I Find a Gun-Law Loophole Posted by: Dale Franks
on Saturday, December 09, 2006
After the parade this morning, we went over to Del Mar, where the Crossroads of the West Gun Show was being held at the county fairgrounds. I wasn't prepared to buy anything. Indeed, I only had two dollars in my pocket. That caused some friction with The Lovely Christine, by the way, when we saw that we needed $8 to park the car, then another $9 per person to enter the gun show.
Still, we got into the show, and were just walking around, looking at all the stuff, when I saw it.
"It" was a beautiful, Springfield Armory M1 Garand. It is an original, built in the late 40s or early 50s, according to the seller. Not only was it in wonderful shape for an issue weapon, with a beautifully oiled and attractively burled walnut stock, the owner only wanted $900 for it. In comparison, some of the other Garands at the show, in much worse shape, were selling for $1200 and up. Indeed, even a brand new Springfield M1 sells for $1299 retail, plus tax and transfer fees, a total of around $1450.
As it turns out, this was not a booth for a gun store, but rather a private party owner who was just there selling off some of his personal collection. When I asked him if nine bills was the lowest price he'd give me, he knocked it down a bit to $875. He said that since it wasn't WWII vintage, it wasn't as collectible, so the price was lower. I opened her up and the bore was in absolutely pristine shape. Moreover, because he was a private party seller, there was no sales tax or transfer fees. And, get this, because the rifle was over 50 years old, there was no waiting period. I could buy it and simply walk out with it, and save $575 compared to the cost of a new Springfield Armory model.
The one drawback: he would only take cash.
I had to have it. I simply couldn't walk away.
I did though. I walked right out to my car, went to the bank, and pulled one grand out of my savings account. then I went back to fairgrounds—paying yet another eight bucks for parking, the greedy county bastards—walked back to the booth, and laid down my $875. He not only forked over the Garand, he threw in a free Gunsock with it.
Then I went over to another booth, and picked up 12 en bloc clips for a few bucks. I chose 12, by the way, to hold 96 rounds, the WWII basic combat load for an infantryman. At another booth, I picked up a nice, thickly-padded, ballistic nylon rifle case for $10. Well, I was done with the gun show. I had gotten a nice little treasure and was ready to go home.
Then, on the way out, I saw an ammo booth that was selling 500-round boxes of honest-to-God Lake City government .30-06 ball for $160. So, there went the rest of my money. The .30 caliber round of 1906 can be relatively expensive to acquire, so I couldn't pass it up.
So, here's my new acquisition.
Here it is from a different angle that shows off the attractive burling on the stock a little better.
And this is a shooter's-eye view of the rifle. The rear sight is fully adjustable for windage and elevation.
One of the really surprising thing about the .30-06 ammo is the sheer size of the round. It's almost as big as your index finger. Compared to the M16's .223 round, or the 7.62x39 for my SKS, the .30-06 is just monstrously huge.
Here's a side-by-side comparison. On the left is the .30-06 round for the M1 Garand. On the right is the 7.62x39 round used by the SKS and AK-47. As you can see, there's quite a difference.
I guess my grandparents generation wasn't all that concerned with wounding their enemies. When they shot someone, I guess they wanted them to stay shot.
I am very happy with my purchase, by the way. It's an absolutely beautiful rifle, and I can't wait to go out and shoot it.
UPDATE: Apparently, the seller was wrong about the vintage of the rifle. The serial number on the receiver is 3743464. That means it was manufactured By Springfield Armory in May of 1945. (Although, no doubt all the parts are not original. The military is hard on rifles, so I'm sure it's been through at least one refurbishment in the last 61 years.) Every Garand I can find on the internet of that vintage sells for between $1300 and $1600. I think got a pretty good deal at this point. Better than I thought I had originally gotten, in fact.
You will love firing it. It is what I qualified on in 1959. Before the M-14 was issued to ROTC trainees. A "gas operated, clip fed, semi-automatic, shoulder weapon". It weighed a lot to carry around in the field; but not as much as the M-30 machine gun.
It weighed a lot to carry around in the field; but not as much as the M-30 machine gun.
Written By: vnjagvet
9.75 lbs empty; 10.5 lbs loaded. Plus, the 96 rounds of 30-06 was replaced by 120 rds of .308 with the M-14, then 240 rds of 223 along with the 7.5 lb M-16. This was in a generation that was 4 or more inches shorter on average, and 25 lbs lighter.
IOW, our previous generation was a breed of packmules!
My Garand is not as pretty, a cobbled together monstrosity, with a CAI receiver and mostly Korean area parts. Luckily it was only $300, but now that I know more about Garands I would have skipped this purchase.
That is a big bullet. I think the caliber goes back to shooting buffalo? It might be nice use all that powder with a different bullet-like a hollow point ’magnum’ or something, but there would be nothing left on the other side of the target!
Calibers for training just kept going down. A .22 long does just fine and the ammo is cheap.
Maybe you can double the money on what you bought? It’s complete.
Oh, you’re gonna love it! And one of the nice things is if the trigger needs smoothing, it’s fairly easy and straightforward to work on; check the Fulton Armory site, they’ve got a link in the M1 pages to some how-to articles.
I lucked out and found mine at a show several years ago, as it worked out a few months or so before the prices started shooting up. Made early 1943: I wonder sometimes where it’s been and served in the time since. And it’s one of my favorite rifles both to shoot and to contemplate.
Dre, the buffalo rifles were all mostly .45 to .50 caliber, the .30 caliber cartridges didn’t really come in for big game until smokeless powder. If I remember right, the .30-30(or .30WCF for Winchester Center Fire) was the first commercial cartridge using smokeless powder, in 1894. That being said, the .30-06 with appropriate bullet weight and type has taken every big game animal in the world, including elephant. It’s a very capable round.
I totally do not understand these loving runimations about guns. Guns are tools for killng. It’s not the same as being passionate about women, or music or fly fishing.
I can understand it on the basis of protection, sort of like a necessary evil. But loving guns? That’s sort of like loving money just for the sake of running your hands over piles of bills, not for what money can buy.
It’s particularly odd now, as the pundits weigh in about the necessity to disarm the militias in Iraq. The militias there are just gun-loving individuals banding together for a common cause.
IOW, our previous generation was a breed of packmules!
The combat load of the infantryman hasn’t changed much since AD 70. Read Josephus’ The Jewish War, Marius’ Mules carried upwards of 70-80 pounds. They carried LESS stuff than today’s 11-series, and the 11-series stuff weighs LESS per unit than the equivalent gear for the Legionary, but he carries MORE items. The end result is that today’s Infantry man is carrying as much as his Father in Vietnam, his Grandfather in WWII, and all is forebears back. People like to paint TODAY as more decadent than the past, when men were men, but the reality is that today’s troops are no more less "tough" than their predecessors.
Laime do you LIKE cars or music....cars and instruments are beautiful peices of fine craftsmenship and engineering. So too firearms. Throw in some "history" and it becomes VERY understandable. You just don’t want to, it seems. Simply this, IF you had the chance to pick up a Fender guitar that someone of Hendrix’s generation might have played, would that not be a "find?" So too an M-1 from the WWII era. You can be thrilled at the purchase of a guitar from the 1968-era and not love LSD or Smellie Hippies. You can appreciate the craftmanship of a weapon and the sense of history it carries and not "Love" war.
nope, laime, no attacks from me. you think what you think; i believe you’re wrong. but so what? this is america: you can think what you want to think.
just 3 quick points, though: 1) the rifle in question is revered because it was carried by men who died or were willing to die so folks like us could have our disagreements in peace. as such, among people who care about such things, that makes it kind of *sacred*. sure, it’s just a tool....but it’s so much more than that. 2) again, you’re entitled to think any way you want. just remember, though: just because you (or members of your political party) don’t like the tool in question, it doesn’t give you the right to say "nobody can have guns". 3) the iraqi gunlovers you compared us to use their weapons to impose their political/religious beliefs on an unwilling populace. the honored men who carried garands used them to ensure pretty much the exact opposite. again, you’re an american, and you’re entitled to think any way you want. think those ’gun nuts’ in iraq/afghanistan/wherever say things like that?
JOE: I can appreciate the appreciation of craftsmanship and history.
It seems as if there is more to it than that, though. When people talk about the joys of packing heat, I don’t think they have craftsmanship or history in mind.
I’m bothered by the love of the symbols of violence in a general sense. This is not directed at any particular indivduals, but at our society in general.
Why do violent video games sell so well? Why is cock fighting illegal, while boxing is an acmired sport? Our baser instincts will always be with us, and channeling them through proxies is one way to deal with it, I guess.
Still, it bothers me In my ’perfect world’ daydream, people get more excited about acquiring a new painting than a new weapon.
"That’s sort of like loving money just for the sake of running your hands over piles of bills,"
So? Why do you think people collect coins, stamps, cars, etc. They do not want to spend the coins, mail letters, or ride in the cars. Some people collect books, which they never intend to read. I know a guy who owns 53 guitars, but only has two hands. You are correct, you do not understand, but that does not make it evil or wrong.
"In my ’perfect world’ daydream, people get more excited..."
How about people who get excited about learning new ways to cut people open and play with their internal organs? Or new ways to cut off people’s limbs? In my perfect world people don’t worry about other people’s likes and dislikes, they worry about what people do. If the surgeon who operates on me likes the sight of blood, I really don’t care as long as I wake up in one piece. More or less.
Laime, "Perfect World’s" don’t exist and I mean no insult here, but it is an act of hubris to think YOUR "Perfect World" ought to be mine.
Weapons are like any other artifact. They can connect, in a very physical way, this world with another. It’s human thing, holding a pennant from the 1919 World Series can be a POWERFUL experience, for someone that loves baseball. Here is an item that tangibly connects you to an important era, even if you have no direct contact with that era, in fact the OBJECT ITSELF is the contact. It can be awe-ispiring.
And engineering takes many forms. For me cars are a way to get from "A" to "B". For several of my friends, they are art forms. They admire or excoriate the good or bad features of automobiles. It’s not just if the car is reliable or gets good/bad mileage, they understand and enjoy the physics and engineering that make a decent car, not just Lamborghini’s but a Lemans V. a Sunfire V. Scion. I don’t get it, but they do. And I don’t ever expect either friend to own a performance car, they’re not speed demons, but they appreciate the effort that went into the design of a car, any car.
A weapon is, like any device, a series of compromises to produce a desired effect. One can marvel at the purity of approach to design, the F-15, "Not a Pound for Air-to-Ground." Designed WHOLLY as a pure fighter/interceptor, and yet what compromises needed to be made, in reagards to weight, RCS, radar, weapons, engines, speed, range and loiter time. It is in judging the goals and how the designer met those goals that one comes to appreciate the effort in design and production. One can do this with the F-15, M-1 or your blender.
Lastly, I wonder about those who wonder about the fascination with weapons...I believe that wonder says more about those who wonder than those who marvel at firearms. Firearms are a tool. You can kill your partner with a lump of coal, you don’t need a Glock. I think many who "fear" firearms or feel that they are worshipped simply fear the capacity, we all have, for VIOLENCE. Instead of accepting that darker impulse we, to include THEY, have, they tend to place the emphasis on the firearm. That the firearm is EVIL, when the Evil is the evil we all possess. By placing the "evil" OUTSIDE themselves, I feel many make themselve feel more secure about THEMSELVES. "I have no gun and don’t like guns, so I could NEVER kill." I don’t know if that is the case with you, but the reality is that we all can kill, given the right circumstances and the firearm is not the focus of the evil. The fault lies with us, not the firearm. And a fcous on the firearm is to make the firearm a fetsih or scapegoat for our own inequitites.
I totally do not understand these loving runimations about guns.
I totally do not understand why people collect bean-bag animals, so what? People have varied interests, and I don’t have to care about anyone else’s interests.
Guns are tools for killng. It’s not the same as being passionate about women, or music or fly fishing.
First, guns aren’t simply tools for killing, although they certainly can do a good job of it. Guns are fun to simply shoot. I enjoy the skills associated with marksmanship. It’s a physical and mental challenge to improve your accuracy with a firearm. Firing guns is a pleasurable recreational activity.
The type of gun is also an issue of interest to me. There’s a history associated with the M1 Garand that makes it attractive. I’d love to get hold of a G43 and an SVT-40, as well, each of which were WWII-era semi-automatic combat rifles.
In addition, the M1 is a well-designed and impressively engineered piece of machinery. I like taking it apart, seeing how it works, and putting it back together.
For the record, I don’t ever expect to kill anyone with my M1. I do, however, believe in being prepared to defend myself if necessary, for instance, in case of a breakdown in law and order, a circumstance that hasn’t been entirely unknown in California. Since that is so, The M1 is a great way to combine self-defense with collecting historical firearms. I mean, let’s face it: A collectible beanie-baby wouldn’t stop a hamster.
So, really, what’s so hard to understand about the recreational and historical interest in collectible firearms?
Your problem is, in my opinion, that when you hear firearms, you automatically assign a moral value to them. Why you feel inanimate objects have a moral dimension might be something worth looking into for yourself.
Firearms are not the only weapons that arouse admiration. I once saw an exhibit of Japanese swords in a Boston museum. Absolutely beautiful. They were truly magnificent works of art, in addition to being instruments of death designed to efficiently create gruesome works of anti-art. The contrast is interesting in itself. Of course one can also say much the same about human beings. I suspect there is a little of the butcher in even the most ardent pacifist. I could get more philosophic, yin and yang and all that, but thoughts of Luke Skywalker battling the dark side of the force intrude.
Dale Franks" ",,,when you hear firearms, you automatically assign a moral value to them" ————————— When I hear ’firearem’, I get a mental picture of one person pointing it at another person, threatening to kill. Unfortunately, that’s the context in which one usually hears about guns. I hear about guns in the context of crime, either to commit it, or to prevent it. This context of gun use has conditioned me to shudder, as I worry about the violent streak in our countrymen.
You’re right, though. I can see the craftsmanship angle. I have adjusted my thinking accordingly and am putting collectors, actual or potential, in a separate category.
You’re right, everybody else. It’s a personal, well, personality trait. For me to understand a love of guns is like a man trying to understand childbirth. He can empathize with his wife and try to imagine, but he can never truly know what it means to give birth.
The 9 firearms in my collection have not killed a single person since I’ve acquired them. Other then the Garand (which I haven’t shot) and a KelTec-32 (which keeps popping the assembly pin out,) they are all pleasant to shoot.
I am not a violent person what-so-ever. I’m certainly capable of violence, and you are fooling yourself if you don’t think you are.
"You know, the weight seems fine to me. Maybe it’s the balance. My SKS is lighter, but it seems heavier, or more unwieldy, at any rate."
If the SKS feels like a Jeep, then the Garand feels like a Cadillac. I was amazed at the difference. The SKS is a good battle rifle but the Garand is a whole different experience, to me. That peep sight is terrific. I found target-acquisition after each shot far easier than the SKS: I had water-filled gallon milk jugs dancing all over the field in rapid fire at 100 yards.
I think the Garand is a marvel of mechanical and ergonomic engineering. You shoot that thing just once, and you understand a whole lot more about World War II. Really. Go shoot it and then come back and tell me I’m wrong.
Apparently the M-1 is a wonderful design and it’s design history shows Garand to a veritable saint or having suffered the indignities of Job. Still 30-06 is a poor battle round, for the average rifleman.
"It’s not the same as being passionate about women, or music or fly fishing."
You’re just dead wrong. Believe me: I could bend everybody’s ears off about my guitars. (I currently have three Gibson electrics, including a 1962 ES-355 very noteworthy for its unusual electronics, a Fender Stratocaster, and a 1952 Gibson L-47 acoustic.) I also keep a Russian SKS, a Beretta 92FS autoloading pistol, my first shotgun (a single-shot breach-loader), and I enjoy just about unlimited access to my brother-in-law’s guns (a very substantial collection).
While I love playing them, a great big part of my appreciation of electric guitars is about them being industrial-age machines. This, really, is what the AxeBites column on my blog is all about. A lot of that is in the ways that humans respond to to the touch of these things, which is far more intimate than people who don’t know them might imagine.
Guess what: the very same thing goes for firearms.
When you talk about "running your hands over" them, you’re hitting very close to a crucial essence of the matter, but you have no real idea what it means. And, of course, the worst part of it is in your incapacity to distill a proper moral place for them in the world. Let me tell you something: if I am ever confronted with a bad guy intent on doing me or the people that I love harm, you can bet your ass that I’m going to reach for a "tool for killing", whether you approve or not. I’m not going to beat him to death with my Norlin-era Les Paul, which could certainly do the job, but that’s not what it’s for.
Reasonable human beings will understand this. I’d bet that you could if only you might take the effort.
"This context of gun use has conditioned me to shudder, as I worry about the violent streak in our countrymen."
Oh, man, not to be too negative but you need to grow up. That is life, deal with it. And not just in "our countrymen" either. Human beings have a violent side, period. Why do you think every religion has something to say about violence? It ain’t something invented by Smith & Wesson to boost their profits.
I have never used an M-1, but I have a fair amount of experience with the M-14, which has pretty much the same action, I think. I liked it a lot better than the M-16.
I must admit to being a little surprised that noone has mentioned the Phallic symbolism of firearms. According to some, you are all closet queens who love to fondle your long, hard, weapons, and make them go off. The fact that you may like to do it in the company of other males makes it even more perverse. Not that there is anything wrong with being perverse. Some of my best friends are perverse. I would even let my sister marry one.
I got my M-1 rifle from the DCM (before it became the CMP). Cost $250, for a grade B service rifle. Mine was made in Oct or Nov of 1942, and rebuilt for Korea (barrel is marked 1950). It is all Springfield except the trigger guard which is the old style forged one, made by Winchester.
During WW2, Garands were made by both Springfield Armory and Winchester. After the war, they were made by Springfield, H&R, and International Harvester.
Garands came from the factory with walnut stocks, but replacements were often birch. My stock is birch, except the upper and lower handguards, which are walnut (and show damage from heat).
Late WW2, the infantry had largely switched to using the M-2 AP round. Ball ammo was essentaly not issued.
Written By: Billy Beck: ",,,your incapacity to distill a proper moral place for them in the world" ———————————————- Now we really get to the crux of the matter.
I’ve already conceded that I accept buying a firearm because ’it’s a beautiful thing’. But that’s not a moral position, either way, no more than collecting stamps is a moral or immoral activity.
To want a gun for protection is also easily understood. Here, though, I would not look at guns loivngly, but as a necessary evil.
Basically, there is no serious problem as long as guns are in the hands of ONLY the ’right’ people and used for the ’right’ reason. The problem lies is discerning who the ’right’ people are and how to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
You know you are the right person to own a gun. But how do I know you are?
The ’proper moral place’ of guns is not easy to discerm. Armed children have repeatedly gone off to school to kill their classmates, but you question that there is a violent steak in our country? The relatives from whom they ’borrowed’ the guns were, probably, gim owmers fpr all the right reasons.
All I know for sure is that we have a problem with too many guns in the wrong hands. How to align the valid ’protection’ argument with this dangerous circumstance is complicated and should be discussed without jumping to claim the singular ’morality’ of any one position.
If I’m passing an angry crowd, I would feel much safer if I had reason to hope that nobody had a gun, rather than needing to calculate how many guns were in the right/wrong hands. If you were in the crowd, with your gun, for protection, I might misread your intentions and draw my own gun to shoot you dead. Where is the proper moral place here?
That’s right. It’s what I do: I cash premise-checks.
"To want a gun for protection is also easily understood. Here, though, I would not look at guns loivngly, but as a necessary evil."
The very idea that you would regard self-defense as "evil" speaks volumes about your ethics. Reasonable human beings — realizing that there are evil people in the world (take note, you various ignorants who think I’m a "utopian") — understand that protection of life and property is a good thing, with nothing remotely "evil" about it.
"You know you are the right person to own a gun. But how do I know you are?"
What would it take to convince you of the fact that it’s none of your business?
"Armed children have repeatedly gone off to school to kill their classmates, but you question that there is a violent steak in our country?"
Excuse me, Miss Presumption, but I’d like to see you quoting me on "question[ing]" that. Go ahead. I’ll wait. In the meantime, I’ve pointed out (here, for example) that there are clearly discernable reasons for exactly the phenomenon that you just cited. However, I’m not hysterical about it: I don’t indiscriminately generalize the problem without making ethical determinations between good and evil and attribute it to the presumption of "evil" in the mere existence of firearms, like some medieval animist.
"All I know for sure is that we have a problem with too many guns in the wrong hands."
I think you’re right. I think that’s all you know.
"How to align the valid ’protection’ argument with this dangerous circumstance is complicated..."
Well, it’s not, and you would do well to stop projecting your epistemic problem on others.
"...and should be discussed without jumping to claim the singular ’morality’ of any one position."
All that means is that you can’t be bothered to think your way to the bottom of it. I’m here to let you know that there are people in this country who’re made of better material.
Apparently the M-1 is a wonderful design and it’s design history shows Garand to a veritable saint or having suffered the indignities of Job. Still 30-06 is a poor battle round, for the average rifleman.
We actually lucked out with the 5.56 mm: the 5.56 mm derives its wounding capacity from the tendency of the bullet to fragment (when it begins to tumble in tissue). Not all 5.56 mm fragments: if the bullet jacket is too thick or the velocity is too low, it fails to fragment and makes tiny wounds. Incidently, the Soviet 7.62x39 round doesn’t fragment and it doesn’t begin to tumble until it is about ready to leave a human sized target.
The .30-06 makes a decent wound even though it doesn’t fragment (note the link if for 7.62 NATO ball, which is similar). It is hardly a poor battle round, even for the average rifleman, but it is hardly optimal.
The .30-06 is based upon the German 7 mm Mauser. In the Spanish American War, the US used .30-40 Krags and the Spanish used M1896 Mausers. Due to that experience, the US went to the M1903 Springfield and the .30 M1903 round, which was shortly replaced by the .30 M1906 which used a spitzer type bullet.
In WW1, the maximum range of the .30 M1906 was found to be 3,500 rounds, which was deficient for use in heavy machine guns. An improved .30 M1 round was developed, but didn’t get to the front before the war ended. The .30 M1 used a 173 gr spitzer boattail type bullet, and IIRC had a range of almost 5,000 yards. Between the wars, the .30 M1 proved to have a too long of range for use at some military target ranges, so they came up with a .30 M2 that use a 150 gr flat base bullet: in fact it was basically just a renamed .30 M1906 round. The troops liked the M2 due to low recoil, and it became standard for WW2 (where I presume maximum range in machine guns was not such an issue). The M1 round is similar to the more modern .30 M72 "special ball".
"I would not look at guns loivngly, but as a necessary evil."
Should I need to use a gun to defend myself or my family, or any innocent bystander from an evil bastard intent on deadly harm, I’d defintely be looking at my gun lovingly for being such a useful companion.
Laime, tell me, if you would have been in position to use a gun to stop some cold-blooded killer from murdering someone would you still consider it evil? I think you might be confused about who and what is evil. Can you even imagine yourself in such a position?
For a Combat Rifle, Don I think the ORINGINAL caliber of the Garand MIGHT have been better (but with the engineering and physics of a new round that’s not a guarantee.) The Garand was originally produced to fire .276 Pedersen/Pederson. The 30-06 or the 7.62 X 51 is over much for most weapons and most combat ranges. The Pedersen round was based on something that the Reichs Heere had seen in it’s analysis of the First World War. MOST infantry combat occurs within 400 metres of the firer. 7.92 Mauser or 30-06 are too much round for the range combat tends to occur in.
Garand began in .276 but for a number of reasons, and some sound economic reasons, it was converted to 30-06. The Germans couldn’t afford to convert to the round or rounds they desired either, because of economics and then the press of war, but eventually did adopt the revolutionary 7.92 kurz.
For SOME of its era 1936-1944 the M-1 was a great weapon. After 1944 it began to be surpassed by the Stgwhr-44. Had the war gone on into 1946 the US infantrymen would have been in serious trouble at the section and platoon level. And for all the adulation given the M-1, in terms of infantry combat the GERMANS had the edge at the section-company level. The Mauser 98 Kar did NOT equal the M-1, but the MG-34/42 certainly gave the German SECTION greater firepower than the BAR did. At the company level the Germans had more MG-34/42’s a better weapon than the M-1917 Browning AND 81mm mortars. I’d say it was US artillery and air power that gave the tactical edge to the line infantry, not their rifles or their machine guns. And AFTER WWII the Soviets produced the SKS and then the AK-47 and those did outclass the M-1, for the purposes that infantry carry rifles, to be distuiguished from specialty roles like Sniper.
I have never used an M-1, but I have a fair amount of experience with the M-14, which has pretty much the same action, I think. I liked it a lot better than the M-16.
The M-14, to my recollection, was a sweet weapon.
I was the automatic rifleman for our squad and carried an M-14 that was set to fire auto (had to have an armorer’s tool to do that as I recall). I can remember firing it the first time at night and still remember the beautiful star pattern of light from the muzzle which completely and utterly destroyed my night vision.
It was heavy enough that it didn’t pull up and to the right as hard or fast as an M-16 on auto (although it still was much more effective if you tapped out three round bursts).
Lord ... I’ve qualified on the M-1, 14 and 16. That’s old.
The Garand was originally produced to fire .276 Pedersen/Pederson. The 30-06 or the 7.62 X 51 is over much for most weapons and most combat ranges. The Pedersen round was based on something that the Reichs Heere had seen in it’s analysis of the First World War. MOST infantry combat occurs within 400 metres of the firer. 7.92 Mauser or 30-06 are too much round for the range combat tends to occur in.
