Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Open question: is there any military sidearm with a worse "field strip" method than the Type 14 Nambu? Routine cleaning requires full disassembly.

What a nightmare.

Probably not. Nambu's are by all accounts terrible guns in every aspect.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Probably not. Nambu's are by all accounts terrible guns in every aspect.

The one I shot was accurate and had low recoil.

But when I shot a water jug with it, a .380 put it to shame.

Not Japan's best military product.

I hear Arisaka rifles are quite impressive.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Probably not. Nambu's are by all accounts terrible guns in every aspect.

The one I shot was accurate and had low recoil.

But when I shot a water jug with it, a .380 put it to shame.

Not Japan's best military product.

I hear Arisaka rifles are quite impressive.

Depends severly on production run.

Early ones are, late war are not.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Depends severly on production run.

Early ones are, late war are not.

The "last ditch" rifles have issues, but there's literally decades of production before that. After the war, Allied ordnance officers had an informal competition to see which bolt action was the strongest. The Arisaka won decisively.

That's not surprising, because the Arisaka is really just an overbuilt Mauser action.

Which brings us to an interesting question: which bolt action was the most popular? The Mosin had some 37 million rifles to its credit, but how many did the Mauser derivatives get?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Which brings us to an interesting question: which bolt action was the most popular? The Mosin had some 37 million rifles to its credit, but how many did the Mauser derivatives get?

Mauser, no question. In pure numbers the Mosin gets the benefit of Soviet wartime production not ramping up the SVT-40 in time but it was an overly complicated evolutionary dead end design and nobody outside of Soviet puppet states wanted it. The Mauser and its clones (1903, etc) were adopted by a bunch of different countries and its derivatives are still in production.

If you're talking pure numbers of a single model, the Mosin is the more numerous. The Mauser pulls ahead if you count derived rifles all as "Mausers" despite them having different model numbers and names.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Depends severly on production run.

Early ones are, late war are not.

The "last ditch" rifles have issues, but there's literally decades of production before that. After the war, Allied ordnance officers had an informal competition to see which bolt action was the strongest. The Arisaka won decisively.

That's not surprising, because the Arisaka is really just an overbuilt Mauser action.

Which brings us to an interesting question: which bolt action was the most popular? The Mosin had some 37 million rifles to its credit, but how many did the Mauser derivatives get?

Questionable again since the design got simplified multiple times during the war to save ressources before we even enter last ditch rifle land. But it is, if you get an early or interwar one, one of the most beautiful and nicest working pieces of engineering. That said i prefer things with straight pulls and magazins, hence my K31... which reminds me, i really want a diopter one...

Anyways, last ditch rifles is also a good topic. Sometimes they are surprisingly interesting.

Generally I've heard that even the last ditch K98ks are quite good guns. The Germans at least knew what they could and could not sacrifice and keep the gun nice and functional. The Japanese, a little less so with the Arisakas...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Generally I've heard that even the last ditch K98ks are quite good guns. The Germans at least knew what they could and could not sacrifice and keep the gun nice and functional. The Japanese, a little less so with the Arisakas...

Afaik what i know is that the K98 wasn't part of the last ditch effort, it got simplified but not overly unlike the arisaka typ 99 which honestly got from a design perspective butchered (mostly removal of bajonet socket and cleaning utensils vs. basically everything on the arisaka), compared to the Volksturm-Waffenprogramm.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Generally I've heard that even the last ditch K98ks are quite good guns. The Germans at least knew what they could and could not sacrifice and keep the gun nice and functional. The Japanese, a little less so with the Arisakas...

Afaik what i know is that the K98 wasn't part of the last ditch effort, it got simplified but not overly unlike the arisaka typ 99 which honestly got from a design perspective butchered (mostly removal of bajonet socket and cleaning utensils vs. basically everything on the arisaka), compared to the Volksturm-Waffenprogramm.

Yes, the Kar98k was mostly simplified in terms of finish and secondary materials, using stamped rather than forged triggers guards, removing the disassembly disk and putting a hole in the butt plate, etc.

The true German last ditch stuff was the semi-auto rifles the SS bigwigs organized. Crude doesn't even cover it.

It's interesting to note that the British "last ditch" was in the summer of 1940, and Lend-Lease helped soften the desperation.

