Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The M1 Garand - The Gun Of The Week
world.guns ^

Posted on 09/21/2013 3:22:22 PM PDT by virgil283

"The story of the first semi-automatic rifle ever widely-adopted as a standard military arm began after the start of the First World War, when the inventor John C. Garand (Canadian, then living in USA) began to develop a semi-automatic (or self-loading) rifles. He worked at the government-owned Springfield armory and during the 1920s and early 1930 developed a number of designs."


(Excerpt) Read more at world.guns.ru ...


TOPICS: History; Hobbies
KEYWORDS: banglist; m1garand
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-122 next last
To: virgil283

My favorite rifle is an M1 Garand collector’s grade (all original parts and finish) purchased from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It was manufactured at the Springfield Armory in 1954.

It’s hard to put into words, but there is something very satisfying about handling a battle rifle made of steel and wood, and firing an 8-round clip of .30-06 M2 Ball ammo. The sights are easy to use, the recoil is surprisingly light, and even with its original barrel this old U.S.G.I. service rifle is very accurate.


81 posted on 09/21/2013 8:25:39 PM PDT by 04-Bravo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

Doesn’t matter what the barrel length is of the gun you don’t own. /grin

Since I don’t have any faith in the friends my moron nephew chooses, I decided a little preemptive lesson was in order. I took him to my private range for a little demonstration of a home defense pump. Ran some slugs through it, 00 buckshot and #4 buckshot. I let him shoot it at some treated 4x4s and cinder blocks. I then asked him if he thought some of the homes in my area owned shotguns, would he ever consider breaking into *any* home in the area. Har har. That would be a negative. My attitude regarding intruders was made pretty clear. I doubt that he would allow anyone he knows to think of my home as a potential target.


82 posted on 09/21/2013 8:44:58 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: virgil283

Not only a work of genius, but a work of art, as well.


83 posted on 09/21/2013 9:20:07 PM PDT by Jack Hammer (American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

That is a winning weapon. If I had to pick one rifle to go into battle the SOCOM 16 would be it, end of story.


84 posted on 09/21/2013 9:36:00 PM PDT by TsonicTsunami08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
They're different in appearance first of all and where the M-16 can hold 20 or 30 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition, the M-1 can only hold 8 rounds of .30 caliber ammunition When an M-16’s ammo clip(’’magazine’’) has been expended (fired) the empty magazine must be removed by the person shooting. When an M-1's ammo clip is expended the breech on top of the rifle,(where you load in the clip)snaps open, locks in place and a spring automatically ejects the empty clip. All the person firing the weapon needs to do is put in another full clip, pressing it in firmly with one’s thumb, which returns the spring at the bottom of the rifle to its previous position unlocking the breech which snaps back in place and the rifle is ready to fire. However many GI found out the hard way that if you didn't get your thumb out of the way fast enough it might nearly get broken. Soldiers came to calling this the “M-1 Thumb’’.

The M-16 has whats called a ‘’selector switch’’ which can allow the shooter to fire single shots or fully automatic. The M-1 doesn't have this. The M-1 fires as long as you keep pulling the trigger. The M-16 is a lighter weight rifle where the M-1 is rather heavy. The M-16 is a high velocity weapon. This means the round(bullet) travels fast, I'm not sure of the fps(feet per second) ratio but a high velocity round hits hard, however, as our guys came to find out you could put a few rounds in an enemy and he might not go down right away. The M-1, as far as I know, I could be wrong , is a low velocity rifle however the .30 caliber round it fires is an awesome piece of ordinance. The stopping power and penetration of the M-1 is legendary. You could shoot that thing through a house or a cars engine block and it will do some awesome damage. You just need to hit someone with one round M-1 round and they're taking a permanent ''dirt nap''.

85 posted on 09/21/2013 10:47:03 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

When the Marines hit Guadalcanal beach in mid/late 1942 most of them had M1903 (variant) Springfields.


86 posted on 09/22/2013 7:46:45 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Look up BAR!


