August 22nd, 2005, 11:45 PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
I love when you have nothing else to go on, and so you try to find contradictions when there really are no contradictions.
Sporting guns are toys made for leisure, not life and death. They're toys. It's interesting when they're funky or unorthodox. The same is not true for anti-personnel weapons, which are made for serious business. So weirdness is permissible on sporting doubles. Note that all of the funky doubles I like are shotguns, which are basically designed for pegging defenseless little birds. I don't see any Superbritte or Darne double rifles for dangerous game. And no matter how dangerous some animals are, at least they don't shoot back.
Also, funky sporting guns like the Superbritte and Darne are made funky on purpose, i.e., not for the highest and best possible function but rather just for shits and giggles. In other words, they're made shitty on purpose. When I look at that ridiculous Ingrid Bermann and that Jennifer Lopez shit, I can't help but think they were fully intended to be serious weapons. That's what is such a crack-up about them.
One thing I notice about your view on guns is that you like absolute rules. This sporting/fighting thing is little different from your search for a litmus test for what constitutes a rifle cartridge. Not all guns are to be judged by the same rules.
So the MP18 was revolutionary and effective? Let's start with revolutionary.
How was the MP18 so revolutionary? It's basically a heavy block of steel with a spring behind it. Its simple blowback method of operation existed well before the MP18. There's nothing revolutionary about it.
Was there something unique about its method of operation? Did the MP18 utilize some sort of delay to lighten the bolt so that the weapon would jostle less as the bolt bottomed out at the rear of the recoil cycle or slam forward in battery? Did it use rollers or gas pressure to delay the blowback cycle and enable the use of a lighter bolt? Did it even try to use some sort of delay like the superfluous Blish Lock on the Thompson? Or did it rely on simple inertia and a heavy spring?
Did the MP18 utilize advanced primer ignition so that the bolt could be made lighter without affecting the cyclic rate?
Did the MP18 utilize something as simple as closed-bolt operation? Didn't Bergmann realize that the 9mm Luger cartridge doesn't create sufficient barrel heat to have cook-off problems? Didn't Bergmann realize that open-bolt operation is completely unnecessary on a 9mm machine pistol?
Did the MP18's method of construction revolutionize weapons manufacturing and enable the MP18 to be fielded in great numbers? Or was it machined from forgings and take up lots of raw materials and table time to produce, just like the other weapons of its day?
The MP18 was not revolutionary in any way. It utilized methods of operation that existed well before it was designed. It utilized standard production techniques used on other weapons of its day. There's no ergonomic enhancement on it that other weapons of its day lacked. Just what is so revolutionary about this thing? Did you see it in Star Wars or something?
Let's move onto effective. How was the MP18 so effective? It's little different from other 9mm machine pistols like the MP38 and MP40. Didn't the Germans find the MP38 and MP40 wanting a few decades later? Didn't their machine pistols lack range? Didn't they lack terminal effect, both on hard and soft targets? Wasn't the ineffectiveness of the machine pistol why the Germans were forced to develop the Sturmgewehr in the first place? Didn't they do it because their machine pistols were ineffective?
You may say the MP18 was the first. But the first at what? The first at being ineffective? The only reason the MP18 came about was because the principles behind the self-loading rifle had yet to be perfected at the time and the slow rate of fire of the bolt-action in the trenches was a problem. That the machine pistol was available at a time when the self-loading rifle wasn't yet available isn't anything to brag about either, for the machine pistol's weak cartridge does not require a locked breech the way rifle ammunition does. Once the self-loading rifle was understood and in production, the machine pistol became almost worthless on the battlefield. And the invention of the assault rifle was the final nail in the coffin to military use of the machine pistol. I think the history of small arms development has shown the entire concept of the machine pistol to be a mistake. Being the first mistake in the chain is hardly anything to brag about.
At the very best, the MP18 was effective as a stop-gap. But remember that the MP18 was not the only stop-gap at the time the it was fielded. The Americans utilized the repeating shotgun for this task, which had a higher rate of fire than the bolt-action rifle and great short-range terminal effect. I think the Americans had a much better solution than the Germans did. Had the Germans not had such a cultural bias against the anti-personnel use of the shotgun, I can't help but think they would have come up with the same solution the Americans did.
I've given my reasons why I think the MP18 wasn't revolutionary or effective. Now let's hear your reasons for why the MP18 was revolutionary and effective.