US small arms of WWII

[american sniper]

would some one tell me all the guns used by the us in WWII
here is the ones i know

m1
m1-a1carbin
thomson
bar(browning automatic rifle)
springfield
browning .30 cal
browning .50 cal

any more i left out i know i left out alot so could yall tell me

[South African Military]

Colt.45 Pistol
M3 SMG (Grease Gun)
M2A1-7 Flame thrower
Bazooka (not really a gun...)

[american sniper]

ok thanks man

is there any more

[Commando Jordovski]

Thompsons are awesome automatics.

[american sniper]

yes thompsons are good automatics for close range but the BAR is much better for long range

[Hanz Lutz]

M1 grand is not bad .

[american sniper]

what is the dif in the M1 grand and the M1-A1 carbine

M1-A1 Carbin is just a smaller version of the M1 Grand aint it

[Bladensburg]

Do a search of the site and you'll find long an vehement arguments about the nature of the Garand and the M1.
To summarise the Garand is a full-power self loading battle rifle shooting the .30-06 round from an 8 shot en-bloc clip. The M1 carbine was a second line (similar to a modern personal defence weapon) rifle shooting a shorter, thinner "neckless" .30cal round (basically an elongated pistol round) from a detachable 10 or 15 shot magazine.
The carbine mechanism is very similar to (it's based on) the Garand but because it does not shoot the same round it can't be said to be just a "smaller version" in the way that the Lee-Enfield No.5 IS a smaller version of the No.4.

[american sniper]

ok thanks alot man

[Cactus]

what is the dif in the M1 grand and the M1-A1 carbine

M1-A1 Carbin is just a smaller version of the M1 Grand aint it

I heard somewhere that not everyone was fond of the Carbine when they had the option for an M-1. They said it wasn't that great of a shot and whatnot and that when they had the chance they'd turn it in and try and get an M-1 or use their Colt.

[Hosenfield]

what is the dif in the M1 grand and the M1-A1 carbine

M1-A1 Carbin is just a smaller version of the M1 Grand aint it

I heard somewhere that not everyone was fond of the Carbine when they had the option for an M-1. They said it wasn't that great of a shot and whatnot and that when they had the chance they'd turn it in and try and get an M-1 or use their Colt.


one of my grandfather's men was shot 4 times with a carbine when he was clearing a house in the ardennes offensive and LIVED. "(albeit, wounded)

if you get shot 4 times with a m1 you will die/or bleed to death.

the carbine has a bad reputation of not penetrating very thick clothing.

[2nd of foot]

Just to be picky in the military “Guns” are large things with wheels. Weapons carried in the hands are small arms. :)

[StalingradK]

Well the M1A1 Carbine was mainly for paratroopers anyways, with their folding stocks and light weight.

[Bluffcove]

Guns should be smooth bored whereas Rifles are rifled.

The M1 Carbine / M1 discussion has all been seen before, sadly some of you missed out on the amusment!

[Hanz Lutz]

Well the M1A1 Carbine was mainly for paratroopers anyways, with their folding stocks and light weight.

Yes paratroopers used M1A1 Carabine ,and M1 Grand .

[Cuts]

Guns should be smooth bored whereas Rifles are rifled.

...

Ah, a traditionalist.
I like it !
:wink:

[Bluffcove]

but what about the Chally2? thats got a rifled barrel?

Now Im confused!

and Howitzers where do the fit in the grand scheme of things?

[2nd of foot]

As i said before guns are big things with wheels.

[Cuts]

To be fair 2nd, guns are an either/or jobby.

Either a matched pair used to take a brace or three of pheasant with, or something one tows behind trucks to knock seven colours out of en psns with.

[2nd of foot]

I will grudgingly accept that Cuts :) but point you to my first post “in the Military” :P . When I saw the topic I thought of artillery not small arms, and was a little disappointed. :cry:

[Cuts]

Seen !

I can understand your disappoinment.
(I'm not shouting 'cos you're not Arty.)

[Bluffcove]

ok but what about smooth bored and rifled barrels on arty pieces? is there a distinction between them and if so what?

[2nd of foot]

In general no, but you could use the distinction breach loading (rifled) and muzzle loading (smoothbore). Although some early rifled were muzzle loaded but they did not last long.

Stand in front of your drill pig and call your rifle a gun and see what happens.
:lol:

[Tubbyboy]

ok but what about smooth bored and rifled barrels on arty pieces? is there a distinction between them and if so what?

Surely the distinction is that smooth-bore don't have grooves on the inside of the barrel and rifled do.

What was the question again?

:D

[Bluffcove]

gutted! right up until I read that it seemed like a sensible question.

what if it is bigger than small arms, and sits on wheels or tracks but has rifles in the barrel. It is a Gun - sits on wheels gets hauled around by horses, motors, gunners. but it's Rifled, I dont get it............... :cry:

[Cuts]

Then it's a rifled gun...
:wink:

[IRONMAN]

The carbine mechanism is very similar to (it's based on) the Garand but because it does not shoot the same round it can't be said to be just a "smaller version" in the way that the Lee-Enfield No.5 IS a smaller version of the No.4.

Actually, it is not based on the design of the M1 Garand. There is an article on the site of an armoury company (Fulton Armory) that manufactured the Carbine during WWII and is still in business today, which states that the Carbine's action is not based on the Garand's. However, like many firearms, the action is similar.

[Bladensburg]

Oh God, here we go again...

[IRONMAN]

Oh God, here we go again...

Don't get riled. It's just a tidbit of info. No need to get worked up, lest we all get worked up over everything we all share with each other.

[Bluffcove]

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/081005/grammar-police-arrest-this-man.gif

[Ale]

Bluffcove, I see your understandable confusion about guns, rifles, and rifle guns.....

However, I think we can safely conclude that a shotgun is indeed a smoothbore gun......but what about rifled shotguns?? (As used by the septics for shooting deer.) :lol:

[Man of Stoat]

The carbine mechanism is very similar to (it's based on) the Garand but because it does not shoot the same round it can't be said to be just a "smaller version" in the way that the Lee-Enfield No.5 IS a smaller version of the No.4.

Actually, it is not based on the design of the M1 Garand. There is an article on the site of an armoury company (Fulton Armory) that manufactured the Carbine during WWII and is still in business today, which states that the Carbine's action is not based on the Garand's. However, like many firearms, the action is similar.

Here we go again.

This is what Fulton Armoury has to say about the M1 carbine:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1_Carb.htm

The M1 Carbine: the War Baby. Baby because it was so much a 3/4 scale rifle; War Baby because it was the product of an urgently conceived requirement equally urgently satisfied by "Carbine" Williams and his colleagues at Winchester.

The Carbine was intended to "fill the gap" between the 9+ pound, full power M1 Rifle and the capable, but limited by its caliber, M1911A1 pistol. The intended user was the officer, the artilleryman, the signalman, the truck driver and the like, for whom the M1 Rifle was just too big and inconvenient to be practical, but who also needed a weapon with more useable reach than the pistol. At any but point-blank ranges the Carbine was easier to hit with than the pistol, too. More than 6 million Carbines were produced by a plethora of contractors, from hardware manufacturers to jukebox companies.

After WWII the Carbine soldiered on in the hands of US troops and their allies right through Vietnam. It was particularly popular with small-statured troops, a popularity only overshadowed by the M16 as it became available.

Loved by many, reviled by a few, the M1 Carbine seems to capture the hearts of most who see and handle it. If imitation is the most sincere compliment, the Carbine-like Ruger 10/22 in its millions has paid the Carbine the highest complement!

Go to our M1 Carbine page and see what Fulton Armory has done with the War Baby. Our M1 Carbine Parts page has a wide selection of parts, tools and accessories for the Carbine. Take a look and see if you can't find something you like!

Thanks for your interest!

and


http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1Carbine.htm
A Pocket History of the M1 Carbine
by Robert Gibson

Someone wanted some info on M1 Carbine....maybe this will help. Much of it is copied from the NRA's booklet "U.S.Caliber .30 Carbine".

Over a span of just 38 months (the first carbines were delivered in June 1942, the last in August 1945) nine primary contractors established manufacturing facilities, tooled up and turned out some six million carbines of all types - M1, M1A1, M2 and T3/M3. The production program was such a success that, excepting Inland and Winchester, the remaining contracts were cancelled in mid-1944. Those two companies completed their carbine production runs in August, 1945.

M1 Carbine Production Inland Manufacturing Division, G.M.C...... 2,632,097 43.0%
Winchester Repeating Arms Co................ 828,059 13.5%
Underwood-Elliot-Fisher Co.................. 545,616 8.9%
* Saginaw Steering Gear Div., G.M.C........... 517,212 8.5%
** National Postal Meter Co.................... 413,017 6.8%
*** Quality Hardware & Machine Co............... 359,666 5.9%
International Business Machines Corp (IBM).. 346,500 5.7%
Standard Products Co........................ 247,160 4.0%
Rock-Ola Co................................. 228,500 3.7%
---------
Total: 6,221,220

* Note that Saginaw had two plants in operation, one in Saginaw, MI and one in Grand Rapids, MI. The Grand Rapids facility assumed a contract that had been originally awarded to Irwin-Pedersen Arms Co....I-P had assembled only 3,542 guns at the time, none of which were accepted by the government.

