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
  #176  
Old October 7th, 2007, 08:38 PM
traveltoad traveltoad is offline
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,628
The original question was 9mm vs. 45acp... after this last week I want 45acp.

















I wish I had been able to take more photos... but there really wasn't time. Between lecture and the range there was barely time to think. I shot around 1100 rounds in five days. Lots and lots of range time... paper and steel targets... I "cleared" two houses... and two washes... and I can't stop smiling. But I sure am tired of having to "hammer" the steel targets with a 9mm to make them fall.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old October 8th, 2007, 08:39 AM
Mike_Rupp Mike_Rupp is online now
Mike Rupp
WZ7V
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mercer Island, WA
Posts: 864
Aaron, your second picture reminds me of this one:

Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old October 8th, 2007, 08:47 AM
traveltoad traveltoad is offline
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,628
Yeah... I did pause at the front gate for a moment.

The Raven logo is from Norse mythology. ogden used Ravens to receive information from the world and to spread wisdom and knowledge. Gunsite's quest is to spread knoledge.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old October 11th, 2007, 06:52 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
This is the first high-res video footage I've seen of the G11 in action:




I found this footage fascinating.

You can see the considerable smoke piping out of the non-muzzle portions of the weapon during the firing sequences. I'm not sure if this is gas leaking or not.

Certainly, the G11's breech must open for the cartridges to feed and perhaps this smoking is just residual smoke from the chamber opening during the feeding cycle. The G11's entire action is buffered and moves longitudinally within the outer case during the firing cycle to minimize perceived recoil. It's natural that this movement would act as an air pump and cause the G11 to puff smoke between shots.

Or, the G11 could be leaking gas. The G11 is a caseless design and thus the issues arising from the lack of a case must be dealt with. The beauty of the metallic cartridge's case is that it does several very useful things besides housing the primer, propellant, and projectile in a neat little package. The case protects the primer and propellant from contamination from weather, water, oil, etc. (Note that the G11 ammunition comes in a clear plastic container with a foil seal.) The case acts as a heat sink for the propellant and protects it against cook-offs. The case acts as a heat sink for the weapon as well, as the burning propellants don't actually touch the chamber walls. The case acts as an air seal as it expands during the burning phase, and thus it acts as a barrier for the chamber walls and prevents heat cutting and erosion of the chamber walls and firing pin from repeated firings.

HK and Dynamit Nobel may have solved the cook-off problems associated with caseless ammunition, but I can't help but think that the heat erosion and gas cutting associated with smokeless propellants were never resolved fully. The obvious smoking of this G11 during firing leads me to suspect that it leaks gas, and such leakage will only get worse as the weapon is fired more and more.

Or, it could be that the G11 was truly perfected as HK claimed, and the G11's excessive smoking could be caused by the special propellant used in the G11. Certainly, conventional smokeless propellant is not used in the G11. It could very well be that the higher amounts of smoke piping from the action are just from the new propellant burning. After all, there is an awful lot of smoke puffing from the muzzle as well as the rest of the weapon.

I'm not sure.

But certainly the G11 is a marvel to behold. Time will tell if the caseless cartridge is a viable idea for small arms.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old October 12th, 2007, 11:42 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
I've never really felt it on the G11 or caseless technology. I read the wiki article and it didn't answer any new questions for me. Mainly, I want to know what is it about caseless design that provides *significant* advantages in the field? They advocate for the caseles round because of it's lighter weight and smaller packaging compared to 5.56 but they don't compare the terminal ballistics. Is 4.73x33 every bit as lethal? Does it penetrate hard targets just as well. If it doesn't match the performance of the 5.56 (some would call this a minimum benchmark) then any advantage in round capacity would come at quite a cost. Too me the G11 variants are very large and bulky. They don't look easy to handle at all. The design goal of the weapon seems to be focused around the longitudanal recoil buffering which only presents perceived recoil when the final round of a three-round burst is fired. This doesn't really strike me as a particularly worthy goal. I've had a decent amount of experience shooting the M16A2. I had no problem controlling the weapon firing three-round bursts. It's very manageable. The G11 strikes me as the answer to a question no one is asking.


Although I understand John's hatred of the HK 416 as the embodiment of HK's decline, it does seem to address a pertinent question for the American military, namely to increase the reliability of AR-type platforms.


