of how rare such things are today.
It is a feature of foundations for some buildings (e.g. the Taj Mahal in India). Big oak columns hammered into the wet ground as foundations. Now the water table to drying up and receding the columns are starting to fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Another element is to store guns "wet." This went against my Army training, when we were told to clean them until they were shiny and not load them up with oil before returning them to the armory. I do the opposite - before putting them away, they get a final wipe down (especially including the bore) to give extra protection.
Presumably the armourer would slather them in grease (oil, lard, sticky sugared drinks, etc.) if they were going in for longer term storage? Certainly until the 70's it was possible to find functioning small arms being washed ashore in France which well slathered in lubricant and well wrapped. I know the last time I was handed a L85 (SA80) A1 what awkward metal parts it had were treated for longer term storage.
For long term storage it is definitely better to absolutely slather a gun in cosmoline or something like it. Especially if you can't/don't want to climate control the storage location. It of course means the gun will take some labor to clean it out before it can be used again, which I suspect is why the US doesn't seem to do that for long term storage currently. We can afford to climate control the storage facilities and don't want to bother having to do deep cleans when the guns need to be used.
If you look up damage to tanks, there are often outward splashes of the armour. Especially in WW2 tanks considering the more conventional metal used back then. Just the physics of the situation does that effect.
Damage vs metal does tend to look roughly like that. It'll almost look like the round "melted" its way through the metal. Metal acts somewhat like a liquid in high speed impacts.
If you look ahead in this video you can see the impacts that bullets leave through steel. Roughly the 10 minute mark.
Rounds the have deformed are really hot afterwards, which is part of why those early WW II 40mm anti-tank rounds were effective - when they came through the other side, you'd get all kinds of messiness, not just a clean round hole. On the range, if you pick up a bullet right after it hits something and deforms, it's too hot to handle.
So much physics going on!
On another note, Steinel Ammo has a quantity of ammo for "shaved" Webley revolvers. This is .45 ACP that has been downloaded to safe pressures so you can use it with the moon clips. From time to time one sees adapters to permit the use of rimmed .455 (I fabricated my own), but this is cheaper than any .455 I've come across (probably because it uses standard .45 ACP casings, which are plentiful). Stock up while you can!
I have to say that while all of the publications I've read refer to .455 as a powerful cartridge with considerable recoil, it really isn't, especially fired from such a large frame revolver. The contemporary 1917 American revolvers chambered for .45 ACP are a lot snappier. I particularly covet the Colt model - as do a lot of people, which is why they are so pricey.
In other news, I've noticed that .32 revolver ammo is becoming both cheaper and more available. This is good news because I don't think any class of weapon is more affordable right now than .32 revolvers. Yes, some are suitable only for use as paperweights, but I think these have gotten something of a raw deal because of the American obsession with large calibers.
I've said this before, but shot placement is king. If you can fill the 10-ring with .32 S&W Long, that's much effective than a peripheral hit with .45 ACP.
Plus, in an urban setting, .32 Long is unlikely to go farther than the room.
I'm also experimenting with .32 S&W, aka .32 short. Dinky little cartridge for dinky little guns, but it's rated as similar to .22 LR or .25 ACP. I'm hoping to shoot some jugs in the near future and see what it does.
According to Wikipedia, .32 caliber pistols have made a huge dent in the ranks of emperors, presidents, and other important figures so they're clearly effective in certain circumstances.
According to Wikipedia, .32 caliber pistols have made a huge dent in the ranks of emperors, presidents, and other important figures so they're clearly effective in certain circumstances.
I wouldn't take that as evidence of its effectiveness over other firearms. I think its more of a commentary on the availability of .32 caliber revolvers.
I've said this before, but shot placement is king. If you can fill the 10-ring with .32 S&W Long, that's much effective than a peripheral hit with .45 ACP.
Plus, in an urban setting, .32 Long is unlikely to go farther than the room.
I mean, I don't think the overpenetration of .45 ACP is going to be much more than .32 long. Both are going to start tumbling once they hit stuff and lose their energy fast.
But if someone can't shoot straight with .45 I have doubts that they would shoot straight with .32 purely based on the caliber. It probably has more to do with the ergonomics of the gun than what caliber its actually shooting.
Comes down to what I've said before. Get the largest caliber that is comfortable for you to shoot. Which really has more to do with properly sizing the pistol to your own paws than what the gun actually shoots.
Grey Templar wrote: I wouldn't take that as evidence of its effectiveness over other firearms. I think its more of a commentary on the availability of .32 caliber revolvers.
The point I was trying to make is that is an effective round.
But if someone can't shoot straight with .45 I have doubts that they would shoot straight with .32 purely based on the caliber.
Man, you must run with a burly crowd.
Lots of people find .45 ACP too much to handle. Ken Hackathorn has said that the arthritis in his hands means that he cannot shoot full-power .45 ACP anymore. His max is 9mm, which he finds ironic because back in the day he as a .45 ACP superfan. Lots of people have grip issues or small hands, and happily there are options for them.
Comes down to what I've said before. Get the largest caliber that is comfortable for you to shoot. Which really has more to do with properly sizing the pistol to your own paws than what the gun actually shoots.
I guess my response is: what does it matter what caliber they use? Shouldn't people just go for what feels best? Something they enjoy shooting and are naturally better with? Some guys like to push themselves, put in the hours to dominate a heavier pistol, but most people just aren't that dedicated, and because they don't enjoy the heavier caliber, they go to the range less often.
Honestly, the only caliber I will argue against is .22 LR because rimmed ammo is inherently less reliable.
To put it another way, the problem you're trying to solve is people who were able employ their weapon, got good shot placement and had the ammo's ballistics let them down.
That group is vastly smaller than people who were less practiced at employing the weapon or missed the target.
Well yeah, you need to have a gun that is comfortable in your own hands. Which yes will be different for everybody. But, once you have found a gun that is comfortable if you have options for what caliber to get for that type of pistol I would always choose the larger one.
I think the main reason that a lot of people have issues with .45 is not because the round has a lot of kick. IMO it really doesn't. It has more to do with most .45 auto pistols being too big for those individual's hands so they can't get a good grip(which will cause issues no matter what caliber you are shooting). If someone has issues with a .45 1911, they're going to have issues with a 9mm 1911 because the grip size is what is the issue and not the round.
On the other hand, if they could find a pistol in .45 which fit their hands nicely then they would do better.
Naturally shot placement is important, but I think it is important to put as much advantage in your corner as possible. So if you can get a round which has a bigger margin of error its only going to help you, assuming stepping up doesn't cause you to lose control. But I doubt anybody who can put tight groups of 9mm or .32 is going to be dangerously off with .45.
Grey Templar wrote: Naturally shot placement is important, but I think it is important to put as much advantage in your corner as possible. So if you can get a round which has a bigger margin of error its only going to help you, assuming stepping up doesn't cause you to lose control. But I doubt anybody who can put tight groups of 9mm or .32 is going to be dangerously off with .45.
We run in very different circles. I know quite a few people - generally small-framed women - for whom .45 is too much. Remember, the superior energy that makes .45 acceptable to you has to come from somewhere. The slide can soften it, a robust frame can dampen it, but it's going to be felt.
I generally agree with you, and while it may seem like I'm extolling "mouse guns," I understand the advantage of accuracy AND power. I'm willing to put in the range time (and spend the money on ammo) to build that skill level, but a lot of people who are only interested in basic self-defense are not. For them, something simple and easy to use is the best option and I want to reduce the stigma (and there is one) on people who choose lighter calibers.
Over time, having built up skill and confidence, they may move up, but it should be at their pace.
Not gonna lie, unless you are literally fighting people dosed up on slaught, or rigged to the gills on some other bath salts type drug, a 9mm will knock most people down just as fast as a .45. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess very few people here have been shot with either. Being shot with anything sucks. Doesn't matter if it's a .454 casulle or a .9mm Kurz.
Yes, but Adrenalin is a hell of a drug and everybody gets it for free. This is of course splitting hairs here when it comes to caliber argumentation.
There is nothing wrong with 9mm, its perfectly acceptable. Some of the smaller stuff is where I am leery for people to be using. And IMO it is mostly down to the guns themselves for a lot of those smaller calibers just suck.
Reading up on Chinese small arms of the Second Sino-Japanese War, I came across funny little vignette that some here will appreciate.
In involves our favorite LMG, the CSRG 1915, aka the beloved Chauchat.