**Note that a few early NPM receivers are marked "Rochester", for the Rochester Defence Corp. A very few late receivers are marked "CCC", for Commecial Controls Corp.

***Note that some Quality Hardware carbines were assembled using receivers made by Union Switch & Signal Co, hence the "UN-QUALITY" marked carbines. These are highly prized by some carbine aficionados.

The history of who made what during the brief 38 months of production is a story that can (and does) fill a book. Might I suggest you find a copy of "WAR BABY" or "M1 Carbine Design, Development and Production" by Larry Ruth. Another recommended book is "Guide to Collecting the M1 Carbine" by Robert Gibson (no relation, by the way!)...they're all good books with tons of info. Another excellent reference book is "U.S. M1 Carbines: Wartime Production" by Craig Riesch, a North Cape Publications "For Collectors Only" series.

Which are the most collectable? Depends on what your own personal criteria might be. Rock-Ola's are always desirable, not only because there were fewer made than any other make but because Rock-Ola was a famous juke box maker of the period who's product was quite familiar to the WWII GI's. Others look to the Winchester carbines because of the name on the receiver....I own one these myself. There are all kinds of reasons to own a particular "brand" of carbine...I've worked with IBM mainframe computers systems for some 20 years, I think it would be rather fitting to obtain an IBM carbine sooner or later. 20 carbine owners might give 20 different reasons for owning their particular carbine....you really need to read up on M1 history and decide what YOU want.

Mechanically they were each and every one built to the same design specs as specified in the contracts the maker signed with the U.S. Government. You could strip 25 M1 Carbines down to their component parts, mixed 'em up in a box and then reassemble them at random back into 25 carbines....they would be expected to function within the specified performance parameters.

Finding what you want is another matter. If not available at your local gunshops or gunshows you could get a current issue of Gun List, the indexed firearms paper....many, many M1 Carbines will be found listed in the Military Weapons section. Another source is Fulton Armory....call (301) 490-9485; the current advertised price is $699.95 for service grade M1 Carbine.

On this subject....at a recent gunshow I attended in Birmingham, Alabama (Jan. 5, 1997) the prices being asked for typical M1 Carbines were running from low of $450 for Inlands to a high of $650 for Rock-Olas. The Carbines I examined appeared to contain the usual mixed parts one would expect....a combination of the original mix of parts by the manufacturer, augmented by the various arsenal refurbishment programs following WWII and Korean wars.

As a counterpoint my local gunsmith still has a few Quality Hardware Carbines for sale at $385....mixed parts so certainly not collectables, but they're quite acceptable "shooters" and would satisfy most who have an itch to own a GI Carbine of their own. On this subject I've heard reports of "shooter" grade M1 Carbines still going for between $250 to $300 in scattered locations around the country. They've not been this affordable in my local area since back in late 1994 or early 1995.

Something a Carbine newbie should know....none of the primary contractors made ALL of the parts for these handy firearms. Best among the prime contractors was Underwood-Elliot-Fisher, which made 35 of the M1 Carbine's 55-58 parts in its Hartford and Bridgeport, Conn., plants. At the other end of the spectrum, Quality Hardware made only receivers, depending upon government supplied parts and parts from other contractors and sub-contractors from which its guns were assembled.

Subcontractors involved in the carbine program number in the hundreds, and made everything from pins and springs to receivers and barrels.

The U.S. Cal. .30 Carbine was designed from day one as a true "mixed parts" military firearm....carrying the "any part from any source will fit" philosophy of the U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1....the M1 Garand....one step further.

In my rather humble opinion the design and manufacture of the M1 Carbine by the American Military Industrial Complex of the WWII era would have to be considered a watershed event in the field of military firearms production.

It certainly goes without saying there are no "bad" USGI World War II era M1 Carbines seeing they were all built to the same milspecs and thoroughly inspected before acceptance by Uncle Sam. True, there are many out there now that are in need of large doses of TLC due to their hard travels around the world for the last 50 years. A good service rifle gunsmith can do wonders with one of these rather sad re-imports if someone were so inclined to rescue it, but....supplies of repatriates could be drying up. That WRA carbine I mentioned above was one of these neglected war dogs when I stumbled upon it.

It now rests in the gunsafe with my Garands, M1911 Govt pistols, M1903-A3 Remingtons 'n others from the World War II era...including a German KAR 98k. Quite a sight actually, old cronies...and mortal enemies...resting together with actions gleaming and stocks giving off the odor of fresh linseed oil.

There were also commercial M1 carbine models produced from 1960's to 1980's by Iver Johnson, Plainfield Machine Co., & Universal Sporting Goods. I don't much care for commercial M1 carbines so am not really up on their history, OTOH some do prefer them over GI carbines...different strokes for different folks. I did see a nickel-plated IJ once that was quite striking....well, to be perfectly honest I thought it was somewhat gaudy.

The commercial carbines simply *do not* compare well to a true-blue USGI M1 Carbine that's in good repair....my own biased opinion of course .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM: "Bavarian Carbines"....What Are They?

Following from the "For Collectors Only" edition of "U.S. M1 CARBINES" by Craig Riesch, published by North Cape Publications (revised, 2nd edition)

"After World War II, the United States, as one of the Occupying Powers in Germany, was responsible for providing community policing in the U.S. Zone. As the United States had no intention of either remaining as an Occupation force in Germany any longer than necessary, or in becoming involved in the day-to-day government of the community, local police forces were established to asume standard policing duties ranging from traffic control to criminal investigation to forestry protection. One of the most extensive of these police forces was the Bavarian Rural Police.

"Bavaria is one of the largest German states and included extensive forested and mountainous regions. The U.S. Army made M1 Carbines available to these local police units, many of which remained in service for more than ten years.

"Many can be identified by the stampings, "BAVARIAN RURAL POLICE", "BAVARIAN FORESTRY SERVICE", "BAVARIAN BORDER POLICE" and "BAVARIAN STATE POLICE" on the receiver. Other carbines were furnished to the federal border guard service, the "BUNDESGRENZSHUTZ". A variety of city and state police marks will also be noted. Most also had their component parts stamped with the last three or four digits of the original receiver serial number, as was standard German practice. Many of the carbines were reblued or refinished in "black oxide" which sometimes appears almost "blue/black' in color, depending on the polish of the metal beneath. On others, the issue rear sight was removed and the dovetail filled with a block of steel which was machined with a series of grooves across the top to prevent glare.

"Occasionally, they were rebarreled with new barrels manufactured by the German firm of ERMA Werke. A non-adjustable rear sight with a "Vee" notch was brazed on the front of the receiver behind the handguard. It provided a sight picture very much like that of the Mauser bolt action rifle, fam- iliar to its new users, many of whom had seen previous police or military service during World War II."

Hope this information is of some help.
Robert Gibson


You will note that at NO POINT does it say that it was NOT based on the Garand. Ooh, misrepresentation of a source? Where have we seen this before!

You also say that Fulton Armoury produced the M1 carbine during WW2. In the second quote, you will see a list of manufacturers of the M1 carbine during this period. Because you will not actually have read it, here it is again:

M1 Carbine Production
Inland Manufacturing Division, G.M.C...... 2,632,097 43.0%
Winchester Repeating Arms Co................ 828,059 13.5%
Underwood-Elliot-Fisher Co.................. 545,616 8.9%
Saginaw Steering Gear Div., G.M.C........... 517,212 8.5%
National Postal Meter Co.................... 413,017 6.8%
Quality Hardware & Machine Co............... 359,666 5.9%
International Business Machines Corp (IBM).. 346,500 5.7%
Standard Products Co........................ 247,160 4.0%
Rock-Ola Co................................. 228,500 3.7%

Some of those numbers don't quite jive with Smith & Smith "Small Arms of the World, P. 641, ISBN 0-88365-155-6, but the list of manufacturers does.

Note - Fulton Armoury does not appear. Plain facutal incorrectness? Priceless!

[Crab_to_be]

Using traceable sources? Providing traceable evidence for your claims? Isn't that just anti-American blather :roll:

In fact,your use of rational argument proves that all of Europe is embroiled in a plot to undermine the USA by not invading the Soviet Union in the middle ages using the US Marine Corps armed with jet engines and ex-Presidents of the United States numbers 15. 24, 35 and 41.