87 posted on 09/22/2013 8:40:03 AM PDT by Recompennation (Constitutional protection for all not just selectively for Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RC one

I believe that there is room for both the M14 and the M16 in the U.S. arsenal. The M16 was designed for more in close fighting while the M14 is better at the longer distances and is still preferred by marksmen (snipers) for that ability.

The U.S. has machine guns utilizing the NATO 7.62 rounds because of their greater range, accuracy and stopping power.

Unfortunately, the military favored the M16 for it’s lighter weight of both the rifle and the ammo with the lighter and smaller ammo allowing the soldier to carry more of it. On the other hand, the smaller and lighter ammo just doesn’t have the stopping power of the larger and heavier 7.62 round.

During the Viet Nam war I believe that it was the larger 7.62 round which had a variation which contained two projectiles within the cartridge which when fired not only sent two projectiles down range but also caused the leading round if not both to tumble which gave the weapon much greater effect to the degree that it was capable of completely severing an arm completely.

I suggest the following links for much better info:

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/vw_m16.html

http://m14forum.com/ammunition/52047-duplex-round.html


88 posted on 09/22/2013 8:57:57 AM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
If my memory serves me correctly my late Leatherneck father told me that when he entered the Marines in WW2 there were insufficient Garands to go around and he trained with a Springfield.

Yep, the Marines always got the hand me downs. The M1 was adopted in 1937 as the main battle rifle of the USA but production was slow, in addition the marines didn't think any rifle was as accurate as the Springfield. Supplies went to the army, but On Guadalcanal the Marines learned the value of the M1 and when the Army showed up carrying them the Marines "acquired" a number of Garands from the army, much to the armies ire.

89 posted on 09/22/2013 9:51:34 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RC one

“It’s hard for me to find any serious faults with the 30/06. It’s heavy and has a bit of recoil. That’s about it IMO. I like 308 win for most applications but, the fact remains, anything the .308 can do, the 30/06 can do a little bit better. ...”

Each nation cooked up its own bore diameter and cartridge design preferences in the period 1888-1903; tiny differences in size and shape were closely guarded military secrets but it is impossible in retrospect to assign clear advantages to one over another. None are “inherently” more accurate, more reliable, nor more effective than any other. National pride?

In the realm of sporting cartridges, the 30-06 has the edge over the 308 in capability to fire the heavier bullets, up to 220 gr weight. The 308 is generally recognized to top out with 180 gr bullets; beyond that weight, the bullet’s rear portion begins to intrude on the propellant charge space, limiting powder capacity.

It’s said that the 308 enjoys an edge in accuracy. My own experiments tend to confirm this; when I installed a 7.62x51 chamber sleeve in a very old, very rough, very tired 1917 Enfield, group size shrank by 50 percent at 50m, the only range I tested.

The late Jeff Cooper, USMC reservist, gun writer, tactical innovator, and sniper wannabe, asserted on paper in the early 1980s that the 30-06 was “15 percent better all around” than the 308. Very feasible when it comes to sporting rounds, but the military ammunition situation was an entirely different story.

Immediately after NATO was formed in 1949, all WWII combatant nations were still looking for more modern weapons and cartridges to issue to their ground forces. Many favored the approach the Nazis had taken nearly 20 years earlier: a cartridge of the same bore diameter and head size as the prior-standard “full power” round, with 1/3 less bullet weight, and a cartridge case just over half as long.

Everyone wanted a rifle-size arm (11 pounds or lighter, 40 inches or shorter) with a large capacity (20 rds plus) magazine, capable of full auto fire at need. During WWII istelf, demands from US front line forces (PAC theater especially) grew very loud for a rifle shorter than the M1 and lighter than the BAR, with a 20-shot magazine and full auto capability. Ordnance Corps designers made up several test pieces, but were still struggling when peace broke out in 1945.

The UK was notable in looking at smaller bullet diameters, but the US - then the biggest big dog in the Free World - insisted on 7.62mm, and a cartridge case just 1/2 inch (12.7mm) shorter than the admittedly admirable 30-06. MIL STD 7.62x51mm loads use a very slightly lighter bullet (officially 147-149 gr, most 7.62 NATO bullets tip scales at 145-144 gr, all boat tail) than the 30M2 (then still the current 30-06 rifle round, 152-153 gr flat base), but both at a muzzle velocity of 2750 ft/sec.

So the 7.62 NATO was still a “full power” cartridge; its size, weight, and energy pushed most early auto rifle designs to the very limit. The CETME 58, HK G3, and FAL all began as rifles sized to the 7.92x33 Kurz of StG44 infamy; when uprated to handle 7.62 NATO, all are strong and durable enough, but are gruesomely heavy, clunky in handling, and only marginally capable in full auto. Beretta’s BM59 - an M1 development - was the only rifle to deal with the handling headaches, thanks chiefly to the shorter 7.62 NATO cartridge and a much shorter barrel. It’s brawny but still quite heavy, muzzle blast from the stubby barrel is truly exciting, and full-auto fire is still pretty marginal.

Bumbling about longer than any other nation, the US Ordnance establishment was nevertheless unable to come up with anything more imaginative than the M14: a “product-improved” M1 tipping the scales at 11 pounds loaded, yet a little longer than the M1 despite a shorter barrel, and a shorter action made possible by the new shorter-than-30-06 cartridge. It never really measured up as a full-auto arm, and the weight limit was beaten (barely) by paring down the dimensions of many other components, to the point where it seems a little too spindly and fragile to some users. The wishes of the front-line forces of 1943-45 never came to much.

The half-inch shorter cartridge case of the 7.62 NATO compared to the 30-06 matters little to the average sporting rifle shooter, but it made entire universes of difference in the domain of military armaments: rifles and machine guns could all be made shorter, and lighter. Very, very important in cost and soldier battle loadouts - with no loss of effectiveness.


90 posted on 09/22/2013 11:32:43 AM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

jmcusa posted:

“...The M-16 is a high velocity weapon. ... a high velocity round hits hard, however, ... an enemy and he might not go down right away. The M-1, ... low velocity rifle ... stopping power and penetration of the M-1 is legendary....”

dglang posted:

“...The U.S. has machine guns utilizing the NATO 7.62 rounds because of their greater range, accuracy and stopping power.

Unfortunately, the military favored the M16 for it’s lighter weight of both the rifle and the ammo with the lighter and smaller ammo allowing the soldier to carry more of it. On the other hand, the smaller and lighter ammo just doesn’t have the stopping power of the larger and heavier 7.62 round. ...”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Stopping power” is a concept worshipped by most of US civil gun culture, but it has no formal definition and has resisted all attempts at quantification.

5.56x45 NATO in US M193 loading (original M16): 55 gr bullet, 3250 ft/sec

US Rifle Cartridge, cal 30, M1906 (30-06): original loading 150 gr bullet, 2700 ft/sec. 30M1 loading: 172 gr bullet, circa 2550 ft/sec; 30M2 loading: 153 gr bullet, 2750 ft/sec

7.62mm NATO, US M80 loading: 147 gr bullet, 2750 ft/sec.

So muzzle velocity varies some 20 percent, highest to lowest.

All three are “high velocity” in that they leave the barrel at multiple times the speed of sound (nominally 1140 ft/sec at sea level, varies with temperature).

Peter G Kokalis, longtime gun writer and one of the few military shooters who has attempted to discuss small arms ordnance in terms the average civilian gun owner can grasp, claimed circa 1990 that the 5.56 was more effective inside 100m than either 30 cal round (we can likely take 30-06 and 7.62 NATO as identical, in issue ammo); effective against unarmored human targets, that is. This was, he stated, because the M193 bullet would fragment on impact, where the 30 cal bullets would go clean through. The best predictor of incapacitation of an enemy hit by a bullet is energy transfer to the target; the 5.56 thus gave up most of its 1290 ft-pounds on fragmenting, while the 30 cal bullet (roughly three times as massive) gave up a small fraction before exiting the target to dump whatever remained of over 2300 ft-pounds of energy on the background.