During the 1920s, the nascent Nationalist government was seeking arms from abroad but also attempting to build domestic manufacturing capability. To this end, they got the license and tech package to build the ZB-26, precursor to the Bren. The problem was that these were expensive and time-consuming to make, so the Chinese decided to try something easier and cheaper, which is where the Chauchat comes in. The Jinglin Arsenal apparently set up a line to make these chambered in 7.92x57mm, which was the standard in China at the time (they ran it through Gewehr 88s made in Hanyang).
After a 100 units were produced, they subjected them to trials, were horrified with the results, and abandoned the project.
Interestingly, they liked the Madsen a lot, bought 3,000 of them and then in the late 1930s bought a set of tooling to set up their own production. Alas, it was destroyed en route in June 1940 by a Japanese air raid on the Burma Road. Kind of a game-changing raid.
Clearly they recoiled in fear and terror when they beheld with loathing the thing that they had made.
There are photos, and it's about what you would expect.
Before it found an aquatic grave, I briefly owned a Chinese Kar98k, and it told a fascinating story. Totally non-matching serial numbers. Barrel and receiver built in 1945 at the 21st Arsenal. This pattern was known as a "Zhong Zheng Rifle" (named after the generalissimo) but his name has been struck out.
The stock was of German manufacture. Mostly illegible stampings on both sides of the butt, but the clearest indicates "Peoples' Militia."
Perhaps because it was a rebuild, the barrel isn't bad with rifling clearly visible.
No import stamp, so how did it get here?
My surmise: It was built by the Nationalists and was captured during the Civil War. Afterwards, the PRC did an overhaul and that's where it acquired a German stock (the Soviets had lots of spare parts to share).
They defaced the production stamp, issued it to militia, but pulled it out of storage during Korea and sent it to the PVA units there, which were largely made up of ex-Nationalist soldiers. It got captured by a GI, brought home and thrown in a closet until the estate sale.
The ones with the import stamp are easier - kept with the militia, saw "service" during the Cultural Revolution, sold off in the 1980s because they were so obsolete and more modern weapons were available in quantity.
But the unstamped ones must have been bring-backs because there was no way for an outfit like Interarms to sweep them up as they did in Spain and elsewhere. For a while I wondered if Taiwan sold them, but doing some research I leared that they hoard their weapons, even the old ones.
Which 28mm GW tanks could, due to the size of their gun (main or not) feasibly, against all sense and probably legality, have a real shooter mounted in its place?
Which 28mm GW tanks could, due to the size of their gun (main or not) feasibly, against all sense and probably legality, have a real shooter mounted in its place?
Probably the Leman Russ- canonically the gun is a 125mm cannon with the bulk due to a liquid-cooled barrel shroud.
...oh I see you mean mounting a small firearm in the actual model, not scaling up the model to full size.
Any of the assault gun vehicles should be relatively easy- Vindicator, Thunderer, Laser Destroyer (bonus points for laser pointer) etc.
Which 28mm GW tanks could, due to the size of their gun (main or not) feasibly, against all sense and probably legality, have a real shooter mounted in its place?
I used to have a 1:24 scale remote control M1A2 tank that fired airsoft pellets. I think mounting even a .22 in a plastic model would have issues with the rest of the model not withstanding the forces of the gun firing. But a Co2 or electric motor pellet gun would be doable...
Which 28mm GW tanks could, due to the size of their gun (main or not) feasibly, against all sense and probably legality, have a real shooter mounted in its place?
The problem is twofold: fitting the action into the model and also withstanding the recoil.
An obvious choice would be simply going with a rocket - no recoil and if heat-shielded (by foil), damage to the model would be minimal (the board surface is an entirely different matter).
I'm going to guess that the old "parlour guns" that fired pellets with nothing more than a primer would be okay. The only modern cartridge that I would trust would be .22 short.
To put it another way, one could conceivably encase an action within a plastic model, but the model might not stand up to it.
There's also the question of where the round goes when you fire it on the tabletop...
Plenty of real pistols would fit within various GW tanks and theoretically be capable of firing if you modified the gun, but would shatter the model with the recoil unless you strengthened and made them heavier.
Found it, it is actually referenced on Lexicanum. Chapter Approved (2004) has a schematic with the Mars-pattern turret listing it as a 120mm smoothbore cannon (I misremembered 125mm above). Battle cannon is a catch-all term for many similar weapons so other calibres probably do exist.
I too thought IA at first.
Edit: only 36 rounds for a water-cooled cannon? If that level of cooling is required for a weapon that can't put out that much sustained fire, it suggests the propellant is impressively energetic per shot.
Probably, because if not, a 120mm cannon 40 000 years in the future doesn't sound that impressive. And in a universe of space magic, pretty sure it would be fitting to imagine they found some bs ore to make retardedly powerfull shells/propellants
36 rounds may not sound like a lot, but its not unreasonable. Russian MBTs carry 40-42 rounds depending on the model. Leopard 2s and Abrams can carry 42ish depending on the model.
So its a little on the low side, but similar enough to modern/cold war design tanks.
Water cooling is of course completely unnecessary. However, maybe the cannon on the LRBT was originally designed for some sort of autoloading system, possibly on a different vehicle, where it would be potentially useful. The cannon was later incorporated into other designs including what would become the LRBT. The water cooling was kept because that is what the design for the cannon specified. And in the technological dark ages nobody understood the reason for the watercooling was no longer present and thought to remove it, they just followed the design to the letter.
Water cooling isn't going to necessarily harm the effectiveness of the tank either, other than adding a few hundred unnecessary kilos to the weight of the vehicle, so it isn't really a problem persay.
Grey Templar wrote: 36 rounds may not sound like a lot, but its not unreasonable. Russian MBTs carry 40-42 rounds depending on the model. Leopard 2s and Abrams can carry 42ish depending on the model.
So its a little on the low side, but similar enough to modern/cold war design tanks.
Water cooling is of course completely unnecessary. However, maybe the cannon on the LRBT was originally designed for some sort of autoloading system, possibly on a different vehicle, where it would be potentially useful. The cannon was later incorporated into other designs including what would become the LRBT. The water cooling was kept because that is what the design for the cannon specified. And in the technological dark ages nobody understood the reason for the watercooling was no longer present and thought to remove it, they just followed the design to the letter.
Water cooling isn't going to necessarily harm the effectiveness of the tank either, other than adding a few hundred unnecessary kilos to the weight of the vehicle, so it isn't really a problem persay.
I agree with this- I didn't think 36 rounds was a silly number, only that it would be difficult to get a conventional modern barrel to fail with 36 rounds, let alone super-durable far-future Imperial tank barrels, so why water cool it?
I did consider that they do water cooling because the STC says to water cool and to do otherwise would be tech-heresy, but I think it is much more interesting to consider that the water cooling is necessary because battle cannon shells have very spicy propellant loads
It’s not necessarily operating in earth-normal conditions. Cooling/heating jacket would be extremely useful in extreme temperature conditions even without sustained fire. Also one of the things about tank barrels is that any amount of differential heating along the barrel will affect accuracy. Challenger 2 has a thermal shroud to help with this, but a liquid cooling jacket would do the same thing.
Flinty wrote: It’s not necessarily operating in earth-normal conditions. Cooling/heating jacket would be extremely useful in extreme temperature conditions even without sustained fire. Also one of the things about tank barrels is that any amount of differential heating along the barrel will affect accuracy. Challenger 2 has a thermal shroud to help with this, but a liquid cooling jacket would do the same thing.
Flinty wrote: It’s not necessarily operating in earth-normal conditions. Cooling/heating jacket would be extremely useful in extreme temperature conditions even without sustained fire. Also one of the things about tank barrels is that any amount of differential heating along the barrel will affect accuracy. Challenger 2 has a thermal shroud to help with this, but a liquid cooling jacket would do the same thing.
Fair point. Solar Auxilia Russes operate in void environments, cooling shrouds would be very helpful there due to the lack of convectional cooling.
Haighus wrote: Fair point. Solar Auxilia Russes operate in void environments, cooling shrouds would be very helpful there due to the lack of convectional cooling.
I don't think heat buildup is a problem in the vacuum of space.
I think the answer is with the STC template, insofar as there were vehicles that could use them in rapid-fire mode, and so that jacket is included in all production models.