[Dani]

In fact,your use of rational argument proves that all of Europe is embroiled in a plot to undermine the USA by not invading the Soviet Union in the middle ages using the US Marine Corps armed with jet engines and ex-Presidents of the United States numbers 15. 24, 35 and 41.
:roll:

Edited: Sorry lads, I can't stop :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[King_Nothing]

Too get back on topic I have this list, feel free to add or omitt if you like:

Colt M1911/A1
Smith & Wesson M1917
Guide Lamp Liberator (Produced for partisans)
Smith & Wesson British Service Revolver (Produced for the UK)
High Standard Model H-D
High Standard Model B
Springfield M1903A1
Springfield M1093A3
Springfield M1093A4
M1 Garand
M1 Garand C
M1 Garand D
M1 Carbine
M1A1 Carbine
M2 Carbine
M3 Carbine (Possibly)
Cranston & Johnson M1941 Rifle
Ithaca 1937 Shotgun
Remington M31
Remington M11
Stevens M620A
M520-30 Shotgun
Winchester M12
Winchester M97
Thompson M1928/A1
Thompson M1/A1
United Defence Model 1942
M2 Hyde
Smith & Wesson Light Rifle Model 1940 (All sold to the UK)
Reising Model 50
Reising Model 55
M3/A1 'Grease Gun'
M3 'Grease Gun' Supressed (Mounting either a Sten supressor or an American made suppressor)
Browning Automatic Rifle M1918A2
Browning M1919A4
Browning M1919A6
Browning M1917A1
Browning M2/HB
M1/A1 Rocket launcher 'Bazooka'
M9 Rocket Launcher 'Bazooka'
M18 57mm Recoiless Rifle
M1/A1 Flamethrower
M2-2 Flamethrower

[mike M.]

Nice list King. Here are a couple of updates.

1.) ADD: Savage Model 720 Riot Shotgun

2.) Delete: M1D Garand, the M1D was not produced during WWII and would not properly be considered a WWII infantry weapon.

The M1C barley saw service and most likely in the pacific.

[mike M.]

King..a couple more for add to the pistol section.

1.) 1917 Colt .45 ACP, looks almost like the S&W

2.) Smith & wesson .38 Victory model

3.) Colt .32 pocket Model

[IRONMAN]

You will note that at NO POINT does it say that it was NOT based on the Garand.

Yes, I quote the wrong Armorey as the source.

However, as I stated, the M1 Carbine is not based upon the M1 Garand.

"Although the M1 Carbine is sometimes described as a development of the M1 Garand rifle, it has a related but different internal design. It is based upon a lightweight tappet-and-slide gas system and uses detachable, large-capacity magazines. It fires a smaller and lighter (.30 Carbine) (.30 caliber (7.62 mm)) cartridge which is very different, in both design and performance, from the full-sized .30-06 cartridge used by the Garand."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Carbine

The similarity is that they both use a similar syle of bolt, as numerous firearms do, and which does not mean that one specific weapon is "based upon" the design of another specific weapon!

Heh.

[IRONMAN]

Using traceable sources? Providing traceable evidence for your claims? Isn't that just anti-American blather :roll:

In fact,your use of rational argument proves that all of Europe is embroiled in a plot to undermine the USA by not invading the Soviet Union in the middle ages using the US Marine Corps armed with jet engines and ex-Presidents of the United States numbers 15. 24, 35 and 41.

GOOD LORD. Listen to yourself spout. Why not debate instead of make insulting allusions about someone.

EDITED TO CORRECT A TYPO.

[Man of Stoat]

Oh, god, don't start this one again.

It's different cos the gas system is different, due to the lower pressure cartridge. Nobody disputes that the action of the carbine was based on the garand... except you. And an ambiguously-worded Wikipedia article which is probably referring to the action as a whole, including the gas system which /is/ different. Hell, the wikipedia article even says "related design", not "independent design", implying some heritage there.

Hatcher, p. 177: "has a breech mechanism like that of the Garand"
Smith & Smith, p. 89-90: "The locked-breech Winchester with its short-stroke action was selected, partly because of its highly efficient lock action which resembled the Garand quite closely"

From an engineering perspective, you don't independently come up with such a similar system to a well-known wpn from the same country a few years later which was not independently developped elsewhere. Simple tipping block systems were re-invented all over the place (Stg 44, SVT, FN49 etc), but the relatively complex Garand-type of rotating bolt was only ever used in Garand, M1-3 carbines, M14, Mini14, M1A and BM59.

EDIT: Can you actually quote a proper source which says clearly that the M1 carbine was an independent design? OR are you going to quote Wikipedia over and over again as usual?

EDIT 2: Look, seriously, it would be such a shockingly amazing surprise were it a totally independent design that Hatcher and Smith & Smith would mention it, particularly as both wpns come from the same country a few years apart. As would "War Baby", which is the definitive history of the M1 carbine. Cuts has a copy, I've not read it. He assures me however that it doesn't say such a thing.

[IRONMAN]

Oh, god, don't start this one again.

It's different cos the gas system is different, due to the lower pressure cartridge. Nobody disputes that the action of the carbine was based on the garand... except you.

You have that backwards dude. You are the exception. You've seen the encyclopedia article that states that it is not based on the M1 Garand. Why do you persist after reading the truth? What is wrong with you?

Do you know so little about firearms that you think because the bolt is similar between two weapons that one is a copy of the other? If that were true, then the majority of weapons would be considered, by you anyway, to be copies of each other by genre.

Good Lord dude. I mean, you didn't realize that a .22 can pass through a man, you think a .410 with shot is not going to stop a man at near PB, and now you're trying to say that 2 weapons with similar bolts are copies?

:shock:

You might like to know, Patent Office Clerk, that the M1 Carbine is a compilation of several designs, which David "Carbine" Williams examined and drew ideas from.

The M1 Carbine is not a freaking copy of or based upon the M1 Garande. You have been duped, again. :roll:

[IRONMAN]

I own firearms from 4 different makers. All of the rifles have similar bolts, no 2 of them is made by the same company.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[IRONMAN]

For that matter, I'm sure that many early semi-auto rifles (pre WWII) have similar bolts. I guess you'd say, "They are copies of each other!"

:lol:

[IRONMAN]

EDIT: Can you actually quote a proper source which says clearly that the M1 carbine was an independent design? OR are you going to quote Wikipedia over and over again as usual?

So now Wikipedia is not a credible source, after you have used it so much for posting here. Good Lord Patent Office Clerk. Good Lord.

[Man of Stoat]

David Williams invented the short-stroke tappet gas system which was used on the M1 carbine. The rest of the design was from Winchester.

All this "expertise" from a man who thinks that the calibre of the M1 garand is .306" (from here: http://www.gamingforums.com/showpost.php?p=498173&postcount=45), that semi-autos are less powerful than bolt or revolver guns, that the M1 carbine is "spring operated", etc etc etc. And I seem to remember that you said that the AK47 was based on and is mechanically similar to the MP44 cos they look similar from the outside, when in fact they are mechanically extremely different.

The wikipedia article says that it is a RELATED design. Not INDEPENDENT. NOWHERE have you posted a source that says that it was an INDEPENDENT design.

You have also not posted any proof that a .22lr will go through a person other than your own "blather". Repeating yourself does not make it true.

Most pre-war semi-auto rifles have vastly differing bolts. Get a copy of Smith & Smith and a copy of Hatcher and have a look.

I'd like to know which 4 rifles you have which have similar bolts - if they're hunting rifles I'd wager that they're all based on the Mauser 98.

EDIT: Examples of rifles with actions based on the Mauser 98: M1903 Springfield, CZ550, Musgrave, Parker-Hale M82 etc, Pattern 14 (although without the cocking-on-opening feature).

[IRONMAN]

All this "expertise" from a man who thinks that the calibre of the M1 garand is .306" (from here: http://www.gamingforums.com/showpost.php?p=498173&postcount=45),

Once again Patent Office Clerk, you attempt to twist my words. I never said that the Garande is a .306 calibre, but, for your education, .306 is how the name is commonly written. You are learning today Patent OFffice Clerk! It was developed in 1906, Clerk. I live in a state chock-full of deer hunters. 30-06 is the most popular cailbre of hunting rifle for deer. I'm an ex-hunter myself. When you want lessons on shooting a 30-06, post it here and I will tutor you. :lol:

I bet you think the .308 is a a lot more powerful than the 30-06 too. :lol:

that semi-autos are less powerful than bolt or revolver guns,

They are, by a very small margin. :lol:

And I seem to remember that you said that the AK47 was based on and is mechanically similar to the MP44 cos they look similar from the outside, when in fact they are mechanically extremely different.

It certainly is! But not because they look similar. They look similar partly because they are internally similar. You stated it backwards. Everyone knows this... except you! There are articles by weapons experts (which I provided to you once!) who informed you of this, but your memory is thin and your agenda is fat, so you remember it not.

Now, since you can't understand a simple numerated illustration and understand it's components with descriptive texts, and since you go around telling people that you are a patent inspector when you are actually a patent office clerical person, who cannot understand text-described simple line-drawing illustrations, :lol:

...you should not be trying too hard to belittle anyone.

