Posted On:1/01/2006 11:42am
thin firing pin from what i have read
Posted On:1/01/2006 3:18pm
Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
You'll have to elaborate.
and humble, too!
Posted On:1/01/2006 7:18pm
Style: Systema, BJJ, Arrestling
I hate 1911s because I'm a glock guy and the 1911 makes a fool out of me sometimes, especially when my sniper/human encyclopedia brother loves them. As far as holsters go, DeSantis is one of the best out there, and for about 50$ you will be able to carry it for the rest of your life.
BJJ wins again!
Posted On:1/02/2006 12:15am
Czechs . . . South Africans. . . they all talk funny.
Posted On:1/02/2006 5:12pm
Style: Arnis, judo, Taichi
Originally Posted by Dusty Larson
.45 ACP 1911's are good handguns....military used to have them, but as far as I know USMC now uses the M9 Baretta (which is known to armed forces members as being crap). Why they changed it, I don't know.
The reason the US government went to the 9mm is two fold. First it is easier to teach people to shoot a 9mm in training do to the lighter recoil.
The other reason I have heard is that one of the generals at the Penatagon decided to adopt the philosopy that the German army about pistols in the second world war. This was the idea that pistols are unlikely to kill on the first shot (huh?) so it is better to build a wounding pistol. The idea being that if you wound an enemy the it takes four other to take care of him. :bduh:
If I had to choose which is a legitimate reason I would go with the first since the second is hearsay. I did hear it from the Cheif of police in Commerce City Colorado, and he is a guru though.
Posted On:1/03/2006 10:11am
As for why it picked the Beretta in particular...well...the story goes the powers-that-be already made up their minds about what they wanted. Despite the fact that the old, beat-up, worn-out 1911s refused to fail the tests, they kept changing the tests so the Beretta would do better.
Yeah, that sounds like the way government handles things.
Posted On:1/03/2006 12:45pm
That "wounding" concpet isn't far fetched at ll, just applied to the wrong type of weapon. Rifles with long range make good wounding weapons, hence the .223 - the enemy is more likely to respond to a wounded man if they are far from enemy fire. With the range that pistols are used at, "ambulation after death" becomes a concern, so the faster they're DEAD dead, the better.
Posted On:1/03/2006 12:53pm
1. Pistols are indeed unlikely to stop on the first shot. That goes for the mighty .45 as well.
2. The main reason for the U.S. to go to the 9mm was that our NATO allies all use it. We threw a hissy fit and refused to standardize on 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) when we decided we needed to replace the M-14 rifle (which was itself a consequence of our refusal to adopt the excellent FAL rifle, now known as the "Right Arm of the Free World.")
We wanted to use the Stoner AR-10 design, but we wanted to use it with a lightweight, shorter-range cartridge. So we adopted the .223 and strong-armed NATO into going over to the same caliber--the military calls it 5.56mm NATO for that reason.
When we needed a new pistol (and we did need new pistols, even if they'd been new 1911 pistols) it was decided that we needed to standardize.
3. There are a million theories as to why the Beretta was adopted. This is the first time I've heard the "wounding pistol" theory, though. Doesn't mean he's wrong, because people do silly things.
Posted On:1/03/2006 2:11pm
That's the closest I've heard anybody come to blaspheming the m14. Careful, Don.
Posted On:1/07/2006 8:34am
Oooohhhh, you're not going to like this, but my personal opinion (and I'm in no way an expert, so take this with a grain of salt) is that the M14 is slightly overrated. Its legend has grown over the years because it was such a great gun for NRA High Powered Rifle competition. Serious rifle shooters of that era therefore learned that it's the ultimate gun. The same people tend to figure that the FAL is an OK gun but nothing to compare to the M14 or the M1A, and I chalk that up to the fact that not many people in the U.S. were accurizing FAL's for HP competition in those days. Now that the AR15 is dominating most HP competition, I predict less and less nostalgia over the greatness of the M14.
There's nothing wrong with an M-14, necessarily, but it was the wrong rifle for the times and that's why it didn't survive. We could have adopted the FAL 280, which our NATO allies wanted, in an intermediate cartridge, which our allies wanted, in the 1950's. It was a straight-line stocked, ergonomic, accurate, light, handy rifle which could be chambered in a smaller caliber than 30.06--all the things we later cited in adopting the M16 in 5.56.
It was NOT fragile, subject to a variety of interesting stoppages, difficult to clean, extremely intolerant of dirt, or prone to "shitting where it eats" by blasting gases and carbon fouling right back into the action. Its adjustable gas pressure means that even if the crud does start to build up, you have options. All advantages the M16 did not share.
The M14, cool though it is, is still just a Garand with a box magazine. The Garand was a great firearm, too, in its day, but by the time the M14 was adopted, the era of fighting wars with heavy, walnut-stocked rifles with high borelines and chambered for serious rifle calibers was over. The M14 was, at best, the equivalent of a Trapdoor Springfield--a transitional weapon bridging two very different eras. The Trapdoors were pretty good guns, too, but they weren't repeaters and the Krag was a huge step forward after them.
The difference here is that the transition of the M14 was not necessary. The next generation was right there and our allies were pushing us to buy it, but we refused.
Don't get me wrong. I like the M14. I'd like to get an M1A, and the only reason I probably won't is the cost. I can get an M1 Garand from CMP for less than $500 and have basically the same gun without the detachable box magazines. The M1A is $1000-and-up gun, and I don't own ANY $1000 guns because I'm poor. And cheap. Mostly cheap.
Right now, I have a dad with an M1 Garand who lives nearby, which is in some ways far superior to owning the gun itself. ;)
EDIT because I forgot one very important difference between the M1 Garand and the M14--FULL AUTO, baby!
Doesn't really apply to me, though. I don't have much use for full-auto. And as the Army discovered, full auto is not really necessary in a battle rifle, which is why the U.S. military went to three-round bursts. Keep in mind, that was from the M16, which allowed a soldier to carry a whole lot more ammunition than the same soldier with an M14 could do. If full-auto turned out to be an ammo-waster when you're carrying 300 rounds of .223, it could only be worse when you're carrying 100 rounds of .308.
Last edited by Don Gwinn; 1/07/2006 9:01am at .
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info