John's G11 clip linked me to the futureweapons segment on the HK 416.


It's not a particularly worthwhile clip, but the part where they removed the bolt assembly from the upper immediately after sustained fire caught my attention. (around 2:20 left) They referred to combustion gasses being "channeled" away from the action towards the bbl. Does anyone know how this works? Doesn't it lead to a extremely hot bbl and in turn poor accuracy?

I read the wiki article on the 416 and it describes a G36 style short stroke piston to drive the operating rod which cycles the bolt on the 416. This doesn't sound like "channeling" to me.

Also, why if HK's goal was to increase reliability of the AR platform, did they not insist on a departure from the STANAG magazine type? Clearly HK understand the crucial role of the magazine in reliability as evidenced by the G33 design. Why even bother with changing the method of operation when a simple magazine change probably would have yielded equal results? I suppose this is just military-industrial complex politicing.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old October 15th, 2007, 12:27 PM
utahdog2003 utahdog2003 is offline
James Reed
KI4PBH
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveltoad
The original question was 9mm vs. 45acp... after this last week I want 45acp.

After asking the question I ran right out and picked up a 40...

...THEN a 9.

Maybe I need the 45 to fill out the hat trick.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old October 15th, 2007, 06:39 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
I read the wiki article and it didn't answer any new questions for me.


Well, maybe that Wiki article didn't answer any questions for you. But the same article did present some very substantial questions for me.

For example, I did not know previously that the G11 is a squeezebore design. That's news to me, and it's fascinating.

This pic is awesome:





This is the first close-up I've seen of the G11 cartridge broken down into its elements. The brass-looking piece behind the bullet is a mystery to me. At first I thought it was the primer but I don't think so. Here's another shot of the G11 cartridge:




From what I can tell, the primer is at the very rear of the cartridge. I'm not sure what the brass cup is. I think the brass cup in the Wiki photo is backward. Here is a schematic of the G11 ammunition:




From these two diagrams of the G11 ammunition, it looks me as if there is a clear path from the primer to some kind of propellant or explosive contained within the brass cup, and that the brass cup is necessary to channel the burning of the propellants and cause them to burn in the proper sequence, in this case from back to front.

The "production" G11 ammunition has no traditional headspace and I think it might be possible for the projectile not to be launched correctly unless the propellant burns from back to front. The prototype G11 ammunition was very different in design concept:










You can see on these earlier examples that the projectiles seated in the throat and the cartridges headspaced on the shoulder, making the exact sequence in which the propellant burned much less important.

On the "production" G11 ammunition, it makes sense that it's a squeezebore design. I think the explosion of the primer and rearward burning of the propellant within the brass cup are sufficient to break the lock the propellant has on the projectile's groove, cause the projectile to move forward into the rifling and seat the projectile in the leade. Because of the shape of the brass cup, this propulsion of the projectile forward takes place an instant before substantial burning of the primary propellant can take place. Once the projectile is seated in the leade, the propellant burns and the projectile is driven down the bore by expanding gases.

At least that's my guess. I have no real idea how this ammunition works.

Even the clear plastic bullet guide in the "production" G11 ammunition is a mystery to me. Does this thing burn up during the burning phase? Most plastics leave a nasty residue when they burn. But this bullet guide must burn clean. How it does I have no clue.

This is some cool shit, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old October 15th, 2007, 06:56 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
I want to know what is it about caseless design that provides *significant* advantages in the field? They advocate for the caseles round because of it's lighter weight and smaller packaging compared to 5.56 but they don't compare the terminal ballistics. Is 4.73x33 every bit as lethal? Does it penetrate hard targets just as well. If it doesn't match the performance of the 5.56 (some would call this a minimum benchmark) then any advantage in round capacity would come at quite a cost.


I doubt there is much of a performance difference between 5.56 and 4.73.

I think you're missing something though. The important thing about the G11 is not exactly what caliber it's chambered for. Rather, the G11's importance to small arms development is its ammunition design and method of operation. Both are revolutionary.

Let's look at ballistics. If the G11's caseless idea proved to be sound and caseless ammunition proved viable, then the weapons designers could make caseless ammunition for basically any projectile size and velocity they wanted. How 4.73 compares to 5.56 is really not that important for the time being.

Let's assume that caseless ammunition is viable. If so, then the advantages are numerous.

Let's look at weight first. Here's a weight comparison among three popular weapons platforms:




Because caseless is so small and less metallic materials are used, caseless ammunition is extremely lightweight. Weigh a metallic cartridge. Then pull the bullet and propellant from that cartridge and weight them. You will see a huge weight reduction.

Now, if the G11 were chambered in a 5.56 equivalent, there might not be 510 cartridges in the diagram. Perhaps 450? Whatever the number, it's a lot. Caseless ammunition is also substantially smaller than a metallic cartridge with the same projectile weight and velocity figures.

Not only is the ammunition more compact, but the weapons firing caseless ammunition have the ability to be made much more compact. Here's a diagram of the G11's rotary chamber:




Because caseless weapons do not require ejection or longitudinal extraction of empty cases, they can be made in ways unimagined in the metallic cartridge era. Note that the G11 is a repeater but is not plagued with the repeater's length. The G11 is every bit as short as a double. To me, this is huge. The G11 is a bullpup and thus its length advantage is often lost to the casual observer. The G11 could easily have been configured in a conventional format and its length advantage would become much more obvious.

Imagine an ammunition factory not having to source brass and making brass cases. Imagine the elimination of the loading machine as we know it. No more seating primers, hopping and dropping propellant, seating bullets and crimping necks, and so on. Imagine the savings in strategic materials. Imagine the speedier production. Remember, these rounds are loaded in the bazillions to wage a war.

Remember, I'm the guy who thinks HK never mastered the caseless concept. But I do appreciate the advantages of the concept.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old October 15th, 2007, 07:10 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Too me the G11 variants are very large and bulky. They don't look easy to handle at all.



The G11 is indeed blocky compared to today's metallic-cartridge weapons, which are largely perfected. However, remember that the G11 is just the first. The first self-loading weapons were bulky and cumbersome by today's standards. If caseless ammunition is perfected one day, imagine the possibilities in new methods of operation. These weapons could be much more compact than today's weapons. Imagine self-loaders as compact as doubles. It's very possible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
The G11 strikes me as the answer to a question no one is asking.


Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old October 15th, 2007, 07:33 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
...the part where they removed the bolt assembly from the upper immediately after sustained fire caught my attention. (around 2:20 left) They referred to combustion gasses being "channeled" away from the action towards the bbl. Does anyone know how this works? Doesn't it lead to a extremely hot bbl and in turn poor accuracy?


The gas pressure is vented through the forend on the HK416, as it is on the very similar AR18 and G36 short-stroke weapons. The hot gasses never reach the bolt carrier as they do on the AR15's Ljungman method of operation (where the gas runs along a tube and hits the bolt carrier, causing the bolt carrier to move rearward and unlock the bolt head). Excess gas is vented into the upper receiver.

On the HK416, the gasses hit a spring-loaded rod, which hits the bolt carrier and causes it to move rearward and unlock the bolt head. The gasses never reach the upper receiver or bolt carrier. Excess gas is vented through the forend. In this manner, the bolt carrier doesn't get hot because it is not exposed to the hot gasses. Also, carbon fouling in the upper receiver area is largely eliminated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Also, why if HK's goal was to increase reliability of the AR platform, did they not insist on a departure from the STANAG magazine type? Clearly HK understand the crucial role of the magazine in reliability as evidenced by the G33 design. Why even bother with changing the method of operation when a simple magazine change probably would have yielded equal results? I suppose this is just military-industrial complex politicing.


I think HK didn't change the magazine on the HK416 because it couldn't. NATO has already type-classified the M16 magazines. There are millions of ARs in service. There are millions of other weapons in inventory already that use the AR magazine. HK can't change that. It would be like trying to unring a bell.

HK did, however, redesign the AR magazines as best it could. HK416 magazines are dimensionally identical to AR magazines, but are different:




To my limited knowledge, 416 magazines are steel and not aluminum.

Note the hole for the magazine catch. It's a blind hole:





Perhaps the walls of the 416 magazines are very thick? Or perhaps the walls are thin and the hole is blind to prevent the hole edges from getting mangled? I'm not sure, as I haven't seen any 416 magazines.

I believe 416 followers are steel rather than plastic:




I'd love to study this magazine in person.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old October 17th, 2007, 07:28 AM
JMH JMH is offline
Jonathan Hanson
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tucson, more or less.
Posts: 274
Intrigued by the total-weight-versus-number-of-rounds-available chart, I applied it to my Lee Enfield SMLE, and came up with rifle plus 154 cartridges for the same 16.2-pound mark. That doesn't include stripper clips for the rimmed cases; I guess maybe 135 rounds if all were in clips. Still better than the G3 - and some, the late Colonel Cooper among them, would argue more effective.

I wonder. I own a Bushmaster AR as well, and so have no prejudice either way. But I do remember reading somewhere the kills-per-rounds-fired results from both world wars, Korea, and Viet Nam (i.e. Springfield, Garand, M14, and M16). They plummeted. I certainly believe that, all else being equal, having 500 rounds immediately available for one's rifle rather than 150 would encourage spray-and-pray battle techniques.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old October 17th, 2007, 08:06 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
I've read that with the introduction of the M16A1 the rounds expended per enemy kill during combat in Vietnam skyrocketed to 20,000.

This was a primary factor in designing the M16A2 to operate with a 3-round burst rather than being a continuously-firing fully-automatic assault rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old October 17th, 2007, 10:40 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
Of course volume-of-fire tactics are designed not only to put rounds down range to do harm to your enemy, but also to present sufficient sustained fire to prevent or limit the rounds your enemy can deliver to you.

That is to say that fire-superiority or volume-of-fire is simultaneously offensive AND defensive.

From this stand point the round count advantage of a caseless design is very desirable.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old October 17th, 2007, 11:14 AM
JMH JMH is offline
Jonathan Hanson
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tucson, more or less.
Posts: 274
Agreed. However, I wonder if there is a tipover point at which the enemy realizes there's a huge volume of fire coming their way which isn't hitting much, at which point they initiate accurate return fire at those guys waving their ARs wildy all over the place with the triggers held down. At least that's how I'd train my guerillas.

We won WWI. We won WWII. We signed a cease-fire in Korea. We fled Viet Nam. Obviously a lot more factors at work than the action of the rifles we issued, nevertheless one wonders.

A similar effect occurs when police officers transition from revolvers to high-capacity semi-automatic pistols. Hit probability drops in actual firefights.

Again, this is an intellectual musing for me, not conviction one way or the other. If I hear a strange noise on our property out here in the desert and I have a choice between the eight-shot Colt and the 13-shot Glock, I take the Glock.

Unless I'm feeling particularly Coltish that day.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old November 15th, 2007, 10:39 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
The Maxim Machinegun:

Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old November 16th, 2007, 03:24 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
Awesome.

As previously stated around the Dusy campfire:

The greatest firearm of all time.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old January 14th, 2008, 12:12 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
Time for me to play show-and-tell.

I've had a little rifle project in the works for a few years now and it just recently realized completion. It started about 5 yrs ago when I picked up a few components from Bill Bettridge on the discoweb bbs. Bill had scored most of the essential pieces to build a M1D Garand sniper rifle. He never managed to round up the rest of the correct parts and realizing he would never see it through he offered them up for sale. I picked up the M1D components along with the parts for a Beretta BM59 less the receiver from Bill. And for a long time not a lot happened. I'm not sure anything will ever happen with the Beretta parts (which I sold to Tom Kimura) because the receivers are made from unobtanium. But I finally got on the ball with the Garand.

I've always been a fan of the Rifle, Caliber .30, M1.


Along with the M1 carbine the Garand was a weapon that I was fascinated by even as a child. These two small arms were prolific in both production, use and reputation. So much so that hardly anyone need be reminded of their well documented and heralded service in the WWII and the Korean Conflict. Movies like A Bridge Too Far had me studying the rifle and the carbine in film form early on before I ever read anything authoritative. A Garand was actually one of the first rifles I ever fired (I was about 10 and the rifle was so imposing I could only fire it prone off a sandbag). Needless to say, I've been into these weapons for a long time.


I'm certainly not the only one.
Both these weapons are immensely popular and widely available. Furthermore, both are very well designed, well built firearms with a long history of service.


The Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 as it became known after it's adoption by the US military was designed by John C. Garand:


Wiki has a decent history of the trials that led to the Garand's selection. Read if you like. Most already know the story. The important part was that in 1936 the Garand replaced the Springfield 1903 and unlike many other US military weapons decisions the selection of the Garand has hardly ever been criticized.


The weapon was widely praised for it's performance in combat use during our largest conflict. The weapons certainly has a few odd shortcomings as all firearms do, but overall it was very popular and won high praise from commanders (I'll spare you the Patton quote) and troops alike.


The M1 Carbine was chosen to try to fill a gap between the service rifle, the service pistol and special weapons like machinepistols. Mainly something handier and lighter (the Garand is a real dog). A suitable weapon was built and over 8 million M1 Carbine's were produced. Wiki can also tell you about the trials that produced the carbine. The carbine was used for a long long time and still is today in some places. Not everyone is a fan of the carbine. People like to criticize it. Troops may have. Armchair historians certainly do. I don't give a shit. I love it.


I won't go into all the history of these two weapons or the details of their operation. Both are distinctive, but all those characteristics are pretty much common knowledge to even the most neophyte firearms enthusiast. Their usage in WWII has especially been discussed ad nauseum. Lately I've been a lot more interested in the service of the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine in the Korean Conflict from 1950-1953.


A lot of the praise for the Garand and a lot of the criticism for the M1 carbine comes from the Korean Conflict. The Garand was better suited to the mountain fighting that characterized combat in Korea, but the M1 carbine was an assest in the urban warfare. Again, both were present in large numbers. I picked up my particular M1 carbine years ago during the glory days of California gun shows. Mine is a 1944 Winchester manufactured example. It was arsenal refitted during the Korean Conflict. It features the updated bbl band/bayonet lug, M2 type stock and Garand-style click adjustable rear peep sight. I added a Korean era sling and oiler and a WWII era magazine pouch. I also picked up a late Korea bayonet for the carbine. Back in the gun show hey day I also got a couple of M2 30 round magazines that were used with the M1 in Korea as well. My weapon is typical of Korean era guns. It is WWII production but it has been updated. It's just like the carbines pictured above.

My Garand is all Korea-ed out as well.
There were a few different sniper variants of the Garand. Like many other US service rifles it was pressed into service for precision combat use. During WWII while the official issue battle rifle was the Garand the sniping weapon of US forces was the 1903A4 Springfield. This rifle went through a number of evolutions and performed well. Eventually it was decided that the Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 should be adapted to sniping. It was desirable to make the standard rifle the source of the sniping weapon from an armory stand point and the military wanted to explore a semi-automatic sniper rifle. However, this wasn't such a simple task. Mainly because the funky design of the Garand included a top-fed en-bloc 8 round clip which also ejected out the top of the receiver:


This meant, unlike previous US weapons and conventional design, the telescope could not be mounted directly vertical of the axis of the rifle. Delays in adapting a suitable telescope and mount meant that the Garand was not officially designated a sniper until 1945. It never saw combat use as such in WWII. The first variant of the Garand sniper utilized a US M82 telescope and a Griffin and Howe side claw mount. This rifle was used in this mount and the US M82 telescope or a Weaver 330 and with the addition of a cone shaped flash hider under the designation M1C by the Army and Marines in Korea. The later variant the M1D featured and updated telescope the US M84 and largely simplified mount. The newer mount was a simple clamp that threaded with a single knurled knob into a block that was now part of a special bbl. The Army replaced the cone-shaped flash hider with pronged one. All M1 Garand sniper variants are fitted with a lace up leather cheek pad on the buttstock to compensate for the offset telescope and align the shooters eye. The pad features various inserts and once a proper fit is achieved, the leather pad is screwed into place on the buttstock. All of the telescopes used on Garand sniper variants are relatively low power. Most feature a magnification of around 2.5x . The US M82 and M84 telescopes feature a large rubber eyepiece to help with proper relief and a sliding sun shade. The windage and elevation knobs on these telescops are covered with easy flip caps, but these caps are frequently broken and lost.