I find the Republican weapons made during the Spanish Civil War interesting. The Astra 400/Model 1921 pistols made in Barcelona machine shops are fascinating. Not sure I'd dare fire one, though.

It all still falls under "last ditch" in my book, but yes it was far less intense than other guns suffered. Hence why they're still perfectly functional guns.

The biggest thing you are trying to do with last ditch weapons anyway is mostly to save on man hours, not necessarily materials. The fewer actions you have to take to make a functional gun the more guns you can make in the same amount of time. Its easier to do that without compromising the weapons quality with a bolt action than a stamped semi-auto.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

It's interesting to note that the British "last ditch" was in the summer of 1940, and Lend-Lease helped soften the desperation.

Like the Sten MkII. Other marks were... ok, but the MkII was rough plumbing with a trigger.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest thing you are trying to do with last ditch weapons anyway is mostly to save on man hours, not necessarily materials. The fewer actions you have to take to make a functional gun the more guns you can make in the same amount of time. Its easier to do that without compromising the weapons quality with a bolt action than a stamped semi-auto.

I think you're trying to save on everything, including materials and energy resources. Some ores were difficult to work with and obtain, so if you can avoid using them, that's a huge win.

That's why you see SMGs being so popular as well as "intermediate" cartridges, which run at lower pressures so you can make weapons with lower-grade steel and use less of it overall.

Compare the Thompson to the M3 "Grease Gun" and you've captured the essence of the thing.

Generally the truly hard to get stuff is not being made into small arms. Its going into tanks and artillery.

The real reason SMGs are popular is because they are easy to make compared to the firepower you get. Intermediate cartridges are popular because of the firepower increase not because they are cheaper and let you make "weaker" guns with less materials.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Intermediate cartridges are popular because of the firepower increase not because they are cheaper and let you make "weaker" guns with less materials.

Not entirely true. Caliber reductions for SMGs did make it easier to build cheaper guns with lower material requirements because dropping to a pistol caliber SMG allowed the use of simple blowback actions that wouldn't work with a rifle caliber weapon. You might still need the same high quality materials for the barrel and chamber but the rest of the gun can be made out of low-quality stamped sheet metal. You simply can't make a grease gun clone in a rifle caliber no matter how desirable the firepower is.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Intermediate cartridges are popular because of the firepower increase not because they are cheaper and let you make "weaker" guns with less materials.

Not entirely true. Caliber reductions for SMGs did make it easier to build cheaper guns with lower material requirements because dropping to a pistol caliber SMG allowed the use of simple blowback actions that wouldn't work with a rifle caliber weapon. You might still need the same high quality materials for the barrel and chamber but the rest of the gun can be made out of low-quality stamped sheet metal. You simply can't make a grease gun clone in a rifle caliber no matter how desirable the firepower is.

Ammunition components were very much a factor in production decisions. If you think about the millions of rounds being produced, having shorter cartridge casings, smaller bullets and using less powder is a pretty big deal. Compare the component cost of 7.62 Tokarev or 7.62x39 to 7.62x54R. Both the Germans and the Russians were under such a crunch for materials that they experimented with alternative bullet composition.

The US was better off, but still removed copper coinage from circulation. Pennies were made from steel during the war years.

Will no one rid me of these stupid Taurus Judges?

I'm scanning .410 gauge ammo and 90 percent of it is stupid buckshot/slug combos for "self-defense" because everyone obviously dresses in such a way as to conceal a two-pound heater in their pocket.

Some of us actually have a real, no-kidding .410 shotguns. We do silly things that require different loads and I look back fondly with 3" loads for trap shooting were readily available.

I hate the Judge with the white-hot fury of 1,000 suns.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'm scanning .410 gauge ammo and 90 percent of it is stupid buckshot/slug combos for "self-defense" because everyone obviously dresses in such a way as to conceal a two-pound heater in their pocket.

But what else are you going to carry when your AR-15 pistol is a bit too large to fit in your tactical swimsuit?

Interestingly, I only use 7 or 8 shot in my Judge since it is the Anti-Snake gun. All that self defense ammo is too pricey and not as good for my purpose. The only other person I know who has a Judge uses his for the same thing and carries similar shot.

 CptJake wrote:
Interestingly, I only use 7 or 8 shot in my Judge since it is the Anti-Snake gun. All that self defense ammo is too pricey and not as good for my purpose. The only other person I know who has a Judge uses his for the same thing and carries similar shot.

I'm not going to lie: I think the Bond Arms snake guns are kind of cool. They're absolutely on my "money to burn" list of purchases.

But it is frustrating to see a huge segment of .410 ammo being nothing more than revenge fantasies for dudes who could get superior ballistic performance, magazine capacity and accuracy out of a 9mm Hi Point.

I too dislike the 2 inch barrel Judge, but the 6 inch barrel is almost decent. I've used it for rabbit, squirrel, and pigeon, and it's nice to have a couple 45LC along for racoons.

Without wanting to set off a “macho” debate?

For those familiar with legal firearms, how good do you reckon you be at identifying and gauging a given weapon with maybe a second or two’s glance?

As ever, I’m genuinely not going anywhere with this. All I know is I’d see something vaguely gun shaped, besmirch my pantaloons, and then hide as best I could.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Without wanting to set off a “macho” debate?

For those familiar with legal firearms, how good do you reckon you be at identifying and gauging a given weapon with maybe a second or two’s glance?

As ever, I’m genuinely not going anywhere with this. All I know is I’d see something vaguely gun shaped, besmirch my pantaloons, and then hide as best I could.

I'm pretty good at it. Whenever I see a shoot 'em up movie, I'll blurt out whatever's on the screen, often with commentary about how downloaded the ammo is so that it can be fired on full auto with zero barrel rise.

It's something of a competitive sport in my social circle. My daughters are now getting into the act. ("Hey dad, that's an MP 40, right?" "Yep, could catch."

Of course, sometimes the same gun isn't used from scene to see (I'm thinking of Indiana Jones movies specifically), so you think it's a Smith, but then it's a Colt in the next scene, and then a Smith again.

And modern autoloaders have something of a dreary sameness about them. Glocks are easy to spot because they are so ugly.

Old revolvers can be hard, because you can't always see the cylinder release, which often gives it away (though this can mislead you since Taurus revolvers were built on the same machinery as Smiths).

I’m gonna nod and agree with all of that.

But for once, I know something about something in this thread and will Super Nod And Agree on the Paw and Weans bonding stuff!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m gonna nod and agree with all of that.

But for once, I know something about something in this thread and will Super Nod And Agree on the Paw and Weans bonding stuff!

For those who care, you can check your answers at the internet movie firearms database, (imfdb.com) which is uneven in parts, but a pretty good resource.

Good times for me tomorrow. Got the Folkestone Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.

Not necessarily firearms related, but as it includes…

Local News wrote:Starting at 1.25pm, the stirring flypast will feature the wartime Lancaster, Hurricane and Spitfire planes. This will be followed by the stars of the show, the eight Hawk jets that form the Red Arrows and their jaw-dropping aerobatics between 2.20pm and 2.50pm.

Must see if I can find my folding chair. It’s looking to be a toasty afternoon, and even if I don’t need it myself, it’s a useful thing to have in case of elderly or pregnant peeps in the crowd.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Good times for me tomorrow. Got the Folkestone Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.

Not necessarily firearms related, but as it includes…

Local News wrote:Starting at 1.25pm, the stirring flypast will feature the wartime Lancaster, Hurricane and Spitfire planes. This will be followed by the stars of the show, the eight Hawk jets that form the Red Arrows and their jaw-dropping aerobatics between 2.20pm and 2.50pm.

Must see if I can find my folding chair. It’s looking to be a toasty afternoon, and even if I don’t need it myself, it’s a useful thing to have in case of elderly or pregnant peeps in the crowd.

There are some parallels between surviving aircraft and vintage firearms. Generally, the inexpensive, lower-tier items have become very rare, just as Hurricanes - mainstay of the RAF in 1940, are very few in number.

Value is often simply a function of popularity rather than scarcity. Lugars and Colt 1911s extremely common yet also command premium prices vs far more rare items.

Pretty sure I saw a Spitfire doing what I must assume was a test flight the other day.

The genuine joys of living on the Kent Coast!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure I saw a Spitfire doing what I must assume was a test flight the other day.

The genuine joys of living on the Kent Coast!

Not so fun when the V-1s were doing test flights, though.

By the way, if you know any heavy-handed gents in the area, take care.