Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 01:48 PM
traveltoad traveltoad is online now
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,625

Last edited by traveltoad : March 23rd, 2005 at 03:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 01:51 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
The wood stocks on that are nice. Black out the receiver and that shotgun would be nice.

But the more I look at the Cordoba, the more the forend looks like a Montefeltro forend (which can't take a magazine extension). The Montefeltro's magazine is a tube that is blocked on the end and has a threaded stud on the end. I don't know if the extension magazine option matters to you but I like to have the option at least. So it's still the M1 Super 90 for me.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 01:57 PM
david david is offline
David Woo
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 122
Aaron: SMPD uses the USP 45f

for patrol officers, and has some 45c's for special units like narcotics. Officers have the option of personal weapons for BUG's, but they have to be approved.
A friend of mine has a usp 45 expert, and we have done side by side range comparisons with my 9f. The 45 has a larger grip, very low recoil, very controllable, not bad. It's the only pistol that I can shoot a 3" grouping at 75 feet. But it also has that annoying rattle like my 9: Sounds like a cheap piece of plastic, oh wait, it IS a cheap piece of plastic!
DW
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 02:14 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
nice try.

double tap being two single action rounds.
don't interpret.

fixed bbl being non tilt.
i don't like tilt.
obviously it moves.
my luger doesn't tilt, but it moves.

greg hirst new you couldn't get over this bore axis thing.
bore axis is not a uniform issue. It definitely differs from person to person. not only does physiology come into play, but also what you're accustomed to. If you grew up shooting wheel guns then high bore axis feels right. if you started out on the luger, everything else feels bad.

that pic of an autoloader pretending to be a field gun makes my stomach hurt.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 02:52 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
Interpret? LOL. That's how the 226 works. That is, unless you thumb-cock the damn thing every time you draw it.

At the range, it's very common for owners of DA autos to load the magazine and drop the slide and then start shooting. I see this all the time. These shooters never discover what a disadvantage the DA/SA transition is, because they never shoot this way. Or, they know the DA/SA transition is a disadvantage, and that's why they don't decock the weapon before firing. Shooting is hard enough as it is and they don't want to make it even harder.

And "fixed" means "moves lengthwise but non-tilt"? Good to know. Now I will go through life knowing that the Luger, P38, Beretta 92, Vickers, Maxim, MG34, MG42, etc. all have "fixed barrels".

Incidentally, if "fixed" refers to a barrel that slides back and forth longitudinally but doesn't tilt, what would the P7's barrel be? Would its design be a "permanently anchored and tenaciously affixed in a changeless and immotile position" design?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 04:17 PM
david david is offline
David Woo
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 122
DA/SA

I've always thought that I'd be better off learning to shoot DA, so I decock and start with a DA shot. That first shot helps to reinforce the rules of marksmanship, front sight, trigger control, surprise break.....
I'm often surprised how accurate that first shot is, compared to the others that follow
ymmv, DW
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 04:21 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
how hard is it to cock the hammer?

and are we forgetting that even allowing a DA/SA transition on the first pair, each couple after that will be straight SA?

as far as tilt, i'll concede it was poorly worded but you knew exactly what I meant without being any sort of a mind reader.

I thought the P7 bbl came sliding but the exhaust gasses welded it into place after the first few magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 04:22 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
can we talk about C96s and P38s now?

doesn't anyone want to steer this conversation towards some cool older guns?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 06:08 PM
traveltoad traveltoad is online now
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,625
You guys keep talking about whatever kind of guns you want... I'm learning a bunch!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old March 23rd, 2005, 09:58 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveltoad

Hmmm. I think that's the G4 edition isn't it?

It's interesting that when I purchased my SIG-Sauer P228 in 1993, J.P Sauer & Sohn Gmbh (as well as Hammerli AG Sportwaffenfabrik and Sigarms Inc. Service Dept.) were a subsidiaries of SIG (Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft) of Switzerland. At the time, you could also purchase a P210 as easily as my P228 it just cost a few more bucks at B&B.

Now, Sigarms is no longer simply a service department but a firearms manufacturer and SIG is a separate company (now called SAN Swiss Arms) owned privately by a couple of Germans. Of course, in the same time period HK has had a few changes...

Anyway, John's comment regarding the P7 not being available in anything other than 9mm isn't quite true if you count the P7M10. In fact, that pic above looks to have a barrel with lands/grooves rather than a polygonal bore so M10? The M10 feels quite a bit heavier to me than even the P7M13. However, the extra weight feels right when you factor in the heavier recoil of the .40 cal.

In reference to the P220/225/226/228/229 series "suffering" from a high bore line I was telling Jack that I could just as easily argue that the P7 "suffers" from a low bore axis. I grew up with a J.P. Sauer & Sohn .22 cal western-style revolver and a Browning Hi-Power as my first handguns as a boy and the P228 "feels" right to me and has very natural pointability for me. The P7 feels to me like I always have to bring it up further than feels natural to aim. However, after firing the P7 for awhile I start feeling more natural with it.

There is no arguing that the P7 is a truly unique, innovative and quality-manufactured handgun. However, many people I have talked with do not like the squeeze-cocker mechanism of the P7 and the manual of arms that goes with it. I have to admit that for my grip the P7M8 feels odd. This is not true for me with the staggered clip M13-it feels very natural when gripped tightly with the gun "cocked". I truly wish I would have bought one of these when I could.

