Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old March 29th, 2005, 09:15 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I understand your argument regarding the technical benefits of a low bore axis design, John. I just do not agree with your emphasis that it is a major issue. I see it as a minor one that you are overemphasizing and that the SIG Sauer as a package is a very attractive sidearm. While you see a technical "flaw" I am looking at ("feeling") the weapon as a whole.

We're starting to come together here. I don't think the bore axis thing is dispositive, as I've said before. It is merely one of many factors that make a weapon shootable or not shootable. I never said the 226 is a lousy weapon. Rather, I disagreed with Jack's comment that the 226 was the ultimate "double tap" pistol, which frankly I think is a joke. As I've said before, the 226 is one of the worst pistols in this regard, not the best.

Why is it the worst? Is it because of bore axis? Sure, that's one of the reasons. But it is not the only reason. The 226's trigger action is also very unsuited for delivering hammers and controlled pairs quickly and accurately. As I said before, the DA pull is long and heavy with lots of stacking before the release. The DA pull is inferior to that found on revolvers. The SA pull is also terrible, with lots of take-up and lots of overtravel after the release. The trigger is also located away from the butt in a compromise location, and the reach in DA mode is too long and the reach in SA mode too short. I said all of this before.

Is the 226 an attractive sidearm? I guess it could be. It's far from being my first choice but it's a serviceable weapon. There are some things on it that I really like. I dig the stamped construction on the slide and the multi-strand recoil spring. I like these features because they remind me of the late-war Wehrmacht weapons. But other than that the 226 doesn't do it for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
However, the k98 (karabiner mod 98 or shortened Mauser 98) was supposedly a "carbine" so Hitler's alleged bias wasn't against a shorter rifle but rather against a smaller round. My understanding is when he saw the weapon he dubbed it the "assault rifle" due to it's ability to lay down a field of fire when attacking.

Yes, I never said that Hitler was against shorter weapons. He was against reduced power weapons. He didn't veto the MKb project because the weapon was short. That would be ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
Furthermore, there have been "assault rifles" that are chambered for the very rounds you mention as "full-power" such as the .308. Certainly the FN FAL, G3 (I can't remember if the original CETME was .308) and the original AR10 stoner design, M14, etc. I think you might even argue that the 7.62x39 was ballistically similiar to the .308 so the AK-47 as well.

Yes, there are select-fire weapons that fire full-power rifle rounds. These are not properly termed "assault rifles" because they do not fire a cartridge of intermediate power. SIG made the StG57, which fires the 7.5 Swiss round. Though the StG57 is called a "sturmgewehr", is it really? I don't think so. The StG57 is a full-power rifle. It's almost identical in concept to the FG42. The StG57 is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle/battle carbine.

The FAL and G3 fire the .308. These are not assault rifles either. They are battle rifles.

7.62 x 39 is not even close to the power of a .308. I'm surprised you think this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I consider a carbine a "rifle" but simply a special purpose rifle. Shoot, if you argue that the M16 isn't a rifle than what's the M4 carbine?

There is no exact definition of a "carbine", simply because language does not work that way and also because any system of classification is going to have exceptions. For almost every rule there is an exception.

But I think a "carbine" may generally be considered to be a reduced rifle. The weapon may be reduced in length. It may be reduced in weight. It may be generally handier to use/carry than a rifle. It may be reduced in power. It may be one or more or all of these things.

Let's look at length. The Kar98k Mauser is nominally a "carbine". So the British "Jungle Carbine". These designations probably came about because of the reduction in length. While the reduction in length resulted in a slight reduction in weight, the reduction was more in length than in weight. The reduction length and weight made these weapons easier to carry than their larger siblings like the G98 and No. 4 Enfield, so that is probably why they were designated carbines. However, the cartridge power of these weapons was not reduced. They remained chambered for the full-power rounds of their longer siblings. So while they are called "carbines" to distinguish them from their longer siblings, if we were to classify these weapons by type, we would classify them as rifles and not carbines.

Let's take a look at some classic carbine designs. One is the lever-action .30-30. This weapon shows every indication of being a carbine. It is reduced in length. It is reduced in weight. It is reduced in power. The same is true of the M1 and M2 carbines.

The M16 is not properly classified as a rifle. In fact, the M16 fits the classic definition of a carbine. It's shorter in length. It's lighter in weight. It fires a cartridge of reduced power. (I'm talking in relation to its siblings like the M14, M1, etc.)

The US Military has called M16 a "rifle" for political reasons, so that the M16 would be accepted. This is not unlike the reasons for calling the StG44 a rifle. From day one, there were forces within the US Military that were vehemently opposed to the adoption of the M16 on the ground that it was inadequately powered and had limited range and terminal effect. Calling the M16 a carbine woud merely have given these people yet more reason to block the M16's adoption. Hence the designation "rifle" was used.

Note that I'm not against the assault rifle concept for military use. I'm merely saying assault rifles are not true rifles and that the term "battle carbine" is more technically correct.
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omega Speedmaster hanchung General 3509 November 19th, 2017 03:36 PM
First Hand Gun willroeder General 3 April 25th, 2007 07:47 PM
FN fiveseven USG ddavis General 8 April 2nd, 2007 07:36 PM
Weapons Choice ronward General 9 June 17th, 2004 08:34 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:39 AM.




Copyright 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.