The Best Light Machine Gun.

[South African Military]

Which LMG of WW2 do you think is best? :?:
Id have to go with the British Bren LMG. It was highly accurate and very reliable, and easy to handle and mantain.

http://www.picdump.jolt.co.uk/cod/weapons/bren.jpg

The British Military still uses the same design today. (modified of course)

[TexWiller]

i'd rather with fight stones and crude spears than using British guns of ww2 era.

[Gen. Sandworm]

i'd rather with fight stones and crude spears than using British guns of ww2 era.

LOL sorry S.A.M. but think im going to have to go with TexWiller on this one. :D

I dont think it gets any better than the MG-42. If is sounds evil, shoots evil than is must be evil.

http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_11_30_2002_07_20_32/mg42.jpg6BE1C831-D72A-4527-B7752B47829795CE.jpgLarge.jpg

[South African Military]

i'd rather with fight stones and crude spears than using British guns of ww2 era.

LOL sorry S.A.M. but think im going to have to go with TexWiller on this one. :D

I dont think it gets any better than the MG-42. If is sounds evil, shoots evil than is must be evil.

[/img]

Ya, but the MG-42 wasnt a light machine gun, you had to deploy it first. I think the Bren is deffinetely on par with the BAR. But id say its better.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Oh i was considering light machine guns anthing an infantry solider could carry with them. The bren would be kinda hard to shoot standing up I would think. Not near as difficult as an MG-42 :) Most pics ive seen of the Bren it was deployed. But if the MG-42, MG-34 and the american 30 cal are all out ....... then ill go with the BAR.

[South African Military]

the BAR was also pretty hard to shoot. The Mp44 i think was more of a sub machine-machine gun type. Didnt have too great of acuracy.

[WildBoar]

The modern version of the Bren is no longer in service with the British it was called the LMG :) and was rebored to 7.62 Nato standard.

It was possible to fire from the hip but obviously was designed to be deployed on it's Bipod.

Having fired it I would vote for it :)

[WildBoar]

i'd rather with fight stones and crude spears than using British guns of ww2 era.

Yes that's nice but you wouldn't last very long so why don't you like British weapons?

[Gen. Sandworm]

I think most British veterans will tell ya they would prefer a thompson or and MP44 compared to the Sten. Bren was an alright weapon but ....... it aint that great. Sten cheap to make and decently effective. However did jam the day when the Chechs tried to use it to assinate Reinhart Heydrich.

[South African Military]

I think most British veterans will tell ya they would prefer a thompson or and MP44 compared to the Sten. Bren was an alright weapon but ....... it aint that great. Sten cheap to make and decently effective. However did jam the day when the Chechs tried to use it to assinate Reinhart Heydrich.

I can agree with you about the sten. Not the best of machine guns, however it did prove to be extremely helpfull during WW2. It did replace the Thompson by the time the Normandy landings in 1944. So it was alright. The Sten was also the first SMG fitted with a silencer which proved extremely valuable. It was a favorite amongst ressistance groups because of its compact size, ease of dismantling and hiding. Heres a funny poem composed during WW2.

"You wicked piece of vicious tin!
Call you a gun?* Don't make me grin.
You're just a bloated piece of pipe.
You couldn't hit a hunk of tripe.
But when you're with me in the night,
I'll tell you pal, you're just alright!

Each day I wipe you free of dirt.
Your dratted corners tear my shirt.
I cuss at you and call you names,
You're much more trouble than my dames.
But boy, do I love to hear you yammer
When you 're spitting lead in a business manner.

You conceited pile of salvage junk.
I think this prowess talk is bunk.
Yet if I want a wall of lead
Thrown at some Jerry's head
It is to you I raise my hat;
You're a damn good pal...
You silly gat!"

I dont know why you say that the Bren was alright, it was great!

[WildBoar]

The sten was one of the first mass produced weapons using pressed steel and was designed that way purely due to cost and ease of manufacture and was intended for use by partisan groups and therefore cannot be compared to the Tommy gun or similar, It was still in service until the 90's so couldn't have been that bad.

The Bren was very accurate and a useful weapon and I would be interested to know which Brits you asked about their preference for other weapons?

[South African Military]

The sten was one of the first mass produced weapons using pressed steel and was designed that way purely due to cost and ease of manufacture and was intended for use by partisan groups and therefore cannot be compared to the Tommy gun or similar, It was still in service until the 90's so couldn't have been that bad.

The Bren was very accurate and a useful weapon and I would be interested to know which Brits you asked about their preference for other weapons?

Id also like to know. According to the information I have read on the Bren, the Bren was one of the most reliable LMGs in WW2.

[Dani]

What about MP44 Sturmgewehr? :lol:
http://www.strandholm.dk/magpou44.htm

[South African Military]

The Mp 44 was also a very good gun. I dont know much about it though.

[Dani]

For MP44:
http://www.answers.com/topic/sturmgewehr-44
http://infos.aus-germanien.de/Sturmgewehr_44 (in German)

[South African Military]

The best all purpose weapon is deffinetely the German FG42

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=27kflmpgt3ker?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=FG42&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b

[Gen. Sandworm]

Great weapon but didnt seem like it was used or produced much. Wonder why? Looks like it could do just about anything.

[TexWiller]

Great weapon but didnt seem like it was used or produced much. Wonder why? Looks like it could do just about anything.



"The FG42, with its finely machined parts, was far too costly to produce in quantity."

i guess that is the answer.

[Dani]

http://i136.exs.cx/img136/6150/sg449ak.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Comparing to FG42, "By the end of the war, some 425,977 StG44 variants of all types were produced. The assault rifle proved an invaluable weapon, especially on the Eastern front, where it was first deployed."

Also:
"An intriguing addition was the Krummer Lauf, a bent barrel with a persicope sighting device for shooting around corners. It was produced in several variants, an "I"-version for infantry use, and a "P" version for use in tanks (to cover the dead areas in the close range around the tank to defend against assaulting infantry), versions with 30°, 45°, 60° and 90°, and a version for the StGw 44 and one for the MG 42. Only the 30° "I" - version for the StG44 was produced in any numbers."

And: "The wisdom of the assault rifle concept has been borne out in that, with the exception of a few specialized positions such as the sniper, virtually every soldier in every army today carries a descendant of the StG44."

Quoted from: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Sturmgewehr+44&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1

I have nothing more to comment...

[Dani]

Krummer lauf (bent barrel):
http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.988/outputRegister/lowhtml

[Winjeel]

i'm gonna have to go with the bren on this one

[Dani]

You should..
:lol: :lol:

[Dragkon]

And what about Russian guns? I like Degterev. As for Bren, I know only about its magazins of 30 shots. If there were bigger? If seems it is not enough, compare it with german MD-34 - 100, MG-42 - about 75. And russian PPS(I mean Spagin, not Sudaev - 90 bullets, and Suomi of Finland - not bad for light)

[Gen. Sandworm]

The modern version of the Bren is no longer in service with the British it was called the LMG :) and was rebored to 7.62 Nato standard.

It was possible to fire from the hip but obviously was designed to be deployed on it's Bipod.

Having fired it I would vote for it :)

K I think we could debate on wheater or not the Bren was a LMG. But if not I think the American 30 cal and the German MG-34 and MG-42 were better.

[Gen. Sandworm]

.............. 90 bullets, and Suomi of Finland - not bad for light)

Finland had a machine gun named Finland???? :roll:

[WildBoar]

I think you misunderstood my post :) the Bren WAS a light machine gun although once it was rebored to 7.62 it was officially known as the LMG in British service and no longer called the Bren.

[Dani]

.............. 90 bullets, and Suomi of Finland - not bad for light)

Finland had a machine gun named Finland???? :roll:

Yep, they had!!

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html

[South African Military]

The modern version of the Bren is no longer in service with the British it was called the LMG :) and was rebored to 7.62 Nato standard.

It was possible to fire from the hip but obviously was designed to be deployed on it's Bipod.

Having fired it I would vote for it :)

K I think we could debate on wheater or not the Bren was a LMG. But if not I think the American 30 cal and the German MG-34 and MG-42 were better.

I think we have to define "Light Machine gun" You can not compare the Bren with the 30 cal and mg-42. They are completely different type of weapons. We can compare the BAR the BREN and the Mp 44. And any others of those types.

[Dragkon]

More about Suomi:
http://www.world.guns.ru/smg/smg52-e.htm
(in english with main characteristics)[/quote]

[Preatorian]

.............. 90 bullets, and Suomi of Finland - not bad for light)

Finland had a machine gun named Finland???? :roll:

Yep, they had!!

http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html
Okay, they had Suome as sub-mashine gun, but LMG was LS 26 Lahti-Soloranta, recoil-operated, 7.62x54R (Mosin-Nagant), great LMG, it was very accurate, so finnish snipers sometimes used it with scope as sniper rifle.

http://www.gunsite.narod.ru/ls26.gif

http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/FinSmallArms/FinAutomatics.htm#LAHTI-SALORANTA

[Gen. Sandworm]

Does anyone speak finnish???? Puhutko Suomea??

[Dragkon]

onlu using russian-finish military phrase-book:
Jos juokset, ammun !
(if you will try to run, I shall shot you)

[Gen. Sandworm]

onlu using russian-finish military phrase-book:
Jos juokset, ammun !
(if you will try to run, I shall shot you)

I will have to remember that one for sure. :D :lol:

[lieutlienant Vorontsov]

I think best gun is dekhtyarev!!!

[Preatorian]

I think best gun is dekhtyarev!!!
Do you meand PD 1927 ?
http://vpk-kaskad.narod.ru/Photo07/17-03.jpg

Nothing outstanding at my look, just version of Czech Zb26 (or Bren L4) in mechanical ideas, compilied with Lewis M1915.

Best way to see it - just disassembly L4 or Zb26 near with disassembled PD 1927 - youll see what i meand.

I can't say that PD 1927 was a pice of scrap, but i can't honestly say: "PD 1927 was a best LMG during WWII". Good LMG, but not outstanding, with a lot of problems, partly fixed late in 1942 with new DPM LMG
http://www.weltkrieg.ru/images/original/14/1319.jpg

But i can bet it - best LMG in WWII was German MG 34.

[WildBoar]

You cannot put the MP44 in this class it was the first of what is now known as an assault rifle. Pretty much what every armed force uses as standard nowadays.

[Dani]

IMO you could add MP44 to LMG class.
It is a machine gun (like MG34 or MG42)? No.
LMG is is designed to be carried and operated by an individual soldier.
So I bet you could carry and fire an MP44, couldn't you? :lol:

[South African Military]

Ya I am getting REALLY confused with what is the deffiniton of LMG (light maching gun) Somehow it is in my head that an LMG is a gun that can be effectively fired while moving, and of course in prone and crouching. You can not even pick up a MG-34 and fire it while crouching. Right so, I am going to make a new post which you can debate about a few guns.

[Preatorian]

IMO you could add MP44 to LMG class.
It is a machine gun (like MG34 or MG42)? No.
LMG is is designed to be carried and operated by an individual soldier.
So I bet you could carry and fire an MP44, couldn't you? :lol:
Sure you can't look at MP43/MP44/StG44 as a LMG. Is it assault rifle (first really good assault rifle in the World).
Wich difference between LMG and assault rifle ?
Okay, let's try to decide:
1. LMG should be used as stacionary based machine gun, but with ability to quick change location. Assault rifle shoul be used in more short range of fire, more in attack, (carry and fire) . LMG should be used as infantry-support weapon, it sould suppress enemies at long range, make covering fire when infantry attack.
No one LMGs (i meand real life, not movies or games) can be used for "carry and fire" with any hope to hit targets - after 2nd shoot LMG operator will shoot in clouds. A hawe heard about Rambotitos, who can run and shoot from M60 or PKM (in some ugly tales with two LMGs in hands). But i never seen it in real life, specially in battle.
2. According to destination, LMG designed for automatic fire in most cases (some of LMG don't hawe semy-auto mode). Is it meand - LMG hawe a large long heavy barrel, mostly removable barrel. Ususally in WWII period and late LMGs got a barrel with radiator for better cooling.
3. Long heavy barrel need for LMG not only because auto fire. LMG should hawe more long range of fire than assault rifle, usually real range of fire (accurate fire, not range of ball flight) about 2-2.5 times more, than range of fire of assault rifle.
For example, range of accurate fire from AKM can be about 600 meters, but PKM pretty accurate at 1200-1500 meters (i meand real use).
4. Matter of bullet kind. By reasons of detinations assault rifles and LMGs n normal case use different kind of bullets with simular cartrige and calibre.
Machine guns bullets usually more hevy than bullets for assault rifles. Yes, you can use in LMG cartriges for assault rifle and can use for assault rifle cartriges for LMG, but in case with assault rifle barrel (and not only barrel) will be out of duty more sooner than with use with normal cartriges.
Why LMG bullets need to be hevy and sometimes got more powder inside ? Becase range of fire, ballistical matter.
5. LMGs usually hawe bipods. And, in most cases can be used in turrets, but i never heard about assualt rifles with ability to use them in turret.
6. Clips, stripes and other things. Usually LMG's designed for use stripes or clips with large quantity of rounds. In best case LMG can use clips and can use stripes too, as MG 34.
In case with BREN, Johnson LMG and BAR M1918 - these guns are not clear LMG. BAR was designed as automatic rifle, but was so hevy and durable, so become a LMG after all. Johnson was designed as paratrooper version of LMG and was a auto-rifle, that can be used as LMG (and FG-42 was a very simular to M1941 LMG).
BREN ? Oh... that CZ 26 nuke mutant was a LMG, but... this top-mounted clip... can't say something good about it. But looks pretty cool and exotical.
BAR was used as LMG also because USA in WWI and in WWII haven't anything that can be used as LMG, exept a Lewis M1915 LMG. Same story with Britan Army.
USSR got PD, PDM as LMG (that LMG used mechanical idea from CZ26, but got clip as Lewis M1915).
Germans got great MG-34 (they still hawe it as LMG in Bundeswer now).
Japan maket whole bunch a strange ugly things, that they called a LMG, (including a japanese version of BREN/CZ26 as paratrooper's assault rifle).


I can continue this idea, but mine selfmaked english (i guess is it more "preatorian's" than english) don't allow it now.

So, MP43/MP44/StG44 can be used as LMG because: short light unremovable barrel (after three or so clips with full auto continius fire barrel will be very hot and is it will short range of fire, make it unaccurate and recoil will rise a lot), after 3-5 clips of full auto fire without pauses (yeah, all clouds will be in holes, right) you can carry your StG44 directly to gunsmith. If you will shock overheated barrel of any assault rifle - this gun will shoot with ballistic of firework and you'll be able to kill somebody only if you put barrel in month to your enemy.
LMG as MG24 can fire without any problems 20 - 100 shoots per one serie according operating manual. After 500 shoots nonstop fire (by series of 5-50 shoots) you should change a barrel or cooling already used.

[Preatorian]

...You can not even pick up a MG-34 and fire it while crouching...
Opps... sorry, but you can fire MG-34 while runing or crouching. But i not surу in effect of this fire.
Ussually germans use this tactics: MG34 operator carry MG, moving, second number of MG34 crew run near and, in such of needfull, MG34 operatop use left shoulder of second number as turret. Second number hold bipods legs in left arm and lead stripe with rounds by right hand (in case if MG34 use stripe, if MG use roundclip - second number hold MG by right hand, just pressing barrel to left shoulder). What happends with with left ear of second number - i just guessing... :D
Somewhere in archives i hawe photos of MG34 crew, using this tactic.

[IRONMAN]

CORRECTION TO THE INFO OF THIS POST FOLLOWS IN SUBSEQURENT POSTS!

(MP-44) first really good assault rifle in the World

The M2 Carbine preceded the MP-44 as an assult rifle. It had selective fire, almost the same energy (just 65 fps slower round - 1900+ vrs 2000+), a much higher rate of fire, and it weighed almost HALF as much as the much too heavy MP44.

i'd rather with fight stones and crude spears than using British guns of ww2 era.

LOL sorry S.A.M. but think im going to have to go with TexWiller on this one. :D I dont think it gets any better than the MG-42. If is sounds evil, shoots evil than is must be evil.

I agree with both of you. The MG-42 was, I think, the best MG of the war. It's rate of fire, reliability, and light weight made it superior.

[IRONMAN]

CORRECTION OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST FOLLOWS IN SUBSEQUENT POSTS!

You cannot put the MP44 in this class it was the first of what is now known as an assault rifle. Pretty much what every armed force uses as standard nowadays.

I have a correction for you. The M2 Carbine was the world's first assult rifle.

To be an assult rifle, a weapon must meet the following criteria:

1. carbine - short length barrel
2. selective fire - semi or fully automatic
3. magazine fed
4. more than 10 round capacity
3. rifle ammunition
4. light weight

The M1 Carbine met these requirements, and became available to serviemen in 1942, two years before the MP44, and was the world's first assult rifle.

[Gen. Sandworm]

You cannot put the MP44 in this class it was the first of what is now known as an assault rifle. Pretty much what every armed force uses as standard nowadays.

I have a correction for you. The M2 Carbine was the world's first assult rifle.

To be an assult rifle, a weapon must meet the following criteria:

1. carbine - short length barrel
2. selective fire - semi or fully automatic
3. magazine fed
4. more than 10 round capacity
3. rifle ammunition
4. light weight

The M1 Carbine met these requirements, and became available to serviemen in 1942, two years before the MP44, and was the world's first assult rifle.

Good post but where do you get your criteria for what is and isnt an assault rifle. Just curious. ?????

[IRONMAN]

Correction:

The Russian Federov Avtomat (1916) was the world's 1st assult rifle, and was used in WWI. However, the Avtomat was not extremely reliable, and for this reason, the idea of the assult rifle was abandoned by governments for some time.

The MP44 was the world's 2nd assult rifle, and a few months later the M2 Carbine entered service as the 3rd.

My criteria for an assult rifle comes from what I have learned from military people that have told me that these are the things that make a weapon an assult rifle. One of them is my father who is a Korean War veteran.

http://www.biography.ms/Assault_rifle.html

You may read that the 1st in design was the Italian Cei-Rigotti, but it did not have selective fire (it was semi-automatic only) and this disqualifies it from being a true assult rifle. This weapon was never used by military personell because it was unreliable.

The term "assult rifle" has been replaced today with the term "assult weapon" in most countries because the functions of these weapons have increased, such as adding a folding stock, grenade lauincher, bayonet mount, etc, and a more clear definition has been needed for lawmakers to regulate highly dangerous weapons owned by pricate citizens. Some of these features did not exist in most early "assult rifles".

Definition of an "assult weapon" at Wikipedia:
(keep in mind that not necessarily all of these criteria must be met for a weapon to be an "assult weapon". These are simply the features that a weapon may have if it is an assult weapon.

"An assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol with a combination of the following characteristics:

Large capacity detachable magazine, usually defined as holding more than 10 rounds

Military-style appearance, including semi-automatic replicas of military fully-automatic assault rifles

Folding or telescoping stock

Ability to use a grenade launcher, either fixed or detachable

On rifles and shotguns, those with pistol-type grips

A bayonet mount

Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor or sound suppressor (aka silencer)

Weapons that include a barrel shroud or other covering that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned

On pistols, those on which the magazine attaches outside of the pistol grip"

[Preatorian]

... Even if you dissagree with them, you must admit that the M2 Carbine had all of those features 2 years before the MP44. So, whether you take issue with the criteria or not, it is still true that the M2 Carbine preceded the MP44 in this assult design.

...
Just small corrections:
MP43/MP44/StG44 was officially adopted in Nazi's Army in 1943. Name MP43 was with two adds (W) - MP43 designed by Walther and (H) - MP43 designed by Haenel (where Hugo Smaeisser worked).MP43 (W) and MP 43 (H) hawe a different bolt mechanism and different gas operating mechanism. Later both Walther and Haenel MP43 redisigned as simply MP 43. After few changes that gun named as MP44 and after as result of some secutity reson was renamed as StG 44.

About M1 Carbine (Not M2 !!!) - that outstanding, uncal gun was officially adopted in US Army in 1942 (designed more early, in 1941). That gun was desiged in Winchester Small Arms Co. Design based on M1 Garand.
Most important difference with M1Garand was in cartrige. M1 Garand used 30-06 but M1 Carbine used original .30 cartrige, specially designed for M1 Carabine.
Is it most important difference between "battle rifle" and "assault rifle" - cartriges, used in assault rifle more powerfull than pistol and weaker than rifle cartrige.
Version of M1 Carbine, an M2, got selective fire and 30 rouns mag. This version was adopted in army in 1944, but only about 300 000 was produced (M1 Carbine quantity was more large - more than 6 millions, both M1 and M1A1 (paratroopers version)).

I can agree- M1Carbine was first gun, used special "middle cartrige".
I can agree - M1 Carbine was first assault rifle, if we don't look at semy-auto fire only.

Also i should say - M1Carabine got great realability. In late 1990s i hawe seen and used M1 Carbine, produced in 1943 by IBM . That M1 was provided in USSR during WWII by Land-Lease, used in battle and after war used in forrest-guard service near Archangelsk. After about 60 years this gun still in service, still accurate and well operate. One problem - forrest-guard used with this gun self-reloaded cartriges, no more .30 new cartriges available in Russia.
Great, remarkable gun !

[IRONMAN]

MP43/MP44/StG44 was officially adopted in Nazi's Army in 1943.

About M1 Carbine (Not M2 !!!) - that outstanding, uncal gun was officially adopted in US Army in 1942 (designed more early, in 1941). That gun was desiged in Winchester Small Arms Co. Design based on M1 Garand.
Most important difference with M1Garand was in cartrige.

Also i should say - M1Carabine got great realability.



Correction for you:

The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only. The M2 Carbine did, and was an assult rifle. I corrected my post above. The MP44 began it's service life a few months before the M2 Carbine. Hence, the MP44 (2nd assult rifle in the world) was in use before the M2 Carbine. But here is more information:

On April 6, 1944, Hitler issued the following decree:

a) The former MG42 is to retain the same designation
b) The former self-loading rifle, known as the Gewehr 43, shall receive the designation Karabiner 43 (K43).
c) The former new MP, known as the MP43, shall receive the designation MP44.

Prior to this, the weapon was only in testing and was not issued to German troops. It did not become in service untill 1944 when it had been renamed from MP43 to MP44.

Also, you are incorrect about the M1 Carbine being based on the Garand. The 2 weapons are totally different in design. The are no similarities whatsoever between the weapons mechanically. The action of the two weapons is totally different. The M1 Carbine had spring operated action. The M1 Garand had gas operated action. Later a gas operated verion of the M2 Carbine was produced.

M1 Garand - top loading
M1 Carbine - bottom loading

You are correct about the reliability of the M1 Carbine. It was an exceptionally reliable weapon, even in adverse conditions. It's only drawback was that in damp, extreme cold weather the action would get tight and not want to function, and ice build-up would deter function. (When you fire it, heat from the breech causes moisture to condense and feeze on the action.) A small amount of light oil cured this. At Chosin Korea in -40 F temperatures, the US Marines put oil-based hair tonic (used to reduce lice infestation in the field) on the action of their M1 Carbines, and this got them functioning perfectly in the damp, extreme cold.

[Preatorian]

MP43/MP44/StG44 was officially adopted in Nazi's Army in 1943.

About M1 Carbine (Not M2 !!!) - that outstanding, uncal gun was officially adopted in US Army in 1942 (designed more early, in 1941). That gun was desiged in Winchester Small Arms Co. Design based on M1 Garand.
Most important difference with M1Garand was in cartrige.

Also i should say - M1Carabine got great realability.



Correction for you:

The M1 Carbine was not an assult rifle because it did not have selective fire - it was semi-automatic only.
Right.

The M2 Carbine did, and was an assult rifle. I corrected my post above.
When i tipe mine post - there were no corerections...

The MP44 began it's service life a few months before the M2 Carbine. Hence, the MP44 (2nd assult rifle in the world) was in use before the M2 Carbine. But here is more information:

On April 6, 1944, Hitler issued the following decree:

a) The former MG42 is to retain the same designation
b) The former self-loading rifle, known as the Gewehr 43, shall receive the designation Karabiner 43 (K43).
c) The former new MP, known as the MP43, shall receive the designation MP44.

Prior to this, the weapon was only in testing and was not issued to German troops. It did not become in service untill 1944 when it had been renamed from MP43 to MP44.

Not correct.
Hugo Smeisser start working with predecussor of MP 43 named MKb 42 (H). In september of 1943 was adopted as standard army weapon.
In april of 1944 Mp43 was renamed in MP44.
In december of 1944 MP44 was renamed in StG44, got a bit modified receiver and got fosfated coating (late oxidated).
For me it it not only text somewhere in Internet or in some book - i hawe seen all modification in reality and for me these facts seem clear and bright.

Also, you are incorrect about the M1 Carbine being based on the Garand. The 2 weapons are totally different in design. The are no similarities whatsoever between the weapons mechanically. The action of the two weapons is totally different. The M1 Carbine had spring operated action. The M1 Garand had gas operated action. Later a gas operated verion of the M2 Carbine was produced.

M1 Garand - top loading
M1 Carbine - bottom loading

Disagree.
* M1 Carbine - spring operated ??? Are you sure ???!!! David "Carbine" Williams, designer of M1 Carbine gas operating system will turn into he's coffin if hawe seen this text...
Sorry, M1 Carbine as well as M2 was gas operated. Maybe reason of your mistake is "recoil spring" named part of M1 Carbine ? Look at http://www.surplusrifle.com/m1carbine/rifledisassembly/index.asp figure 11 ? Can you see spring beneath a barrel ? It called "recoil spring" but is it a part of gas operating mechanism.
At least - take in hand M1 Carbine, you live in USA - it's easy, i guess. Disassemble it. Look at thing on barrel, somewhere in middle, right after end of "recoil spring"...
Oh, there is :http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Gym/4426/M1/TB_23-7-1/31.jpg
Gas cylinder, piston, piston nut...

You can see it ?
Okay.
*Then take in hand M1 Garand. Look at bolt. Can you see ? Bolts looks very same, bolt lock - same in both M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, trigger mechanism - same... Differences ? Gas mechanism... M1 Carbine...yes, it was redisigned a bit, but parts and way of operation same...
Way to load ? Uh-huh. Is it really great change ? Sure ? Great difference between top-loaded M1 Garand non-detachable clip feeded magazine and M1 Carbine detachable top loaded magazine ? If for you it for sure difference - okay, is it difference...


You are correct about the reliability of the M1 Carbine. It was an exceptionally reliable weapon, even in adverse conditions. It's only drawback was that in damp, extreme cold weather the action would get tight and not want to function, and ice build-up would deter function. (When you fire it, heat from the breech causes moisture to condense and feeze on the action.) A small amount of light oil cured this. At Chosin Korea in -40 F temperatures, the US Marines put oil-based hair tonic (used to reduce lice infestation in the field) on the action of their M1 Carbines, and this got them functioning perfectly in the damp, extreme cold.
Thanks for information. Never hawe heard about hair-tonic, but it sounds reasonable.
And, by the way - send to your father (i hawe read - he fight in Korea) my great respect. If he alive, i hope he are.

[IRONMAN]

Hugo Smeisser start working with predecussor of MP 43 named MKb 42 (H). In september of 1943 was adopted as standard army weapon.
In april of 1944 Mp43 was renamed in MP44.
In december of 1944 MP44 was renamed in StG44, got a bit modified receiver and got fosfated coating (late oxidated).
For me it it not only text somewhere in Internet or in some book - i hawe seen all modification in reality and for me these facts seem clear and bright.

Thanks for your kind words about my father. Yes, he is alive, and I have lunch with him about once each week! He is 74 yrs old.

I was misinformed about the M1 Carbine being spring operated. I thought it was! Appearently it was in fact gas operated as you have shown us. Interesting that it was gas operated.

I do still think that there is enough difference between the weapons to say that the carbine is not based on the Garand. If you compared the action of many weapons, there would be considerable similarity between many of them even if they were designed independantly without inspiration from each other.

According to your information, the MP43 entered service just before the MP44. I suppose this would make the MP43 (name only?) the 2nd assult rifle in the world to go into production and see military service.

I have learned quite a bit reasearching thiese matters with you my friends. It looks as though we can now say that the Russiam weapon was the 1st Assult Rifle, the MP43/44 was the 2nd, and the M2 Carbine was the 3rd to see actual military service.

[Preatorian]

I was misinformed about the M1 Carbine being spring operated. I thought it was! Appearently it was in fact gas operated as you have shown us. Interesting that it was gas operated.

It's okay. A lot of time i tought about one russian hangun (name don't speak for all there nothing, but ok, ir was OZ-27) , i was sure that gun hawe same mechanical idea with COlt M1911A2 - short barrel recoil with half-free bolt (i maybe wrong with english-translated russian weaponary terms). A lot of books sayd- this gun same with Colt...
But i got this gun in my hands in one happy day... oh no, no barrel recoil - just free-bolt recoil, like in Walther PPK...
But this gun looks like Colt, massive, with spring under barrel... and a lot of books got mistake... it's happend time after time.

I do still think that there is enough difference between the weapons to say that the carbine is not based on the Garand. If you compared the action of many weapons, there would be considerable similarity between many of them even if they were designed independantly without inspiration from each other.

In sure look we can say - yes, M1Garand and M1Carbine got a lot differences. Firstly - Garand's gas mechanism got hard link with "operating slide", when you move bolt - gas piston mowe inside rifle too. M1Carbine dont hawe this hard linkage - gas mechanism only push back bolt during fire, but if you mowe slide - gas mechanism don't move with it.
Gas cylinder was moved from end of barrel (M1Garand) to receiver, in zone of more highest pressure, because 0.30 cartrige was about 3 tmes weaker than M1 Garand cartrige.
Bolt recol spring was mover from end of bolt to side - in make all mechaism more shorter and compact.
Trigger mechanism M1 Garand and M1 Carbine - same absolutelly.
But M1Carbine got more compact, elegance and better for accurate shoot mechanics parts, thanks to David "Carbine" Williams.
If we don't like (i - don't) start resonless discussion about it - i should agree - M1Garand and M1Carbine different enough.


According to your information, the MP43 entered service just before the MP44. I suppose this would make the MP43 (name only?) the 2nd assult rifle in the world to go into production and see military service.

Differences between MP43 and MP44 hawe only tecnological kind. No changes in construction - just some parts was simplefied and become able to produce with stamps.
First combat usage of MP43 was in Stalingrad's battle (USSR) in 1943. SS troops got these guns as "wunderwaffe", sended by airsupport, but it don't help to nazis anyway...

I have learned quite a bit reasearching thiese matters with you my friends. It looks as though we can now say that the Russiam weapon was the 1st Assult Rifle, the MP43/44 was the 2nd, and the M2 Carbine was the 3rd to see actual military service.
In sure look Fedorov's rifle wasn't assault rifle, it's looks as hevy battle rifle with serlective fire or LMG... but is it another story. I'll show it later - should go for now...

[Sturmtruppen]

i'd rather with fight stones and crude spears than using British guns of ww2 era.

Yes that's nice but you wouldn't last very long so why don't you like British weapons?

All german sub mg is the best for my. :lol:

[Preatorian]

... It looks as though we can now say that the Russiam weapon was the 1st Assult Rifle, ...
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2258#2258 I started topic about Fedorov's auto-rifle.

[Sturmtruppen]

... It looks as though we can now say that the Russiam weapon was the 1st Assult Rifle, ...
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2258#2258 I started topic about Fedorov's auto-rifle.

correction :oops: ,all russian and german weapons is the best 4 me :D

[IRONMAN]

It does appear that we agree that the Russian weapon was the 1st assult rifle to see adoption. The 2nd was the MP43/44, 3rd the M2 Carbine.

As for German weapons of WWII;

The SMG's were not so good. Rifles and MG's were very high quality. Contrary to what is seen in most WWII movies, the majority of Geman soldiers in WWII used bolt action rifles. This is because the Germans had a war philosophy of rifleman supported by machinegun from the rear (MG42 for example) and moving mechanized weapons to hold down the enemy as the rifleman advanced. It was a flawed philosophy, as was proven in Russia when they met the Sphagin SMG in the cities, and when they met with the Americans in France fighting the Thompson, M1 Garand, and M1 Carbine. The bolt action proved to be simply too slow and too long to provide adequate resistance to sem-auto and fully-automatic weapons.

For example, very fer German soldiers used SMG's - mostly squad leaders and officers had SMG's. The average German soldier used a Mauser or other bolt action rifle.