As far as muzzle flip goes, come one-it's a 9mm! I suppose if one fired from off hand position with +P+ it may be a factor for some. However, I usually fire from a modified weaver and have never had a problem. I have some Hirtenberger +P+ ammo with a bit of recoil (for a 9mm) and still no probs.

As far as the .45 goes there's no handgun I truly like available in this caliber. The P220 is a full size sidearm and I would prefer a compact .45 (I don't like the USP) If the P7 was available in this I might be one of it's worshippers.

I also have heard that the US Exeter NH-made Sigarms have a number of probs (spring-failures, slide fractures) that for some reason have not shown up on Eckernforde-made firearms.

My 2 cents-
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old March 24th, 2005, 07:22 AM
utahdog2003 utahdog2003 is offline
James Reed
KI4PBH
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Interpret? LOL. That's how the 226 works. That is, unless you thumb-cock the damn thing every time you draw it.

I would imagine, that in an emergency situation where the gun is drawn prior to needing to be fired (example, broken glass in a downstairs room, with evidence of an intruder in the house) I would cock the hammer before I needed to apply the 'hammer'. Were I to be carrying and needed to draw-fire, I think repetitive training would overcome any DA shortcomings which you listed.

At the range, slip in the mag, release the slide, and the hammer is ready to go SA style.

as it sits...with my dealer unable to secure a USP9 for me to fire, I like the P226 the best, followed by the Glock 17 and 22. The other option I tried was the Springfield XD...which was a total cop-wannabe,thug-nightclub POS. I am not considering a 45 at this time, and still find it hard to believe that the 40 would be a better option than the 9 for anything other than "my gun is bigger than yours', which I could care less about.

thanks for the input...very helpful. Keep it up!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old March 24th, 2005, 08:41 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
Anyway, John's comment regarding the P7 not being available in anything other than 9mm isn't quite true if you count the P7M10. In fact, that pic above looks to have a barrel with lands/grooves rather than a polygonal bore so M10? The M10 feels quite a bit heavier to me than even the P7M13. However, the extra weight feels right when you factor in the heavier recoil of the .40 cal.

I didn't say the P7 wasn't available in anything but 9mm. Rather, I said, "I wish HK made a usable P7 in .40 or 10mm or .45", with the key word being usable. I don't think the M10 is usable. Sure, it goes bang every time you pull the trigger and it's eminently reliable, but the M10's slide is very tall and bulky:


The great weight of the M10's slide negates one of the key advantages of the P7's design: lightweight slide jostling the weapon less as the slide reciprocates forward and backward.

I remember when HK unveiled the prototype M10. It was just a converted M13 and it looked just like an M13. I was really excited about this pistol. Then HK unveiled the production M10. It was ridiculous.

That pic is definitely an M8. The rifling is pronounced for illustration purposes but the pistol is definitely an M8. The slide is too low and the rounds too skinny to be an M10, and the handle is too short to be an M13. The lanyard loop on the butt negates the possibility of it being a P7 or a PSP. It has a gas system so it's not an M7 or a K3. So the only thing left is the M8.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
In reference to the P220/225/226/228/229 series "suffering" from a high bore line I was telling Jack that I could just as easily argue that the P7 "suffers" from a low bore axis. I grew up with a J.P. Sauer & Sohn .22 cal western-style revolver and a Browning Hi-Power as my first handguns as a boy and the P228 "feels" right to me and has very natural pointability for me. The P7 feels to me like I always have to bring it up further than feels natural to aim. However, after firing the P7 for awhile I start feeling more natural with it.

LOL, that's an interesting way to frame it. Too low of a bore axis. That's a new one. I suppose one could be too rich or too good looking or too skilled or too whatever as well. This reminds me of when Blaser came out with a perfected straight-pull bolt action, traditionalists were poo-pooing it because the bolt movement was unfamiliar and somehow less desirable than the traditional 90-degree rotation and bolt throw found on Mausers.

The Hi-Power actually as a very low bore line. I think it that with the exception of the P7, the Hi-Power has a bore axis as low as any other 9mm. It's about as low as the bore axis on the Glock, and it's considerably lower than the bore axis on the 226. The 226's bore axis is ridiculously high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
As far as muzzle flip goes, come one-it's a 9mm!

I agree that the 9mm doesn't produce a lot of recoil. This is true in any 9mm, but it's especially true in the P7. But my comment about the P226's poor shooting characteristics was merely in response to Jack's comment about the 226 being the best pistol for delivering hammers and controlled pairs. I had to crack up at this one, because I think the 226 is actually one of the worst pistols for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
As far as the .45 goes there's no handgun I truly like available in this caliber. The P220 is a full size sidearm and I would prefer a compact .45 (I don't like the USP) If the P7 was available in this I might be one of it's worshippers.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? What about the 1911?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old March 25th, 2005, 11:28 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
LOL, that's an interesting way to frame it. Too low of a bore axis. That's a new one. I suppose one could be too rich or too good looking or too skilled or too whatever as well.

LOL-well then this must be the penultimate ergonomic design in your opinion...

http://www.retting.com/images/Photos...nnpalm1980.jpg



Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The Hi-Power actually as a very low bore line. I think it that with the exception of the P7, the Hi-Power has a bore axis as low as any other 9mm. It's about as low as the bore axis on the Glock, and it's considerably lower than the bore axis on the 226. The 226's bore axis is ridiculously high.