This is kind of like how the Lewis and Vickers were designed with jackets, but then lost them in aircraft mode. Now imagine Imperium's approach to this: "No, you can't take of the jacket because it's part of the template. What are you, some sort of heretic?"
I mean, the Imperium does a lot of stuff without knowing why. it's their way of life.
Grey Templar wrote:Well yeah, you need to have a gun that is comfortable in your own hands. Which yes will be different for everybody. But, once you have found a gun that is comfortable if you have options for what caliber to get for that type of pistol I would always choose the larger one.
I think the main reason that a lot of people have issues with .45 is not because the round has a lot of kick. IMO it really doesn't. It has more to do with most .45 auto pistols being too big for those individual's hands so they can't get a good grip(which will cause issues no matter what caliber you are shooting). If someone has issues with a .45 1911, they're going to have issues with a 9mm 1911 because the grip size is what is the issue and not the round.
On the other hand, if they could find a pistol in .45 which fit their hands nicely then they would do better.
Naturally shot placement is important, but I think it is important to put as much advantage in your corner as possible. So if you can get a round which has a bigger margin of error its only going to help you, assuming stepping up doesn't cause you to lose control. But I doubt anybody who can put tight groups of 9mm or .32 is going to be dangerously off with .45.
Interesting. I was always told that the advantage of the 1911 platform was the "slimness" afforded by the single stack magazine.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Not gonna lie, unless you are literally fighting people dosed up on slaught, or rigged to the gills on some other bath salts type drug, a 9mm will knock most people down just as fast as a .45. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess very few people here have been shot with either. Being shot with anything sucks. Doesn't matter if it's a .454 casulle or a .9mm Kurz.
This,I can agree with. The best self defense handgun is the one that you can hit with.
1911s are very slim side to side, but thats really only relevant to its concealability.
The grips are longer front to back compared to something like a Glock or other 9mm pistols which can impede people with small hands from operating them well(the total circumference of the grips is bigger than most 9mm pistols). Though usually only in terms of running the mag release. If you're using a proper two handed shooting grip anybody should be able to use one. The recoil isn't going to be bad unless you have extremely tiny hands and can't get a good grip at all.
Haighus wrote: Fair point. Solar Auxilia Russes operate in void environments, cooling shrouds would be very helpful there due to the lack of convectional cooling.
I don't think heat buildup is a problem in the vacuum of space.
I think the answer is with the STC template, insofar as there were vehicles that could use them in rapid-fire mode, and so that jacket is included in all production models.
This is kind of like how the Lewis and Vickers were designed with jackets, but then lost them in aircraft mode. Now imagine Imperium's approach to this: "No, you can't take of the jacket because it's part of the template. What are you, some sort of heretic?"
I mean, the Imperium does a lot of stuff without knowing why. it's their way of life.
Actually, heat buildup is a huge problem in a vacuum. Objects can only lose heat via radiation in a vacuum, which takes a long time. Convection is the most efficient way to cool an object down, and obviously liquid/solid contact is better than a gas at convection. There would be a hard limit to that though, a water shroud is going to help but its only going to prolong the issue of operating the gun in a vacuum. You'd probably need to replace the water after a half dozen rounds as its not going to cool fast at all or you'd risk bursting the container as it boils.
Guns work fine in a vacuum as modern propellent has its own oxidizer. But the heat build-up is going to be a problem. Here on Earth we have the luxury of a nice atmosphere to cool guns down naturally. That would definitely be an issue in space or in other less conductive atmospheres.
But yeah, I really like the idea of it being a by-product of the STC template.
Well, as said by commissar, could be both: a useful countermeasure to ensure the gun's operability in all condition, with the imperium keeping doing it because "if you don't add it to the gun then the gun's machine spirit will be upset and become to lazy to work under void circumstances plus you're a heretic PUT THIS BACK ON IMMEDIATLY IN THE NAME OF THE OMNISSIAH"
Grey Templar wrote: 1911s are very slim side to side, but thats really only relevant to its concealability.
The grips are longer front to back compared to something like a Glock or other 9mm pistols which can impede people with small hands from operating them well(the total circumference of the grips is bigger than most 9mm pistols). Though usually only in terms of running the mag release. If you're using a proper two handed shooting grip anybody should be able to use one. The recoil isn't going to be bad unless you have extremely tiny hands and can't get a good grip at all.
