Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
  #58  
Old March 29th, 2005, 10:56 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
As I said before, the DA pull is long and heavy with lots of stacking before the release. The DA pull is inferior to that found on revolvers. The SA pull is also terrible, with lots of take-up and lots of overtravel after the release. The trigger is also located away from the butt in a compromise location

I disagree. The DA trigger pull is overly long. No argument. Stacking? Certainly no worse than the average revolver. Single action? IMHO it is one of the best out of the box! I'm starting to wonder if you've shot a Glock. I think I had cast pot metal cap guns as a kid that had had a more precise trigger feel. In fact, a cheap cap gun with plastic internal moving parts that bend and sway is where I'd put the Glock trigger action...


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Yes, there are select-fire weapons that fire full-power rifle rounds. These are not properly termed "assault rifles" because they do not fire a cartridge of intermediate power. SIG made the StG57, which fires the 7.5 Swiss round. Though the StG57 is called a "sturmgewehr", is it really? I don't think so. The StG57 is a full-power rifle. It's almost identical in concept to the FG42. The StG57 is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle/battle carbine.

The FAL and G3 fire the .308. These are not assault rifles either. They are battle rifles.

This is starting to sound like Congress debating what makes an "assault weapon". I think most people think of the term "rifle" in the generic sense (i.e. rifled barrel long weapon of no specific length with a stock). A carbine, "battle rifle" "assault rifle" are descriptive terms further denoting a subclass of "rifle" in order to define with more specificity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
7.62 x 39 is not even close to the power of a .308. I'm surprised you think this.

Actually I agree with you. However, I an old Viet Nam MC vet I spoke with argued this point with me not too long ago. He argued that when he gave up his M14, the NVA had a ballistically-similiar weapon in the AK47. When issued the M16 he was giving up an advantage in range and a more flat trajectory that he had with the M14 to a more unreliable (albeit lighter weight) weapon with less range than the AK. I didn't argue other than to state that if the 7.62x39 was so similiar to the 7.62x51 then why the Dragunov SVD etc chambered for the ancient 7.62x54R? He stated that most marine sniper used the 30.06 when he was in and that the majority of small unit combat in Viet Nam took place at such a range that negated any difference between the AK and M14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
There is no exact definition of a "carbine", simply because language does not work that way and also because any system of classification is going to have exceptions. For almost every rule there is an exception.

I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
...The same is true of the M1 and M2 carbines.

Let's look at that. It's my understanding that the M1 and subsequent auto M2 were basically a compromise since the US military found that the average tanker, cook, driver, etc. was woefully inaccurate with the .45 auto sidearm. They issued the .30 cal M1 carbine to compensate. Practically a pistol round with a rifle stock. I don't consider these in the same league as the other "rifles/carbines" discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The M16 is not properly classified as a rifle. In fact, the M16 fits the classic definition of a carbine. It's shorter in length. It's lighter in weight. It fires a cartridge of reduced power.

That brings up my previous comment re: if that's true, then what's "proper" nomenclature for the M4 or earlier CAR15? Mini-carbines? Assault machine pistols?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
(I'm talking in relation to its siblings like the M14, M1, etc.)

By M1 I assume you're referring to the M1 Garand not carbine right?

BTW Jack, just say NO to Ian Hogg and his books.
Reply With Quote