Seriously, I don't have the Hi-Power anymore but the Glock 9mm has a bore axis (as measured from middle of trigger to middle of bore) of ~1.5". The SIG Sauer 9mm is ~1.75". For me, the difference in recoil is more noticeable in the glock due to it's light weight and seemingly more uneven weight distribution. Also, as I mentioned, recoil in 9mm has never been a problem for me. My point is that many features affect the handling of the weapon of which the caliber is obviously the single largest factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Whaaaaaaaaaaat? What about the 1911?

What about it? One of the factor's that I always hear the 1911 worshippers rant about is it's relatively low bore axis and how wonderful it is. So this must be a great firearm in your opinion, right?

My brother-in-law is one of the 1911 faithful and he has just about every model of Colt versions (Officer's, Gold Cup, etc.) as well as a WWII Remington and, of course, the Para-Ordnance models from P10-P14 in both alloy frame and steel. Never liked them and wished Browning had designed and FN had made the Hi-power in .45 as well.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old March 26th, 2005, 09:10 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
Actually, that single-shot palm pistol is the penultimate ergonomic design. The ultimate ergonomic design would be a repeater or even a self-loader that utilized a bore axis that low. The palm pistol was an anomaly of sorts in small arms design and development, but there are numerous weapons that have successfully utilized the low bore axis design. Two of the most famous designs are, of course, the MG34:


and the MG42:


The MG34 was very time-consuming and labor-intensive design, but it was definitely a successful design. And there is no arguing that the MG42 was a wholly successful design. It's still used today as the MG3.

The Germans also employed the low bore axis on rifles. The innovative FG42 used the bore axis bissecting the buttstock:


The FG42 was never widely produced, that is true. But that is not to say the design was flawed. SIG's StG57, for example, copied the method of operation from the StG45(M) and the layout of the FG42:


The StG57 doesn't employ the true "fishtail" buttstock design of the MG34, MG42, and FG42, but it does employ the low bore-axis principle and straight-line layout of these earlier weapons. So do other modern weapons like the M16.

These low-axis designs are by no means a thing of the past. Beretta's new UGB25 is a low-recoil design and it uses the low bore axis:


Krieghoff also uses the low bore axis design on its Trap Unsingle K-80 to minimize muzzle flip and attenuate felt recoil:


On measuring the bore axis on pistols, I think the more correct way to measure the bore axis is not from the trigger to bore axis, but rather from the top of the web of the hand to the bore axis. I believe this latter method is a truer measure of how much the bore axis sits above the shooting hand.

Yes, the 226 is only a 9mm. This is true. But why make the bore line higher than necessary? Why not lower the bore axis to the lowest practicable point? The Glock employs an identical method of operation to that found on the 226, yet it has a substantially lower bore line. Gaston Glock thoughtfully lowered the bore axis on his design as much as he could, just as HK lowered the bore axis on the P7 as much as it could. And they're not alone. One sees this all the time, even on weapons with negligible recoil. For example, take the Hammerli 280 and 208:


The 208 was hardly a hard-kicking pistol but Hammerli lowered the bore line as much as it could and still have clearance for the reciprocating slide. Hammerli lowered the bore line even more on the newer 280, just because it could with the 280's different slide location.

Yes, the 1911 is a great pistol. It has many faults, but no other weapon combines as many great attributes in a single weapon as does the 1911. The 1911 is a SA design, so it is very easy to shoot quickly and accurately. This alone puts the 1911 ahead of weapons like the Beretta 92 and SIG P226. The 1911 is a powerful weapon. This puts it ahead of weapons like the Hi-Power, P7, and Glock. The 1911 is a very slim weapon and is easy to handle and carry. This puts it ahead of weapons like the 226, Beretta 92, and the other M9 candidates. The 1911 has an ergonomic safety location. This puts it ahead of designs like the Luger, Beretta 92, P38, SIG 210, and so on. The 1911 isn't flawless or anything, but it combines the key attributes of power, controllability, and manageble size into a single weapon better than any other pistol design. That is not to say that the 1911 cannot easily be surpassed. It can. For example, a P7 chambered in .45 ACP would be superb. But the gun companies have yet to bring out a pistol that does as much as the 1911 does. It's not what people want. People want high magazine capacity and double-action triggers all sorts of things that destroy controllability.

Your brother-in-law may claim to be a 1911 devotee, but if he owns a Gold Cup, Para-Ordnance, and so on, he's not.

I agree that a Hi-Power in .45 ACP would be very sweet. The Hi-Power eliminates several key weaknesses and complications in the 1911 design and has a better butt profile as well. Eliminate the magazine disconnector, chamber it in a round like .45 ACP or .45 GAP, give it a single-stack magazine, put the magazine release on the right side of the handle, make the safety operate smoothly, fit some nice sights, sculpt the stocks into an ergonomic shape, and you have a superb pistol. This could easily be done. But I'm not holding my breath for Browning to come out with such a pistol. It wouldn't even sell and Browning knows it.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old March 26th, 2005, 10:41 AM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Well, you're making my point by mentioning the FG42. Innovative, but largely uncontrollable due to the full-size round. I talked with an old German who was in the Fallschirmjager who managed to use both the FG42 and Stg44. The later sturmgewehr was definitely a more useable combat rifle in his opinion due to the mid-size round.

