Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fort Campbell’s Strike First Unit in Army Issued M26 Shotgun
clarksvilleonline.com ^ | 15 Feb 2012 | Sgt. Joe Padula

Posted on 02/15/2012 7:06:30 PM PST by smokingfrog

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last
To: optiguy

‘Pump action .223 was not desirable.”

In my “not so humble opinion” .223 is rapid fire power, lower penetration , longer range, where as 12 guage is higher penetration, can be rapid fire, shorter range. Just not compatible.


51 posted on 02/15/2012 8:59:20 PM PST by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

The USMC used them out in the Pacific in WWII.


52 posted on 02/15/2012 9:07:29 PM PST by rlmorel ("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MASS-2 FAC
I'll bet you had a Winchester Model 12. The nice thing about that, compared to shotguns now, it didn't have a trigger disconnector. So, you could hold down the trigger and pump the slide, and it would shoot.

A friend of my brother's borrowed one from his dad, back in the 1970's, and I remember him showing us that. Hold down the trigger, and it was bang-bang-bang-bang-bang, as fast as he could rack the slide.

53 posted on 02/15/2012 9:07:57 PM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

Ah. You meant the short barrel. My mistake.


54 posted on 02/15/2012 9:08:45 PM PST by rlmorel ("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

“You meant the short barrel. My mistake.”

No, my mistake. A pump action .223, to me, makes little sense.


55 posted on 02/15/2012 9:14:25 PM PST by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

or I are confused. .223 in WWII?


56 posted on 02/15/2012 9:17:12 PM PST by dynachrome ("Our forefathers didn't bury their guns. They buried those that tried to take them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: wrench
"A 12 gauge barrel under 8 inches” Must have great muzzle velocity."

Generally referred to as a hallway (or alley) sweeper..not an entirely bad thing.

What amazes me, or maybe not, is that back in the 60's the M16 was boosted by being light weight and using a light round..."you can carry more ammo".

So, 45 or so years later they've strapped several pounds onto the puppy, messed up the shoulder to aim point geometry, and added a second issue of ammunition (with various loads) in the name of progress (?)

On the other hand, at 3.5 pounds and given a skeleton stock, it'd be a comfort strapped to your leg if you had to venture into a nasty neighborhood.

57 posted on 02/15/2012 9:38:28 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MASS-2 FAC
"I was issued a 12 gauge pump (Weatherly sp??) when I went into Viet Nam."

I've always wondered about that. In the dense jungle, wouldn't a shotgun make sense? Maybe one guy per squad carrying one. Seems to me a 5.56 round would deflect if it hit limbs or whatever more than 50 feet out. Whereas a load of buckshot would be effective at the ranges encountered in the bush, i.e. pretty damn close.

Any Nam vets care to weigh in?

58 posted on 02/15/2012 9:46:52 PM PST by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: norton

It’s amazing!

After almost five decades of tinkering, bolt-ons and cajoling, they’ve come up with an M16 variant that has as much short range oomph as an M14 has out to a few hundred yards!

With a little more work, it will be as good as a Garand!


59 posted on 02/15/2012 9:50:58 PM PST by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
Don't know what kind of pattern or energy that thing is going to have. Might be better off with a real shotgun, with some up to date improvements.

Video at: http://youtu.be/HapoGIMHUsY

60 posted on 02/15/2012 10:09:37 PM PST by SiVisPacemParaBellum (Peace through superior firepower!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Wait, so it took them 9 years to go from initial field testing to deployment? The friggin Manhattan Project only took 3 years to develop and deploy the atom bomb!


61 posted on 02/15/2012 11:18:01 PM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

Too complex, too bulky, too expensive for combat situations.


62 posted on 02/16/2012 3:57:03 AM PST by Makana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Makana

You are right; good luck maintaining that weapon in combat conditions.


63 posted on 02/16/2012 4:31:53 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine's brother (Near term Obamacare 'Unit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
-- I believe that in United State v Miller, in 1938 (?) the Supreme Court upheld the National Firearms Act (1934) which declared short-barreled shotguns to be illegal, in part because they had no military use. --

No, the Supreme Court made no decision, because the record didn't say whether or not a short barrel shotgun had a military or "common (as in "for all of us," not as in "many people have them") defense" use. The case was sent back to the court that found the NFA to be unconstitutional, and that ruling (NFA is unconstitutional in light of the second amendment) holds if the weapon being taxed is found to have a military use.

