Load up with some calamari and scungilli over linguine with marinara
Posted on 03/12/2018 10:27:53 PM PDT by FrankLea
Thanks
Are you saying that the US military has used a purely semi auto AR design? I don’t see where your cut and paste disagreed with me.
“I agree full auto has no place in the civilian world. They are designed to be used on fast moving vehicles or aircraft to shoot the enemy. They are also good for laying down cover fire so your soldiers can get into a better position to assault the enemy. It will also kill large numbers of people in a crowd.”
They also are good to protect the family when the Rat PTB come to move you to the re-education camps.
Founding Fathers included the 2A so civilians can protect themselves from over-reaching or malicious attacks by government. If the government has full auto, which they do, then the civilians must be able to have equal power.
All things being equal, the best weapon available determine tactics.
The functioning of the musket in battle defined the firing line tactics that the British used on the battle field.
But all things were not equal which is why Washington resorted to guerrilla tactics.
You think I and others don’t already know this? The rifles did not have bayonet lugs and the musket was preferred for them military strategy of the times.
The low powered Henry rifle still was better than any muzzle loading rifle in the Civil War, many officers buying their own. They were not cheap. The fact that one Union man shot down 7 Confederate renegades, attacking his family, with 8 shots proves the point. Napoleonic tactics caused the huge slaughter in the Civil War. “Stand up and shoot!”
After the Civil War, the new trapdoor 50-70 was shipped West to forts. Some of the commanders felt the settlers needed them more, so gave them to the settlers going into Indian country while they kept the muzzleloaders to themselves.
Custer WAS outgunned as the tribes had the new tube fed magazine rifles, so said Bourke in his book ON THE BORDER WITH CROOK.
Russia loved the 1895 lever action Winchester and contracted for thousands.
And citizens were using the 1906 Remington model 8 semi-auto while the US army was still designing the 1906 Springfield bolt action rifle, and later for the Pedersen semi-auto device.
We don’t have the time and space to give a complete history of arms development here, but during all this time the military and police NEVER considered themselves “outgunned” by the civilians till Prohibition and the crime wave of 1920s.
General Thompson of the Colonists, meet General Johnson of the British ... General Johnson of the British, meet General Thompson of the Colonists.
Call the toss, Colonists ... the Colonists call "Heads" ...
[Pause]
... and it's heads. You win the toss, Colonists ...
[Pause]
Okay, the Colonists say that they can wear whatever color they want and shoot from behind rocks or trees or anywhere. They say that the British must wear red and march in a straight line ...
[from my best recollection of Bill Cosby's "Toss of the Coin" routine]
“Are you saying that the US military has used a purely semi auto AR design?...”
I beg forgiveness for lack of clarity.
I failed to state explicitly, that there are three systems of nomenclature involved here:
1. Official US DoD nomenclature
2. In-house nomenclature set by the manufacturer
3. Nomenclature determined by the marketing department, used in sales literature and by distributors and other commercial entities
They don’t all match.
“AR” was an acronym created by the original ArmaLite firm and - with a number added - referred to specific firearm models. Supposedly, it meant “ArmaLite Rifle,” which was imprecise from the outset because the firm developed several smoothbores and combination arms, not strictly rifled arms. They used it in the public nomenclature for the AR-10 (7.62 NATO) and for their downsized rifle of similar design in 22 centerfire chamberings, the AR-15 (to the best of my knowledge). Both were select-fire.
Official US DoD nomenclature of the WWII period through the end of the 1960s used several letter designations: M for officially approved models formally adopted for issue to troops; T for test items; X for experimental items. There may have been others. I’ve not seen every last piece of documentation on the nomenclature system. It did at times lead to lengthy, involved designations like T44E4 (or 5?), and XM16E1 (best recollection) which became the M14 and M16A1.
Nominally, the US Army Ordnance establishment set all the nomenclature rules, ever since they became the executive agent for small arms circa 1903 - a milestone that may have meant less than modern civilians believe, as each armed service retained the right to buy weapons for its own purposes direct from private-party gunmakers, and to name those arms according to its own rules for internal administrative and logistic activities. Thus, the “M1911 US Army” and the “M1911 US Navy” pistols.
Nomenclature within the Ordnance establishment was not always clear nor consistent. We have the “US Revolver M1917” made by Smith & Wesson, and the “US Revolver M1917” made by Colt’s. They were totally different designs except for the chambering (45 ACP) and required completely different repair systems and spare parts. The Ordnance establishment itself was guilty of adding to the confusion: In the panicked days following the US declaration of war against the Central Powers in April 1917, famed designer John M Browning presented two arms he’d developed and shelved years earlier: his belt-fed, water-cooled machine gun chambered in 30-06, and his select-fire rifle in the same caliber. Ordnance officials decided to name the first “M1917 Machine Gun” and the second, “M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle” - to avoid confusion. Or so I’ve read in several secondary sources.
Internal nomenclature established by the manufacturer (”factory nomenclature”) does not always match advertising or general-public naming. Some firms never divulge it; in the case of damage to records or a firm going defunct, it is sometimes lost for good. Colt’s used letter designations for many handguns, by frame size: E, F, G, I, K, L, M, N, O, P have been used for arms dating back to the 1850s, and both revolvers and semi-auto pistols. They have also used four-digit numbers in reference to variants of their (semi only) AR-15.
Advertising and “generally known as” nomenclature can be something else entirely. The confusion is helped along by gunwriters, and a spottily informed consumer public. Much gun-magazine usage breezily refers to Colt’s best-known military semi-auto pistol as the “M1911”; this refers only to arms made under contract to the military and delivered. While Colt’s used the (then quite momentous) adoption by the War Dept as a marketing tool, it never named its pistol that until recently. Colt’s has called it the “Government Model” for many decades. In house, it’s the O Frame.
In the early 1960s, Colt’s acquired exclusive production rights and trade-name rights to ArmaLite’s 22 centerfire military rifle. Over a very confused period of several years, it contracted to provide USAF a substantial number of select-fire rifles, but the US Army put a halt to deliveries, at the same time it induced Colt’s to develop modified versions for ground-force use. Several accounts have been published in secondary scholarly works and do not all agree. USAF had to endure a delay, but it eventually received its rifles - named M16 to the best of my knowledge - and US Army Ordance eventually adopted a modified version of the original as US Rifle, M16A1.
In the mid-1960s, Colt’s began offering a semi-only version of the ArmaLite design, calling it the AR-15. Not even collector books get all of it right: on page 269 of _Colt: An American Legend/The Official History of Colt Firearms from 1836 to the Present_ by R L Wilson (New York: Abbeville Press, 1985; ISBN 0-89659-953-1), there is a photo of a semi-only rifle of civilian pattern. It has the forward-assist plunger of the M16A1 but no auto sear and no hole for the pivot pin; also, no raised rib around the magazine release button. The caption declares it to be an M-16.
Some observers might argue for a fourth and a fifth category to the numbered list of nomenclature subtypes: gun magazine nomenclature, and collector nomenclature. Cutting it short is simpler: gunwriters are notoriously mixed up and error-prone (so are their editors); why encourage them?
Collectors might be assumed to harbor better intentions (emphasis on “might”), but can get it wrong: for decades, collectors referred to Colt’s five-shot pocket revolver of 36 caliber as the Model 1853. In its day, it was the 1862 Pocket, also “Pocket Model of Navy Caliber” to distinguish it from other pocket revolvers Colt’s made, most of which were 31 caliber.
There were two AR-15 designations at least, for the downsized 22 centerfire rifle that descended from the AR-10: the select-fire military version, and the semi-only version made by Colt’s for sale to the civilian populace. The later branched off from the former - not the other way around.
I think they also meant for us to have big catapults that fire off big ole rocks!
All weapons are lethal weapon. Otherwise they would not be weapons.
Even the "less lethal" weapon can kill. A tazer can result in a heart attack. Pepper spray can interfere with breathing to the point of asphyxiation. Soft pillow can smother.
“You think I and others don’t already know this?...”
Meant to sound rhetorical, one supposes. To judge by the rest of the writing, you don’t know.
And you’ve added to the mistakes with post 105.
“...The low powered Henry rifle still was better than any muzzle loading rifle ...”
“Better” has no meaning outside the context of the situation. “Better” for what?
The Henry was superior in short-range volume fire; beyond 75 yards, anyone armed with a rifle-musket could laugh at a Henry shooter, while nailing them at leisure. You must never have examined a Henry close up: it’s ridiculously fragile - merely dropping one against a halfway-resistant object will end its service life. For good. The military of the day wanted range and serious penetration, and stoutness and durability (soldiers were notoriously rough on equipment). A single-shot muzzle loader that keeps on firing, even after getting dropped, or dunked, or bashed about, is preferable to the snappiest lever-action that fires half a box of new-fangled rimfire rounds, then dies (or explodes in a chainfire, because ammunition manufacture hasn’t had all the bugs ironed out yet).
No one knew at the outset of the American Civil War, that any repeater could be so much as a fraction as useful - the inventors that swarmed the War Dept were seen as so many pie-in-the-sky nutcases, snake-oil sales reps for perpetual motion.
Chance encounters where a single Henry user got the better of half a squad of marauders made good press, but were insignificant in the wider situation. Good press cannot make for good arms acquisition decisions.
“...Some of the commanders felt the settlers needed them more, so gave them to the settlers going into Indian country while they kept the muzzleloaders to themselves...”
Not sure where this came from ... any commander caught handing out officially inventoried equipment this way would be subject to early termination of his career. At the least; the military has always been very particular about stuff like that. And many forts were in “Indian country.”
The M1865, M1866, M1868, and M1870 rifles were made in a total of about 93,000 pieces: converted from muzzle loaders. These were all accomplished on the Allin pattern and the most numerous (a few thousand others were converted according to several other schemes). The early ones were 58 rimfire, later ones got barrels relined to 50 cal. Compared to the size of the post-1865 Regular Army (27,000 by the late 1890s) this was more than plenty - quite before the Armory people got around to building the smaller, sleeker M1873 and follow-ons. Muzzle loaders went to state & local units or were sold to the populace at large, sometimes sporterized by having stocks cut down, some bored smooth.
George Armstrong Custer wasn’t beaten because Indians had repeaters, his command stumbled onto a gathering where the warriors alone outnumbered the 7th Regiment troopers who’d scurried to the scene by numerous multiples. His troops got split up and the subsection he was with got overrun by warriors some eight to ten times their immediate strength; the Indians could have been tossing rocks, for all it mattered. Anyone can have a bad day; in the profession, bad days can have more serious, more permanent consequences.
“...Russia loved the 1895 lever action Winchester and contracted for thousands. ...”
Winchester made over 293,000 M1895 rifles in the musket configuration for the Imperial Russian government during 1915-1916 - almost 69 percent of total M1895 production. The Russians were pretty desperate by then and in no position to get fussy - their selection cannot seen as anything resembling more than the least bad among many terrible alternatives.
Accounts I’ve read indicate the M1895 was not well-liked by the Czar’s troops. Not sure how many you’ve encountered, but I’ve repaired several and know them in detail. Awkward and not too efficient - the moreso in the very-long musket configuration. Not that any rifle of the day could equal the Mosin-Nagant vintovka o1891g for strength and durability in rough use. Military establishments have never liked lever-actions much: very difficult to operate in the prone position.
“...And citizens were using the 1906 Remington model 8 semi-auto while the US army was still designing the 1906 Springfield bolt action rifle, and later for the Pedersen semi-auto device. ...”
Remington’s Model 8 is one of the few long-recoil autoloading rifles that ever made it to series production. A brilliant design, lovingly constructed by a top manufacturer when all major gunmakers were at the top of their game. I’ve repaired several (including the Model 81, the successor that is almost identical) and know them inside and out. The 8 would have made a terrible military rifle: no recoil-operated gun of the day could withstand dusty or muddy conditions. Individual arms like rifles suffer proportionately more, because their parts are smaller and lighter, and they get down and dirty with the troops more often and more completely than do crew-served weapons like machine guns. The parts of any recoil-operated gun have to mesh with greater precision in many more places, and over larger areas, than other autoloading systems; if they get bent or gouged or otherwise damaged, the gun quits functioning in a hurry. Repairs usually mean careful work over long stretches of time, with files and stones: lots of cut-and-try, over and over and over. One does not simply slap in a new part and expect the gun will work.
We must recall that all primers were still corrosive, a situation that was universal until 1927 and that lasted for many US military cartridges into the early 1950s (almost exactly when Remington discontinued the 81): any arm that wasn’t cleaned immediately after use began to rust like that. Autoloading arms suffered much more, because their actions fly open while hot gases, fumes, and salty residue are still wafting all about. If left uncleaned, a Remington 8 that fired corrosive ammunition would likely rust shut overnight ... the barrel sleeve and springs surrounding the barrel were impossible to get at without the most exacting disassembly, a task no troops in the field could do (and which experienced repair techs often avoid, today). And - not least - the Model 8 wasn’t robust enough to handle the military cartridges of the day.
Your timeline is inaccurate. The US M1903 rifle was designed, approved, adopted, and in series manufacture for a couple years before the Ordnance establishment got an inkling that the Imperial Germans had leapt beyond everyone else on the planet, in producing their spitzer bullet. Some 75,000 to 88,000 M1903s were made before the Ordnance engineers developed the 30-06 cartridge from the 30-03, and devised alterations for the M1903 rifle. Those already made were modified. Didn’t happen all at once: the rework program lasted into 1909.
US Pistol M1918 - known to the civilian gun-enthusiast world as the Pedersen Device - may have been the most imaginative innovation in small arms technology to come out of World War One. But it was a by-product of desperation, not any serious tactical insight. Nor foresight; like many items conceived by John D Pedersen, it was brilliant in conception and peerlessly executed, but overcomplicated. Cooler heads prevailed after the war and it was made obsolete without ever having gone into action. Sadly, almost all were destroyed. I’ve seen only two in my lifetime; one was in the Remington factory museum.
AEF would have been better served if they had been issued the M1919 Thompson gun - a design which itself was overdone.
Not the entire history of small arms development, just a very few salient points.
Decisions on design and development, and to acquire this or that particular system, make sense only when considered in light of the actual conditions pertaining at the time (if then). Tactical orthodoxy, prevailing attitudes, and the state of manufacture all played their roles too. Many moderns - civilian and military alike - don’t always grasp the essential truth, that we are looking back with benefit of hindsight. What seems obvious to us would have taken the most subtle understanding, the highest wisdom, to figure out back then. There weren’t enough geniuses. And not everybody listens to geniuses - even when they are right.
So, the only AR platform rifles every designed and intended for military use were the select fire (fully auto) versions. The semi-auto version was designed and intended for civilian use. So, the AR-15 (as opposed to the M-16 and M-4) was not a military rifle and was designed and manufactured for civilians.
I got a paint ball gun to discourage the deer in my back yard. They did not really seem to care when I shot them. I was really bummed. My son suggested I put the paint balls in the freezer. Made a big difference.
***The Henry was superior in short-range volume fire; beyond 75 yards, anyone armed with a rifle-musket could laugh at a Henry shooter,***
In range, yes, but close combat,Look at this, the Fetterman fight. The cavalry were armed with muzzle loading rifles. Two civilians were armed with Henry Repeating rifles. The cavalry were overwhelmed with bow and arrow armed Sioux, the two Henry armed civilians shot and shot.
In front of where they were found, filled with arrows, were several dead horses and lots of blood spots where they had hit men. They changed position, and again more blood patches all over the ground in front of their position.
And in testing...
http://www.rarewinchesters.com/articles/art_hen_02.shtml
“The U.S. Navy also tested the Henry. Lt. W. Mitchell tested one on May 20, 1862. He fired 15 shots in 10 seconds. The rifle was fired 1040 times without cleaning. There were no major problems with fouling or functioning of the gun. He considered it the perfect weapon.(14) “
Biggest problem the US Army had to deal with was...”That old fogey Ripley”. In an age of cartridge arms he still loved the muzzleloaders.
“So, the only AR platform rifles every designed and intended for military use were the select fire ... the AR-15 ... was designed and manufactured for civilians.”
Still wrong.
“AR-15” as a designator has been used more than once, by different organizations, for different items, at different times, intended for different markets.
ArmaLite (the original firm) used “AR” followed by numerics to designate different firearms; “AR-15” was just one. They developed sporting shotguns and rifles, in addition to military rifles. They also created specialized firearms that do not fit either category perfectly: the AR-7 lightweight rifle that could be broken down and stored inside its own buttstock was initially aimed at DoD, for downed aircrews in survival situations. It was chambered in 22LR. The military ultimately declined it, but it enjoyed some sales success in the civilian world.
Today’s ArmaLite firm arose from a “re-launch” in the 1990s. The modern founders purchased material assets, patents, and intellectual properties that had been created by the original company, and began producing arms - old designs and new. They’ve leaned heavily on the original firm’s accomplishments and legacy, even as they’ve innovated. On their official website (armalite.com) they point out that they introduced their M-15 rifles to compete with Colt’s “trademarked AR-15.”
So please point out an “AR-15” that was ever used by the military.
Or a select fire “AR-15” that was ever manufactured.
“... In range, yes, but close combat,Look at this, the Fetterman fight. ...”
I’m familiar with the Fetterman Massacre of December 1866, which occurred near the Bighorn range in what is now Wyoming. It’s taken by most conventional thinkers as proof that repeating rifles were superior to single-shots and muzzle loaders, and that this superiority applied always and everywhere.
What the incident really does is illustrate the concept of tradeoffs - an idea Freepers seem deaf to.
There are constraints on arms design: many different types. But the one at issue here is that we may create an arm capable of long range and serious penetration, and an arm capable of discharging many projectiles over a brief time that will be effective at short range, but we cannot do both. It still holds today: submachine guns are useful in house-to-house urban warfare, but are of little use in open areas against a foe armed with powerful rifles. And vice versa.
Before the advent of the metallic cartridge there were few guns capable of volume fire at all: revolving handguns were the sole exception, and before Sam Colt brought out his revolving pistol in 1836, they were not much more than curiosities. Colt strove to create a repeating long arm but never achieved the same success he enjoyed with repeating handguns.
Military organizations dealt with the constraint by fielding rifles that satisfied the criteria of long range and penetration, then relying on pointy and edged weapons to equip any force facing chances of a close engagement. Bayonets, swords, lances - all of which remained major armaments into World War Two.
There were technical constraints on early metallic cartridges that hampered their acceptance: flaws in manufacturing and metallurgy that drastically degraded function and safety. Some were not fully remedied until after 1880 - one or two persisted until the 1930s.
The rimfire metallic cartridge hit the American scene in 1857, in the form of the 22 Short; Smith & Wesson brought out their No. 1 revolver to fire it. A dainty little thing. Cases were made of copper; early rounds had a terrible habit of bulging so badly that the No. 1 had to incorporate a cylinder backplate that rotated with the cylinder, to reduce the propensity of the little arm to lock up on firing.
22 Short was too small and weak to have much military potential but simply scaling up the basic rimfire case to hold more powder and bigger bullets did not result in much success. Higher velocities and heavier projectiles demanded higher pressures, but rimfire case could not be made that much thicker, else the arm’s firing pin would have difficulty crushing the rim enough to set off the priming compound. There were also problems with uniformity of loading, where the priming compound did not fill the rim cavity sufficiently - an empty spot could mean a dud. Now and then, the priming compound got spread over the entire inside surface of the case head in addition to inside the rim; the impact of a bullet from the round immediately behind in the tubular magazine, its point touching the poorly primed round, could set it off if the loaded arm was jostled or when the rounds in the magazine got smacked as the gun recoiled on firing. The round that went off would slam its bullet into the round ahead of it, which could ignite the second round, the bullet of which would hit the next round and set it off ... the malfunction was dubbed “chainfire.” It has been documented to have happened in both Henry and Spencer rifles during the American Civil War.
Case head separations also occurred. If the hot gases thus set free did not injure the shooter, the body & neck of the case were still stuck in the chamber and the arm was out of action. Still happens; when I worked in gun repair I dug several case body remnants out of the chambers of “modern” (post-1900) 22 rifles. In one instance, the owner bought the rifle used, years in the past ... he never figured out why it was so difficult to close the bolt on a loaded round. How he escaped injury, I do not know.
LT Mitchell, USN had a very lucky day in May of 1862. It is important to recall he wasn’t conducting a field test, nor any type of operational test as they are now called in the profession. Subjecting that Henry to some time out in the elements - as ground forces had no choice but to do in the 1860s - and to some number of scrapes as might be encountered in actual action, and the uncertainties rise dramatically. At the time, neither armed service conducted joint small arms research and development, so the War Dept was under no obligation to take any Navy Dept test to heart. Nor even to notice.
The personal accounts in Andrew Bresnan’s Chapter 2 at the rarewinchesters.com site are quite interesting, but of next to no utility in determining what are now recognized as the primary attributes of a military system: effectiveness and suitability. People tasked with deciding what to buy, and whether to buy (or not), might find it all very compelling, but are not permitted to make decisions based on stories. Since the end of World War Two at least, decisions of that sort are required to be made by collecting data, on performance as determined by objective, quantifiable criteria. It’s written into in public law.
The corollary is that wars are terrible places to collect data on system effectiveness.
James Wolfe Ripley, Superintendent at the National Armory at Springfield, and later Chief of Ordnance for the Army, gets blamed by the civilian gun-enthusiast community for the Union’s reluctance in acquiring repeating arms during the American Civil War. The critique cannot be supported by the facts: he was never highly placed enough to make any such decision. Senior Army leaders of the day were responsible; it was Ripley’s duty to increase the inventory of small arms and larger guns in the quickest and most efficient manner possible, by concentrating on types already officially approved. Which he did, single-mindedly.
The US Army of those days was not in any way a technophilic organization. As the 1860s rolled around, muzzle loaders had been the only configuration in military service, for centuries. The innovation of the percussion cap was regarded - warily - as a radical departure from proven methods ... its first equivalents appeared in 1807, but the first standard small arm designed from the start to use percussion ignition was the M1842 musket. Wildly dynamic days of invention and experimentation were afoot already, but it could not in any sense be guessed that metallic cartridges and repeaters would become anything greater than novelty items; asserting that officials “should have known” proves nothing except that hindsight is possible.
“So please point out an “AR-15” that was ever used by the military.”
Small numbers of early ArmaLite select-fire rifles in whichever 22 centerfire cartridge was then current were sent to Southeast Asia with advisory teams. One guesses that they were called AR-15s on some level ... Army Ordnance, or whoever was supervising the project, may have used entirely different nomenclature. There were a number of different “centers of excellence” inside the Army establishment at the time ... not all agreed on what concept for small arms ought to prevail.
It’s been written about in American Rifleman, Small Arms Review, Soldier of Fortune, and possibly additional periodicals. William Hallahan may have written about it in his incendiary book _Misfire_; readers are free to disagree with his accusations, but much of the documentation has never been in doubt.
Bourke, in ON THE BORDER WITH CROOK states when the Sioux got tube magazine rifles they became “surly”. In the Rosebud fight it was Washakie’s Shoshone that saved the day for the infantry armed with slow loading Springfield 45-70, and at the Little Big Horn, those tribesmen armed with low powered 44-40 rifles still had it all over the troops armed with Springfield rifles with a copper case jammed in the chamber. The officers had bought their own ammo with BRASS cases. Still didn’t help.
Meanwhile, the Congress thought the 45-70 was good enough to go against the Mauser 7MM bolt action rifle used by the Spanish. A great lesson was learned three.
Different rifles require different tactics. The US government had a great rifle in 1917, but decided more shots were needed so the “Pedersen device” was designed to give the troops a low powered semi-auto rifle.
Thankfully the troops never got to try it out under actual combat conditions in the trenches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.