But then I'm a submariner-wannabe-swiss-seiko-wearing-whiskey-tango-charley-foxtrot.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old March 26th, 2005, 10:51 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
It's true that the FG42 was uncontrollable in full-auto fire, but I'm not sure how I'm making your point for you. Yes, the FG42 was uncontrollable in full-auto model, but this is because of its full-power cartridge and not because of its low bore axis. I submit that the FG42 would be even more uncontrollable in full-auto model with a higher bore axis.

And this problem is not confined to the FG42. All of the phase III battle rifles, whatever their method of operation or layout, are uncontrollable in full-auto model. The FAL (relatively high bore axis with pistol grip and gas operation), G3 (straight-line construction with pistol grip and roller-delayed blowback operation), StG57 (straight-line construction pistol grip and roller-delayed blowback operation), and M14 (relatively high bore axis with rifle stock and gas operation), for example, are all uncontrollable in full-auto mode. It is not their layout or method of operation that causes them to be uncontrollable. Rather, it is that they are all chambered for full-power rifle cartridges instead of intermediate/assault rifle/carbine cartridges.

Incidentally, the FG42's chambering for the 7.92mm Mauser round was a specific design feature and not a miscalculation. At the same time the Luftwaffe was developing the FG42, the Wehrmacht was developing the MKb42(W) and MKb42(H). The MKb42(W) and MKb42(H) were chambered for the 7.92 x 33 kurz round, and this round was available when the FG42 was being developed. But the Luftwaffe specifically rejected the kurz round and specified the full-power 7.92 Mauser round because of bitter experience with British BREN gunners during the invasion of Crete. The British were able to engage the Fallschirmjager at ranges up to 1000 yards away. Because of this experience, the Luftwaffe specified the full-power round for what it believed was the future of battle rifle development.

Whether you or I agree with this call is unimportant. What matters more I think is that the call was made from battle experience, with deliberation and judgment, and not through whim or caprice or fad. The Americans made the same call later with the M14 and in ramrodding the .308 toward NATO standardization, so the Luftwaffe was not alone.

The StG44 may be more controllable in full-auto mode than the FG42, but is this is a valid criticism of the FG42? I don't think so. What the StG44 gains in controllability it loses in power. The StG44 is not a true rifle. Sure, it's an "assault rifle", the first of its breed, but is it really a rifle? I don't think so. I rather like Jeff Cooper's classification of the StG44 and its progeny as "battle carbines" rather than "battle rifles". Note that when Haenel and Walther first developed these types of weapons, the original classification was "MKb42" and not "G42". The Wehrmacht properly classified these weapons "machine carbines", as they were less powerful than true "machine rifles" and more powerful than "machine pistols". I think the original classification the Wehrmacht used is more accurate.

So I think the FG42 still stands as a suitable example of how to reduce muzzle jump and attenuate felt recoil. To make the FG42 as low-recoiling and controllable as possible, the designers utilized gas operation, a straight-line construction with the bore axis bissecting the buttstock, a telescoping buttstock that was buffered, and a huge muzzle brake. Features such as these reduce muzzle jump. They do not enhance muzzle jump. Without these features, the FG42 would be even more uncontrollable in full-auto mode.

This reminds me of another weapon utilizing the fishtail buttstock design. The American M60 is an unsuccessful attempt to utilize the FG42's method of operation with the MG42's feed system. But the M60 also copied the straight-line construction and buttstock layout from both the FG42 and MG42.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old March 26th, 2005, 11:54 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
My original point was that the SIG Sauer 9mm did not "suffer" from a high bore axis that caused excessive muzzle flip and thus inaccuracy. While it may have a higher bore axis than other semi-auto handguns, (but certainly no worse than most revolvers) many other features (barrel length, sight quality, weight, balance, grip angle, trigger feel and travel, etc.) may affect accuracy much more radically.

I think we agree that felt recoil is obviously one of the most important criteria affecting accuracy of which the caliber, bullet weight and load are paramount. I would say that for me, the 9mm round, in most any bullet weight and load, is not negatively affected (i.e. "suffer") by a high bore axis.

I haven't measured, but I believe the bore axis on my S&W 686+ is higher than my SIG Sauer. I am more accurate shooting this revolver in .357 mag than I am with my Glock 19. Even when firing DA. I do not care for the Glock "Safe Action" trigger and other features. I much prefer the P7 over the Glock.

My mentioning the FG42 illustrates the point that, despite a supposed low bore axis design, accuracy was difficult due to it's full-size round and resulting muzzle climb.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old March 27th, 2005, 02:13 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The StG44 is not a true rifle. Sure, it's an "assault rifle", the first of its breed, but is it really a rifle? I don't think so. I rather like Jeff Cooper's classification of the StG44 and its progeny as "battle carbines" rather than "battle rifles". Note that when Haenel and Walther first developed these types of weapons, the original classification was "MKb42" and not "G42". The Wehrmacht properly classified these weapons "machine carbines", as they were less powerful than true "machine rifles" and more powerful than "machine pistols". I think the original classification the Wehrmacht used is more accurate.

I have to argue that in fact the StG44 is indeed a true battle rifle. It is my belief that while at the time of its introduction the StG44 occupied a singular place in the infantry battery its revolutionary design left such an impact that our very use of the term "rifle" has adapted to incorporate it. Surely at the time the StG44 is more readily compared to the M1 Carbine than the Garand, Johnson, Mauser SLR, FG42 or Tokarev, however, its introduction led directly to the obsolesence of the aforementioned rifles chambered in full size cartridges. The subsequent designs born of and inspired by the StG44 so thoroughly eclipsed the previous standard for the infantry long arm that the very concept of a battle rifle was redifined. I would submit that the language we use today in reference to current design is proof positive that the StG44 stood shoulder to shoulder with contemporary autoloaders and even managed to replace them both on the battlefield and in our vocabulary. Today when we speak of the infantry rifle we do not distinguish between assault and otherwise. The M16 is a rife. The AK47 is a rifle. The Sig550 is a rifle. They are the primary tool of the infantry soldier which is now and has always been the "rifle". All of these weapons utilize an intermediate round but they are not relegated to a class which is seperate and apart from what defined a full size round in the second world war period. Rather they now serve as the very definition of what we perceive as a "battle rifle". The few remaining who distinguish between "assault" or otherwise are neither students of history nor the firearm itself. Only those who's interest is to label specific weapons for the purpose of their control by the goverment seek to make such distinctions.

Furthermore, I am want to readily accept that the StG44 is a less "powerful" weapon simply because of the cartridge it was chambered in. Much like the Stoner and Klashnikov designs the utility and the effectiveness of the weapon stems from it's ability to produce a well directed volume of fire. The tactical advances in the second world war at both small squad and larger company and even brigade levels proved that any sort of "one shot, one kill" doctrine was antiquated. At numerous times the American forces well equipped with the Garand and BAR demonstrated that fire superiority proved decisive in engagements between like forces. Now in those instances comparable cartridges were simply delivered by different means but the Eastern Front battles demonstrated that even the 7.62x25 Tokarev round was more effective than 7.92 Mauser when delivered in greater volume and concentration. In both instances the lethality of an individual deliberately fired round was outweighed by the greater likelihood of a hit possible with volume of fire action. More bullets = more hits. Not a greater percentage, just more wounds and kills total. In this sense the StG44 and it's successors are very powerful weapons indeed. They offer quick and relatively precise volume of fire which directly results in damage upon the enemy. They are a "powerful" weapon for the infantry soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old March 27th, 2005, 07:53 AM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
LOL-I would imagine this gun would also "suffer" from a high bore axis and thus excessive recoil. Of course, the caliber chosen may have something of an effect as well...

http://web.archive.org/web/200304060...t/Zeliska2.pdf

Yes, I believe the word "suffer" would be very appropriate in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old March 28th, 2005, 09:41 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
Greg, I agree that the 226 is still a shootable weapon. A self-loader that large firing a 9mm has a very mild recoil indeed. However, that is not to say that the 226 is one of the all-time greatest hammer and controlled pair pistols out there. My original statement was that the 226 is one of the worst pistols in this regard, not the best.

You mention the 686 and say that the 686's bore axis is even higher than that of the 226. This is probably true. The revolver, by its very nature, has to have a high bore axis. The only way to lower the bore axis would be by having a narrower cylinder. (I'm not including the oddball revolvers that fire from the six o-clock chamber.) That does not make the revolver a poor design, for its relatively high bore axis is inherent to its design, the same way a longer overall length is inherent to the repeater's design.

But one of the reasons the 226 is a poor design is that its bore axis can readily be lowered, i.e., it's not inherent to its design. As I said before, the Glock features an identical method of operation (modified Browning short recoil with the chamber reinforce and ejection port locking the barrel and slide together) yet it has a substantially lower bore axis than the 226 does. Combine the high bore axis with the 226's DA/SA trigger action and you have one of the worst hammer and controlled pair shootability of any 9mm self-loader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
My mentioning the FG42 illustrates the point that, despite a supposed low bore axis design, accuracy was difficult due to it's full-size round and resulting muzzle climb.

Yes, the FG42 does have poor full-auto controllability despite its low bore axis. That is correct. However, I said previously that the FG42's poor full-auto controllability was due to its full-power cartridge and not its straight-line layout. I never said that a low bore axis was dispositive and controlling to the exclusion of all other design factors. It is merely one of many other shootability factors. For example, let's say H&H makes a self-loader chambered for .700 Nitro Express. Let's say this self-loader has straight-line construction with a fishtail buttstock. Is this weapon going to be controllable? Will it have low felt recoil? Of course not. But it will have lower felt recoil than than if it had a high bore axis.

According to your line of reasoning, the FG42's low bore axis is irrelevant because the rifle would not be controllable in full-auto no matter what recoil-reducing features were fitted. However, reducing felt recoil and muzzle flip are not an all-or-nothing thing. It's a success if a feature on a weapon (such as a low bore axis) merely helps to reduce felt recoil and muzzle flip. For example, if the FG42 had a high bore axis, it would be even more uncontrollable in full-auto mode than it is now.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old March 28th, 2005, 09:58 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Today when we speak of the infantry rifle we do not distinguish between assault and otherwise. The M16 is a rife. The AK47 is a rifle. The Sig550 is a rifle. They are the primary tool of the infantry soldier which is now and has always been the "rifle". All of these weapons utilize an intermediate round but they are not relegated to a class which is seperate and apart from what defined a full size round in the second world war period. Rather they now serve as the very definition of what we perceive as a "battle rifle". The few remaining who distinguish between "assault" or otherwise are neither students of history nor the firearm itself. Only those who's interest is to label specific weapons for the purpose of their control by the goverment seek to make such distinctions.

Neither students of history nor the firearm itself? "Sturmgewehr" obviously means "assault rifle", but just because the word "rifle" is in the name does not means that a sturmgewehr is a true rifle. It's not. The sturmgewehr is a reduced rifle, i.e., a carbine. It does not fire a full-power rifle cartridge like a .303, .308, .30-06, 6.5 Swede, 7x57, 7.5 Swiss, and so on. Rather, it fires a cartridge of intermediate power, somewhere between the power of a pistol cartridge and a rifle cartridge.

Let's take a look at the history of the sturmgewehr, and perhaps this will enlighten why the sturmgewehr is not a true rifle. When the Germans invaded Poland, their personal weapons were the k98 rifle and various machine pistols. While many working prototypes existed at this time, the self-loading rifle had yet to be perfected and was not yet suitable for wide production and issue. The k98 was a marvelous weapon but it had a five-shot magazine, was fed via strippers, and was a bolt-action. Thus, its rate of fire was necessarily limited.

To supplement the k98, the Germans issued several different machine pistols. Unlike a self-loading rifle, which would require a more complicated and yet-to-be-perfected method of operation, these machine pistols operated on the simple blowback principle and did not require locking to contain the power of the small 9mm cartridge. The blowback operation of these weapons made them very heavy and they were very controllable in the full-auto mode. These had been perfected before the start of WW2. These machine pistols were capable of great rates of fire, but the Germans found their power lacking. The Germans quickly discovered that the pistol rounds these machine pistols were chambered for lacked stopping power, range, penetration against hard targets, etc.

So the Germans were faced with a dilemma. They had the k98, which unquestionably delivered a terminal blow to its target, even at very long ranges. But the k98 had a very low rate of fire. They also had several different machine pistols that delivered a very high rate of fire but were lacking power.

So around 1942, somebody in the Wehrmacht came up the idea of designing a hybrid weapon. By this time, several different self-loading methods of operation were beginning to be understood, so the idea of making a self-loading but locking mechanism that could contain rifle-cartridge pressures was possible. Take the FG42, example. The primary problem, however, was that the full-power rifle cartridge was too powerful to control in a select-fire weapon. The Germans wanted a select-fire weapon that could deliver a high rate of fire like the machine pistol but would deliver a more terminal blow to the target and at longer ranges than the pistol calibers were capable of. The rifle cartridge was out of the question, because it was too powerful to be controllable in a select-fire weapon. A new cartridge would be required for this role. The cartridge would, of necessity, be less powerful than the rifle cartridge to be manageable in full-auto mode.

The cartridge would be unlike anything theretofore used by the world's armies. The cartridge would be more powerful than a pistol round. It would have greater reach than a pistol round. It would have greater armor penetration than pistol round. It reach out farther than a pistol round. It would do these things the pistol round could not because it was not a pistol round.

Yet this cartridge was not rifle round either. Though this cartridge was intended for use in a shoulder-fired weapon, it it was not a rifle round. (The machine pistols were shoulder-fired, and they fired pistol rounds; that's why they're called "machine pistols".) It did not have the reach of a rifle round. It did not have the armor penetration of a rifle round. It did not have the terminal ballistics of a rifle round. It would not do these things a rifle round could do because, surprise surprise, it was not a rifle round.

Both Walther and Haenel came up with designs for a weapon that would fire this new cartridge. The Walther design, the MKb42(W), featured an odd gas system with the piston encircling the barrel. This design required very fine tolerances and was expensive and slow to produce. So the Germans abandoned this design and concentrated on the Haenel design, the MKb42(H), which used a conventional piston located above the barrel.

Note that both of these weapons were type-classified as "MKb" and not "G". The Wehrmacht knew that this new weapon was not a rifle. That's why the "machine carbine" name was used. The new weapon was not a true rifle, so it was not called a "gewehr" and not designated with a G. It was not a machine pistol, so it was not designated with an "MP" like the MP40.

After this, the story gets foggy. Some historians hold that Hitler vetoed the MKb project and ordered its abaondment on the ground that the concept of an intermediate cartridge conflicted with his personal battle experience from WW1. I do not know if this is apocryphal or not. But it might be true, since the MKb42(H) did not die with Hitler's purported veto but rather became the "MP43". Note the change in classification from "machine carbine" to "machine pistol". The same historians who say that Hitler vetoed the machine carbine project also say that the Wehrmacht changed the name of the MKb42(H) to "MP43" believed in the project and kept it alive. As the story continues, these historians say that more and more front-line units were asking for the MP43 and when Hitler asked what this MP43 was that everyone was clamoring for, it was revealed to him that it was in fact the MKb42(H) that he had previously vetoed. Hitler then realized that his veto was mistake and he personally christened the MP43 the "sturmgewehr", or StG44 because of its impressive performance on the Eastern Front.

Again, so the story goes. I don't know if all of this is aprocryphal. However, I must say that the constantly changing model designations of the sturmgewehr's development at least fit the story. This is the story that I find credible. Other historians claim that the impressive "sturmgewehr" name was coined by others to get Hitler to approve the project, a project he had once vetoed on this ground that this weapon was lacking in power. I don't know who's correct, but I tend to believe the former story more than the latter. No authority to my knowledge has shown anything would prove either side's story in a clear and convincing manner.

Note that the FG42, developed at the same time as the MKb42(W) and MKb42(H), did not use the "machine carbine" designation. The designers knew that the FG was a true rifle, as did the Luftwaffe, and the Luftwaffe type-classified it a "Fallschirmjaer Gewehr" or "paratrooper rifle". ("Fallschirmjager" means, literally, "hunter from the sky" but it translates to "paratrooper".) Its name was not changed to hide its development or make it more appealing to a governing body. Its classification as a "rifle" is correct in every way.

Let's say hypothetically that Hitler had embraced the "machine carbine" development. This the MKb42(H) and its progeny would be known today as "machine carbines" and not "assault rifles". Or what if the MP43 designation stuck, and these would be known today as "machine pistols". This sounds funny, but when you think about it it's no more ridiculous than calling this weapon and its progeny a "rifle". It's neither a pistol nor a rifle. Or what if the story is true about the Wehrmacht calling the MKb42 the "assault rifle" just to get Hitler to approve it by hiding the fact that the MKb42 featured attenuated power? If true, then this shows that the very use of the word "rifle" was merely a political ploy.

But I think all of this shows that, at the very minimum, the classification "assault rifle" has very little technical accuracy. The weapon at issue here is not a rifle at all. The weapon is hybrid design, seeking to gain the rate of fire of the pistol machine but with more terminal effect and reach. The hybrid weapon is not a machine pistol, as its ammunition is substantially more powerful than pistol ammunition. Nor is the weapon a rifle, as rifle ammunition is far too powerful to be chambered in a select-fire weapon and would negate the weapon's role as an effective select-fire weapon.

No system of classification is going to be perfect, e.g. the platypus, and guns are no different. There are many designs that almost defy categorization. Just look at the MG42. How does one describe its method of operation? It's gas-assisted, for it will not operate reliably without its muzzle cone. It's short recoil, for its barrel reciprocates back and forth. But it's also roller-locked, but its bolt-carrier reciprocates together with the barrel for a short distance. The weapon almost defies categorization.

The same might be said for the battle carbine. It's not a rifle, that much is certain. Calling it a "rifle" to make it more appealling to Hitler or to today's soldier is does not make it a rifle. "Battle carbine" may not be perfect but I think it's technically more accurate than "battle rifle".
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old March 28th, 2005, 09:59 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Furthermore, I am want to readily accept that the StG44 is a less "powerful" weapon simply because of the cartridge it was chambered in. Much like the Stoner and Klashnikov designs the utility and the effectiveness of the weapon stems from it's ability to produce a well directed volume of fire. The tactical advances in the second world war at both small squad and larger company and even brigade levels proved that any sort of "one shot, one kill" doctrine was antiquated. At numerous times the American forces well equipped with the Garand and BAR demonstrated that fire superiority proved decisive in engagements between like forces. Now in those instances comparable cartridges were simply delivered by different means but the Eastern Front battles demonstrated that even the 7.62x25 Tokarev round was more effective than 7.92 Mauser when delivered in greater volume and concentration. In both instances the lethality of an individual deliberately fired round was outweighed by the greater likelihood of a hit possible with volume of fire action. More bullets = more hits. Not a greater percentage, just more wounds and kills total. In this sense the StG44 and it's successors are very powerful weapons indeed. They offer quick and relatively precise volume of fire which directly results in damage upon the enemy. They are a "powerful" weapon for the infantry soldier.

I think you're confusing "power" and "firepower".
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old March 28th, 2005, 11:10 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
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. Kinda like pointing out that our LR's use technically obselete Buick engines, use Lucas electrics, leak more than average, etc. While possible true, it isn't the whole picture (i.e. it's more than the sum of it's technical flaws)

I agree much more with your logic that the DA/SA mode of operation makes the SIG (and other pistols that operate this way) as potentially inaccurate in a double-tap scenario. I have practiced firing DA/SA transition and I am not as accurate as SA-only but I am improving. However, for me, the Glock's trigger action feels very much like a DA-only weapon and the long progressive trigger pull is even worse at causing inaccuracy. That's a big reason I do like the P7 is the "squeeze-cocking" brings the trigger to SA mode for enhanced accuracy.

I have also heard for years the story that Hitler would not approve funding for an intermediate-round based "rifle" as well and that's why Haenel in development called it a machine-pistol. This was supposedly based on Hitler's WWI view that a rifle must have a long-range capability or be a trench weapon.

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. 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.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old March 28th, 2005, 11:43 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
well that was a lengthy history lesson.
unfortunately it's the same one I've been reading since I was 12 so it's not any kind of news to me.

