Weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Dadoa;



You want to piddle about tbe differencs between milita at the timne of the Revolutionary war and the Army, go ahead. The 'army' was comprised of newly conscripted civilians,without any or much training.

I stand by what I wrote. You can revise yours at will, of course. You said guns for self defense fine, but that myself and my 'friends' against an occupying army- Good luck.

You also listed the pathetic French resistance as an example of the hopelessnes of such a task.

Now you want to change the direction of your posts. In response to Afganistan your answer is the Russians were inadequate- this suggests had they only had better equipment or men they would have been 'adequate". It has been pointed out several times by myself and other posters the job of a militia or civilian pop is not neccesarily to 'win', but to make it so costly as to force a capitulation, as in Afganistan, or not invade in the first place.

Andreas was right and this discussion is over for me.
 
was Thomas Becket, killed in Canterbury Cathedral by the men of his buddy the king. He would not allow himself to be bought by the crown. You can still see the place where he was slain in prayer.

Keith
 
Actually McVeigh was a soldier once. Served in the first gulf war. If I remember my reading, he was well thought of and respected by his peers and officers. i believe that Danny was making the point that typically we Americans tend to go overboard. Several times I've heard us stereotyped as being "bigger and Better" freaks by those of European origins. Yes comparing McVeighs terrible act to that of the common suicide bomber in Isreal is like comparing a derringer to a elephant gun. Both are deadly, but there is a decided difference in scale.

As to your Russian friend. I have a former soldier that used to work with me. According to him we'd have won Vietnam if we'd either kept M-14's or else used ak's. *shrug*

Most people in this nation are taught to fear weapons. Although I wonder if taught is correct. I think that fear is the normal reaction of people to things that they don't understand. using that reasoning I've managed to un-teach less than 10 people in 10 years to accept weapons as specialized tools.

Something else that I've been curious about, It seems that Europe seems to be the origin of the "entitlement" society that we seem to building here in the states. I believe that it is part and parcel of this (posted early by someone) rights granted by the government crowd. After all if the government grants you rights, then in the same paternal manner doesn't it have to take care of you too?

I wonder what specials we'll post today.
 
This thread may annoy some people, but I hope it does not get removed. I find it very interesting, and above all, everyone seems to have respect for the opinions of others--unlike many forum discussions that seem to get out of hand. I like this community already.

I am not a fan of Michael Moore, but he did make an interesting point in Bowling for Columbine. It's already been stated by others in this thread that other countries (such as Canada) have high numbers of firearms but are nowhere close to the number of murders yearly as in the US. Even taken as a percentage relative to population, the US has the highest. (Let's just pretend for a moment that no government on Earth would doctor any stats).

Many Americans would have us collect and dispose of firearms altogether. IMHO, this is obviously a poor option simply due to the evidence that the problem is not rampant in other countries. I think there is something else about our culture that breeds this mentality. However, disposing of firearms is like, to sum up Don's statement, 'punishing the whole class for the deeds of one bad kid'. There is nothing just about this.

Once you give something up, it's darned near impossible to get it back.

--Rip
 
Cheers RNT, Munk and SF,take it as a compliment when I say that if I were to try to take over the world, its guys like you who would be up against a wall first because you are the ones who would fight to the end ;) (I hope that came across in the right way). And right back at ya guys, your the kinda guys who are worth debating with and what was it someone said about the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

And don't worry, if I could I would be collecting live firearms instead of the deacts I have to make do with (and it looks like they are going to be made illegal within the next decade or so, particularly courtesy of the two idiots who were reactivating them and selling them to criminals, scum).
 
Hi, munk.

I don't wish to quibble with you about the differences between the Continental Army and the militia, either. There is no need to.

I stand by what I wrote too, 100%. You, of course, are free to interpret what I wrote in any way you want.

I do agree with you about one thing, though. Discussion over.
 
I also would like to congratulate you gentlemen on disucssing a volatile issue with more restraint and respect than those retards on mcneil-lehrer.

I would like to say that we must be careful when we use the word "terrorist."

the word terrorist needs to be carefully defined and not applied whenever one wants to make someone look evil.

During the American revolution, I am certain that every Brsitish citizen would have called George Washington and the American army "terrorists" or "insurgents" or "rebels".

what would you call the boston tea party ?

That would be an act of terrorism in my book.
(just replace the word "boat" with the word"Boeing 777")

Think about that...
 
Originally posted by munk
For some reason, the Enfield is greatly admired. Not the most accurate, nor the strongest action , nor lightest rifle.

But it worked over and over, and had one of the fastest cycles of any bolt. (if not the fastest) Whatever limits the action had, it worked perfectly in congress with the .303 round for which it was designed. No more could be asked.



munk
Click to expand...

Munk,

It also had a 10 round magazine. Compare that to the 98K and Springfield. Big increase in rate of fire.
 
If this thread returns to weapons talk I'll contribute. The second amendment is too emotional a topic for me.



Yes, those ten rounds meant something. In the test of how many rounds per minute, the Enfield was the fastest, wasn't it?


munk
 
I saw a photo taken near Mons in 1914. I assumed it was a graves registration detail at work since the bodies of German dead were, more-or-less, in lines. Then I read the caption. They had fallen in lines as the professional soldiers of the Imperial battalions demonstrated the "Mad Minute" - rapid fire with a S,MLE.

War was so deadly then -- and much more so today. The volume of fire a GI or Squaddie can lay down is stunning.

(And I don't think you could do the "Mad Minute" with a "hunting rifle." It might well jam.)
 
Yes, you could do it with a hunting rifle, but not as fast as an Enfield. German mausers are not known for jamming, either is its cousin, the O3.





munk
 
munk, what about the (few and far between) Remington 600?
I thought this was a saught after weapon during these times...:confused:
 
Remington re released that rifle in its old chambering, the 350 Rem mag. Had they stuck a 35 Calibre in one of their new, fat cases, we would have had an excellent round.

You may have noticed Win and Rem both are releasing conventional calibres, 30, 270's etc, in their new cases, because they're scared of a failure and think we'll identify with our old rounds. Trouble is, is anyone really going to part with a prized bolt action 270 to get one in a new case?

The 600 became a Cult gun because when it was around no one bought them. The 358 Winchesters of this world are Cult guns, as is a 375 Big Bore.

I like the look of the new rifle. I just wish they'd put something neat inside- how about a short case 375?

I don't know if that answers your questions or not. I would like a 600, but I'm not doing hoola hoops waiting or plan on spending serious bucks just because it says; 600

It was a nifty gun though, and still is.


munk
 
Munk,

If they want to be different I wish someone would recreate the old 40-65 (or is it 60) bp cartridge. I know that hollow points, softpoints, or ballistic tips are cool, but I want something BIG that willcreate the wound channel from hell no matter what. Now if they had done that they might have gotten me away from 30 cals.
 
Woods cartridges always fail to sell. You could buy a 38/55 from Marlin, you know.

I guess the 45/70 lived because it was BIG. If the 375 Big Bore had made it, there were plans for a 40 in the same case.


We've been duped into high velocity.

The new batch of superduper fast kill 'em quick stuff is outragious. The Ultra Mag makes the older Weatherby 30 seem normal.



munk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top