The MP40 was not a very good weapon, and was out of date by the start of WWII because:
1. 9mm parabellum round was weak
2. Very slow fire rate (380-420 rpm) compared to most other SMG's of the time (Thompson was 625-700rpm, Spagin was up to 900rpm)
3. No forward grip - soldiers frequently burned their hands in the heat (no pun intended) of battle by accidentally grabbing the barrel as a natural reflex to hold the weapon from the front, especially while reloading it
4. Jamming problems until the magazine was redesigned to hold 1 less round (partly due to 9mm round being weak and spring action)
5. Inclination to use the magazine as a forward grip causes stresses to it and would damage it over time

MP44:

1. Much too heavy - twice the weight of most other SMG's of the time, and this would be tiring to carry, especially without a shoulder sling
2. Poor design for use with scope - most rifles or mid-range weapons of the time had better scope fittings and scope integration

The reason for German successes on foot against superior weapons was tactics (Blitzkerieg and overwhelming numbers). When the Americans arrived in France, for example, the Germans no longer had overwhelming numbers, their weapons were not adequate, and bombing raids destroyed their supply lines.

There is a common misconception today that "because it was made in Germany, it must be the highest quality". While German automobiles may be high in quality, not everything made in Germany is today or has always been the best of it's kind. We hear so much about "German engineering" today. This is simply advertisment designed to promote German automobiles, and has become slang in our language! Germany does not make Volvo, Waterford, Yamaha, Cadillac, Mossburg, AMD, Erickson, Polk Audio, and others. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-German at all. However, the idea that because it was German it must have been the best is very incorrect.

This is especially true of semi and fully automatic weapons of the Germans. The Germans were no doubt innovators, but only after the stress of failure became a realization for them in WWII. It was the philosophy of warfare and assumption that the world would give in to German demands and the quick overtaking of enemies with blitzkerieg that caused Germany to not design better weapons prior to the start of WWII. They simply did not think they needed the best weapons to compete with the best armies in the world, and they were quite incorrect.

The Vikings (the 1st inventors of steel in Europe) could have overtaken much of the civilized world had they only organized. Not even steel swords vrs bronze swords was enough for them to control what they conquered. Audacity, ferocity, speed, and tactics are simply not enough to create control.

[Preatorian]

...
As for German weapons of WWII;

...

The MP40 was not a very good weapon, and was out of date by the start of WWII because:
1. 9mm parabellum round was weak
2. Very slow fire rate (380-420 rpm) compared to most other SMG's of the time (Thompson was 625-700rpm, Spagin was up to 900rpm)
3. No forward grip - soldiers frequently burned their hands in the heat (no pun intended) of battle by accidentally grabbing the barrel as a natural reflex to hold the weapon from the front, especially while reloading it
4. Jamming problems until the magazine was redesigned to hold 1 less round (partly due to 9mm round being weak and spring action)
5. Inclination to use the magazine as a forward grip causes stresses to it and would damage it over time

...


Glad to see ya there again, friend !

Just opinion, not rule:
High rate of fire allway was a SMG designer's headache.
High rate of fire for SMG (and assault/battle rifle too) never was good side of weapon.
Why ? It's easy - when you try fire series with SMG - specially based on free bolt recoil (all WWII SMG and most afterwar) - at distance about 50 meters 4th and all next bullets will be fired at air, is it rule for targets such a middle weight staying man. Expirienced SMG shooters use trick - they pointng in right legg of target (for right handed shooters only)- so first shoot will hit leg, second - somewhere in body, third - with luck - in shoulder or a bit lower. No matter how powerfull you are - recoil of firing SMG will move barrel up and left (right for most SMG and only for right-haded shooter) anyway. So, 4-5 shoot will be highly over head of target. Don't matter a movies, actors use blank rounds and can fire series in whole magzine, just is it movie.
Why SMG does such effect ? Massive spinged bolt with fixed firing pin on it strike forvard after depressing of trigger, take round from magazine, put round in barrel then - fire. And you got recoil from round (for example, clear recoil like P-38 got, for 9 Para, pretty powerfull), then you got impulse of massive bolt, moving backward, then hit of bolt at back sile of bolt-rails... and after it all repeating, but difference between first and second shoot is bg - bolt movng цер hgh speed and you hawe a hit ща bolt in chamber. A lot of multy-vectors impulces during fire...
With these condtions weight of SMG does matter.
Then more weght hawe SMG - then better this gun will be managable.
Is it reason why Sumi, Thomson in early examples and PPSH or PPD got massive wooden butt and stock.
To make less rate of fire wepon designers use wide tricks. In MP38/40 Folmer designed some kind of pneumatic slower, Thomson in all before-war SMGs got mechanical slower as well as PPSH and PPD.
Bad side of high rate of fare also it... let me show you:
With rate of fire about 900rpm your weapon will be emty about after 3 seconds (with 70 rounds magazine, less for 30 rounds) ceaseless fire. All shoots will be fired in heven - you can't anage your SMG no more than you can manage mad jackhamer. Is it usual story for non-experienced fighter in battle - shoot all rounds with all possible speed of he's SMG or auto-rifle then wait for death.
I hope, i sayd about rate of fire enough.

Then we look at cartrige.
9 mm Para. Good pistol cartrige, during WWII usually got lead bullet with copper jacket. Good enough to be usable today in most autopistols and SMG. Got good (not outstanding, just good) stopping power. 1-2-3 shoots in body will be enough to stop enemy, i meand - stop'em do what he doing before your shoots. All seems good, but real distance of effective fire - around 100 - 200 meters for SMG. Can't do nothing with armor.

11.47 mm Colt Auto. Great cartrige. Got great stopping power, usual one shoot in chest will be enough. During WWII was only with lead bullet . Effective range - 40-100 meters for SMG. Absolutelly useless against light armored things.

7.62 TT. In childhood - 7.63 Mauser Auto. Got great impulse. With poor stoppng power. I personaly know two men, who stayed alive after few headshoots from TT. To stop (i not meand kill - just stop) somebody you need shoot a lot of times. Durng WWII few inds of 7.62 TT cartriges was available. Lead bullet with steel core and copper jacket. Effective range of fire - about 250-300 meters, for SMG. Got not baв armor piercing effect.

But talkng like "MP38/40 (PPSH, Thomson) was good/bad SMG we can't stay reasonable. Each gun can be used to kill somebody, and at war each SMG was usable. Yes, each SMG got own probles - MP38/40 was not very durable, PPSH was glumsy (just try walk with PPSH with drum magazine, cared with strap at shoulder - after time youк back will got a pian), with bad safer, Thomson was unmanagable during continues fire and with short range of effective fire...
I never seen SMG without problems, maybe only HK MP 5 family can be pointed as really good SMG. For own destination, offcourse. At short distance. Specific weapon.

[IRONMAN]

Preatorian, you post earlier about the Russian assult rifle was very informative. I liked it very much. You had so many truthful things to say. Great post.

It's easy - when you try fire series with SMG - specially based on free bolt recoil (all WWII SMG and most afterwar) - at distance about 50 meters 4th and all next bullets will be fired at air, is it rule for targets such a middle weight staying man.

True. Even the makers of Quake put this effect into the SMG in that game. : ) I believe a semi-automatic light rifle (assult rifle) is a better choice - no wonder they are adopted so widley by military forces today. One or two rounds placed accurately are better than a spray from an SMG, in general.

With rate of fire about 900rpm your weapon will be emty about after 3 seconds (with 70 rounds magazine, less for 30 rounds) ceaseless fire.

True that the recoil will raise the barrel, but ofcourse SMG's are typically not fired that way, but instead are fired mostly with short bursts, such as to hit a man who has exposed himself. In city fighting for example, imagine that you are a Russian ussing a Sphagin. There are German soldiers criss-crossing the street to advance through the city. As he runs across the street for cover at an adjacent building, you fire a bust of 7-8 rounds from your Sphagin. You chances of at least hitting him are not so bad when you fire so many rounds so quickly, and the first 2 rounds are not so unlikely to find their target. The closer the enemy, the better chances of hitting, and at less than 50 meters, you have a very good chance of hitting them with at least one round.

Another scenario: Soldiers are advancing and you are firing bursts from your SMG to keep them down. Every time they raise up to move, here comes 5-10 bullets. Quite effective for making a man want to stay put!

Another scenario: You come face to face with 3 enemies in the streets. Holding the trifgger of your high rate SMG will give you a good chance to kill some or all of them before they have a chance to aim at you.

9 mm Para. Good pistol cartrige, during WWII usually got lead bullet with copper jacket. Good enough to be usable today in most autopistols and SMG. Got good (not outstanding, just good) stopping power. 1-2-3 shoots in body will be enough to stop enemy, i meand - stop'em do what he doing before your shoots.

In a pistol, the 9mm was good, but in 1940's era SMG's it wass not so good. The energy from the smaller round must be used to operate the hammer, and that can lead to jamming and weak hit power. Modern weapons are better, but then, we have had 60 years to perfect the 9mm automatic weapon.

I never seen SMG without problems, maybe only HK MP 5 family can be pointed as really good SMG. For own destination, offcourse. At short distance. Specific weapon.

I dissagree completely. There are quite a few very good SMG's today. The new American carbine (XM8 - new HK weapon) for example. The M4 Colt has proven to be a fine weapon also. The UZI (although not good for anything but close combat) is compact and highly reliable. There are others.

http://dboy.cpgl.net/USA/oicw/xm8soldier.jpg

You are correct though, all SMG's have the problem of raising the muzzle, but that is just a symptom of having an automaic-capable weapon. Even so, the German SMG's of WWII simply were not the equivelent of those of Russia and the US. It is good for all that the era of the SMG is over, and assult rifles have become the standard wepon of today's military.

[Preatorian]

True that the recoil will raise the barrel, but ofcourse SMG's are typically not fired that way...
...you have a very good chance of hitting them with at least one round.

Sure. I can subscribe each word in your text. Same with "scenarios". PPSH was really good for close battle, mostly in trenches, city street fight (most usable for all SMG, IMHO) and etc. In any situation with close short-time high-intensive battle. Using SMG as instrument for covering fire... in short distances - why not ? Even if you don't hawe LMGs or something like that.



In a pistol, the 9mm was good, but in 1940's era SMG's it wass not so good. The energy from the smaller round must be used to operate the hammer, and that can lead to jamming and weak hit power. Modern weapons are better, but then, we have had 60 years to perfect the 9mm automatic weapon.

This point - discutable, but i guess - you don't like MP38/40 or 9mm Para... :wink:
MP38/40 got a lot of jams - hawe read about it and hawe heard about it from my both grandfathers (one was in cavalary (yes, with horses...) and other was a... i hawe no idea how it sounds in english, but he was a soldier, who become a soldier just from jail and was not usual solder, but something like slave... how my grandfather manage to survive - is it another story, someday i hope i'll do something like writer-work about it).
And MP38/40 got a really glumsy magazine - was hard to feed it, practically impossible feed all 30 rounds, usually shooters feed only 28 or even 26 rounds - so hard was to press last rounds inside magazine. Is it because magazine holded rounds in two rows, like most magazines today.
But in noral magazine rounds come out by two rows one round from one row then one round from another row. In MP38/40 rounds re-fomationing in one row in magazine's neck. Why Folmer decide use this construction - no one know...
All construction was pretty weack, you right - if you try to holt MP38/40 by magazine durindg fire - at least you'll got miss-load jam.
But anyway - MP38/40 was good enought to kill somebody at short distance.

I never seen SMG without problems, maybe only HK MP 5 family can be pointed as really good SMG. For own destination, offcourse. At short distance. Specific weapon.

I dissagree completely. There are quite a few very good SMG's today. The new American carbine (XM8 - new HK weapon) for example. The M4 Colt has proven to be a fine weapon also. The UZI (although not good for anything but close combat) is compact and highly reliable. There are others.

You are correct though, all SMG's have the problem of raising the muzzle, but that is just a symptom of having an automaic-capable weapon. Even so, the German SMG's of WWII simply were not the equivelent of those of Russia and the US. It is good for all that the era of the SMG is over, and assult rifles have become the standard wepon of today's military.
Uh-huh... IRONMAN, do you really meand XM-8 and M-4 as SMGs or i not catchin'-in something in your post ???!!! Is it matter of personal point of view, offcourse, but i sure XM-8 (as he's father G-36) and my favorite M-4 are assault rifles. Probably in short version something like carbine/assault carbine (woa, new term i found). My idea about SMGs - they should use pistol cartrige anyway, not rifle cartrige like 223Win/SS109... :wink:
So i can agree with UZI - for these times good cheap SMG, i hawe shoot with UZI a lot and can say - is it not most reliable SMG for present time - i was tired about miss-load jams. And manage UZI during fire... oh, it was a hard task - very high rate of fire. I meand UZI in standard version, not mini- or micro- UZI. At my look - MP38/40 better than UZI, more comfortable and managable SMG... is it more mine emotional discision than some kind of technical thing. And if i need something really compact - i will ask for Ingram 0.45 CAP...
Best SMG from WWII that i hawe tested was PPS, Sudaev - really good army SMG for WWII time.
Thomson... oh, that was respectable machine. Sad, but i never fired with late during-war simplefied Thomson (M1944 ?), only shoot with M1924... hard to hold it, recoil and muzzle rize great... but so powerfull gun... no one will come back for extra-bullets, each will fall to ground perfectly stasfacted. At short distance, offcourse.
And i only once got in arms M3 Greasy Gun - never shoot... so, i hawe no idea how good SMG it was.
Man with PPSH (Shpagin) once was а mine suspect, we went in gunplay with'em and i survived. He not. Maybe 'cos i was with AKM, maybe 'cos i not like auto-fire - he fired in my direction 38 rounds and no one hit me. I fire 3 shoot in semi-auto, all in target. Distance was about 100 meters, in clear bright windless day, in wood.
I dreamed about SMG or shootgun when sometimes we got situations with hostages/terrorists - we were with AKM (7.62mm) and late with AK-74 (5.45mm) assault rifles - and it was nightmare. How to shoot and don't hit somebody innocent behind a wall, and a lot of ricoshets... oh, i need SMG or shootgun in these day, but no way - only AKs we got or PM 9mm autopistols (copy of Walther PPk), no more choise.
MP-5 for my taste - most great SMG in police-actions.
By the way - how there bussines doing with XM-8 ? Looks pretty damn good toy, specially good as modified version of G-36. By HK advertizins - some great thing, such a LEGO in weapon's world.
I like M16/CAR15 practically in all versions and modifications - my not big expirience with it was very good, accurate, handsome rifle, and no empty shells flew in face when i shoot from my left shoulder (AK for me uncomfortable - i shoot from left shoulder and each time got few empty shells in my forehead during shooting - it makes no pain, but make me nervous).

[IRONMAN]

Yes Preatorian, I mentioned SMG's and assult rifles as being the same. I did mean to seperate them, however, the newest generation of weapons seem to fall somewhere in between and are both at the same time. Thier rate of fire is pretty high, the ammo is small rifle calibre, and they are very short machines. Also, they have managed to reduce the recoil enough to make automatic use more effective and more usable than with older assult rifles. That is the perception I get from them. They are fired in fully automatic mode nowadays more than assult rifles have been in the past.

For example, the American troops in Iraq have been using thiers as fully automatic quite a bit. I have watched a lot of video of them fighting, and they seem to hold the trigger much longer than in years past. I guess the idea is, "To hell with how much ammo we use, hit the enemy!" I suppose US troops don't worry about a lack of ammo in warfare anymore. They bring with them far more than they migh use. Maybe that is one reason fior thier using their weapons in auto so much.

[Gen. Sandworm]

...........For example, the American troops in Iraq have been using thiers as fully automatic quite a bit. I have watched a lot of video of them fighting, and they seem to hold the trigger much longer than in years past. I guess the idea is, "To hell with how much ammo we use, hit the enemy!" I suppose US troops don't worry about a lack of ammo in warfare anymore. They bring with them far more than they migh use. Maybe that is one reason fior thier using their weapons in auto so much.

I think this has been the American theory since the Vietnam war. Point, Spray and Hope. Actually dont remember ever hearing reports of Americans being low on ammo for very long. I could be wrong but I thought I did hear that the Americans fired 100,000 rounds of ammo per enemy kill in Vietnam. And I agree Ironman from what ive seen in Iraq its usually always fully auto. Either that or the 3 shot bursts. But if you look around the news here in the US im sure that you can see we do not have a ammo problem on any level. Doesnt matter what your gun is im sure we have some bullets for it laying around here some where. lol :roll:

[Preatorian]

Few reason to use M4 in auto mode i can see
- in 3D high intencive battle, like city battle (real nightmare, btw) you don't hawe enough time to aim - sometimes you need only to suppress enemy. Suppress and point target to supporting armor - M113, for example, can manage with enemy using .50 cal more easly. If you stop your movement with reason to aim - you can sure - somebody already aim in you too.
- in case of battle on open space - M4 don't hawe enought range of accurate fire sometimes (beside of M16A3), i hawe read about it in reports of US troops in Iraq - and probably shooters hawe hope to hit target somehow far away than range of effective fire.
- Covering fire.
- Stupid idea - usualy soldiers, who don't hawe battle expirience use only full auto mode - that somehow supporting them, make feel better in dangerous situation.
- M4 got gas-hole in barrel a bit closely to receiver than M16 (in all versions), in zone of higher pressure of gas, and got a bit bigger dimeter of gas-tube, that allow use a bit toughter recoil spring and make rifle more reliable. But it hawe other side - high temperature gas can burn face of shooter, when bolt opening. And, if you aiming and shooting with gun at your shoulder - it less comfortable, than you shoot from heap in full auto...
Don't know, how close my idea to reality... :D

By the way, my friend, who serve in Iraq, sayd, that sometimes some troops hawe own, taked from home, 7.62, mostly M1A Springfield rifles (mostly scoped too) (civilian version of M14) - with reason of bigger effective range, for open space combats.
I can't be sure how possible it, but i don't hawe reasons don't trust to my friend.

[IRONMAN]

Preatorian my friend, I dissagree with several things you have said.

...like city battle (real nightmare, btw) you don't hawe enough time to aim - sometimes you need only to suppress enemy.

That is precicely what I said in my previous post when I mentioned the use of the SMG in city fighting.

M4 don't hawe enought range of accurate fire sometimes (beside of M16A3), i hawe read about it in reports of US troops in Iraq - and probably shooters hawe hope to hit target somehow far away than range of effective fire.

None of the carbine assult rifles used by any of the nations of the world have the range to fight at distances of 400+ meters. So why do you point at the M4? BTW, most of the fighting done in Iraq today is city fighting - ranges of up to 200+ meters. A carbine assult rifle is ideal for that environment. However, the US, like all armies, carries more than one weapon to war. Here are some of the weapons the US uses in Iraq:

M16A4M24 7.62mm Sniper Rifle
M40A3 Sniper Rifle
M16A2
M4
M4A1
M14
Mark II Mod 0
SMRLMR
M82A3 SASR
XM107
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

In WWII there was the M1 Garande - good at long distances, and the M1 Carbine - good at medium & close distances. These things are the same today. According to what you are saying, every army in the world has trouble hitting the enemy in open spaces. All of the armies of the developed world use assult rifle type weapons as their standard issue and long-range rifles where needed. The US is no different, so what are you trying to point out?

Covering fire.
Stupid idea - usualy soldiers, who don't hawe battle expirience use only full auto mode - that somehow supporting them, make feel better in dangerous situation.

Wait, I thought you just said, "...sometimes you need only to suppress enemy". So what do you think covering fire is? Is it not to surpressing the enemy while troops move? Yes, I understand the difference between general surpressing fire and covering fire, but they are intended to do the same thing - keep the enemy down, imobile, and not shooting at you.

Covering fire is a concept that is been deployed by every army in the world (US, Britain, Russia... etc). It is used by your country's army and mine. I don't think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do. Let's see you run across an open area without it when facing numerous enemies. Send a letter to your parents first. :wink:

But it (M4) hawe other side - high temperature gas can burn face of shooter, when bolt opening. And, if you aiming and shooting with gun at your shoulder - it less comfortable, than you shoot from heap in full auto...
Don't know, how close my idea to reality.

Huh? It's a carbine assult rifle. All armies of the modern world use short carbine assult rifles where the breech is not too far from the shooter's face. I hardly think after billions of rounds of testing, they would put the weapon into full production if it had a continuing problem of burning the shooter's face. The weapon was not developed by Mickey Mouse you know. lol Nonesence. I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it's own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it's army. Every weapon has imperfections, but none that would frequently or even rarely burn the shooter's face are going to be issued by ANY country's military.

Besides, the US has the most advanced and most expensive military weapons development complex in the world which develops the most advanced firearms in the world. The idea that they would issue weapons so flawed as you perport to the US armed services is perposterous.

It sounds like you have fallen prey to funny information designed to discredit a great weapon, simply because it is American. It happens all the time.

By the way, my friend, who serve in Iraq, sayd, that sometimes some troops hawe own, taked from home, 7.62, mostly M1A Springfield rifles (mostly scoped too) (civilian version of M14) - with reason of bigger effective range, for open space combats.

Free weapons? Cool. Who would not want to take one home if they could.
Surely you are not trying to say they hate their own issued weapon so much, or that they want to take a Springfield home to fight in the US with it? Because that surely is what you are trying to imply.

[Preatorian]

.... I don't think that you or I have better knowledge of how to fight building-to-building combat better than those professional militaries do. Let's see you run across an open area without it when facing numerous enemies. Send a letter to your parents first. :wink:
I'm already done it few times - got some battle expirience, some from army, some when i was a cop, and how you can see - still alive.
I don't like talk about it there.
Know i better what to fight building-to-bulding than USA troops ?
I sure - USA troops are well trained. I sure - they are alive people as i'm. And i tought - we hawe some same expirience in street combat. Who's better - this question not for me, i'm alredy grown up from age, when these ideas -who stronger, who faster, etc does matter.



Huh? It's a carbine assult rifle. All armies of the modern world use short carbine assult rifles where the breech is not too far from the shooter's face. I hardly think after billions of rounds of testing, they would put the weapon into full production if it had a continuing problem of burning the shooter's face. The weapon was not developed by Mickey Mouse you know. lol Nonesence. I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it's own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it's army. Every weapon has imperfections, but none that would frequently or even rarely burn the shooter's face are going to be issued by ANY country's military.