The wikipedia article says that it is a RELATED design. Not INDEPENDENT. NOWHERE have you posted a source that says that it was an INDEPENDENT design.

Good Lord. Now you can't even understand the paragraph from the article. Here t is again. This time, read it. BTW, ALMOST EVERY FIREARM HAS RELATED DESIGNS. When you get yourself a few real weapons some day, you might learn that on your own.

"Although the M1 Carbine is sometimes described as a development of the M1 Garand rifle, it has a related but different internal design. It is based upon a lightweight tappet-and-slide gas system and uses detachable, large-capacity magazines. It fires a smaller and lighter (.30 Carbine) (.30 caliber (7.62 mm)) cartridge which is very different, in both design and performance, from the full-sized .30-06 cartridge used by the Garand."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Carbine

Alas, the truth, once more. Once more Mr. I Don't Own a Rifle, virtually all rifles have related designs. :lol:

So, now you know!

You have also not posted any proof that a .22lr will go through a person other than your own "blather". Repeating yourself does not make it true.

You have not posted proof that it cannot! Again, your lack of experience with firearms. How many rounds have you fired from a .22 LR Stoat? None? It shows.

Most pre-war semi-auto rifles have vastly differing bolts. Get a copy of Smith & Smith and a copy of Hatcher and have a look.

Again Mr. I Don't Own a Rifle, virtually all semi-auto rifles have similarities in bolt design. :lol:

Are you learning about firearms today Patent Office Clerk?

I'd like to know which 4 rifles you have which have similar bolts - if they're hunting rifles I'd wager that they're all based on the Mauser 98.

Good Lord. Now you think most semi-auto hunting rifles are based on a bolt-action mauser? Did you assume my rifles are bolt-action? Do you think all bolt action rifles are based on the Mauser? Mr. I Don't Own a Rifle, your lack of experience with firearms is showing.

Help for you: Mauser is not the first and never was the best. many rifles are better in quality than Mauser. Mossberg, Ithica, Browning, Remington, Marlin - all superior to Mauser.

You are learning!


EDITED TO CORRECT CODES

[Firefly]

Yawn, round and round in little circles, YAWN :o

[pdf27]

Once again Patent Office Clerk, you attempt to twist my words. I never said that the Garande is a .306 calibre, but, for your education, .306 is how the name is commonly written. You are learning today Patent OFffice Clerk! It was developed in 1906, Clerk. I live in a state chock-full of deer hunters. 30-06 is the most popular cailbre of hunting rifle for deer. I'm an ex-hunter myself. When you want lessons on shooting a 30-06, post it here and I will tutor you. :lol:

Now this is really funny. Lie, or just a really bad memory?
Go to the link Stoaty posted and you find the following comment by IRONMAN:
Side note: My father captured 3 North Korean soldiers with a heavy M1 Garand in Korea. He snuck up behind them and told them to stand up with their hands over their heads. Even if they could not speak English, the gestures of thet mighty M1's barrel (.306 calibre) did the talking for him. They just did what he said, and he walked them down the dirt road to his commander. : )
All bold mine

[Crab_to_be]

You mean IRONMAN has once more lied but will still deny it despite the evidence offered?

[Man of Stoat]

All this "expertise" from a man who thinks that the calibre of the M1 garand is .306" (from here: http://www.gamingforums.com/showpost.php?p=498173&postcount=45),

Once again Patent Office Clerk, you attempt to twist my words. I never said that the Garande is a .306 calibre, but, for your education, .306 is how the name is commonly written. You are learning today Patent OFffice Clerk! It was developed in 1906, Clerk. I live in a state chock-full of deer hunters. 30-06 is the most popular cailbre of hunting rifle for deer. I'm an ex-hunter myself. When you want lessons on shooting a 30-06, post it here and I will tutor you. :lol:

I bet you think the .308 is a a lot more powerful than the 30-06 too. :lol:


Oh, so now .30-06 is commonly written as .306 in TINWALT land is it? .30-06 is commonly written as.... .30-06! Not .306. And in any case, the diameter of the projectile is .308" And you said it here:

http://www.gamingforums.com/showpost.php?p=498173&postcount=45
Even if they could not speak English, the gestures of thet mighty M1's barrel (.306 calibre) did the talking for him. They just did what he said, and he walked them down the dirt road to his commander. : )



that semi-autos are less powerful than bolt or revolver guns,

They are, by a very small margin. :lol:


From: Hatcher's Notebook p. 255, Maj. Gen. J. Hatcher (retd), 3rd edition, Stackpole, 1962

Garand .30: Wt. charge - 50gn, Wt. bullet 172gn, Bullet travel* - 21.76", Muzzle velocity - 2653fps
Springfield .30: Wt. charge - 50gn, Wt. bullet 172gn, Bullet travel* - 21.76", Muzzle velocity - 2653fps

Read it carefully - there is NO DIFFERENCE IN MUZZLE VELOCITY BETWEEN THE M1903 SPRINGFIELD AND THE GARAND. Thus no difference in muzzle energy, since the bullet weight is the same.

Thus you are WRONG.


And I seem to remember that you said that the AK47 was based on and is mechanically similar to the MP44 cos they look similar from the outside, when in fact they are mechanically extremely different.

It certainly is! But not because they look similar. They look similar partly because they are internally similar. You stated it backwards. Everyone knows this... except you! There are articles by weapons experts (which I provided to you once!) who informed you of this, but your memory is thin and your agenda is fat, so you remember it not.



One has a tipping block, the other has a rotating bolt. Completely different. I have fired and stripped both of them. You have handled neither.



Alas, the truth, once more. Once more Mr. I Don't Own a Rifle, virtually all rifles have related designs. :lol:


As far as rifles go, I own a 1959 L1A1 SLR made at Fazakerly, a Vetterli M1870 Kadettengewehr made at SIG Neuhausen, an Enfield P1853 Carbine from 1856 cut down to a 20" carbine, and until last month I had a 1944 dated Enfield No.4 from BSA Shirley, a 1933 M1891/30 Mosin-Nagant from Izevsk, a 1946 M44 Mosin-Nagant carbine also from Izevsk, which appeared in Shooting Sports a couple of years ago in an article penned by.... me, and a Ruger 10/22.


You have also not posted any proof that a .22lr will go through a person other than your own "blather". Repeating yourself does not make it true.

You have not posted proof that it cannot! Again, your lack of experience with firearms. How many rounds have you fired from a .22 LR Stoat? None? It shows.



At my peak of .22lr use I was getting through 2-300 per week.


Most pre-war semi-auto rifles have vastly differing bolts. Get a copy of Smith & Smith and a copy of Hatcher and have a look.

Again Mr. I Don't Own a Rifle, virtually all semi-auto rifles have similarities in bolt design. :lol:

My L1A1 has no similarities to anything with a rotating bolt.


I'd like to know which 4 rifles you have which have similar bolts - if they're hunting rifles I'd wager that they're all based on the Mauser 98.

Good Lord. Now you think most semi-auto hunting rifles are based on a bolt-action mauser? Did you assume my rifles are bolt-action? Do you think all bolt action rifles are based on the Mauser? Mr. I Don't Own a Rifle, your lack of experience with firearms is showing.

BLATANT TROLLING - words in the mouth. I never specified what action type. And I wouldn't make an error such as saying that anything semi-auto was based on the Mauser - I leave that up to you.

[Man of Stoat]

BTW, penetration of .22lr in ballistic gelatin is around 10" from a longer-barrelled pistol:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/sd22.html

I am personally 10.6" thick at the torso. So, even if it misses bone, it is unlikely to exit me with a perpendicular shot.

And here's some wound profiles in ballistic gelatin:

37gn .22lr HP fired from a rifle (so higher velocity than from a pistol, note approx. 10" penetration):

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2037gr%20HP%20Wound%20Profile.jpg

9mm Parabellum M882 ball (not the approx 28" penetration and larger permanent and temporary cavities):

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg

EDIT: These images come from: http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm Scroll down to the bottom.

[IRONMAN]

Read it carefully - there is NO DIFFERENCE IN MUZZLE VELOCITY BETWEEN THE M1903 SPRINGFIELD AND THE GARAND. Thus no difference in muzzle energy, since the bullet weight is the same.

Thus you are WRONG.

You blundered. You are comparing 2 specific firearms. Between autos and bolt-actions, there is a marginal difference. I did say marginal, and that is what I said originally. :lol: If you want to see this difference magnified, compare cannons which are breech-loading to auto-loading cannons.

Again patent Clerk, you try to twist my words. You have attempted to make it appear as though i said there is a sensible difference, when i said there is a marginal difference. Please patent clerk, don;t try twisting other people's words. it's a habit for you, but it always leads to your saying something goofy and then proven wrong about your exagerations.

