Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
  #65  
Old March 30th, 2005, 06:21 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The stacking is much more pronounced on the 226's DA pull. The wide trigger is also unsuited for DA use.

That hasn't been my experience with the SIG Sauer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
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.

I have no prob pulling from DA or SA with the trigger on the first joint of my index finger throughout movement. There is also a short trigger available for those with small hands. I purchased one a long time ago but never felt the need for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
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.

Take up is too long IMO but I have never had probs with overtravel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
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.

I understand your logic but who is the authority as to what is "correct"? Ian Hogg? LOL Correct or not, what most people believe is what is the "norm" accepted by society.

Anyway, a quick google came up with a "firearms definition" list by Bill Dietrick:

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Dietri...ition_list.htm

As you note, he places "M1 carbine" in the "rifle" column with the M1 Garand and "assault rifles" separately. Is he wrong? I don't think it's that cut and dried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
However, that is not to say "that the 7.62x39 was ballistically similiar to the .308".

I'm surprised at your restraint in flaming here.

I admit ignorance in the 7.62x39 ballistics. Intuitively I would agree with your comment on face value alone but thought differently due to my recent conversation with the marine vet. I have only shot this round a couple time with a cheap Norinco and a decent Hungarian AK and both times at less than 100 yds. After looking at a ballistics table at the 7.62x39 and the 7.62x51 there IS a big difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
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.

Naah, not a rhetorical question. Just a smartass one...
Reply With Quote