Oh, i sure these M-4 and M-4A1 was tested perfectly. Maybe mine more than bad english done that - i not meand M-4 are bad or defective weapon. But... oh, shit ! I catched in ! When you shot M-4 from right shoulder - you have no problem... but i have shot M-4 as usual i do - from left shoulder... aтв got that expirience - some quantity of gas burned my face a bit from left side. It was endurable, but not comfortable...
I just forget that... left side/right side... when you lefthanded, you tought all around are lefthanded...



It sounds like you have fallen prey to funny information designed to discredit a great weapon, simply because it is American. It happens all the time.

Nope. Just imagine russian, who wear M-65 and Justin cowboyboots, have USA Flag on wall in own apartments, have M1 helmet from Vietnam (and a bit mad about Vietnam too) and "Fritz" helmet from Iraq, never went out without Zippo lighter (gifled by USA policeman few years ago), dreamin' about some old Chevy, and friends of that russian know - best gift is it some american ( for example US Army compass, dated 1984) because they know - that russian a bit crazy about USA...
Got this picture ? So, it was me.
And can you imagine me "prey to funny information designed to discredit a great weapon, simply because it is American." ? Really can do it ? Bad for me if you can.
Any insultings for USA - is direct insultings for me.
So, can i hope that we clear with this point ?


Free weapons? Cool. Who would not want to take one home if they could.
Surely you are not trying to say they hate their own issued weapon so much, or that they want to take a Springfield home to fight in the US with it? Because that surely is what you are trying to imply.

Couple of pictures to begin with:
http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/gallery/albums/service/3_116th_Inf_SFC.jpg
2004 - A U. S. Army soldier (HHC 3/116th Infantry) with a M14 rifle sporting ACOG and E O Tech sights somewhere in Afghanistan.
http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/gallery/albums/service/ii051904b.jpg
May 13, 2004 � A soldier with Comanche Company 1st Battalion, 23 Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker Brigade Combat Team looks through his scope of a M14 sniper rifle in Mosul, Iraq. C Company was conducting a search for insurgents. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Jeremiah Johnson

There you can find more pictures:
http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/gallery/service

Note that, plase - nor M21, but M14.
And if there in Afganistan and Iraq you can make such pictures, is meand - sometimes US troops use unofficial weapons (sure, M14 was totally replased with M16A1 during Vietnam war in US Army).
Note please scope on M-14, first pic. ACOG and EO Tech...
Your comments welcome.

Wich of my words gived to you ground for your ironistical expressions ?
Yes, english unfortunately not my native language. I can wrong put into words in english my toughts, i know it .
Few questions:
Can USA military personnel use own firearms or not ?
Can they take out from home own (not govermential ) M1A or something else in Iraq and then use it ?
If they can't - i should ask my friend (btw US Ranger) why he kidding me. And if i'll ask that question - i need something more, than abstact ideas or logical exercises. If you know some Army's rule prohibited use in warzone unofficial weapon - let me look at text, please.

[Cuts]

......

I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it's own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it's army.

......



Yes there is, the British government.

[Preatorian]

......

I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it's own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it's army.

......



Yes there is, the British government.

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80...

[IRONMAN]

I'm already done it few times - got some battle expirience, some from army, some when i was a cop, and how you can see - still alive.

Well, you seem to intelligent to me to do such a thing. Lucky you.

Oh! So from...

M4 got gas-hole in barrel a bit closely to receiver than M16 (in all versions), in zone of higher pressure of gas, and got a bit bigger dimeter of gas-tube, that allow use a bit toughter recoil spring and make rifle more reliable. But it hawe other side - high temperature gas can burn face of shooter, when bolt opening.

...to:

Oh, i sure these M-4 and M-4A1 was tested perfectly. Maybe mine more than bad english done that - i not meand M-4 are bad or defective weapon. But... oh, shit ! I catched in ! When you shot M-4 from right shoulder - you have no problem... but i have shot M-4 as usual i do - from left shoulder... aтв got that expirience - some quantity of gas burned my face a bit from left side. It was endurable, but not comfortable... I just forget that... left side/right side... when you lefthanded, you tought all around are lefthanded...

So instead of implying that the M4 has a design flaw whereby it frequently burns the face of the shooter, you mean that with a left-handed shooter (like myself) that it COULD cause "endurable, but not comfortable" heat on the face??? Geez Preatorian. That's quite a trun-around. Wouldn't it have been better to state what you REALLY meant the first time, instead of implying the weapon had a serious design flaw such as that, one so great that it would virtually render the weapon unworthy of use? Hmmm. Now I like you Preatorian, I really do. But great googly boogly!

Can USA military personnel use own firearms or not ?

I don't know, but I doubt it.

Can they take out from home own (not govermential ) M1A or something else in Iraq and then use it ? If they can't - i should ask my friend (btw US Ranger) why he kidding me.

In the US, the it is illegal to posess fully automatic weapons, so having one in your home, soldier or not, would be a crime. There was a law passed called the Brady Bill that made fully-automatic weapons illegal. It also created the requirement that people must wait 10 days while a criminal record check is made by the FBI (Federal Beureau of Investigation) to see if you have a felony record. Those who have a record of a crime against the US (felony) cannot ever legally possess a firearm ever again for the rest of their lives. If they have only a record of a state crime (one which is not considered a crime against the nation), they are allowed to posess a firearm. So, I would say no. It's not like in Switzerland where males are required to be in the military and keep their weapon at home, or at least, that is what I have heard. I'm not sure if it's true about the Swiss.

If your "friend" says he gets to take his US military issued fully-automatic weapon home, he is full of bullpie. That would be illegal in the US. Don't believe anything else that one says. : )

[Gen. Sandworm]

IRONMAN

Uh fully automatic machine guns are illegal in the US........thats funny. What about the infamous Michigan Militia. Hell there are ppl here in BFE Indiana with M-16's. And if they are ...... uh what about Columbine or Waco....there were a few fully auto's there. Guess thats kinda like saying jaywalking is illegel.

[Dani]

It's not like in Switzerland where males are required to be in the military and keep their weapon at home, or at least, that is what I have heard. I'm not sure if it's true about the Swiss.


Definitely it's true for Swiss.

[IRONMAN]

IRONMAN

Uh fully automatic machine guns are illegal in the US........thats funny. What about the infamous Michigan Militia. Hell there are ppl here in BFE Indiana with M-16's. And if they are ...... uh what about Columbine or Waco....there were a few fully auto's there. Guess thats kinda like saying jaywalking is illegel.

I should have been more specific. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US if they are manufactured after May 19, 1986 or obtained without special liscence. There is a special liscence available for antique fully-automatic weapons only. You cannot simply go buy an UZI, as owning a modern fully-auto weapon is illegal in the US.

However, a special class of "licensed collectors" provides for the purchase and sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as "curios and relics." Class III dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance following a criminal background check.

In the case of a US soldier taking his military issued weapon home, that would be illegal.

[Cuts]

IRONMAN

Uh fully automatic machine guns are illegal in the US........thats funny. What about the infamous Michigan Militia. Hell there are ppl here in BFE Indiana with M-16's. And if they are ...... uh what about Columbine or Waco....there were a few fully auto's there. Guess thats kinda like saying jaywalking is illegel.

I should have been more specific. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US if they are manufactured after May 19, 1986 or obtained without special liscence. There is a special liscence available for antique fully-automatic weapons only. You cannot simply go buy an UZI, as owning a modern fully-auto weapon is illegal in the US.

However, a special class of "licensed collectors" provides for the purchase and sale of firearms designated by the BATFE as "curios and relics." Class III dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance following a criminal background check.

In the case of a US soldier taking his military issued weapon home, that would be illegal.



So owning a full or selective fire weapon is not illegal.
Glad that's cleared up.

[Bluffcove]

"Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US if they are manufactured after May 19, 1986 or obtained without special liscence."

If this special licence is obtained can an American citizen then hold an automatic weapon maufactured after 1986? a yes or no answer should suffice, but an elaboration would be more useful

[Cuts]

......

There was a law passed called the Brady Bill that made fully-automatic weapons illegal.

......

No it didn't.

[Bluffcove]

IRONMAN running out of road - again!

[Cuts]

......

I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it's own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it's army.

......



Yes there is, the British government.

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80...

Funny strange ? Yes.
Funny ha-ha ? No - it's a bloody tragedy !
:cry:

[Cuts]

......

As for Bren, I know only about its magazins of 30 shots. If there were bigger?

......

There were some (nominally) sixty rd magazines produced for some of the BREN AA mounts.

[Preatorian]

......

I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it's own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it's army.

......



Yes there is, the British government.

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80...

Funny strange ? Yes.
Funny ha-ha ? No - it's a bloody tragedy !
:cry:
For Great Britan ? Yes, is it tragedy.
When i first time saw that L85 - i tought "What a great looking weapon !" I respect brittish weapons as well as brittish cars - part of my life i just was mad about Jaguars... :wink:
But after time i got know - something went wrong with GB... and something wrong with L85 as result.
Generally idea of L85 seems damn good, but execution of this idea going wrong. Prototipe of L85 - Armalite AR-18 (or M18) - good, reliable weapon, not exellent but good enough. For first look L85 - just "bullpuped" M18. But whole construction - just tragedy, right, Cuts, ureliable, weak, just grimase of damned Plastic Age... something went wrong with GB, i guess.
Germans HK have used AR-18 as prototipe of G-36 - and they make all well, and i never hawe heard somebody, who can say after test - G-36 bad weapon... but why Royal Ordance don't make this rifle well ?
I don't know.
Both, HK and RO started from one piont, RO even got a fora in a lot of yeas... and finally famous shovel-maker HK made G 36 and famous Royal Ordance made shoting (sometimes) headache L85A1...
Sorry for offtop.

[South African Military]

......

I doubt even the smallest governemnt in the world which develops it's own weapons would issue such a flawed weapon to it's army.

......



Yes there is, the British government.

:lol: Oh, i forget about that funny Enfield L85A1/SA80...

Funny strange ? Yes.
Funny ha-ha ? No - it's a bloody tragedy !
:cry:
For Great Britan ? Yes, is it tragedy.
When i first time saw that L85 - i tought "What a great looking weapon !" I respect brittish weapons as well as brittish cars - part of my life i just was mad about Jaguars... :wink:
But after time i got know - something went wrong with GB... and something wrong with L85 as result.
Generally idea of L85 seems damn good, but execution of this idea going wrong. Prototipe of L85 - Armalite AR-18 (or M18) - good, reliable weapon, not exellent but good enough. For first look L85 - just "bullpuped" M18. But whole construction - just tragedy, right, Cuts, ureliable, weak, just grimase of damned Plastic Age... something went wrong with GB, i guess.
Germans HK have used AR-18 as prototipe of G-36 - and they make all well, and i never hawe heard somebody, who can say after test - G-36 bad weapon... but why Royal Ordance don't make this rifle well ?
I don't know.
Both, HK and RO started from one piont, RO even got a fora in a lot of yeas... and finally famous shovel-maker HK made G 36 and famous Royal Ordance made shoting (sometimes) headache L85A1...
Sorry for offtop.

Most of GB dont care about its military much, very little funding is going through, and about half a year ago they where making major cuts in their military, I think if GB had got enough money maybe they can make something out of the L85. Usually Britain is known for its quality and reliabilty etc. Mostly becasue they have a small country and fewer soldiers so they try make the most of it.

[Preatorian]

Can they take out from home own (not govermential ) M1A or something else in Iraq and then use it ? If they can't - i should ask my friend (btw US Ranger) why he kidding me.

In the US, the it is illegal to posess fully automatic weapons, so having one in your home, soldier or not, would be a crime.

I know it already about 15 years.
But M1A if you know - just semi-auto rifle. As well as AR15 and etc.
And i meand "own weapon from home to Iraq NOT from Iraq to home". Is it bigs difference, isn't it ?


If your "friend" says he gets to take his US military issued fully-automatic weapon home, he is full of bullpie. That would be illegal in the US. Don't believe anything else that one says. : )
My friend. NOT "friend" (you try insulting my friend or try insulting me with "" ?).
And he don't sayd "he gets to take his US military issued fully-automatic weapon home" and i never sayd it as well. He got in he's home enough legal weapons already.
No need to steal something from US Goverment, especially M4A1, especially if you have customised AR-15 ... :lol:
And i better belive to real man, who fight in Iraq at USA side, especially after a lot of time that i have spended in he's home about 5 years ago and and a lot of rounds shoted from he's rifles. He are my friend. He are US soldier. He are honest man.

[IRONMAN]

"Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US if they are manufactured after May 19, 1986 or obtained without special liscence."

If this special licence is obtained can an American citizen then hold an automatic weapon maufactured after 1986? a yes or no answer should suffice, but an elaboration would be more useful

It's a typo. They must be manufactured prior to 1986. Did you not sumize that? However, since you have to have permission from the Secretary of the Treasury himself, I think that means that unless you can prove that you are a sincere collector of antique firearms with a sizable collection of non-automatic weapons already, you will surely get a negative response. Good luck getting yours. You'll need it, especially in these times.

So owning a full or selective fire weapon is not illegal.
Glad that's cleared up.

No sh*t. It's a good thing.

IRONMAN running out of road - again!

Kiddo, I have yet to see you post anything that is wholly factual and you always need to be corrected, so if you're feeling that little joyful, giddy, lightheaded feeling that you mistakenly perceive as richeousness, it's probably all that sugar in your Captain Whamo Puffy Pops. :wink:

Mostly becasue they have a small country and fewer soldiers so they try make the most of it.

It has nothing to do with that. It's just the way the British are as a people. They put forth the effort to try to make everything as high in quality as they can. The British simply think in terms of quality.

[IRONMAN]

But M1A if you know - just semi-auto rifle. As well as AR15 and etc. And i meand "own weapon from home to Iraq NOT from Iraq to home". Is it bigs difference, isn't it ?.

I misunderstood you because your English is not good, but no offense meant by that. My mistake - truly. But I think US soldiers cannot take their own weapons to war. I have never seen a US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon in any photograph or video footage. Have you? Can't say that I have ever seen anyone from any nation doing that, myself.

No need to steal something from US Goverment, especially M4A1, especially if you have customised AR-15 ... :lol:

My brother had an AR-15. But if you mean modified to be fully-automatic, that would be dangerous, since if it were discovered you could go to prison for that. That would not be a smart thing to do.

[Bluffcove]

Short of the Sugar on my cereals, I suggest that it is you who has not managed to mount a significant response to your claims that we hide behind gurkha blood. I do take it as an afront to the british military the Ghorka tribes of Nepal and the blood of those that have died fighting for HM forces that you accuse these men of being our Lackeys.

I also find it patronising that you will not accept your nation also has foreign troops in US Uniform. I do not want a "moral" Victory I jsut want some admission on your part that your initial statement made so boldly was not Factually correct.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-11-voa67.cfm.
Former President George Bush was on hand Friday at his presidential library in College Station, Texas as a federal judge conferred citizenship on 47 immigrants who are currently serving in the U.S. military.

The new citizens hail from 27 nations and currently serve in the US Army, Navy and Air Force. More than half have served in Iraq or other combat areas. Former President George Bush assisted in presenting them with their citizenship papers and praised their dedication to their new country.

Does the Existence of this ceremony contradict your earlier statement?

"there are tens of thousands of US soldiers. None of those wearing a US uniform are foreigners. Not one." found at this location http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=126&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90

or this claim;- "US law requires that you must be a citizen of the US or a citizen applicant imigrant to be allowed to join the US military"

I believe that this is a supported analytical response to you claim that I am not substantiating my claims.

a YES or NO answer will suffice, were your earlier comments mistaken?

Final words will be left to the orator himself George Dubya.
Please respond in a civil manner with references, just so that we shant have accusations of lying.

http://images.radcity.net/5781/985381.wmv

Thankyou for your time.

[Cuts]

Mostly becasue they have a small country and fewer soldiers so they try make the most of it.

It has nothing to do with that. It's just the way the British are as a people. They put forth the effort to try to make everything as high in quality as they can. The British simply think in terms of quality.

In the case of the SA80 it is unfortunately untrue.


From the design through the manufacture and to the tactical doctrine changes it is a long story of politics, ignorance, ineptitude and corruption.

The sooner it is binned the better for all concerned.

[Cuts]

But M1A if you know - just semi-auto rifle. As well as AR15 and etc. And i meand "own weapon from home to Iraq NOT from Iraq to home". Is it bigs difference, isn't it ?.

I misunderstood you because your English is not good, but no offense meant by that. My mistake - truly. But I think US soldiers cannot take their own weapons to war. I have never seen a US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon in any photograph or video footage. Have you? Can't say that I have ever seen anyone from any nation doing that, myself.

No need to steal something from US Goverment, especially M4A1, especially if you have customised AR-15 ... :lol:

My brother had an AR-15. But if you mean modified to be fully-automatic, that would be dangerous, since if it were discovered you could go to prison for that. That would not be a smart thing to do.


Preatorian mentions a customised AR15. Speaking in gunsmith's or armourer's terms this means individual additions or changes to the weapon in order, (generally,) to enhance the accuracy, action, ergonomics, reliability or sighting system.

There is for example a gas piston system which may be applied to the AR15/M16 series which greatly enhances mtb cleaning and therefore it's reliability.

Changing an AR15 to selective fire specs may be done in a number of ways and may or may not be legal depending on the granting of the necessary permission.

With reference to your not having seen soldiers with weapons other than those generally issued, have you served in any of the the armed forces yourself ?
If you have, it might be due to the unit/job/theatre in which you found yourself.

[Preatorian]

I misunderstood you because your English is not good, but no offense meant by that. My mistake - truly. But I think US soldiers cannot take their own weapons to war. I have never seen a US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon in any photograph or video footage. Have you? Can't say that I have ever seen anyone from any nation doing that, myself.

My selmaked englsh someday can went me in trouble. By the way - that forum - good way for me make my english a bit better.
I just can imgine how hard to read my posts (and especially understanding this posts too) for someone with native english.
I'm sorry for it.

If i'll get some pictures of soldiers, using non-official weapon - i will share it in this forum.

By the way - one really interesting picture from Afganistan

http://img54.exs.cx/img54/4852/m4afgan3ah.jpg

This weapon belongs to US Mountain infantry captain.

Note - that carbine have new M4 barrel and butt/stock. But have old-early-Vietnam era upper and lower receiver (without bolt forwarder and with border around magazine-button). I guess that receiver from firstly used M16, not even M16A1.
I don't know any reason of such construction, not any idea...
By the way that picture illustrate modul-based construction of all AR-15 family.
Is in't not a civilian carbine but not a clear M4 too, and not a Colt Commando...
This picture - a object of great mistery on few weapon-forums...
And i not meand this pic as evidence that US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon. Just interesting picture.

No need to steal something from US Goverment, especially M4A1, especially if you have customised AR-15 ... :lol:

My brother had an AR-15. But if you mean modified to be fully-automatic, that would be dangerous, since if it were discovered you could go to prison for that. That would not be a smart thing to do.
Oh, no... i don't like fully-auto weapon, by the way.
And not meand any illigal modifications hawe done with friend's AR-15.
Normal customized AR-15, with scope, customized stock, lazer targetpointer, etc. But still semi-auto only.
Nobody like spend part of life in jail's cell. Especially for stupid full-auto modification of good semi-auto carbine. Wich reason do that mods ? To blow some poor deer in bloody mess by one full-magazine ceaseless burst ? :lol:

[Cuts]

So owning a full or selective fire weapon is not illegal.
Glad that's cleared up.

No sh*t. It's a good thing.



That's me foxed then - how does that square away with the statement below ?

In the US, the it is illegal to posess fully automatic weapons

[IRONMAN]

I do not want a "moral" Victory I jsut want some admission on your part that your initial statement made so boldly was not Factually correct.

I have already pointed out the basis of your mistaken understanding of the situation about which you post. But so that you will attempt once more to comprehend it, let me reiterate it once more.

The soldiers that Britain has used in it's military that are foreigners are not naturalized. They are simply foreigners. Britain has had a long history of encouraging and recruiting soldiers from poor third world nations. I am not anti-British, but I, like others, find it dispicable, distasteful, and dishonorable that a nation would use such methods and use those of other less industrialized nations to put their lives on the line in warfare for a nation that has not and will not offer them citizenship and living space in exchange.

As for foreigners in the US military, you have not comprehended what I have said on that matter either, so I reiterate that once more as well. Those soldiers that you point to are a world apart from those that Britain employs, and the differences are so great as to make the situation completely incomparable:

Those persons have imigrated to the United States by thier own doing, have applied for citizenship in the US by their own choice, and were not recruited in some foreign land to serve in the US military. They came to the US and asked to be an American citizen as well as an American soldier. The United States does not recuite foreigners from other countries to serve in it's military.

Now, I can only assume that you carefully read once more my simply stated explaination of these two completely different situations, and I can only therefore assume that you comprehend it. If you do not understand after reading the above, then you are either in greater need of help than I can provide to assist you in your reading comprehension, or you are so bullheaded that despite the simplicity of the statements, you will refuse to the end to see the remarkable difference between the them.

---------------------

That's me foxed then - how does that square away with the statement below ?

In the US, the it is illegal to posess fully automatic weapons

It "squares" because for 99.99% of the citizens of the US it will remain illegal to posess a fully automatic weapon. When you understand why virtually none will ever be allowed to posess one, you will have answered your own question without the need to pick at word choices or blather about them, and you will have done so without my help. :wink:

Preatorian mentions a customised AR15. Speaking in gunsmith's or armourer's terms this means individual additions or changes to the weapon in order, (generally,) to enhance the accuracy, action, ergonomics, reliability or sighting system..

...yet his statement inplied otherwise. To almost anyone reading it, it is assumed that the modification would be to make the weapon fully-automatic.

Changing an AR15 to selective fire specs may be done in a number of ways and may or may not be legal depending on the granting of the necessary permission..

May? May not? Possibly? :lol:

You debate with someone based on how something "may or may not" be? You don't know, and you want to bicker about what you don't know? Holy smoking guano Batboy!

As for me, I have always heard all of my life that it is illegal in the US to modify a weapon and make it fully-automatic. Have your heard all of your that it may or may not be? I doubt seriously that there is such thing as "permission to modify a weapon to make it automatic", only permission to purchase or sell a weapon that IS automatic made before 1987, which itself is most exceedingly difficult to obtain because of very special circumstances and qualifications which must be met.

With reference to your not having seen soldiers with weapons other than those generally issued, have you served in any of the the armed forces yourself ? If you have, it might be due to the unit/job/theatre in which you found yourself.

The US military issues weapons so soldiers. Why would you be so interested to know if US soldiers can use their own weapons in war? Show me where any soldier in any military in an industrialized nation is able to use personal firearms as their main weapon, then you will have your own answer without griping at me for not providing what you have admitted that you do not know. :lol: If you are so inclined, ask a US military officer or email the US Army at www.goarmy.com.

Let me help you since you need it:

A soldier carrying a fully automatic weapon in his car on the way to a base would be breaking the law.

A soldier carrying a fully auto weapon from the base to his home would be breaking the law.
A soldier in posession of a fully auto weapon in his home would be breaking the law.

Still thinking about it?

[IRONMAN]

My selmaked englsh someday can went me in trouble. By the way - that forum - good way for me make my english a bit better.

It's ok my friend. It was my mistake for not understanding, you speak English pretty well overall.

If i'll get some pictures of soldiers, using non-official weapon - i will share it in this forum.

By the way - one really interesting picture from Afganistan

This weapon belongs to US Mountain infantry captain.

...

I don't know any reason of such construction, not any idea...
By the way that picture illustrate modul-based construction of all AR-15 family.

Is in't not a civilian carbine but not a clear M4 too, and not a Colt Commando...
This picture - a object of great mistery on few weapon-forums...
And i not meand this pic as evidence that US soldier using any weapon except a US military weapon. Just interesting picture.

It is curious. I am inclined to believe it is simply the use of different parts still in stock to produce the weapon more than I am to believe that it was modified by a soldier. Perhaps they are allowed to modify weapons with permission from their commanding officer if it would suit their purpose in combat situations.

I have had friends in the US military, and they were required to leave their weapons on the base when they took leave. I just know that they cannot take them home or to the base.

[Tubbyboy]

The soldiers that Britain has used in it's military that are foreigners are not naturalized. They are simply foreigners. Britain has had a long history of encouraging and recruiting soldiers from poor third world nations. I am not anti-British, but I, like others, find it dispicable, distasteful, and dishonorable that a nation would use such methods and use those of other less industrialized nations to put their lives on the line in warfare for a nation that has not and will not offer them citizenship and living space in exchange.

I think that you will find that certainly Gurkhas are allowed to become British citizens after serving a minimum term of service (I believe 4 years off the top of my head). Most Commonwealth citizens can live here anyway.

It does sound however as though you are anti-British. Never mind, to paraphrase someone far wiser than I, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to make yourself look like a fool."

[IRONMAN]

I think that you will find that certainly Gurkhas are allowed to become British citizens after serving a minimum term of service (I believe 4 years off the top of my head). Most Commonwealth citizens can live here anyway.

It does sound however as though you are anti-British. Never mind, to paraphrase someone far wiser than I, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to make yourself look like a fool."

Please do not call me a fool. You are not wise enough (eh... isn't that what you said?) or old enough or sinless enough to call anyone a fool.

Nope, not anti-British at all. If it were any other nation using such trashy tactics I'd dislike that too. I can only assume that since you are defending such a dispicable practice, you must aprove of it.

You mean to say that you THINK that they may be allowed to become British citizens and to move to Britain AFTER serving for 4 YEARS in the British military, during which time they will be sent by Britain into battle before any British citizen is (OMG), having been actively recruited in a foreign country to serve in Britain's military and sent in as front line troops whenever a British war comes about? How gracious of the Brits! Wow! Then maybe they can get British health care to help them with the dissabilities they received fighting in Britain's army as front-line troops! What a killer deal that is!

Any nation doing such as that should be ashamed of it, and I would say that if it were the US or any nation on Earth.

They were not British citizens when recruited.
They are not even living in Britain when they are recruited.
They were actively recruited in a foreign country.
They are sent in as front-line troops whenever war comes about.
They cannot become a british citizen until after serving in britain's military for 4 years?

That is truly sad. The dream of a better life and glory are a powerful motivators, and it seems that Britain is clearly taking advantage of it.

[Bluffcove]

You are indeed right, and what is more is that each and every one of the Gurkhas recruited is aware of that when they themselves trek up to 500 miles to be recruited. It is there choice, and even soldiers that are British will serve for four years and maybe die.

A dead soldier will not collect a pension or health care regardless of whether he was born a British citizen or not. All soldiers take their risks themselves/ Gurkhas are not tricked into serving for our military.

The recruitment rate at times has been up to over 450 applicants for each place, Gurkhas wish to fight, (their reasons are their own) within HM forces. do not begin to suggest we abduct them and make them fight, they are as aware of the risks of high velocity lead as the guys that sign up in their career offices in the UK.

What sense is it to state that a man of the volition to fight and die for a cause must only ever fight for the country he is born in. THe International brigade in the SPanish civil war opposed Franco, would you have accused them of stupiduty and blind faith?

The Gurkhas are at present fighting in the Middle East for the coalition of the willing, should they not fight because OBL and Al Quaeda does not directly threaten Nepal?

Of a man wishes to pick up arms and fight and if they wish to fight alongside men of another nation in a common cause, if htye are not decieved over their chances of survival (as all men regardless of race are aware of the dangers of war) Why should we refuse to allow them to fight alongside our causcasian soldiers?

The Gurkhas had contemptfor the British forces, and the East India Trading Company, we earnt their respect through our courage, they could easily have decimated our forces in their native lands, but chose not to because they recognised a warrior spirit in the British soldiers. It would be disrespectful to then turn them away and not allow them the opportunity to serve with us. They chose not to massacre the British becasue they respect us, how disrespectful is it of us following such graciousness to turn to them and say "thanks for saving our skins but we can take it from here."

[Sturmtruppen]

why the brits add the gurkies in every topic??

[Cuts]

That's me foxed then - how does that square away with the statement below ?

In the US, the it is illegal to posess fully automatic weapons

It "squares" because for 99.99% of the citizens of the US it will remain illegal to posess a fully automatic weapon. When you understand why virtually none will ever be allowed to posess one, you will have answered your own question without the need to pick at word choices or blather about them, and you will have done so without my help. :wink:


If you'd have read both of your statements in my post you quoted you would see how they are mutually exclusive.

In the first you are either saying that it is a good thing they are not illegal, or that it is a good thing that the confusion has been cleared up and therefore my statement was correct - ie that they are not illegal. Either way the result is the same.

In the second you clearly state that they are illegal.

I will reproduce the post I made once again for clarity - this time in full:


So owning a full or selective fire weapon is not illegal.
Glad that's cleared up.

No sh*t. It's a good thing.



That's me foxed then - how does that square away with the statement below ?

In the US, the it is illegal to posess fully automatic weapons

It looks more obvious now, doesn't it ?
As to 'picking at word choices,' if statements about legality are going to be made then the words chosen should leave no room for misunderstanding. Please tell me how that is foolish or nonsensical.



Preatorian mentions a customised AR15. Speaking in gunsmith's or armourer's terms this means individual additions or changes to the weapon in order, (generally,) to enhance the accuracy, action, ergonomics, reliability or sighting system..

...yet his statement inplied otherwise. To almost anyone reading it, it is assumed that the modification would be to make the weapon fully-automatic.

No, perhaps you assumed that it meant modification to full auto, (or even the more likely selective fire,) because you have this bee in your bonnet about Preatorian's comments, but that in no way makes it read that way to 'almost anyone.'
Preatorian's conversational English may not be up to your high standards, but his technical expertise when it comes to hardware is very good and he does tend to use the correct word for specific items or actions.
It is clear to anyone who understands a modicum about wpns what he meant.
As you obviously count yourself amongst the cognoscenti I can only assume that you deliberately took a different view.

Changing an AR15 to selective fire specs may be done in a number of ways and may or may not be legal depending on the granting of the necessary permission..

May? May not? Possibly? :lol:

I have always heard all of my life that it is illegal in the US to modify a weapon and make it fully-automatic. Have your heard all of your that it may or may not be? I doubt seriously that there is such thing as "permission to modify a weapon to make it automatic", only permission to purchase or sell a weapon that IS automatic made before 1987, which itself is most exceedingly difficult to obtain because of very special circumstances and qualifications which must be met.

'I have heard' and 'I seriously doubt' are not good bases for arguing your point.
Had you said that in the beginning and then someone had put you right that's one thing, but using it as an excuse for a previously asserted position is, to say the very least, weak.
You would do better applying to the relevant authorities for a copy of the primary legislation which covers this, then you will be able to give your statements a firm grounding.
I grew up with firearms around, and have used them at work all my adult life, both in and out of uniform. As such I have a certain amount of experience and knowledge of the laws pertaining to them.
I am always willing to assist people in firearms related matters to whatever extent I can, but I never countenance spoon-feeding.

With reference to your not having seen soldiers with weapons other than those generally issued, have you served in any of the the armed forces yourself ? If you have, it might be due to the unit/job/theatre in which you found yourself.

The US military issues weapons so soldiers. Why would you be so interested to know if US soldiers can use their own weapons in war? Show me where any soldier in any military in an industrialized nation is able to use personal firearms as their main weapon, then you will have your own answer without griping at me for not providing what you have admitted that you do not know. :lol: If you are so inclined, ask a US military officer or email the US Army at www.goarmy.com.

I notice that you avoided my question; have you served in the armed forces ?

Why would I be interested to know if they may use private weapons ? because I am a soldier, that's why. But as I already knew the answer I the question is redundant.
By the way if I take it that by gripe you mean complaint, then that did not occur.

Let me help you since you need it:

A soldier carrying a fully automatic weapon in his car on the way to a base would be breaking the law.

A soldier carrying a fully auto weapon from the base to his home would be breaking the law.
A soldier in posession of a fully auto weapon in his home would be breaking the law.

Still thinking about it?

No, I don't need to think about it.
You are making very specific statements on the legality of unspecified actions.
In each case it would depend on the ownership of the weapon, whether or not the soldier was on duty and what that particular duty was.

I see no reason why you need to assume an air of arrogance in your posts, viz. 'Let me help you since you need it' and 'Still thinking about it?'
It may be that you find it amusing or that you feel it lends you a crutch for your posts, regardless it is neither warranted nor appreciated.

[Tubbyboy]

I think that you will find that certainly Gurkhas are allowed to become British citizens after serving a minimum term of service (I believe 4 years off the top of my head). Most Commonwealth citizens can live here anyway.

It does sound however as though you are anti-British. Never mind, to paraphrase someone far wiser than I, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to make yourself look like a fool."

Please do not call me a fool. You are not wise enough (eh... isn't that what you said?) or old enough or sinless enough to call anyone a fool.

Nope, not anti-British at all. If it were any other nation using such trashy tactics I'd dislike that too. I can only assume that since you are defending such a dispicable practice, you must aprove of it.

You me