Well, AR-15s in 5.56 have been beating M14s in 7.62 at 1,000 yards in service class in civilian competition. And serious competition shooters shooting match class accross-the-course (200, 300, and 600 yards) tend to use rounds like .243 Win and 6.5-08. I shoot my AR-15 at 600 and 800 yards; I’d have to spend big bucks to get my Garand to be competative at those distances. Point being is that even at ranges quite a bit over 400 m, it is hard to justify the .30 rounds.
I suspect that something around 6.5 mm is ideal. M-16s in 6.8 are in use by special forces, and the 6.5 mm Grendel has better long range performance than a .308 (and fits in an AR).
I’d say it was US artillery and air power that gave the tactical edge to the line infantry, not their rifles or their machine guns.
The Germans also had advanced combined force tactics using their halftracks as infantry fighting vehicles. The Soviets learned these tactics the hard way, but the US didn’t move to IFVs until the 80s. Probably ’cause our air had been so effective the Germans never effectively used these tactics against us in any consistent way.
For SOME of its era 1936-1944 the M-1 was a great weapon. After 1944 it began to be surpassed by the Stgwhr-44. Had the war gone on into 1946 the US infantrymen would have been in serious trouble at the section and platoon level. And for all the adulation given the M-1, in terms of infantry combat the GERMANS had the edge at the section-company level.
Not sure it would really make that much difference. The Stg-44 (and MP-44 and MP-43—all basically the same thing) had several advanteges, principally full auto capability. However, I would hardly feel outmatched if I was using an M-1, against any current small arms. I’d rather have, say, an M-4 with an Eotech and Surefire setup, but with these sorta things the main thing is the guy pulling the trigger.
I agree that the krauts had the edge. In fact, pretty much from division down. Didn’t matter, we had the air support.
The other thing is production numbers. How many MP-43s/44s/STG-44s did they produce?
At the company level the Germans had more MG-34/42’s a better weapon than the M-1917 Browning AND 81mm mortars.
I’m not sure what your point is with respect to mortars, but the MGs were not better than M1917s in all roles. In a motorized war the Germans fought, watercooled sustained fire was not particularly important.
Keep in mind, after WW1 the ban on German watercooled MGs was intended to prevent the Germans from having a viable military force. Which would have worked, if WW2 was fought like WW1.
That said, if you find yourself without the support of air or armor, you might want a watercooled MG.
I can’t hit the broad side of a barn...IF the target is at 125 metres that target is done for. At 50 and 400 metres, that target is as safe as houses. I was saddend to have the SECOND worst score on the range... I mean what’s the point if you’re not the WORST? Second worst says you didn’t fail hard enough.
As a kid (11 or 12) I participated in NRA’s junior marksmanship program (terrific program) for a couple of years. I still remember walking from home (at Ft. Leavenworth) through the neighborhood to the range each Saturday morning with my bolt action .22 to fire for a couple of hours.
Imagine that scene in today’s society.
Anyway, good instruction and I learned how to shoot well (not to mention learning how to safely handle a weapon and care for it). Never qualified below expert in anything I shot during my service years.
Good for you... I’m excessively blind... the bad guys need to be REAL close for me to threaten them. Hence my need for a pistol. Or a small therno-nuclear device or an artillery battery...all those things tend to even up things a bit.
If I remember right, to shoot at the long-range matches, the AR15/M16s are using a long, heavy bullet which makes the round too long to feed through the magazine; has to be single-loaded. With the right ammo and a barrel rifled for it they are capable of fine accuracy at those ranges, but it doesn’t seem right to use a round that can’t cycle through the action normally.
I guess you could say generic. As you no doubt know, tim foil is not the only type of foil that can be used in the AFDB(Aluminum Foil Deflection Beanie). Tim foil is actually, one might say, itself the generic term. Lead foil works quite well, actual tin foil is somewhat controversial, and aluminum foil seems to be the most widespread. I must say I am gratified by your interest. It is vitally important that knowledge of this important defensive tool become widespread. Guns alone are not enough to protect us, and are useless against mind control and spy radiation. Only in conjunction with AFDBs can we construct a truly effective defense.
I urge you, and any other patriotic, pure-of-essence readers, to learn more, before it is too late. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. To aid you in your efforts I submit the following;
