Firearms XIV - All the Calicos Are Over There - General

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51550168]Why would you ever get rid of a Thompson???[/QUOTE] There was a guy who bought a full auto m16 and immediately decided to sell it for a massive loss because he quickly got bored of it. He sold it for $15,000 when he paid $22,000. His reasoning was equally stupid. This was back in 2008. Seriously, why sell an M16 when you have the greatest aftermarket available to you to modify and easily change barrels/calibers in seconds.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;51550318]Wasn't a machine gun. It was a newer Auto-Ord 1927.[/QUOTE] Oh, yeah, I was offered one of those for my C96 and left it. Seem janky, the Thompson was never meant to be closed-bolt.

It was very unreliable yes. The compliance length barrel just makes it stupid looking and unfun as well.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51550168]Why would you ever get rid of a Thompson???[/QUOTE] Because they suck. Theyre insanely heavy, awkward, expensive in wvery regard, unreliable, ect... theyre not good guns

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51551129]Because they suck. Theyre insanely heavy, awkward, expensive in wvery regard, unreliable, ect... theyre not good guns[/QUOTE] They have been far surpassed, but they did the job they were intended for quite well. It got used for quite some time after the war. Especially as a weird support machine gun. They were generally reliable with stick mags and weighed a lot because you were firing .45 on full auto. Shit didn't kid around. The later versions of the Thompson were generally pretty reasonable in cost, though still more expensive than other SMG's of the war and something like twice the price of the grease gun, but that was really just how American small arms worked. American small armaments were expensive and generally superior to most of their counterparts. Other entries in the conflict had firearms that were better in some categories, but the reality is that nobody mass produced moderately high end armaments like the Americans.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51551129]Because they suck. Theyre insanely heavy, awkward, expensive in wvery regard, unreliable, ect... theyre not good guns[/QUOTE] I realize they're clunky and outdated but the Thompson's cool-factor and historical value are off the charts. A repro, blah, junk.

Garand was superior to K98 due to bigger mag and higher rate of fire, and the Stg44 was too late to make a difference. Germany did not have man power to turn the tides and sustain it. The MG's are a crapshoot since each army had their own doctrine in how each one was used. Americans used MG's to support the troops and the Germans did the opposite with the troops supporting the MG's.

Proud owner of my first firearm, a Finnish Mosin, receiver dated 41. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/f5jLhEz.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/w1VNL6f.jpg[/IMG] Now, I am curious about this circle. I think it may be the mark of a cartridge that killed a Russian...

Now you can join the club of speculating weather or not your gun has killed someone.

That's the Mosin life

[QUOTE=GunFox;51551248]They have been far surpassed, but they did the job they were intended for quite well. It got used for quite some time after the war. Especially as a weird support machine gun. They were generally reliable with stick mags and weighed a lot because you were firing .45 on full auto. Shit didn't kid around. The later versions of the Thompson were generally pretty reasonable in cost, though still more expensive than other SMG's of the war and something like twice the price of the grease gun, but that was really just how American small arms worked. American small armaments were expensive and generally superior to most of their counterparts. Other entries in the conflict had firearms that were better in some categories, but the reality is that nobody mass produced moderately high end armaments like the Americans.[/QUOTE] I'm talking more the reproductions, even still, despite a Thompson 10lbs empty, it had insane muzzle rise. It got the job done but it still sucked. The modern repro's still suck to this very day, especially since they're not true to the original design at all and the added length on the barrel just adds even more weight. They're not good guns, bottom line. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;51551372]I realize they're clunky and outdated but the Thompson's cool-factor and historical value are off the charts. A repro, blah, junk.[/QUOTE] Thompsons are cool and I'd like to own one, but I'm not buying a repro thats completely redesigned from the original. An AO Thompson isn't true to the original design and it just sucks. If you wanna buy one for cool factor and historical value, track down a parts kit and build an SBR or buy a pre-86 machine gun. [QUOTE=Lone_Star94;51551481]Garand was superior to K98 due to bigger mag and higher rate of fire, and the Stg44 was too late to make a difference. Germany did not have man power to turn the tides and sustain it. The MG's are a crapshoot since each army had their own doctrine in how each one was used. Americans used MG's to support the troops and the Germans did the opposite with the troops supporting the MG's.[/QUOTE] You can bring up shit like doctrine all day, but German SMG's, rifles, and HMGs/GPMGs are really just better. The MG42 and MG34 had the ability to reliably swap barrels on the battlefield when they got too toasty, and the rate of fire on the MG42 was insanely effective at laying out bodies and scaring the shit out of the guys it was shooting at. Also Ghewer 43>M1