However!:

Fullton Armory:
"Theoretically, the .308 has an ever so slight advantage due to the decreased case volume (the powder does not move around much in a .308 case; more modern powders allow less to be used for similar performance. In the .30-'06 case, the powder has lots of room to lay a bit differently on each shot fired). However, in the DCM/CMP Service Rifle course of fire, such "differences" evaporate for most shooters. However, at long range (e.g., 1000 yards) the .30-06 catridge offers a real advantage, though, not remarkably.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1_308.htm

On the other hand, the .30-'06 cartridge has the wonderful ability to offer a little bit more power at reduced chamber pressure levels. Though it seems odd that the .30-06 has less chamber pressures than the .308 and yet a bit more "power," it's nonetheless true."

NOT REMARKABLY Stoat. Like the difference between autos and bolties. Are you getting the picture? Now make sure you take that information and exaggerate it too. Say something to make it look like the Fulton Armory is saying that the diff between the 308 and 06 are significant. Go on! Do it Stoaty! You can do it! :lol:

One has a tipping block, the other has a rotating bolt. Completely different. I have fired and stripped both of them. You have handled neither.

I've driven a race car too, but I'm no expert on them either. Sorry Stoat, but experts say one is the inspiration for the other. You and I have had this debate before, and I proved you wrong before. Shall I do it again?

Take it from me Stoat. It is capable of passing theough a man at near PB if it does not hit bone. A cop in my city died from one recently. Shot in the stomach, the bullet passed clean through him, missing his spine. He bled to death internally in 20 minutes because it passed through his stomach. Quite a few people have been killed with .22 LR's just that way. If you don't believe that, it's your little problem. But, you are wrong.

Stoat, here's a tip for you: The reason so many larger calibre bullets stop inside someone is because they have low velocity, like a 9mm parabellum, a 380, or a .30 short. While they might do a lot of damage going in, these rounds seldom have the velocity to pass completely through someone. This is not always the case with the small, high velocity .22 LR, especially if it is fired from a long pistol or a rifle.

A 9mm pistol typically has lower velocity and it is a much fatter bullet than a HV .22 LR, which is far more likely, but only sometimes will, pass clean through a man. Yes Stoat. A HV .22 LR can pass completely through a man. They have many times.

Learning Stoaty? Good.

My L1A1 has no similarities to anything with a rotating bolt.

Stoat, most automatic rifles use a rotating bolt. :lol:
Do you think they are all based on each other's designs?
Are they all children of each other? :shock:

OK, now, let's shoot down the myth you've fallen prey to about the M1 Carbine being based on the M1 Garand:

Desipite similarities in naming, there is no relationship between the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine.
http://www.answers.com/topic/garand

The M1 Carbine is often thought of as a variant of the Garand, but this is actually a misnomer.
http://garand.biography.ms/

The Carbine was one of over twenty designs submitted to the Government. It took over a year and a half to decide on this example.
http://home.att.net/~ra-carbines/history.html

The gun was the brainchild of David M. "Carbine" Williams who apparently did much of his design work for the carbine while serving time for "moonshining". Later Williams helped engineers at Winchester perfect his basic design.
http://duncanlong.com/science-fiction-fantasy-short-stories/m1.htm

Many companies submitted their designs for US Army trials but the winner eventually became the Winchester. The design of the Winchester carbine is often contributed to the David "Carbine" Williams, who was the developer of the gas system. But, according to some sources, this carbine was born as a spare-time hunting carbine project of some engineers at Winchesters' workshop, and, when military request appeared, this design was resurrected and adopted for intended use.
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm

So now Stoat, patent office clerk, again, you are wrong.

The M1 Carbine is NOT based on the M1 Garand. You read the myth and fell for it. Furthermore, you think that because there are similarities between the bolts in 2 guns that one is based on the other. Once more Stoat, patent office clerk, if that were true, then every rifle would be based on the design of every other of it's kind, which is not true either.

Stoat, that's just the way it is.

[IRONMAN]

BTW, penetration of .22lr in ballistic gelatin is around 10" from a longer-barrelled pistol:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/sd22.html

I am personally 10.6" thick at the torso. So, even if it misses bone, it is unlikely to exit me with a perpendicular shot.

26.5 centimeter = 10.4330709 inches

Yup. You blundered again. You just proved to yourself that a HV .22 LR can pass through a man. Stoat, most 9mm won't pass through a man if they don't hit bone either. LOL

Learning now are you?

[pdf27]

I've driven a race car too, but I'm no expert on them either. Sorry Stoat, but experts say one is the inspiration for the other.
Funny how "experts" only ever agree with you, while anyone else is an idiot :roll:

[IRONMAN]

Staot, please feel free to help me prove your other contentions are wrong. I did say that an HV .22 LR has the power to pss through a man, and that was correct. Why did you not believe me? Why did you have to see it for yourself with a chart? :lol:

[BDL]

BTW, penetration of .22lr in ballistic gelatin is around 10" from a longer-barrelled pistol:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/sd22.html

I am personally 10.6" thick at the torso. So, even if it misses bone, it is unlikely to exit me with a perpendicular shot.

26.5 centimeter = 10.4330709 inches

Yup. You blundered again. You just proved to yourself that a HV .22 LR can pass through a man. Stoat, most 9mm won't pass through a man if they don't hit bone either. LOL

Learning now are you?

Is that not exactly what MoS said? That it would penetrate about 10''

Why oh why oh why do you make it so easy for us Tinny?

[IRONMAN]

I've driven a race car too, but I'm no expert on them either. Sorry Stoat, but experts say one is the inspiration for the other.
Funny how "experts" only ever agree with you, while anyone else is an idiot :roll:

What's funny is that I use experts to prove someone's wild contentions wrong, and you sayt that. That's what's funny.

[IRONMAN]

BTW, penetration of .22lr in ballistic gelatin is around 10" from a longer-barrelled pistol:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/sd22.html

I am personally 10.6" thick at the torso. So, even if it misses bone, it is unlikely to exit me with a perpendicular shot.

26.5 centimeter = 10.4330709 inches

Yup. You blundered again. You just proved to yourself that a HV .22 LR can pass through a man. Stoat, most 9mm won't pass through a man if they don't hit bone either. LOL

Learning now are you?

Is that not exactly what MoS said? That it would penetrate about 10''

Why oh why oh why do you make it so easy for us Tinny?

Yes, precicely. he did show that it can pass through a man at over 10". That is true. Alas, his contention that a .22 does not have the power to pass through a man was false!

[IRONMAN]

Thus, my statement that my long-barrel Colt .22 revolver has the ability to pass a bullet through a man - was correct all along. It just took Stoaty a chart to learn it. I understand if he has trouble believeing what others say without a chart. But at least he knows the truth now.

[BDL]

Yes, precicely. he did show that it can pass through a man at over 10". That is true. Alas, his contention that a .22 does not have the power to pass through a man was false!

No, he said that it would penetrate about 10'' - not that it would penetrate a man at 10''

[IRONMAN]

Is that not exactly what MoS said? That it would penetrate about 10''

Why oh why oh why do you make it so easy for us Tinny?

For your education:

A human body is not ballistic gelatin. A human body has cavities and emptiness inside. A bullet will pass through a man if it does not hit bone better than through this material, which provides constant resistance.

Okey dokey?

[2nd of foot]

Is that not exactly what MoS said? That it would penetrate about 10''

Why oh why oh why do you make it so easy for us Tinny?

For your education:

A human body is not ballistic gelatin. A human body has cavities and emptiness inside. A bullet will pass through a man if it does not hit bone better than through this material, which provides constant resistance.

Okey dokey?

I always thought it was quite tightly pack inside the body, the only empty space is between your ears.

[Man of Stoat]

The Garand and Springfield can be directly compared because they fire the SAME cartridge with the SAME barrel length, and the only difference between them is that one is a bolt-action and one is semi-auto. They have the same muzzle velocity. Thus the self-loading mechanism has NO effect on the muzzle velocity. QED. The only scientific comparison is firing the same cartridge with the same barrel length, no hand-waving "in general" without supporting data.

Thus, if I can get hold of a chronograph I will shoot my L1A1 over it with the gas turned on and the gas switched off. The difference will be immesurable.

You made your contention without supporting data. I provided data to the contrary, and you ignore it. Thus you are TROLLING.

If you want to see this difference magnified, compare cannons which are breech-loading to auto-loading cannons

I'd like to see an auto-loading cannon which is NOT breech-loading.

Right. I shall re-post the wound patterns in order of penetration:

.38spl +p 110gn hollowpoint. Penetration 21.5cm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/38%20Spl%20Plus%20P%20JHP.jpg

.45ACP Winchester Silvertip JHP, penetration 25cm:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45%20ACP%20WW%20STHP.jpg

.22rf 37gn HP. Penetration 26.5cm (FROM RIFLE)
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2037gr%20HP%20Wound%20Profile.jpg

.38spl 158gn FBI load, penetration 32cm:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/38%20Spl%20FBI%20load.jpg

.357 Mag 125gn JSP, penetration 36cm:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/357%20Magnum.jpg

.22lr RNL, penetration 36.5cm (FROM RIFLE):
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2040gr%20RNL.jpg

9mm Para M885, penetration 70cm:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg

.45ACP 230gn FMC, penetration 70+cm:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ.jpg

So apart from projectiles designed to expand (and produce hydrostatic shock and stay in the target), handgun ammunition in general will penetrate more than .22lr, particularly FMJ. And where do you get this rediculous idea that velocity is the be all and end all of terminal ballistics???

As for the use of ballistic gelatin, the site which provides the diagrams says:
"The entire missile path is captured in one or more 25 x 25 x 50 cm blocks of 10% ordnance gelatin at 4°C. The penetration depth, projectile deformation and fragmentation pattern, yaw, and temporary cavity of the missile in living anesthetized swine tissue are reproduced by this gelatin.

So it adequately reproduces what happens when shooting at pigs, which are made of similar stuff to humans. Thus the penetrations in this gelatin can be expected to be close to what would occur in humans.

I dunno why you're banging on about differences between .308WIN and .30-06 - all I did was point out that the diameter of the .30-06 projectile is .308".

Stoat, most automatic rifles use a rotating bolt.

There's a whole heap that don't, e.g.

TIPPING:
SKS
VZ52
CZ58
FN49
FN FAL (FN49 derived)
FN CAL (scaled-down FAL)
IMBEL MD2 (FAL based)
Japan Tyoe 64
Ljungmann AG42
MAS49
MP44
Tokarev SVT38
CZ ZH29

OTHER:
FAMAS (delayed blowback)
HK G3 (roller-delayed blowback, CETME derived)
HK33, HK G41 etc - (G3 derived)
CETME (roller-delayed blowback Stg45 derived)
SIG SG510 (roller-delayed blowback)
Simonov AS-36 (rising block)

EDIT TO FIX BBCode

[Man of Stoat]

BTW, penetration of .22lr in ballistic gelatin is around 10" from a longer-barrelled pistol:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/sd22.html

I am personally 10.6" thick at the torso. So, even if it misses bone, it is unlikely to exit me with a perpendicular shot.

26.5 centimeter = 10.4330709 inches

Yup. You blundered again. You just proved to yourself that a HV .22 LR can pass through a man. Stoat, most 9mm won't pass through a man if they don't hit bone either. LOL

Learning now are you?

Is that not exactly what MoS said? That it would penetrate about 10''

Why oh why oh why do you make it so easy for us Tinny?

Yes, precicely. he did show that it can pass through a man at over 10". That is true. Alas, his contention that a .22 does not have the power to pass through a man was false!

You know, I was lead to believe at school that 10.6 was a larger number than 10.4. Although this doesn't seem to hold in TINWALTLAND.

[IRONMAN]

Thus, if I can get hold of a chronograph I will shoot my L1A1 over it with the gas turned on and the gas switched off. The difference will be immesurable.

Yea. I did say minimal.

And where do you get this rediculous idea that velocity is the be all and end all of terminal ballistics???

You don't read so well. Read my statement in the previous post about the "fattness" of the 9mm or 380 round. Now you're going to bring up mass. Bring up whatever you like Staot. It will not disprove that my statement:

"A .22 LR can pass through a man at near PB if it does not hit bone."

... is anything but true, as you have proven to yourself, because you would not take my word for it.

So it adequately reproduces what happens when shooting at pigs, which are made of similar stuff to humans. Thus the penetrations in this gelatin can be expected to be close to what would occur in humans.

That is not reflected in the charts. Those are single blocks of ballistic gelating.

The first illustration you provided was of a single block of gelating, and the .22 LR passed through over 10 inches of it. :shock:

See your graphic:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2037gr%20HP%20Wound%20Profile.jpg

:lol:

Staot, are you still trying to say, after providing yourself with the chart that proves it, that a .22 LR cannot pass through a human if it does not hit bone? Is that why you keep posting stuff about this after providing the very proof yourself?

I dunno why you're banging on about differences between .308WIN and .30-06 - all I did was point out that the diameter of the .30-06 projectile is .308".

Now that you see the expert's article (an armory expert) which states that there IS a marginal difference, you say I"M the one carrying on about eh?

:lol:


Stoat, most automatic rifles use a rotating bolt.

There's a whole heap that don't, e.g.

But most do. Are you stating that all rifles with rotating bolts are based on each other?

Stoat, it's ok to be wrong sometimes Stoat. I've been wrong. I once thought the M1 Carbine was spring action! But I learned otherwise. I can admit it though. But you seem incapable of admiting being wrong about anything, ever, as many times as I have shot down your wild contentions. But it's not ok to be wrong, proven wrong, then carry on, dancing around the subject without making any clear statements, making it look like you are still right. It does not change a thing. It does not earn respect.

Let me recap:

A .22 LR can pass through a person at near PB if it does not hit bone.

The M1 Carbine IS NOT based upon the M1 Garand.

Because 2 weapons have a rotating bolt, does not mean one is based upon the other.

8)

[IRONMAN]

BTW, penetration of .22lr in ballistic gelatin is around 10" from a longer-barrelled pistol:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/sd22.html

I am personally 10.6" thick at the torso. So, even if it misses bone, it is unlikely to exit me with a perpendicular shot.

26.5 centimeter = 10.4330709 inches

Yup. You blundered again. You just proved to yourself that a HV .22 LR can pass through a man. Stoat, most 9mm won't pass through a man if they don't hit bone either. LOL

Learning now are you?

Is that not exactly what MoS said? That it would penetrate about 10''

Why oh why oh why do you make it so easy for us Tinny?

Yes, precicely. he did show that it can pass through a man at over 10". That is true. Alas, his contention that a .22 does not have the power to pass through a man was false!

You know, I was lead to believe at school that 10.6 was a larger number than 10.4. Although this doesn't seem to hold in TINWALTLAND.

Let us know when every human body, bullet, trajectory of penetration, and shootable point in a person's torso are exactly the same, every time.
Make sure you provide technical data about bullets passing through lungs or missing them, stomachs, intestines, etc. We need that data because it all proves stoat's chart wrong!

Listen to yourself. I know it pisses you that I was right and patent Office Clerk was not, because you are both members of the gang, but don't swerve to farr from reality BBL.

Get over it already.

[IRONMAN]

The following are penetrations using short-barel (2-3 inches) .22 pistols:

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

Remington .22 LR 36gr Viper Hyper Velocity Solid Bullet TC
Product # 1922, Lot # E03J1D
Gelatin block s/n V1-990530-1, calibration: 9.9cm @ 622 fps (9.3cm corrected1)
Test gun: Beretta M21A, 2.4" bbl. Date tested: 7-16-99. Bare Gelatin
Shot # Velocity (fps) Penetration Expansion
1 861 25.9cm (10 1/8") None
2 865 32.0cm (12 ½") None
3 880 30.8cm (12") None
4 901 24.0cm (9 3/8") None
5 Error 26.6cm (10 3/8") None
6 Error 23.4cm (9 1/8") None
7 787 27.5cm (10 ¾') None
Averages 859 27.2cm (10 5/8")

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

CCI .22 LR 32gr Stinger HP
Product # 0050, Lot # J30D01
Gelatin block s/n V1-990528-1, calibration: 9.0cm @ 563 fps (9.5cm corrected1)
Test gun: Beretta M21A, 2.4" bbl. Date tested: 6-14-99. Bare Gelatin
Shot # Velocity (fps) Penetration Expansion
1 971 See remarks None
2 1002 See remarks None
3 999 See remarks None
4 972 See remarks None
5 Error See remarks None
6 993 See remarks None
Averages 987 30.7cm (12")*

Bullet A: 34.0cm
Bullet B: 29.6cm (backwards at rest)
Bullet C: 30.8cm
Bullet D: exited block at 29.7cm
Bullet E: 28.7 (penetrated 25cm and ricocheted off test stand surface under block)
Bullet F: 28.5 (backwards at rest)

-----------------------------------------
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs27.htm

Now for Christ's sake STFU already about a .22 LR can't pass through a person if it does not hit bone. :roll:

[IRONMAN]

I just noticed something. They used CCI Stingers in that last test. Those are the rounds I use in my Colt .22 LR revolver with a 9 1/2 inch barrel.

:lol:

[Man of Stoat]

Oh, so now ballistic gelatin IS a valid test medium? But you said:

For your education:

A human body is not ballistic gelatin. A human body has cavities and emptiness inside. A bullet will pass through a man if it does not hit bone better than through this material, which provides constant resistance.

Okey dokey?

At least be effing consistent. You also did a selective quote - there's another data set on that page:

Magnum Performance Ballistics .22 LR 32gr Quik-Shok Hyper-Velocity PFB-HP, 14.9cm (5 ¾")

You also have forgotten that you said that a "9mm Para will stop inside a person because it has less velocity than a .22rf." But, the data from the wound profile for the US M885 9mm Para ball cartridge shows a wound channel 70 centimetres long. This is more than twice the penetration of your beloved .22rf.

Why this obsession with velocity? Are you aware of such important concepts as MOMENTUM and ENERGY? The importance of projectile design?

And why would you want the bullet to overpenetrate anyway? Much time, effort and money goes into developping bullets which will cause massive hydrostatic shock and stop in the target at a depth to cause the most trauma. This ensures the maximum transfer of energy. 9mm Para ball is a poor combat performer and is dangerous, precicely because it overpenetrates. This is why the police use JSP or JHP.

If, as you claim, .22lr is such a better manstopper than larger handgun bullets, why do people not use it for combat? Why is it considered inhumane for anything larger than a small mammal?

[Man of Stoat]

Oh, and for your information, revolvers suffer velocity loss due to the flash gap between the cylinder and forcing cone. This is significant and measurable.

OK, this is only from a forum, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures: http://survival.com/IVB/index.php?showtopic=277&hl=
One tester’s results have shown a drop of approximately 15 fps (feet per second) in muzzle velocity for every 0.001-inch of flash gap. The tester suspects this may be slightly higher for hotter, high-pressure handgun cartridges such as the.480 Ruger or the .454 Casull, although he did not test for this.

A revolver must have a flash gap in order to function correctly (the M1895 Nagant the notable exception). If the gap is too tight, reliability suffers. The SAAMI lists 0.012-inch as an industry maximum for revolver flash gap. Most current revolvers from our better manufacturers (Ruger, Smith and Wesson) beat that substantially in their tolerances. Personally, I feel a flash gap of between 0.003- and 0.004-inch is about ideal, and even 0.006-inch is nothing to raise an eyebrow over.

For the mathematically challenged or heinously lazy, a gap of 0.012-inch should result in a theoretic loss of 180 feet per second, while our ideal range of 0.003- to 0.004-inch results in a loss of just 45 to 60 fps—about four percent for a .357 Magnum-class cartridge.

However, it has been demonstrated that for 2 rifles with the same barrel length and same cartridge, one being a bolt action and the other semi-auto, there is no measurable change in muzzle velocity. QED.

[IRONMAN]

Oh, so now ballistic gelatin IS a valid test medium? But you said:

[quote=TINWALT]For your education:

A human body is not ballistic gelatin. A human body has cavities and emptiness inside. A bullet will pass through a man if it does not hit bone better than through this material, which provides constant resistance.

Okey dokey?

Show me where I said it wasn't. And yes, the human body has cavities. I don't know what you point is.


Magnum Performance Ballistics .22 LR 32gr Quik-Shok Hyper-Velocity PFB-HP, 14.9cm (5 ¾")

Other tests. which you've seen, show far more penetration, up to 12 inches, with a 2-3 inch barrel! Now imagine how my 9 1/2" Colt would pergorm compared to theose! Heh. Yup buddy. The comment you quoted me on originally and said was false is so true! Perhaps now when I say something, you won't be so quick to argue about it. Maybe you should investigate first, argue second, huh?

Honestly, That test seems odd to me. I've shot 2x4's of pine with a .22 and seen them bust a hole the size of a nickel out the back. And pine is much tougher than ballistic gellatin, I assure you! :lol:

You also have forgotten that you said that a "9mm Para will stop inside a person because it has less velocity than a .22rf." But, the data from the wound profile for the US M885 9mm Para ball cartridge shows a wound channel 70 centimetres long. This is more than twice the penetration of your beloved .22rf.

Yes. And it's true. Most often a 9mm will stop inside a person at close range. The same is true of a .22, which I have also already stated. But then, you already knew that.

Are you trying to say that a 9mm will most often pass through a man at close range? Because that's what it sounds like. Let me tell you, that is not true. We can prove that too, if you want to put your foot into your mouth once more. :wink:

Why this obsession with velocity? Are you aware of such important concepts as MOMENTUM and ENERGY? The importance of projectile design?

Once more Stoaty, read my post where I mention the diameter and mass of the bullet. For crying out loud, stop asking the same question repeatedly. I've said the above once already.

And why would you want the bullet to overpenetrate anyway?

You tell me. I only said a .22 LR can pass through a man at near PB if it does not hit bone. You said it couldn't. You were wrong, as we see.

If, as you claim, .22lr is such a better manstopper than larger handgun bullets, why do people not use it for combat? Why is it considered inhumane for anything larger than a small mammal?

Now you're trying to put words into my mouth. Don't putz out here. Nobody said a .22 is a "better man-stopper" than a larger bullet.

I stated:

"A .22 LR can pass through a man at near PB if it does not hit bone."

You siad it could not. You were wrong, as the ballistics test prove. Why not just say, "Ok IRONMAN, I was wrong. I see that it can."

[Fuchs66]

Watching a certain colonial arguing is sometimes like watching a battleship desperately firing off chaff.........










just before the torpedo strikes :lol: :lol:

[IRONMAN]

Oh, and for your information, revolvers suffer velocity loss due to the flash gap between the cylinder and forcing cone. This is significant and measurable.

No, it is not significant. It's niminal. A typical flash gap of a quality revolver is roughly less than .010 inches. It can be as small as .007 to .008 inches. This is an extremely close tolerance, and only nominally effects performance. The difference is not worth mentioning. Some people hunt deer with large calibre revolvers. They do not do that with autos. :wink:

Furthermore, revolvers like mine with a longer barrel provide considerably more velocity than the puny 2-3" ones in the tests of the previous post.

Yuppers.

You have not proven, as you are now attempting to allued, that my 9 1/2 inch revolver will not penetrate better than a 2-3 inch one. It sertainly will. :cry:

[IRONMAN]

Stoaty, now that we have seen the data, I'll ask you to answer this question once more:

Can a .22 LR with a 9 1/2 inch barrel pass through a man if it does not hit bone at near PB range?

What's your answer now? Yea or nay? Let's see what you say now. :lol:

[Firefly]

I guess thats you banned then.

[BDL]

A typical flash gap of a quality revolver is roughly less than .010 inches. It can be as small as .007 to .008 inches.

So if it loses 15fps of velocity for every 0.001in of flash gap, that is between 105fps and 150fps, depending on the quality of the revolver? Is that not a fairly large loss of velocity?

[IRONMAN]

A typical flash gap of a quality revolver is roughly less than .010 inches. It can be as small as .007 to .008 inches.

So if it loses 15fps of velocity for every 0.001in of flash gap, that is between 105fps and 150fps, depending on the quality of the revolver? Is that not a fairly large loss of velocity?

I've never heard of a revolver that lost 100+ fps because of the flash gap. 10-20 is common for the weapon. What they lose they more than make up for with in long barreled models, such as a 6" or longer barrel.

Autos don't have long enough barrels to provide the velocity that is common with a long barreled revolver of the same calibre. :wink:

[Fuchs66]

and after the torpedo has struck, sits at the bottom of the ocean and loads up with more chaff.

[Bladensburg]

This morning, in the interests of science and because I had a dead lamb (maggots :roll:) lying aroud waiting for the kennels to come and pick it up I decided to put Tinbreeches claims to the test.

The Subject
A one day dead Texel x lamb having died due to toxaemia due to infestation of blowfly larvae in the quarters, (serves the stupid little sod right for escaping last time the flock was treated with insecticide :x ).
Mass <30kg at five months old (not much of a loss then). Depth of thorax, sternum to spine 26/7cm.

The Rifles
Walther G22 semi-auto in .22LR
CZ ZKM 452 Classic bolt action in .22LR
Marlin 17V in .17HMR
All moderated.

The Ammunition
22LR Eley High Velocity, 40gr, 1312fps, solid
22LR CCI-32 Standard Velocity 40gr, solid (approx 1060 fps)
17HMR Hornady V-Max, 17gr, ballistic tip.
17HMR Unknown solid round.


Methodology
The Carcass was suspended by the forelimbs 10 metres from a benchrested firing point and three shots of each ammunition type were fired from each compatible weapon at predetermined aimpoints between the ribs and on either side of the sternum.

Results
No 22LR round passed through the carcass from any weapon. One round of 17HMR V-Max passed though as did two of the unknown solid 17HMR.

Conclusion
22LR even in High Velocity form is incaplable of passing through the ~10in thorax of a juvenile sheep at 10m. It is therefore unlikely that a similar round would pass through the torso of an adult human.


Edited for HTML and to add: If you do this the kennelman will complain, even though he was only going to incinerate the corpse anyway.

[mike M.]

I thought this was an interesting site, shows the horrors of war and what type of wounds were encountered in WWII.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/default.htm

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter6.htm

The second site shows the effects of bullets and shrapnel on bodys.

[IRONMAN]

This morning, in the interests of science and because I had a dead lamb (maggots :roll:) lying aroud waiting for the kennels to come and pick it up I decided to put Tinbreeches claims to the test.

The Subject
A one day dead Texel x lamb having died due to toxaemia due to infestation of blowfly larvae in the quarters, (serves the stupid little sod right for escaping last time the flock was treated with insecticide :x ).
Mass <30kg at five months old (not much of a loss then). Depth of thorax, sternum to spine 26/7cm.

The Rifles
Walther G22 semi-auto in .22LR
CZ ZKM 452 Classic bolt action in .22LR
Marlin 17V in .17HMR
All moderated.

The Ammunition
22LR Eley High Velocity, 40gr, 1312fps, solid
22LR CCI-32 Standard Velocity 40gr, solid (approx 1060 fps)
17HMR Hornady V-Max, 17gr, ballistic tip.
17HMR Unknown solid round.


Methodology
The Carcass was suspended by the forelimbs 10 metres from a benchrested firing point and three shots of each ammunition type were fired from each compatible weapon at predetermined aimpoints between the ribs and on either side of the sternum.

Results
No 22LR round passed through the carcass from any weapon. One round of 17HMR V-Max passed though as did two of the unknown solid 17HMR.

Conclusion
22LR even in High Velocity form is incaplable of passing through the ~10in thorax of a juvenile sheep at 10m. It is therefore unlikely that a similar round would pass through the torso of an adult human.


Edited for HTML and to add: If you do this the kennelman will complain, even though he was only going to incinerate the corpse anyway.

What a blunder. That's either flawed, as we have seen from the ballistics gelating, or you're making it up. Either way, it is true that a .22 LR can pass through a man at near PB if it does not hit bone.

See the balistics tests conducted by experts that have already been posted. :wink:

[Firefly]

Thats it then. Iron man has finally pushed the Powers that be to take the ultimate action:

No doubt he is off on another forum right now doing his stuff.


'nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet'

[Bladensburg]

Damn, and I was hoping to point out that that the mixed up nature of body cavities, with sudden changes in texture and density, is likely to deflect a relatively light and slow .22 projectile even if it misses bone.

[Man of Stoat]

Even though he's gone now, to avoid misleading the public at large re. his claim about semi-autos all being less powerful than bolt guns due to the energy needed yo operate the action, I trawled through Smith & Smith for some data.

The scientific method states that you must only vary one factor at a time. The 3 independent factors are:

Cartridge
Barrel length
Action type

and the dependent variable is the muzzle velocity.

Since we are interested in action type, we must keep the other 2 variables constant. Thus I trawled through looking for pairs or larger groups of wpns with the same bbl length and firing the same cartridge.

Results:

.303" MkVII, 24" bbl: No.4 - 2440fps (24.2"), BREN - 2440fps
fps

6.5mm Jap, 19" bbl: Type 44 carb - 2300fps, Type 11 MG - 2300fps

.30M2, 24" BBL: M1903 Springfield - 2305fps, Garand - 2305fps, BAR - 2805fps, M1919A6 - 2800fps (recoil operation)

Now, his claim in general is false. For the recoil operated MG in question, however, it is true although represents an utterly insignificant 0.17% of MV (compare to the 4" flash gap loss that TINWALT said was insignificant for flash-gap losses in a revolver). This is simple frame-of-reference stuff - with regard to the barrel, the muzzle velocity is still 2805fps. But since the bbl is moving backwards at 5fps, the velocity with respect to the ground is 2800fps.

For a gas operated wpn. the gas operation system HAS NO EFFECT ON MUZZLE VELOCITY.

Ref. his other silly claims regasding this - comparing semi-auto and single-shot cannon is only possible if they are firing the same ammunition from the same length barrel.

I also love his total refusal to remain consistent as to whether ballistic gelatin is valid, and his insistance that a .22rf with a 26cm penetration in gelatin will most likely go throgh a man whilst a 9mm with a 70cm penetration will most likely remain in the body? Especially as 9mm Para FMJ is reknowned for over-penetration and poor lethality.

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

IRONMAN, YOU WILL RECIEVE A BAN FOR YOUR NEW USERNAME :!:

[LargeBrew]

pzKpfw VI Tiger, please deleat my last post as your having deleated Ironman/Hygelic's post makes mine out of context and look like I'm reffering to you.

[Firefly]

Aww I wanted to see what he had to say......

[Dani]

pzKpfw VI Tiger, please deleat my last post as your having deleated Ironman/Hygelic's post makes mine out of context and look like I'm reffering to you.

As you wish LargeBrew! Deleted!

[LargeBrew]

Cheers Dani

[Dani]

Cheers! Anyway our off-topic posts here will be deleted.

[LargeBrew]

It's a pity Ironmans post was deleated so quickly I'm sure a few other members would have enjoyed reading his final rant.

[Firefly]

What did he say?

[Dani]

It's a pity Ironmans post was deleated so quickly I'm sure a few other members would have enjoyed reading his final rant.

Unfortunatelly I didn't had the pleasure to enjoy his final scream (am I correct?). :D

Edited: enoy = enjoy :oops:

[Man of Stoat]

Is it cached anywhere so that we can enjoy it? Otherwise can someone summarise it please?

[BDL]

Is it cached anywhere so that we can enjoy it? Otherwise can someone summarise it please?

Hear hear, can't believe I missed it.

[LargeBrew]

Ironman logged in under a differnt name (Hygelic ) the text was along the lines of how he was being hounded out by the anti-american thug gang who would not accept that he was at all times right in his arguments and that he is glad he has been banned as he was leaving anyway as we are not worthy of his immense and expert knowlege of all things. It was your standard teddy in the corner rant, I wish I could recall it word for word or had saved it but I was a bit Rowley Birkin and was flicking between here and Charlotte Church's norks in the naffi at arrse.

That will teach you to go to bed early ya bunch of poofs :lol: :lol:

[Firefly]

Go to bed early! You posted at 3.40 something GMT, what kind of bender were you on!!!

[LargeBrew]

Firefly
Ironmans post was around 0330-0430 GMT I had just finished typing up a report and was having one of my no work until Monday Stella extravaganzers.

[Firefly]

Firefly
Ironmans post was around 0330-0430 GMT I had just finished typing up a report and was having one of my no work until Monday Stella extravaganzers.

Im impressed!

[Blitz]

Paul J. Davies ,Author
Thomas Publications,POB#3031,Gettysburg,Pa.17325
(717) 642 6600
www.thomaspublications.com
$17.95-soft cover + $5 shipping

Out of this mo's 10/05 American Rifleman (NRA)

Hope this helps the original postee

[Jon725]

M1941 JOHNSON LMG

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

M1A1 Thompson Sub Machine Gun

[Gutkowski]

If you are looking for a thompson I have 6 lol
Take your pic
http://photobucket.com/albums/c152/MGiangreco/

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

lol nice pics.

[Gutkowski]

all for sale too

[mike M.]

Hi Gut,
How much for the rock ola carbine? if its for sale. Mike

[Gutkowski]

Hi Mike ,
I just sold the rifle to a fella he got a good deal on it too

[Balmong]

You want to know every daggum gun used in WW2 ask me, the new guy. :twisted:

[Nickdfresh]

Nevermind... :oops:

[Panzerknacker]

The M1 have a fame for poor balistic, even It seems a very practic gun to me.


The Johnson automatic rifle.

http://i17.tinypic.com/2vl5zz4.jpg


http://i12.tinypic.com/2hwzmll.jpg


http://i16.tinypic.com/4gxo9pz.jpg


http://i16.tinypic.com/4c0y8m0.jpg


Extracted from: "The machine gun Vol I" James M. Chinn.

[Gregory]

Excellent post. I may add a paramarine armed with Johnson LMG.


http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/9087/johnsonxt5.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Indeed a great weapon, lighter than the BAR, maybe his only defect was that the balance of the rifle wasnt very good because his side loading magazine.

[Gregory]

...lighter than the BAR, maybe his only defect was that the balance of the rifle wasnt very good because his side loading magazine.
This is pretty interesting problem. My American colleagues have always informed me that it was mainly the problem of Browning's "under the table" activities against Johnson designers and manufacturers and that the LMG we are talking about is good weapon. I know American militaria and guns collectors who tell that the Johnson LMG was a victim of black PR and poor marketing.

For me, from the other side of the ocean it is hard say and judge what is more possible in this case the more so that I was neither BAR nor Johnson gunner.

Best :D

G.

[Panzerknacker]

Definatively I would prefer to be a Johnsonn gunner


http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/johnson_auto.jpg

[BDL]

Indeed a great weapon, lighter than the BAR, maybe his only defect was that the balance of the rifle wasnt very good because his side loading magazine.

Shouldn't affect it too much unless it was badly designed - I've never had a problem firing the Minimi with the side mounted magazine fitted.

[Panzerknacker]

Well, the weigh7 of 30 round of 5,56 mm calibre is not the same as 25 x 30-06 .

Anyway is a rather subjetive matter.

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/assets/BAR_nomenclature.jpg