Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
Old March 30th, 2005, 03:08 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
LOL. Here we go again on the 1895 thing. This weapon is nothing more than a footnote in small arms history, and yet you seem to have an obsession for it.

Originally Posted by JSQ
"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.

LOL. So a full-length forend makes a rifle a musket. Interesting. Compare these two weapons:

"The Mauser at the top is a rifle. The Mannlicher at the bottom is a musket."

Well, isn't it? Isn't that Mannlicher a musket? It has a rifled bore, but that never stopped you before from calling a rifle a musket. It's got a full-length wooden stock, doesn't it? It fits perfectly into your definition of a musket, doesn't it? It's a small-bore firing a jacketed long/thin bullet of high sectional density spun by its rifled bore and driven at high velocity, but then again so is the Krag "Musket" and that was a Musket too.

I always thought the Mannlicher was a rifle, but now I know that it's a musket.

Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

That's an interesting way to frame it. So the 9mm machne pistol wasn't found wanting in effectiveness? So the Wehrmacht just decided for some odd reason to develop a new weapon and add yet another cartridge into the supply line?

No. The 9mm machine pistol was found severely wanting not in rate of fire, but in range and power and something else was needed. That's why the Wehrmacht developed the 7.92 kurz round.

You say the Wehrmacht did not cram a larger round into the machine pistol's platform and that the sturmgewehr was an entirely different firearm. This is also an interesting way to frame it. Here are two pics, one of the StG44 and one of the MP40:

Do those two weapons look demonstrably different to you? Sure, there are differences but the basic layout is identical for both. The primary difference between the StG44 and the MP40 is not in weapon design or layout, but in method of operation. The StG44 fires from a locked breech and is gas operated. The StG44 fires from the closed-bolt position. The MP40 operates on the simple blowback principle and fires from the open-bolt position. The two different methods of operation are suitable for the different power levels of the two cartridges. However, the two weapons are otherwise basically identical in layout and design.

When one studies German small arms development (and I'm not talking about watching the History Channel), one easily sees the evolution of the German small arms designs, why they came about, what means were used to execute these designs, and so on. The StG44 came about because the various MP's were found lacking. The StG44 is nothing more than a carbine based upon the machine pistol platform. The method of operation is obviously changed to chamber the more powerful carbine round, but the general layout and weapon design remain unchanged from the machine pistol to the machine carbine.

Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

LOL. Just the fact that you think weapons classification is a black and white area tells me how little you know about weapons. The reason I give general indicia of what constitutes a rifle instead of a black-letter rule is because there is no black-letter rule.

OK, let's do this if you're inclined. You know more about shotguns then you know about pistols and rifles. So let's work within your strongest area of firearms knowledge. Define a shotgun for me. Be specific. I want a black-letter rule here and not something that is so generalized as to be meaningless. Define a shotgun for me and I'll show you numerous weapons that fit within your black-letter definition of what a shotgun is but are not really shotguns, or I'll show you numerous weapons that don't fit within your black-letter definition but are shotguns.

You say defining a rifle is easy and defining a carbine is easy, so let's play your game. Please tell me what a shotgun is.

Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

When did I say all of my ideas were my own? If I had to think up everything I believe I wouldn't believe anything at all. Are all of your ideas your own, aren't they?

Yes, I enjoy reading the works of many firearms authorities, including Jeff Cooper. I consider him to be a very high firearms authority.

No, I don't read Ian Hogg.
Reply With Quote