Please note: “best” predictor does not mean “perfect”.

Tradeoffs are unavoidable.

The 5.56mm round has a far shorter effective range: 450m compared to 600m for the 7.62mm bullets (1100m for high-accuracy and tripod-mounted machine gun applications). No terminal-effects research has come to light, to confirm (or deny) the “harder hitting” theory. Possibly because humans vary so much in size, organ and bone mass and positioning, metabolic state, state of excitement, and the impossibility of collecting repeatable data.

Each 5.56mm round weighs only half what a 7.62mm round weighs; hence, any given soldier could carry twice as much ammunition while humping the same weight. This dovetailed with the firepower theories being promulgated in the 1950s, in US Army training and doctrinal development circles. Namely, aimed fire means little, therefore put as many rounds into your target’s general vicinity as possible. With this constraint, a bullet that was “good enough” on hitting was the key. All in all, it was deemed better to carry more shots than to risk running dry. Most fired rounds missed anyway.

US machine guns chambered 7.62mm NATO because that was what was being issued at the time of their development. Considerations of shot-for-shot effectiveness and range did not drive the situation.

Various agencies did undertake various projects from about 1960 onward, to improve the effective range and terminal effectiveness of the 5.56mm bullet. Many were built with use in machine guns in mind. The variety of possible “improvements” was pretty broad, from higher-velocity needle-like projectiles, to bullets of larger diameter loaded into the 5.56x45mm cartridge case, to cartridges of different calibers and sizes (23 cal, 243 cal, 257 cal, 264 cal, 27 and 28 cal to name just a few). Telescoped ammunition (bullet inside case), flechette rounds, and multi-bullet rounds were tried out, as dglang pointed out.

No increase was discovered in effectiveness, at least not to a level that would justify the expenditure of adopting a different rifle and cartridge, then rearming the military.

The US M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (developed from FN’s Minimi) was developed on purpose, chambering 5.56mm NATO, to give US foot troops more of a sustained fire capability without forcing soldiers to carry mutually incompatible ammunition. Primary feed device is a disintegrating link belt, but M16 box magazines can be used instead, enhancing interoperability inside the fire team.


91 posted on 09/22/2013 12:36:20 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: schurmann
The US military has quietly re-adopted a scaled-down version of the M-14 using the .30 caliber round. It's been issued to Navy Seals and Delta forces. "It puts their dicks in the dirt every time'' is the universal opinion on it.
92 posted on 09/22/2013 12:51:20 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
The M1 is a battle rifle, full powered round (7.62x54 30.06) for longer range engagements. The M-16 is a select fire rifle (assault rifle) that fires a mid-power load (5.56x45 or, nominally, .223) for high rate of fire at medium range.

The 30.06 is the standard for American big game rifles, the .223 is illegal for deer in most states.

Someone will pick a nit with all that no doubt.

The lighter weight of the M16 and the ammunition means one can carry more rounds with them. The shorter effective firing range of the M16 was not handicapped by firing lots of rounds at a hidden enemy in the jungle. I'll take the M14 in open plains warfare.

93 posted on 09/22/2013 1:44:37 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Good to know. What is the official nomenclature? I’d like to learn more. Thanks.


94 posted on 09/22/2013 2:43:00 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Don't twerk me, Bro!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
The shorter effective firing range of the M16 was not handicapped by firing lots of rounds at a hidden enemy in the jungle.

Agreed. I has been pretty good in most situations.

I'll take the M14 in open plains warfare.

Agree, but I will have to settle for an M1.

95 posted on 09/22/2013 3:17:17 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: schurmann
The 7.62 NATO round is great but I can still find no fault with the 30/06 other than the fact that it is slightly heavier and has slightly more recoil. Neither of those are an issue to me. In terms of advantage versus disadvantage: the ability to shoot the heavier bullets gives it an advantage; the extra case capacity gives it an advantage; the ability to stick a chamber insert into a 30/06 chamber and shoot the NATO round out of a 30/06 rifle gives it a big advantage in terms of ammo availability; the designation as a hunting round also gives it an advantage as far as ammo availability goes. There was no .308 win or components to be found anywhere during the recent panic but the hunting rounds could still be obtained which has me thinking that we need more AR10s/15s chambered in calibers like .243, 270, 22-250,25/06, 30/06, and 300 win mag for example.

I have shot plenty of 30/06 bullets. I have never noticed it to be inherently inaccurate. Same for the .308 win of course.

96 posted on 09/22/2013 5:07:00 PM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: RC one

“... the ability to shoot the heavier bullets gives it an advantage; the extra case capacity gives it an advantage; the ability to stick a chamber insert into a 30/06 chamber and shoot the NATO round out of a 30/06 rifle gives it a big advantage in terms of ammo availability; the designation as a hunting round also gives it an advantage as far as ammo availability goes. ...”

Let us first be clear on military versus sporting applications.

Few civilian users care about the greater length of the 30-06 cartridge versus the 308, but the military cares a very great deal about such details. Pure considerations of rifle action length rarely bother non-military users, but it is an accepted engineering fact that any given receiver design can be manufactured shorter for a shorter cartridge, hence stiffer for a given weight. Stiffness improves accuracy potential. There’s a reason that fewer serious competitors use 30-06 rifles every year, compared to 308 (or 5.56mm).

The 7.62 NATO/30-06 chamber insert was developed for the US Navy, to convert M1s to the shorter cartridge before M14s were available in any quantity for shipboard arms lockers. It was abandoned in very short order, as it was found that no one could make the insert stay in the rifle, except by radically altering the original chamber (FN provided the “final solution” by reaming out the 30-06 chambers and installing oversize inserts, under cryogenic prep if I recall correctly). Such conversions rendered the rifle permanently incapable of firing the original cartridges. Most experienced people recommend avoiding the inserts today, for safety reasons: they have a bad habit of staying with the shorter case on extraction, even in bolt action rifles. No practical advantage in terms of ammunition flexibility exists, set against that sort of safety risk.

Every military organization abandoned the heavier bullets (180 gr and higher in 30 cal) before 1940, for standard issue rifle cartridges (US, Germany, France and UK did so well before WWI). They simply could not be driven fast enough to produce a usefully flat trajectory, and their effective range was actually less than the lighter, pointy bullets. “Full power” rifle cartridges were abandoned as military rounds after 1930 because average troops simply could not estimate range closely enough to exploit the extended ranges possible.

Note to shooters: even little bullets like the 5.56mm run out of effective range because the trajectory becomes so curved that few users can score hits. Even tiny errors in range estimation cause the projectile to fall short or go over. The bullets still have plenty of steam and can do serious damage at extreme ranges (4000m plus), but that matters little to military users, if there are no hits.

Nearly every military organization is now equipped with heavier weapons, that offer higher hit probability at range, fire warheads that can do much greater terminal damage, and can be controlled in action far better than can individual troops armed with rifles. No matter how effective an individual might be, armed with an older style rifle and “full power” ammunition, it is simply no longer worth it in a military sense.

None of this applies to an individual armed with a rifle, for hunting or defense situations.

Heavier 30 cal bullets find US military application nowadays only in specialist situations, as with the Army’s Marksmanship Training Unit and its program for snipers armed with 300 Winchester Magnum rifles.

Incidentally, AR10 platforms cannot chamber the long standard-head cartridges like 25-06, 270, or 30-06; they are simply too long to fit. 7.62mm NATO barely makes it, and the platform still has to be enlarged above the M16 size receiver components. 300 Winchester Mag is out of the question.

Very short centerfires like 22-250, 250 Savage, or 300 Savage still won’t work in an M16 dimensioned rifle: case head diameter is still “Mauser standard” (rim size 0.473 inch), hence too big for an M16 size bolt. Upper limit for an M16 size bolt is around 0.422 inch, that of the 6.8x43 or 30 Rem.


97 posted on 09/22/2013 7:10:14 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

“The US military has quietly re-adopted a scaled-down version of the M-14 using the .30 caliber round. ...”

Scaled down? In what dimensions?

One presumes they’re using 7.62 NATO, as the M14 never did chamber any more “original” 30 cal, neither the 30-40 nor the 30-06.

Various industry sources surmised that the frantic search for individual weapons with greater effective range began circa 2006. By then, the M14 was out of the NSN system and MIL STD parts were not to be found anywhere.

Modular style stock systems have been developed by enterprising US manufacturers, but they weigh far more than any original stock, and cost more than a basic rifle.

But then, no one has ever accused USN of system procurement that is either straightforward, speedy, efficient, or cheap. And when it comes to USSOCOM, no one will ever know what they’ve done, nor why (certainly not the average citizen). One hopes that the public does not react with an angry backlash, and that the effectiveness enhancements have been worth it.


98 posted on 09/22/2013 7:22:45 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
I'm could be wrong but I believe it's called the Ruger Mini 14. The Air Force Sea/Sar teams use it as well and because of poor stopping power of the 9mm pistol certain branches of the military are allowing the use of the .45 pistol(but you, the soldier or marine have to buy your own.) In an article I read, either on Front Page Magazine or maybe here, the intell units of the Army and the Marine Corps conducted some extensive examination of the regular Iraqi Army and Republican Guards as well as the irregular forces like the Fedyeen Saddam and their fighting abilities , small unit tactics and their over-all competence on the battlefield. While the regular army units put up little organized resistance, having experienced the might of the US military in 1991, the Republican Guard did attempt to engage Coalition forces using mortars and some artillery, but they too didn't see the sense in being butchered for a dying, despotic regime and either surrendered or simply took off their uniforms and went home.
They did happen though to score a Sunday punch however when using spotters and cell phones, managed to get the coordinates of the 3rd Inf/Mech's Tactical Operations Center and hit it with a Frog-7(free range over ground) missile. It caused some casualties but it was up and running again in an hour. It was the performance of the irregular forces that intrigued the intell guys the most. All most all of them were either from Egypt, Syria or Yemen with no real training at all. They had little or no understanding of fire and maneuver and almost always presented themselves as targets. Our soldiers and marines told stories time and again of having put four or five and sometimes more rounds into these guys from M-16s and they just keep coming. When engaged with the 240 machine guns or .50 cals, they went down and stayed down but it was disconcerting for them to see how little effect the high velocity 5.56 mm on some of these jihadis. And the 9mm Bereta? One soldier said, ''that thing did little more than piss them off''. What was discovered though in autopsies on the jihadis is that they were pumped up full of amphetamines, pain killers tranquilizers , all kinds of dope so they wouldn't feel pain that much. Kind of a ''poor mans'' body armor. What the jihadis who surrendered were afraid of and in awe of was the almost unerring aim of our soldiers and marines when they were engaging the enemy using their rifles. Some of them thought our guys possessed some kind of ''evil magic''.
99 posted on 09/22/2013 7:36:07 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: schurmann
The over-all length of the rifle is not what it originally was. The barrel length is shorter, I'm not sure how much, the stock has been made shorter and some variants have a folding stock. And yes you're correct it's the 7.62 round.The .45 caliber pistol is also made a quite come back. The need for the old reliable heavy caliber punch became evident in the ‘90s after Somalia when it was learned that the sand demons were chewing ‘’khat’’ or using amphetamines and one or two rounds of 5.56 did little more than just drill holes in them. The Navy uses the old standard M-14 and "Ma Deuce'' for shooting floating sea mines. Experience patrolling the Persian Gulf in the nineties, when Iran was causing trouble with their little ‘’dinghy-boat’’ navy taught a sharp lesson to the Navy that even though high tech is great, low tech weapons can wreck havoc.
100 posted on 09/22/2013 7:50:43 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-122 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson