Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
  #59  
Old March 30th, 2005, 12:01 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
http://www.winchestercollector.org/guns/1895.shtml

"Configurations were rifle, carbine and musket."

all three have rifled barrels.
In this case, as with the Krag "musket" refers to a full length wooden stock.

now on to your arguments about my understanding of assault rifle development and the mp40 having reached it's pinnacle in 9mm. I stand by what I have said. The StG44 is no way shape or form a submachinegun. The shortcomings of the MP40 were not addressed by cramming a larger round into a sub. The wermacht did not develop 7.92 Kurz for the MP40 platform. Instead they chose to develop an entirely different firearm which they utilized on the battlefield alongside the MP40. No cartridge change was going to make the MP40 any better than it already was so the only answer was something completely different.

I've learned what I know about military firearms from many places, Ian Hogg included. It certainly isn't limited to one source. But as I inferred, even the most rudimentary lesson (Hogg and History Channel) can clearly define what a rifle is, was and shall be.

All you've managed to prove to me is that your ideas about the StG44 and it's descendants not being rifles are nothing more discernable than a general opinion. I cannot gleam from all the text you've written any hard and fast theory or litmus test which defines unequivocaly how to classify these various small arms. You seem incapable of offering any evaluation that isn't fraught with exceptions or which changes with context.
Most dissappointingly these ideas aren't even your own. You've simply adopted another trendy Jeff Cooperism and now your forced to scrape together an argument for someone else's statement.
Reply With Quote