An added complication is the grip safety. It's not enough to hold it in your hands, one must hold it with positive front-back pressure.
Another issue is that people with slender frames tend to "limp wrist" auto-loaders. These actually require a firm grip to function correctly. If someone is unable to control that recoil, the weapon will move in their hands, resulting in stoppages and/or jams. I've seen otherwise fit guys limp wrist guns simply because they aren't maintaining a firm enough grip.
I like 1911s, but they aren't for everyone. It's a lot easier to teach someone to shoot a .22 LR revolver than a 1911, and it is likewise easier to move them up the revolver ladder until they feel comfortable with something like .38 special than push them into trying a .45 ACP.
I start new shooters with an M4 type rifle in .22. No felt recoil, very fun to shoot. Handguns I start with one of the 9mm, as I don't have anything smaller except a .38 revolver but it serves anti-snake duty and I rarely have other than snake shot for it. Never had problems teaching new shooters.
When teaching new people, do you prefer to start with what platform? I have zero experience of this, only ever had to fire rifles of whatever type. But is their an advantage/disadvantage in starting with a pistol (revolver/automatic), rifle (bolt/semi auto) or shotgun?
My random thoughts: 2 things to consider: handguns are generally harder to shoot correctly in my opinion, and while this is intendant to make the rest of us laugh when we hand the biggest caliber we can to a beginner, we acknowledge that this has subzero educational value. Not too much recoil at once. Ease of use (as in pushing the right buttons and racking to correct lever) seems irrelevant to me as anyone with enough braincells left to walk should figure it out with an explanation.
On a serious note I'd actually let someone shoot a gun with moderate recoil as my ak for the feel and to lose fear of the recoil. For actually learning to shoot straight, 22 is the real deal: affordable and smotth to let you train in shooting fundamentals.
If someone is brand new to guns entirely, I would always recommend a rifle.
Seen too many videos of people getting handed a pistol or revolver that is way too large for them and they end up shooting it, it recoils back and they end up bump firing a second round somewhere other than downrange. Also why its a good idea to pull a Barney Fife and only give them 1 round when they are doing a pistol.
Shotguns are also something to wait till they're a little more comfortable. Too many videos of people getting laid out on their butts or having the gun smack them in the face.
The_Real_Chris wrote: When teaching new people, do you prefer to start with what platform? I have zero experience of this, only ever had to fire rifles of whatever type. But is their an advantage/disadvantage in starting with a pistol (revolver/automatic), rifle (bolt/semi auto) or shotgun?
For either handgun or rifle, .22 LR is hard to beat.
For shotgun, .410 or 20 gauge are reasonable loads. With long weapons, one has to consider the size of the stock vs the size of the person. Even if the recoil is mild, having your arm at maximum extension is not exactly comfortable.
One of my (adult) daughters is so petite that she will need a "youth model" shotgun to use it comfortably.
Among handguns, revolvers are the way to go. They are simplicity itself. No weird buttons, levers, chambering, magazine, etc. to worry about. Put the rounds in the cylinder, close it and then pull the trigger. Double action is a bit much? Then thumb the hammer back.
I have a friend who struggles mightily with auto-loaders, but with a revolver he feels entirely at home.
Part of the reason I favor calibers like .32 is that they are so comfortable for novices to use, yet they are more reliable than rimfire, and pack enough punch to be useful.
The_Real_Chris wrote: When teaching new people, do you prefer to start with what platform? I have zero experience of this, only ever had to fire rifles of whatever type. But is there an advantage/disadvantage in starting with a pistol (revolver/automatic), rifle (bolt/semi auto) or shotgun?
I almost always start with the .22 M4 I mentioned.
Shotguns are also something to wait till they're a little more comfortable. Too many videos of people getting laid out on their butts or having the gun smack them in the face.
By smaller, do you mean smaller gauge or smaller physically?
A 20-gauge or .410 kicks a lot less than a 12-gauge. A sawed off 12-gauge kicks like a mule, though it is dependent on what load you have.
Buddy of mine has a 20-gauge break action which I can comfortably one hand arm extended like a pistol. I wouldn't dream of doing the same if it was in 12-gauge.