Reportedly the M1Cs and M1Ds performed relatively well in Korea. Some 1903A4s were still in service during the conflict and American snipers didn't demonstrated any desire to return to the bolt action sniper rifle that preceded their Garands. Precision semi-automatic fire proved an asset against the mass attacks of the North Korean and Chinese Communist forces. Additionally the unique ability of the the M1C and M1D shooter to utilize both the telescope and the iron sights of the rifle without any manipulation was beneficial.

Here's a GI in Korea with one of the earlier M1 Garand sniper rifles. Note this rifle is fitted with the Weaver 330 telescope.


After the Korean Conflict M1 Garand sniper rifles remained in official service until 1967. They saw use in the Vietnam Conflict and other US action abroad. They were by no means a perfect precision combat weapon, but they did not generate large complaint. The successive adoption of the M14 as a sniping weapon seems to indicate that the success of the Garand as a semi-automatic sniper rifle cemented the concept for the military.


The M1D Garand which I built up is configured as it would have been for the Korean conflict. It is fitted with the leather cheekpad, T-37 pronged flash hider, Springfield Armory clamp mount, US M84 telescope and a period-correct USGI web sling. One of the interesting aspects of the M1D Garand is that its design was the product of requirements for armory assembly in the field rather than arsenal construction. All M1Ds were built from existing rifles. With the proper components, no machine work is required for assembly other than reaming the chamber when the new bbl is fitted. Because of this I was able to build a "correct" M1D. However, this is not to say that my rifle is not a "replica" or a "fake". My gun was not put together by a Marine or Army armorer and it did not serve in Korea. This is typical of many M1Ds on the market. Because there are no assembly records there is almost no way to discern if an M1D is a vintage piece or not presuming all of the components are correct. The only completely "legit" M1Ds are those sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program directly from military stores and shipped with authenticating documents. Otherwise it's anybody's guess. I have no intention of ever selling my rifle so this is a non issue to me, but many people build up M1Ds and sell them for a few thousand dollars. The most difficult part of putting together any M1 Garand sniper variant is finding a good telescope. They are quite pricey and many are in poor condition. Because I was building an M1D the only correct telescope was the US M84. Luckily this was the most widely produced model and some replacement parts are available. I've been looking on and off for a couple of years for a good telescope. My US M84 finally arrived last week and now my rifle is done. Here are my two US Korean era small arms and a few acoutrements:






Pictured with the M1D Garand and the M1 Carbine are a few WWII era items likely to have been used as available suprlus during the Korean Conflict as well as some period correct items from 1950-1953. The carbine's magazine pouch is dated 1943. The gas mask bag underneath it is also WWII vintage. The bayonet for the carbine is the late Korean type. The M1D lies next to a 1951 dated 10-pocket ammunition belt and USGI wool scarf. Underneath both weapons is a 1953 dated shelter-half. Amusingly this shelter-half is part of the equipment that I was issued by the Philadelphia Armory when I was an Army ROTC cadet.




Here is the T37 flash hider on the M1D:


And the leather lace-up screwed-on cheekpad:


Here are some shots of the US M84 telescope and mount. This telescope was missing the eye cup as well as one knob cap. I managed to buy a new eye cup from a guy in Greece. I haven't found a replacement knob cap yet.








The optics actually look pretty decent considering the age and quality of the telescope. The US M84 features the military T post reticle:


I'm really happy with the M1D now that it's finally built and I think it makes a great companion to my M1 Carbine.


Last edited by JSQ : January 14th, 2008 at 12:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old January 14th, 2008, 06:24 AM
dchapman dchapman is offline
Daniel Chapman
KJ4BXR
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 1,126
Jack,
For some of these parts, you may try:
Commando Supply Trading Post
(540) 989-5478
5449 Franklin Rd Sw, Roanoke, VA 24014

When Tami and I were having her LR3 serviced the other day, we walked through this guys place. He had one long, glass case full of old magazines, bayonets, scopes, old ammo cartons, etc... He also had many rifle stocks, slings, ammo belts and bags.

I have no idea if any of this is what you're looking for or even if the scopes he had match the ones you posted. But I guess it's worth a phone call if you're truly interested.

Almost everything this guy had was WWII collectibles. He had one section with the typical BDU's, sleeping bags, and duffel bags you commonly find in all military surplus stores. But he defiantly had a lot more WWII 'stuff' than what you traditionally see.....

I have a feeling that if he does not have the part you need for your scope, he'll know where one is.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old January 14th, 2008, 11:37 AM
thomaskimura thomaskimura is offline
Thomas Kimura
N6BZ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 178
Awesome.

Great post.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old January 14th, 2008, 01:19 PM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
That Garand is looking sweet. I dig the wood on the stock.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old January 15th, 2008, 11:08 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
Here's my favorite 1903 Springfield sniper variant from the First World War:


I can't get enough of that Warner and Swasey prismatic 6x "Musket Sight".


Too cool.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old January 15th, 2008, 11:14 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
There's definitely a genetic heritage here:




Offset telescope.
Big rubber eye cup.
Funky mount.

Love it.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old January 16th, 2008, 09:05 AM
johnlee johnlee is online now
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,160
Are you going to fit a loop sling to your Garand?
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old January 18th, 2008, 04:00 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Are you going to fit a loop sling to your Garand?

I plant to keep the period-correct USGI web sling.

I have the frog M1907 style sling with keepers for the M70 and I haven't learned any shooting aid positions with it that cannot be done with the web sling.

Take for instance, this common posture:


And the accompanying text:

Another sling that can be used as a shooting aid is the U.S. G.I. web sling. I refer to the cotton sling only, as the nylon sling is a bit too slippery to use effectively. It is slightly different than the M1907 sling. This sling is constructed of one strap instead of 2. It has a hook on the bottom to attach to the rear sling swivel & the top end is run through the front sling swivel. The top of the sling is secured by a clasp. What makes it capable of being used as a shooting aid is its metal slider positioned at the bottom of the sling. Itís simply a rectangular piece of metal with two slots. The middle piece of this slider has the bottom of the sling wrapped around it & stitched in place. The top of the sling has the hook installed first and then it is run through both slots in the slider. It then runs through the bottom half of the clasp & two pieces of metal are bent to prevent the sling from slipping back through.

To attach it to your rifle for carrying make a loop by sliding the slider about 6 inches or so from the bottom of the sling. Hold the slider in place & hook the sling onto the rear sling swivel. The feed end of the sling is then run through the front sling swivel & back into the clasp. Pull the feed end tight for storage or leave it a bit looser for carrying. The clasp is then latched a few inches from the tip of the feed end to hold the sling in place.

To use the G.I. web sling as a shooting aid, start by unlatching the clasp to put a little slack in the sling & latch it again. Unhook the hook from the bottom sling swivel. Push the bottom end of the sling through the slider to form a slip loop big enough to fit on your left bicep. Next give the slip loop a ĺ turn to the right so that the hook will be on the outside of your arm. Insert your arm through the slip loop & tighten it. Now place your left hand on the rifle as you would with a leather sling, partially wrapping the sling around your hand & forearm while the sling rests flat against the back of your hand. Be sure to pull the clasp down so it wonít dig into your hand when you fire. Place the rifle against your shoulder as you would fire it. Now take the feed end of the sling & loosen the clasp. Pull the feed end towards you to tighten the sling or let it pull away from you to loosen the sling. When you have the sling properly adjusted tighten the clasp.


Here's another description of using the web sling:

I unlimbered my 1903 sling with the clip at the back. I unclipped the back. I pulled a loop out of the sling where it passes through the middle of the buckle. I turned it OUT and put my arm through the sling all the way up past my bicept, with the buckle toward the outside of my arm. I wound my hand out OVER the sling and then under it at the front swivel. When I rolled into prone I was locked in. The rifle was as steady as shooting off a sandbag. I relaxed my front arm and just used it as a rest. I had a shooting mitt on to relieve pressure on my hand at the swivel. Since the 1903A3 doesnít have a floated barrel, I didnít have tons of pressure on the rifle, just enough to steady it out.

I couldn't find any decent pictures of the USGI web sling being used as a shooting aid on a Garand, but I did find these pics from a CMP match with the same sling on AR-type rifles:







Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old January 18th, 2008, 04:31 PM
thomaskimura thomaskimura is offline
Thomas Kimura
N6BZ
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 178
It's really interesting to see ACOGs and A3s (with Picatinny rails).

Are those pics from Camp Perry?
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 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 12:21 PM.




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