I'm totally in agreement Cyke, the repros are meh and I'd dump one if I ended up with it. The Thompson's main draw is really gangster nostalgia for me, as a military weapon -- give me the MP40 or even the Greaser any day. Same reason I like my M10 even though it's an objectively horrible gun. There are some benefits of American guns over German guns -- namely parts interchangeability. German guns are heavily hand-fitted (K98s aside) and tend not to play well with operating components from other guns of the same type. Parts-bin G43s are absolute nightmares and require a lot of hand-fitting to get them to work right. M1s don't have this issue. Parts exchange issues aside, guns in WW2 were more or less on equal ground. One failure in 10,000 rounds vs two in 10,000 isn't a significant enough difference to say one gun is significantly more reliable than its counterpart under the other flag. You had outliers like the StG-44 which curb-stomped everything else on the field, but they didn't see enough deployment to have a significant impact on the war. I think the German guns were technically superior but metallurgy and logistics issues neutered them severely. The MG-34/42 are better guns than our 1919 but only because they could be highly mobile and fired from the shoulder.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;51551470]the mp38/40, k98k, stg44, mg34/42 were superior to their american counterparts (thompson/m3, m1903, m1 garand/m1 carbine, BAR/m1919). saying otherwise is just plain out dumb.[/QUOTE] If you're going to compare the Garand to German guns, do it fairly. You either compare it to the standard-issue K98, which it is better than for having a higher rate of fire and a larger magazine, or you compare it to the G41/K43, not the StG-44. It is better than the G41 because that gun was an unreliable piece of shit, but the K43 is better than it, but only slightly because unlike the SVT-40 it was based on, its mags were not really removable. The SVT was the best semi-auto of WWII. The BAR would more compare to the StG, where each have benefits and detriments. The StG for its smaller size and lighter recoil, the BAR for its hard hitting .30-06. You could also compare the M2 Carbine to the StG since the M2 Carbine was full auto, and the StG is better due to its ergonomics. Comparing MGs, you completely ignored the M2 Browning, which shit on most other MGs due to the sheer power of the .50 calibre. The Germans really didn't have something to compare to it.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;51551470]the mp38/40, k98k, stg44, mg34/42 were superior to their american counterparts (thompson/m3, m1903, m1 garand/m1 carbine, BAR/m1919). saying otherwise is just plain out dumb.[/QUOTE] There's a reason the americans and pretty much everyone else based their weapons off of captured german ones

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;51551819]If you're going to compare the Garand to German guns, do it fairly. You either compare it to the standard-issue K98, which it is better than for having a higher rate of fire and a larger magazine, or you compare it to the G41/K43, not the StG-44. It is better than the G41 because that gun was an unreliable piece of shit, but the K43 is better than it, but only slightly because unlike the SVT-40 it was based on, its mags were not really removable. The SVT was the best semi-auto of WWII. The BAR would more compare to the StG, where each have benefits and detriments. The StG for its smaller size and lighter recoil, the BAR for its hard hitting .30-06. You could also compare the M2 Carbine to the StG since the M2 Carbine was full auto, and the StG is better due to its ergonomics. Comparing MGs, you completely ignored the M2 Browning, which shit on most other MGs due to the sheer power of the .50 calibre. The Germans really didn't have something to compare to it.[/QUOTE] The M2 sweeps. Runs like a freight train and hits like one, too. The only thing that comes close to it in that period is the DShK and unfortunately for the Germans, it was waiting right behind them on the Eastern Front when they tried to run from our M2s. :v: Early development of a proper HMG might have helped the German effort significantly. I recall reading they experimented with scaling up the MG42 for their equivalent antimateriel round but it was never really functional. e: I guess there was the MG 131 but it only ever saw use on fighters I think. Looking at the gun, I can't see any reason it was never fielded for ground troops. At only 37 pounds it kicks the shit out of the M2 and Dushka for portability.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51551875]The M2 sweeps. Runs like a freight train and hits like one, too. The only thing that comes close to it in that period is the DShK and unfortunately for the Germans, it was waiting right behind them on the Eastern Front when they tried to run from our M2s. :v: Early development of a proper HMG might have helped the German effort significantly. I recall reading they experimented with scaling up the MG42 for their equivalent antimateriel round but it was never really functional. e: I guess there was the MG 131 but it only ever saw use on fighters I think. Looking at the gun, I can't see any reason it was never fielded for ground troops. At only 37 pounds it kicks the shit out of the M2 and Dushka for portability.[/QUOTE] A field portable anti-materiel HMG was never really seen as necessary for the Germans. The whole purpose of the M2 originally was to kill tanks, and it clearly sucked at that during WWII, but it was great for killing lighter vehicles and suppressing infantry, but it's complete lack of portability is what killed the idea for the Germans. The Germans had the PZB39 as an anti-materiel rifle but it went obsolete pretty quick, so they converted them all over to grenade launchers. Soon after that they had the Panzerschreck for killing vehicles and later the Panerfaust for killing tanks. The need never really arose for a man portable anti-materiel HMG. The issues with Germans sourcing materials to produce weaponry and ammo also killed the idea. Getting the materials to make brass cased ammo was already tough enough, and MG42s would destroy the casings on steel case ammo and become insanely tough to clear, so it would be tough justify making a bigger gun which costs more in every regard but would suffer from the same issues. The MG42 and MG34 were already great at killing light vehicles and everyone inside, so why make a bigger gun that does the same job? I'm not saying the M2 sucks, because it's a beast thats seen a century of service without a whole lot changing, but it's tough to justify spending the time and money to make a copy of it, or producing the 131 for infantry. Plus the 131 only weighed 40 pounds and didn't really have any recoil management system built in, so it would be hard on the infantrymen having to lug it around and fire it.

Has anyone tried loading a .224 caliber bullet into a .22 WMR case before? I've been digging around on google and haven't found anything on it. I don't actually own a .22 WMR gun, but I think it would be interesting to load an M855 bullet into a .22 WMR as it's the exact same diameter. The weight would undoubtedly cause accuracy issues, but custom barrels with the correct twist rate can be made. The M855 bullet itself is actually quite long, so that would be a bit of an issue with the small case size of the .22 WMR. Maybe using a blank .223 barrel would work better, as then the chamber can be reamed out and lengthened slightly to accommodate the longer cartridge. [editline]sure[/editline] Actually, thinking a bit harder about it, I could pull a Winchester and neck down a .27 nail gun blank to .224 like they did with the .17 WSM and make a .22 WSM. It would solve the length issue, and leave space to put enough powder to actually propel the bullet at a decent velocity. I hope Winchester is considering the .22 WSM, I'd buy a rifle in that caliber immediately.

The problem with your sabot idea is that .22LR is a heeled bullet and as such the sabot would need to be the size of the casing and have an expandable cup at the base that would slip inside the case and hold it in place. Or just use .22 WMRs as your base round and ignore the heeled bullet problem. There is a 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum that you could get bullets from as your sabot projectiles. I think it would be interesting to put a 5mm sabot projectile into a .22 WMR, you should be able to strike a nice balance between the .17 HMR's flat trajectory and the .22 WMR's sheer impact. Too bad civilian sabot rounds are significantly less accurate (.22 Accelerator). It'd also be pretty cool to take the .27 nail blank, neck to .25 and load .25 auto bullets into it. You'd be sacrificing the reliability of the centerfire ACP round for something cheaper AND more powerful. I think it would make for a fun short-medium range small game round. Plus the relatively wide variety of bullet styles is a big plus. I think Speer makes a .25 Gold Dot HP, that would be crazy good for popping groundhogs within 150yds.

I saw a video of a guy who 3D printed 9mm bullets out of plastic. They wouldn't cycle the gun, but they hit the target. Actually, wasn't that guy on here?

Didn't Kamwi do that with a weird .223 Wylde project of his?

[QUOTE=mastoner20;51554047]Didn't Kamwi do that with a weird .223 Wylde project of his?[/QUOTE] I think he was making some 458 socom knock off or something. I dont think he went anywhere with it.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;51551605]Now you can join the club of speculating weather or not your gun has killed someone.[/QUOTE] My Garand is April 42, it's almost certainly killed some fascists. Probably some commies, too.

My 26 mosin and 39' gew98 most likely as well.

So, noob question, can you order ammo online? How does that work? I know if you wanted to order a gun you would have to have it shipped to an FFL dealer but is it the same for ammo?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51551743]Also Ghewer 43>M1[/QUOTE] The G43 is kind of a microcosm of everything that was wrong with German small arms in WW2. On paper, the G43 was very similar to the M1. In practice, it was built by slave labor because it required too many man-hours to be worth precious skilled labor under wartime conditions, and consequently most examples are roughly made and prone to parts breakages. Its locking system was unnecessarily complex and required precise fitting and machining, which increased labor requirements and prevented parts interchangeability. Despite its detachable magazines, wartime production didn't provide additional magazines and so they were reloaded with two stripper clips, slower than the single en-bloc of the M1. I'm a logistics guy so I admit I have a bug up my ass about this kind of thing, but being able to produce an optimal weapon in limited numbers is historically much less effective than being able to produce an almost-optimal weapon for every man. The Garand itself might not have been a revolutionary weapon, but the manufacturing processes that allowed a nation to fully equip its soldiers with semi-autos were. Interestingly, it's the stamped German guns, particularly the MP44, FG42, and MG42, that proved most influential on post-war designs. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;51551819]The BAR would more compare to the StG, where each have benefits and detriments. [/QUOTE] The M1918A2 was doctrinally intended to be an LMG, whereas the StG was always intended to be a rifle. In terms of employment and tactics, the BAR was much closer to the MG34 and MG42, and that comparison doesn't work out very favorably for the BAR. The BAR's hard to draw a direct comparison to (FG42, maybe?) because it's just such an oddball design, put into service in a completely different role from what it was designed for. The M1 and M2 carbines are a good comparison to the StG, I think. Despite somewhat different doctrines (rear echelon vs assault rifle), they're very similar in operation and caliber. [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Squad1993;51556364]So, noob question, can you order ammo online? How does that work? I know if you wanted to order a gun you would have to have it shipped to an FFL dealer but is it the same for ammo?[/QUOTE] In most states ammo can be shipped right to your door. A couple more restrictive states require an FFL for ammo sales.

Had a customer come in to the range not knowing how to work the 308 Ruger American he had bought. Bruh. It's a magazine fed bolt action. Bullets in mag, mag in gun, work bolt. Would you guys be interested in my posting stories of interesting customers?

[QUOTE=credesniper;51557597]Would you guys be interested in my posting stories of interesting customers?[/QUOTE] Please do.

[QUOTE=credesniper;51557597]Had a customer come in to the range not knowing how to work the 308 Ruger American he had bought. Bruh. It's a magazine fed bolt action. Bullets in mag, mag in gun, work bolt. Would you guys be interested in my posting stories of interesting customers?[/QUOTE] I think a lot of it can be cleared up if they RTFM. Otherwise it's up to you to learn the quirks and details of a weapon to help in your sales pitch or as warnings. Did you at least walk him through on how to field strip it for cleaning?

Or watch like one fuckin youtube video on the gun hes buying

So I followed Grenadiac into the STEN world, rather impulsively because of the sick deal. [t]http://i.imgur.com/xSfCP5S.jpg[/t] Now I just need a mig welder, a dremel, and a riveter I guess. [sp]what have I gotten myself into[/sp]