The_Real_Chris wrote: When teaching new people, do you prefer to start with what platform? I have zero experience of this, only ever had to fire rifles of whatever type. But is there an advantage/disadvantage in starting with a pistol (revolver/automatic), rifle (bolt/semi auto) or shotgun?
I almost always start with the .22 M4 I mentioned.
Is that cost? I have only ever fired the demo 5.56 with no gadgets and bling from the small arms room at Shriv and the recoil didn't seem to be a problem - but that was only a dozen or so rounds as it was part of a serial trying to get us to understand doctrine differences with the US. Is next to no recoil better for getting people to ease in? How long before you have them learning to deal with heavier recoil?
Some people can have a real fear of recoil but it usually goes away pretty quickly. I wouldn't see any issue in starting with 5.56 but starting with .22 won't harm anything. But it could depend on the person in question. They might be extra nervous with 5.56 from a mental standpoint so smaller could be better for them. Preconceived notions do surround that caliber.
Grey Templar wrote: Some people can have a real fear of recoil but it usually goes away pretty quickly. I wouldn't see any issue in starting with 5.56 but starting with .22 won't harm anything. But it could depend on the person in question. They might be extra nervous with 5.56 from a mental standpoint so smaller could be better for them. Preconceived notions do surround that caliber.
People are also sensitive to noise, and even with protection, 5.56 can be pretty loud if one is not used to it.
AR platforms also have the "ka-ching" of the bolt cycling, which some people find disturbing.
A Ruger 10-22, on the other hand is small, light and fairly quiet, with minimal recoil. It's a reasonable choice as a training aid and also fun for small game and target work.
AR platforms also have the "ka-ching" of the bolt cycling, which some people find disturbing.
Well, actually, when I first shot the HK416 for a couple of time, that sound was making me mad as it rattled in my ears with the pitch of cray on a schoolboard.
Hopefully I unheard it after a few session. But did I hate that noise from the bottom of my heart.
The_Real_Chris wrote: When teaching new people, do you prefer to start with what platform? I have zero experience of this, only ever had to fire rifles of whatever type. But is there an advantage/disadvantage in starting with a pistol (revolver/automatic), rifle (bolt/semi auto) or shotgun?
I almost always start with the .22 M4 I mentioned.
Is that cost? I have only ever fired the demo 5.56 with no gadgets and bling from the small arms room at Shriv and the recoil didn't seem to be a problem - but that was only a dozen or so rounds as it was part of a serial trying to get us to understand doctrine differences with the US. Is next to no recoil better for getting people to ease in? How long before you have them learning to deal with heavier recoil?
I have a Walther/Umarex M4 made to fire .22. I have a red dot sight on it, and it is co-witnessed with the iron sights. New shooters get some instruction, and then I give them the gun with a 30 round magazine. I stand slightly behind and to the left so I can see safety clearly and see how they are aligning sights/aiming and see how rifle is being held/trigger is being squeezed. The no recoil put them at ease, and the almost guaranteed hits as long as they get the 'how to aim' concept (it is zeroed to drive nails...) makes it fun. We shoot at steel targets (some pictures of my range in this topic) so there is a satisfying feeling as the targets move when hit, and actual round placement doesn't need to be perfect to move the plates.
After that magazine is done, depending on their level of comfort I'll move them on to a 5.56 version. After a couple mags of that I typically pull out the M1A SOCOM 7.62 with a 16 inch barrel. The muzzle device on it really lessens felt recoil to close to what the 5.56 feels like but it is LOUDER and knocks the crap outta the targets that the .22 barely moved and the 5.56 hit nicely. Then we get to handguns most of the time.
Bottom line, we're running through .22 to 5.56 to (sometimes 7.62 NATO) to 9mm in an hour or two of range time. I have a 9mm SIG MPX that serves as a good transition from the rifles to pistols too. A lot less recoil than 5.56 and get them into the pistol calibers. "Okay, now this (Glock/Taurus/Springfield/etc) is also 9mm, just like you just shot."
CptJake wrote: Bottom line, we're running through .22 to 5.56 to (sometimes 7.62 NATO) to 9mm in an hour or two of range time. I have a 9mm SIG MPX that serves as a good transition from the rifles to pistols too. A lot less recoil than 5.56 and get them into the pistol calibers. "Okay, now this (Glock/Taurus/Springfield/etc) is also 9mm, just like you just shot."
