Grizzly 45 wrote: » So ,if you have to ever answer in court or your FO statements about "leathl" calibres and such...You'll be well informed.:phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc
gunny123 wrote: » The hollow point .45acp, aka "The flying dustbin" . I had a 9mm, a 40S&W and then the .45acp, the .45 was the easiest to shoot and i would not like to be on the receiving end of it. The fact it was carried in two world wars, korea, vietnam etc with no problems, means it has to be one of the best.
Uinseann_16 wrote: » Some Marines still carry a .45. :pac:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU(SOC)_pistol
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Although a great fan of the 1911 myself,it is now a very outdated design,that I would be reluctant to carry if the chips were down and there are much more modern and reliable guns out there in 45 ACP.
Uinseann_16 wrote: » None more proven though:D, And itd be a whole lot better than a pointy stick speaking of pointy sticks get a mosin aka pointy stick that shoots too:D In all seriousness has there been any major firearms development that hasn't piggy backed off a john browning design in the last 50-60 years?
gunny123 wrote: » I would say a lot, the ar rifles, the garand maybe. The AK was cribbed by the russians from wartime German designs. Browning was genuinely an amazing man, as someone said he had the equivalent of a primary school education, if even that, and yet he had a brilliant mind for designing mechanisms. I am looking at an old auto 5 shotgun in good condition, it was the first successful auto shotgun, was made for over 100 years, and they made over 3 million of them. The 1911 i had was a cheap single stack one, but i absolutely loved it and can see why people do not want to use anything else. The browning o/u the same, love them.
Uinseann_16 wrote: » None more proven though:D, And it'd be a whole lot better than a pointy stick speaking of pointy sticks get a mosin aka pointy stick that shoots too:D In all seriousness has there been any major firearms development that hasn't piggybacked off a john browning design in the last 50-60 years?
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Put a 1911 in any standard military endurance test of today and it wont survive. In 1911, the endurance test was 10,000 rounds without FTF or parts failure. That's not even breaking in some modern military handguns, where the round count is 100k rounds without parts failure or FTF..Granted with modern steels and better machining processes it certainly will have improved reliability and fit especially. My ol man carried a 1911 when he was in the US Navy in WW2,[as far as Iwo Jima] he always said they were horribly inaccurate and rattled like crazy, and that's probably why they issued them to officers in the first place[USN humour].Taking into account,every man and his dog were making those in the US under wartime conditions too,which would explain the sloppy tolerances He also confirmed something the gun Jesus[Ian Mac Collum] proved in his mud tests if the 1911 got sand or dirt in it,you were looking at a non -functioning gun.Apparently quite a few famous designs of battle-proven guns,dont do well in mud tests,like the Garand,the M14,the AK[and varients],the FAL,the Glock of all pistols and the 1911.Which must have been Hell in ww1 in the trenches. Also, its carrying of "Cocked and locked" can cause a fatal problem,if you are carrying in an open holster. Crud and lint can build up in the hammer slot in front of the firing pin,and prevent proper hammer to firing pin impact. Not good if you expect BANG! and get a "Click!" instead.Ergo you might be better off carrying "Israeli style"[Saftey off,nothing up the spout draw,,rack slide and fire] or Condition 2[1in the spout, hammer down,saftey on]Unless you have practised with the 1911,it is kind of fiddley to do all that under pressure too. Not to mind it is a single stack 8shot mag capacity.Not exacytly helpful in the age of high capacity. Yes,it is a great time proven design, but so is Henry Ford's model T or Dr Porshes VW Beetle. Doesn't mean we have to keep using them too, and more modern designs have been influenced from them too. It's a fine gun and I love it too,but people seemingly idolise it as the be and end all of handgun designs,yet these same folks seem to be the ones always adding in custom parts to make them function better or more reliably for some reason...So what would you rather have if your neck was on the line? A gun that you can be assured will go Bang, consistently out of the box with 13 rounds of 45ACP,or a 107-year-old design with 8 rounds, that even in the civvie market is still problematic and known to hiccup,even with aftermarket parts?As Dirty Harry said "You gotta know your guns limitations".:)
Uinseann_16 wrote: » Id say those early 1911s were probably a lottery in terms of reliability one may have been accurate and reliable and the next off the assembly line could be a ball of S**te.
Victor wrote: » During the war, the quality of materials and workmanship went out the window. Factories that previously made household cutlery and similar manufactured goods were re-tooled to make weapons and other equipment. Many weapons were expected to last at most a few years (material strength, rust protection, etc. suffered), at most weeks of combat use and a few thousand rounds on the basis that having 10 mediocre quality* weapons were better than one high quality weapon. There would of course be exceptions. * They still had to do their job of putting rounds downrange.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Apparently quite a few famous designs of battle-proven guns,dont do well in mud tests,like the Garand,the M14,the AK[and varients],the FAL,the Glock of all pistols and the 1911.Which must have been Hell in ww1 in the trenches.
gunny123 wrote: » I don't really know of any firearm that copes well with mud or a lot of dust, how can they really ? You would have to make some sort of effort to clear it before use.
Uinseann_16 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53A8-gIrGqA An interesting little training rifle:pac: does anyone know of any other .22s with a old school style mauser action.
gunny123 wrote: » https://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=75420
Uinseann_16 wrote: » Not what i meant but yeah. I meant mauser style action safety on the bolt etc:P. Thats a rip off CZ/BRNO stuffed in a mauser like stock there was a few of them about here i saw one in a RFD a while back would be a fun lil gun tho
Grizzly 45 wrote: » The Scouts originally were an armed organisation belive it or not. That was the whole concept behind Baden Powells thinking.But nowadays,I doubt a scout person even has a damn pocket knife.:( Going by all the debates of Gender equality and whether little Johnnie actually wants to be Janie and has his six-pack of condoms with him at camp rather than his merit badge for knot tying.Well...maybe handy for a jamboree bondage session these days...:rolleyes: So I'm sure the lesbian trans sex scout person in charge would probably freak first if this was suggested. So what have we got to lose??Be well worth a try.:)
gunny123 wrote: » Your remarks have really offended me, because today i choose to identify as a 6'4" black nigerian female limbo dancer. You monster !
BattleCorp wrote: » gunny123 wrote: » Your remarks have really offended me, because today i choose to identify as a 6'4" black nigerian female limbo dancer. You monster ! Hey, how you doin'.
Uinseann_16 wrote: » Not what i meant but yeah. I meant mauser style action safety on the bolt etc:P.
extremetaz wrote: » You mean the flag safety? Any older '54 actioned Anchustz
tac foley wrote: » I've got one of those, too - a Model 1409 I rescued from a soggy closet in the forgotten corner of the range armoury.