From memory, one of the key phrases in the SCOTUS opinion is "absent evidence, we cannot say." Then it went on to say how the decision below should be reached - if the evidence showed the weapon to have a military use, then the NFA was afoul of the 2nd amendment.

Miller was never even tried, let alone convicted. His indictment was quashed on 2nd amendment grounds.

64 posted on 02/16/2012 4:42:37 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I am not a lawyer, so a lot of this goes over my head. Also, I recognize that wikipedia is a problematic source for accurate information. Nevertheless, wikipedia gives this as the holding of United States v Miller:

The National Firearms Act — as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it — was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

My understanding is that the lower court had declared that short barreled shotguns had a military use and therefore could not be taxed (restricted) under the NFA. The US Supreme Court remanded that District Court decision which had supported the legality of short barreled shotguns. The USSC upheld the NFA.

The notion that such shotguns had no military use was a central (and erroneous) determinant.

65 posted on 02/16/2012 5:02:21 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (I am pro-Jesus, anti-abortion, pro-limited government, anti-GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: optiguy
that's different...
66 posted on 02/16/2012 5:07:14 AM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
"Here’s to hoping that the plan is to deploy it outside the US."

Yeah. Sure. Just like the new indefinite detention bill will only apply to "terrorists".

No, you can bet this stuff is coming to a SWAT team near you. The US government has now placed dissenting (non liberal) American citizens on the top of its enemies list. Janet has essentially said so in public.

67 posted on 02/16/2012 9:06:18 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

Hoist the M26 combat shotgun to your shoulder, square your stance, lean toward the target standing before you and blast away. With a yank of the straight-pull bolt action, the weapon is ready for another. Now take a look in action: http://youtu.be/cGDq3c0Hv7c


68 posted on 02/16/2012 11:48:35 AM PST by Colorado Cowgirl (God bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Wiki is incorrect as to Miller. You are correct that the District Court held the NFA to be unconstitutional, but there was no finding by that Court that the short barrel shotgun had a military use.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

So, "[absent] any evidence," the Supreme Court "cannot say" that a short barrel shotgun " has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," or "is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below. It had to in order to provide a venue for further judicial findings. If the judgment had stood, there would be no indictment, and no basis for the court below to hear any argument or obtain any further evidence.

The "absent any evidence" part is important, because it is the reason why the Supreme Court could not say. Court now cherry pick that part out, and roughly assert that SCOTUS had evidence and said that a short barrel shotgun has no relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, is no part of military equipment, and use of a SBS cannot contribute to the common defense. That is an incorrect read.

69 posted on 02/16/2012 9:28:33 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thanks


70 posted on 02/17/2012 3:23:57 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (I am pro-Jesus, anti-abortion, pro-limited government, anti-GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 43north
I could carry that for about 15 minutes IF I could find a vest that would fasten around by 12 pack abs...

I skipped the 12 pack and went to a full keg.

71 posted on 02/17/2012 12:20:57 PM PST by Sarajevo (Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet

FlyVet, it’s been a long time but I think you’re correct. To be honest, I only fired the thing on a range. I seem to remember that it would fire consecutive rounds if you held the hammer back.

The thing that impressed me we when I went to the armory and was issued the wepon, I held it to the sky and pulled the trigger and to slide action opened the chamber.

I grew up hunting small game with a 12 & 16 gauge and had never seen a pump action so smooth.


72 posted on 02/17/2012 8:00:36 PM PST by MASS-2 FAC (Get premium health care - run for congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet

FlyVet, it’s been a long time but I think you’re correct. To be honest, I only fired the thing on a range. I seem to remember that it would fire consecutive rounds if you held the hammer back.

The thing that impressed me we when I went to the armory and was issued the wepon, I held it to the sky and pulled the trigger and to slide action opened the chamber.

I grew up hunting small game with a 12 & 16 gauge and had never seen a pump action so smooth.


73 posted on 02/17/2012 8:01:02 PM PST by MASS-2 FAC (Get premium health care - run for congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MASS-2 FAC

Sorry for the double post!!


74 posted on 02/17/2012 8:02:29 PM PST by MASS-2 FAC (Get premium health care - run for congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson