Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
  #63  
Old March 30th, 2005, 10:24 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I disagree. The DA trigger pull is overly long. No argument. Stacking? Certainly no worse than the average revolver.

Really? I gotta disagree here. The average DA pull on revolvers is much more refined than the average DA pull on the wondernines like the 226, and this is true for the 226 in particular as well. The stacking is much more pronounced on the 226's DA pull. The wide trigger is also unsuited for DA use. I much prefer the narrow trigger found on non-target revolvers.

Another problem with the 226's trigger action is that DA pulls are best delivered with the first crease of the trigger finger while SA pulls are best delivered with the first pad, and the 226 basically requires the shooter to shoot the first DA shot with the first pad of his trigger finger. This is why the trigger reach in DA is too long and the reach in SA is too short. If the 226 operated in DA for every shot or SA for every shot, this would not be a problem since the shooter could naturally change his grip to accommodate the weapon's dimensions. But hammers and controlled pairs are delivered with such a speed that shifting the hand position between the first and second shots is impossible. Thus, the shooter is forced to manipulate the DA pull with the first pad of his trigger finger. Not a huge deal. This technique can certainly be mastered. But it's not the best way to shoot the DA trigger action.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
Single action? IMHO it is one of the best out of the box!

How are you measuring trigger quality? By weight and by how crisp the release is? Certainly, the 226's SA trigger action releases at a suitable weight and with adequate crispness. It's not a glass-rod release, but it's more than enough for a weapon of its type.

But those were not my criticisms of the 226's SA pull. I said previously that what's wrong with the 226's SA trigger action is that the take-up is too long and that there is too much overtravel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
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...

Certainly, the Glock's trigger action different from that of traditional SA pistols like the 1911. I can see why lots of shooters don't like it. However, I do think that it's a much more usable system than the DA/SA trigger actions found on the typical wondernines and such. When I shoot at Glock, it takes a magazine to get accustomed to its trigger action but thereafter the weapon shoots just fine for me. I really like the Glock.



Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
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.

I agree that most people think of "rifle" in that sense. However, that does not mean it is correct. Most people think of the metallic cartridge as a "bullet", but that is not correct. Most people think of "shrapnel" as a general term for shell splinters, when this is incorrect (shrapnel is composed of round balls). Most people refer to a magazine as a "clip", but knowledgeable people know that a clip and a magazine are two distinctly different forms of cartridge retention. Jack seems to think that a rifle with a full-length stock is a "musket", but this incorrect as well because a musket is a smooth-bore weapon. The list goes on and on. Just because most people think something does not make it correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
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.

Yes, the ranges at which infantry engage each other today largely negates the differences between the carbine and the rifle. I believe the vast majority of combat engagements take place at under 200 yards. The 7.62 x 39 and 5.56 are enough for these ranges. In fact, they are more suited for use these ranges than the full-power rifle because the full-power rifle can't deliver the same volume of fire that the battle carbine can, and fire superiority is a big deal for infantry. The rifle is also more difficult for most soldiers to shoot because of its greater recoil. These are some of the reasons why the battle carbine is an eminently suitable weapon for modern military use.

However, that is not to say "that the 7.62x39 was ballistically similiar to the .308". Note how combloc sniper rifles are chambered for full-power rifle rounds. The same goes for western armies. The sniper uses the rifle for the role it was intended: to reach out and engage single targets and deliver a decisive blow to the target. There is no need for fire superiority for sniper use as there is with standard infantry. The rifle's virtues come into play for the sniper and he is better served with a rifle than with a carbine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
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.

That's my understanding as well, although I would also include officers and such.

I agree that the .30 carbine round is not as effective as the modern 5.56 round, but I do classify the two rounds into the same category. The 5.56 is a better carbine round than the .30 carbine, but it's still a carbine round. The 5.56 does have better trajectory and range, and it does have better hard target penetration than the .30 carbine round, but I do think the 5.56 shares more in common with the 7.62 x 33 kurz and .30 carbine than it does with the full-power rifle. The 5.56 is designed for use at ranges at which the 7.62 kurz and .30 carbine are still effective, 200 yards and under. The 5.56 delivers very little lethality at ranges past 200 yards, as its velocity diminishes to such a point that its bullet will no longer fragment in soft tissue. This problem is compounded even further in the M4 with its shorter barrel. 5.56 fired from the M4 will not fragment in soft tissue at ranges beyond 100 yards.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
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?

Sorry I didn't answer this one previously. I thought it was a rhetorical question. The M4 is a carbine. The CAR15 is a carbine. Neither is a machine pistol, because neither fires a pistol cartridge.
Reply With Quote