Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: MtnClimber
2 posted on
12/31/2016 9:30:27 PM PST by
MtnClimber
(For photos of Colorado scenery and wildlife, click on my screen name for my FR home page.)
To: MtnClimber
3 posted on
12/31/2016 9:30:27 PM PST by
MtnClimber
(For photos of Colorado scenery and wildlife, click on my screen name for my FR home page.)
To: MtnClimber
Wonderful firearm. I love the look, the feel, the historic aspect, but alas, I cannot appreciate its accuracy myself, because I can’t hit the broadside of a bull’s ass with a handful of peas.
I enjoy breaking it down and cleaning it, love the design.
4 posted on
12/31/2016 9:36:00 PM PST by
rlmorel
(Orwell described Liberals when he wrote of those who "repudiate morality while laying claim to it.")
To: MtnClimber
I have one made in 1942 and has British Markings on it. I assume it was a “lend lease” rifle.
To: MtnClimber
No mention of the Chauchat machine rifle? LOL
7 posted on
12/31/2016 9:40:15 PM PST by
2ndDivisionVet
(You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
To: MtnClimber
8 posted on
12/31/2016 9:40:27 PM PST by
headstamp 2
(Fear is the mind killer.)
To: MtnClimber
My dad said that at the beginning of the war when he was in boot camp they had Springfields.
13 posted on
12/31/2016 9:51:57 PM PST by
ChildOfThe60s
("If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there")
To: MtnClimber
It was the rifle I used in basic training at Ft Ord in 1961. It was very loud, especially with one’s ears a few inches from where the round fired. I’m still half deaf in my left ear, the one left exposed when I fired prone on the firing range. I pressed my right ear against the stock and thus saved most of my hearing in it, though it caused me to “bolo.” In 1961 no ear protection was used at Ft Ord. I guess it was thought to be only for sissies. I tried putting cotton in my ears. A Sargent asked me who told me to put it in. “Nobody, Sargent,” I answered. “Get it out,” he ordered.
15 posted on
12/31/2016 9:56:47 PM PST by
luvbach1
(I hope Trump runs roughshod over the inevitable obstuctionists, Dems, progs, libs, or RINOs!)
To: MtnClimber
The advantage of the M1 Garand was its semi-automatic loading of rifle cartridges. That meant you could fire a lot more rounds per minute than the bolt-action German Karabiner 98k rifle, which proved critical in many battles.
20 posted on
12/31/2016 10:01:39 PM PST by
RayChuang88
(FairTax: America's economic cure)
To: MtnClimber
21 posted on
12/31/2016 10:02:05 PM PST by
Lurker
(America burned the witch.)
To: MtnClimber
M1A’s is the civilian model of M14.
24 posted on
12/31/2016 10:08:29 PM PST by
Big Red Badger
(UNSCANABLE in an IDIOCRACY!)
To: MtnClimber
Bang
Bang
Bang
Bang
Bang
Bang
Bang
Bang...
PING!
CC
26 posted on
12/31/2016 10:09:50 PM PST by
Celtic Conservative
(CC: purveyor of cryptic, snarky posts since December, 2000..)
To: MtnClimber
I had an old family friend who was one of the M.O.H. awardees from Iwo Jima. He carried a Johnson rifle and said he preferred it to the Garand. I got to hold it but never fired it so I have no olinion.
30 posted on
12/31/2016 10:23:41 PM PST by
CrazyIvan
(Fidel and Che are together again, and it ain't on a t-shirt.)
To: MtnClimber
hussein hasn't allowed any to be brought back in for the past 8 yrs so they are virtually unobtainable through CMP.
I believe S Korea has 500,000 that they want to give back.
The pRESIDENT said he was afraid they would "fall into the wrong hands.
Yeah, ours!
46 posted on
12/31/2016 11:27:24 PM PST by
Eagles6
(My weapons are lubricated by liberal tears.)
To: MtnClimber
47 posted on
01/01/2017 12:01:41 AM PST by
mylife
(The roar of the masses could be farts)
To: MtnClimber
I thought the Browning machine gun was the gun that wreaked havoc on the enemy, no?
48 posted on
01/01/2017 12:03:01 AM PST by
Bob434
To: MtnClimber
Love mine. Shot it in a 1000 yard match. Killed a few animals too.
Ed
51 posted on
01/01/2017 12:30:03 AM PST by
husky ed
(FOX NEWS ALERT "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" THIS HAS BEEN A FOX NEWS ALERT)
To: MtnClimber
To: shibumi
54 posted on
01/01/2017 1:36:35 AM PST by
Salamander
(Beyond the palace hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard...)
To: MtnClimber
Never having been in combat or even fired a rifle I probably shouldn’t be commenting here but you guys are all experts so perhaps you can help me out.
I have read somewhere that the semi-automatic aspect of the rifle (am I right in saying it was the first semi-automatic issued as standard infantry rifle to any army?) was a drawback and led to tremendous expenditure of ammunition and much less accuracy.
Troops under combat might be expected to blast away emptying clips without proper aim, whereas a well-trained infantryman with a bolt-action will take more care firing fewer and better aimed rounds.
Probably incorrect given that all armies around the world have adopted automatic rifles since WWII but an interesting theory if anyone wants to comment.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson