Posted on 05/24/2015 12:41:01 PM PDT by OK Sun
U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) made headlines recently when he introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 1735). The amendment allows for the transfer of surplus 1911A1 handguns to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) for sale to the general public.
Last week, in response, the U.S. army released a white paper voicing “concern” over this amendment and claimed that there would be “potential negative impacts on public safety from the large amount of semi-automatic and concealable pistols that will be released for public purchase.” These concerns included the traceability of the firearms after sale, and the applicability of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Public safety concerns revolved around the fact that there is “no statutory requirement or record keeping obligation for CMP,” which could make it difficult for federal agencies to track some firearm transfers, once they are completed.
As John Richardson of No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money notes, though, the Civilian Marksmanship Program has stringent standards that must be met by an individual before they can acquire a firearm from this program. These firearms are not released to any person who inquires – they must be non-prohibited persons and meet CMP’s eligibility requirements. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at firearmspolicy.org ...
Luckily, I did not have to carry one, but the ones we fired in boot camp were certainly that way.
Your tight pistol won't function when exposed to the filth of combat. Tight guns are why so many self proclaimed experts criticize the 1911 platform as unreliable. Those rattling pieces of junk shoot well enough to hit a man at 50 yards and then some. When that is needed, if you are shooting X rings, you are shooting too slow.
I still have my Norinco. It now has a lot of Colt parts and operates flawlessly. It's more accurate than me!
>>If you accept the figures, yes. Personally I think the truth is considerably worse than that.
The actual CPI says that $250 in 1990 is $452 today, so I agree with you that the truth is considerably worse.
>>Your tight pistol won’t function when exposed to the filth of combat. Tight guns are why so many self proclaimed experts criticize the 1911 platform as unreliable. Those rattling pieces of junk shoot well enough to hit a man at 50 yards and then some. When that is needed, if you are shooting X rings, you are shooting too slow.
Glocks, Sigs, and Berettas work fine in combat and they are tight guns. Many self-proclaimed experts believe the myth that a “combat gun” must be a loose gun that rattles when you walk. I honestly can’t see why you got your panties in such a wad over my original comment. I did not insult your precious 1911. I was only commenting on the state of the government’s 1911s. I have owned several 1911s, used them in competition, and continue to own a few. They are plentiful and not too expensive these days, so why would I want to play the CMP lottery and jump through all the government hoops to get a gun that is probably going to require a complete overhaul?
But if I was going out to door with a handgun to a gunfight, I would choose a different gun because, as you have said, a gun that drills the X-ring is not a good combat pistol and a finicky racegun is not a real combat pistol. I would go out the door with my Glock if I knew I was going to be fighting. It will hit a man at 50 yards, it is unquestionably reliable beyond any other gun out there, it has capacity, and I trust it.
OUR taxes paid for them already anyway. They BELONG to We The People.
But hey... why should we should let facts get in the way, right?
You could take that US Army 1911 and shake it and there was so much slop it would rattle, even when the breech was “locked” if such a word is appropriate.
Yeah, Fast and Furious, Baltimore...
I remember reading a year or so ago that South Korea had (actual) tons of Korean War-era rifles they wanted to return to the USA, but Una Paloma Negro held it up.
I’d like a surplus M1 or Springfield ‘03.
I’d LOVE an old 03A4 Springfield.
Gibbs Rifle Company makes near-perfect reproductions from original parts. Take a look:
http://www.gibbsrifle.com/1903-a3_rifle.html
These are fine shooters. Buddy of mine has one. It’s a tack driver.
Here’s another one setup like the originals:
http://www.gibbsrifle.com/1903-a4_sniper_rifle_.html
That thing looks the b*lls!!!
It’s freaking beautiful.
Wood and steel... like a Rifle should be.
Now, chamber it in 7.62x51 NATO so it’s round off the ground capable, and you gots a REAL winner...
I like it!
Can you fire .308 (7.62 x 51) out of an M1 (7.62 x63)?
There are some M1 Garands chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO; they’re modern made. I believe IMI makes - or made - them; also, Fulton Armory, too.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1-Garand.aspx
There was also a conversion kit, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
.30-06 is 7.62x63mm long; NATO .308 is 7.62x51mm. Quite a difference.
I’m sure there’s some old gun guys out here who used that conversion... believe the Navy had a bunch of them for a while.
That’s cool!
I was thinking, if one was out of 30.06, could you fire .308 out of a Garand?
Put California state senator Leland Yee in charge of distributing them.
No, headspace is different, cartridge length is different... Not advisable.
The round itself is the same; it’s the cartridge length that is the show stopper.
Personally, I’ve always liked the .30-06 better. But I’m just old school....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.