I have to say it seems you contradict yourself when you insist that

"Sturmgewehr" obviously means "assault rifle", but just because the word "rifle" is in the name does not means that a sturmgewehr is a true rifle."

and then later say

"The designers knew that the FG was a true rifle and designated it "Fallschirmjaer Gewehr" or "paratrooper rifle". ("Fallschirmjager" means, literally, "hunter from the sky" but it translates to "paratrooper".) Its name was not changed to hide its development or make it more appealing to a governing body. Its classification as a "rifle" is correct in every way."

the fact remains that in it's ultimate form the Germans identified the Stg44 as some kind of rifle. Just as they did the FG42. It's not a Sturmkarabiner44. Neither carbine nor machine pistol. Rifle. Clearly the Germans paid no heed to the guidelines for nomenclature that you have laid out. They classify the model 98 as both Gewehr and Karabiner based solely on barrel length when chambered in the same round. You also say that the 7.92 Kurz is between 8mm Mauser and 9mm parabellum. I'd say it's a hell of a lot closer to 8mm Mauser. You're the one who loves ballistics technicana so I trust you to dig up the numbers to do the math. What's the story there? Don't the 7.92 Kurz and the 8mm Mauser actually share the same bullet?

Also in my mind .308 also represents an intermediary cartridge when listed next to the other rounds you mention. The other traditional .30 caliber rounds you name are so similar to each other that the .308 seems to stand out among them. Clearly the introduction and use of the .308 in select fire battle rifles was an attempt to mitigate the shortcomings of the use of 8mm mauser in the FG42 and G43 and .30-06 in the BAR and Garand. It represents a reduction from what you have identified as full size, full power rifle rounds.

To me "carbine" is always a tricky word. To some it's simply a shortened version of a larger rifle such as the Sharps, K98, Carcano, Jungle no. 5, Mosin M44, Krag-Jorgensen, Winchester 1895 or Arisaka type 38. Sometimes in these instances the the longer variant is identified as the "musket" to distinguish between the two other times not. To other people "carbine" means a rifle configuration chambered in a pistol round such as the winchester 1896 in 44-40, 45LC, .357mag or the Ruger PC9 in 9mm or .40cal. The constant seems to be at a minimum that the weapon is shorter. To me the only unique "carbine" is the M1. It is chambered in a round not shared with any pistol (the enforcer doesn't count) or rifle and while it is much longer than most pistol rounds, the case is not necked down. At the same time it doesn't share it's 110 grain bullet with any full size rifle cartridge. It is a purpose built intemediate weapon which would never be used to replace either the pistol or full sized rifle in their entirety. While I recognize that the StG44 utilize a round that is unique in its application, that round is all too similar to the 8mm Mauser in my mind. It doesn't represent a significant enough departure from pistol or rifle cartridge trends as .30 carbine does. In one sense 7.92 Kurz is naturally more like 5.56. which is another smaller intermediary round based on rifle cartridge design principles. The only exception being that the success of 5.56 is now seeing it's use in light machine guns as well. Furthermore while the M1 carbine and subsequent M2 design serve to augment the small arms battery the StG44 serves to consolidate it. The StG44 is a replacement for everything else. That is certainly what it's descendants have continually proved to be. Look at the recent standardization of the M4 from the M16A2. At one time it was believed that the two should coexist as did the CAR-15 and M16A1, but experience has shown the two redundant and the US Army has opted for the smaller multi-role M4.

Again I insist that the StG44 was and is a "rifle" because it changed what a rifle has come to mean. Just as the M4 is now the standard "rifle" of the US infantry. The fact that the M4 shares its chambering with the now common light machine gun of the US infantry (M249 SAW) further speaks to association between the role of intermediate rifle rounds and fullsize rifle rounds. Just as the K98 and MG42 shared a common cartridge so do the M4 and M249. I would contend that had things continued on their might have been an MG42 type all purpose LMG chambered in 7.92 Kurz. Just as the German battle rifle got lighter I think the light machine gun might have as well. I will submit that while rifles have tended to homogenize in recent years MGs seem to diversify, but an overlap in cartidges between the main battle rifle and at least one MG remains a necessity. Whereas before at least the Germans only felt the need for one MG infantry chambering, most militaries now utilize 3. Regardless, nearly every standing army in the world now carries a standard long arm in a round far more similar to 7.92 Kurz than 8mm Mauser and it defines explicity the role of the infantry "rifle". These weapons cannot really be called carbines when compared to known examples and while they are distinctly different from the WWI and II era .30 chambered long guns, said long guns no longer play anything but a negligible role on the battlefield and do not qualify for comparison in any contemporary study.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old March 29th, 2005, 06:58 AM
traveltoad traveltoad is online now
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,625
Ok, you guys are way way beyond me when it comes to "gun-speak". But the "is an assault rifle really a rifle" dialogue seems to me to be one lacking a basic common definition: "power".

John claims that these "hybrid" weapons are not truly rifles due to the fired round's lack of power. Measured by each round. (If I've got the general gist of the argument correct.)

Jack's argument seems to look at the combined power of a shot-burst (I don't know if this the correct term) is great enough for these weapons to be added into the ranks of rifle. (Again, assuming that I have summarized Jack's argument correctly.)

So how is "power" measured in a weapon?


I know that I have really left myself open by sticking my head into this thread.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 3503 September 12th, 2017 12:16 PM
First Hand Gun willroeder General 3 April 25th, 2007 06:47 PM
FN fiveseven USG ddavis General 8 April 2nd, 2007 06:36 PM
Weapons Choice ronward General 9 June 17th, 2004 07:34 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:47 AM.




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