6 ms·

This advertisement was published shortly before Smith-Corona started production of 1903A3 rifles. https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-smith-corona-mod

This advertisement was published shortly before Smith-Corona started production of 1903A3 rifles. https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-smith-corona-model-1903a3s/ https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-smith-corona-mo...

sandworm101 2y ago
The popular image of WWII is of the late-war technology. We have forgotten that when the US entered the war it did so with gun tech that was already forty years old, tech that was regarded as oldschool during the previous war.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  This understates civilian firearms development that was cutting edge. Notably the Thompson gun and BAR. Of course the US then kneecapped the industry with the NFA. The 1911, while being an old design lasted for many more decades as well.
  - mhalle 2y ago
    NFA == National Firearms Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
  - hotspot_one 2y ago
    1911 is still a great design. yeah, single-action trigger, but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these-- and double-action requires a heavier first trigger pull, which can throw your aim off both for the first shot (heavy pull) and second shot (massively easier pull but you are expecting heavy). Yeah, small magazine compared to 9mm, but that's because police tactics have changed; the 1911 was not designed for "fire and maneuver" tactics. 1911 is more "one shot stop", something which 9mm doesn't do reliably.
    - dmoy 2y ago
      I agree somewhat generally, but some minor things: > yeah, single-action trigger, but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these The 1911 is sorta designed to be carried with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, relying on the grip safety and thumb safety. But militaries often didn't (still don't sometimes?) have people outside of MP carry pistols that way, because the pistol is a last resort backup. The accident rate from stupid during normal times outweighs the benefit of a fractionally faster draw in the rare case of use. Which brings to the second point: > 1911 is more "one shot stop", something which 9mm doesn't do reliably. That was the working theory for many decades (like.... 8-9 decades). That's been thoroughly disproved by modern science and ballistics. Size of pistol bullet doesn't really do anything (compared to other pistol calibers that can penetrate far enough), but increased accuracy does work much better. This is especially true in a military context where the rifle is designed around one shot stop (mostly due to 3-4x faster velocities). Law enforcement agencies will still make bad decisions around this for political / optical reasons. See e.g. the FBI's terrible choice of going to 10mm, backing off to 40s&w, and then finally coming around to 9mm
      - bombcar 2y ago
        Pistols are horrible weapons, and anyone who HAS to use guns will do anything they can to avoid having to rely on a pistol. You use a pistol because you need it to be small, unobtrusive, or it's your last option. A rifle or a shotgun is almost always better than a pistol if you don't have the size constraints (which are sometimes optics - a police office with a holstered gun looks way less threatening than one with a rifle).
    - qball 2y ago
      >something which 9mm doesn't do reliably Neither does .45, of course. Handguns (well, 9mm anyway) dispense what is functionally a single pellet of buckshot- the pellets (while still potentially lethal) aren't that powerful on their own, which is why the shotgun launches 8 of them at a time. >but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these The 1911 was designed back when pistol doctrine was "carry with chamber empty" and "fire one-handed", despite that not being particularly conducive to accuracy. Pistols are a badge of rank more than anything else; the overwhelming majority of military casualties caused by them are same-side (used on deserters, etc.). >small magazine compared to 9mm Not really. Remember that until the '80s, the concept of a "double-stack" handgun was limited to the Hi-Power; every other 9mm handgun had a capacity of 7-8 rounds, just like the 1911. And now you know why revolvers lasted so long in service- because not only were you not giving up capacity in those days, but you had a consistent and safe (though heavy) trigger pull, and you could use hollow-point ammunition without risk of a jam (which 1911s are just flat out unreliable with).
- vundercind 2y ago
  A notable exception is the B-17, in use before the US entered the war. It’s the symbol of the US strategic bombing effort in pop culture, with a bunch of films centering around it. The B-29 only seems to get any notice because of the Enola Gay, and the B-24 Liberator is practically invisible in culture despite its large role. I think it’s because the B-17 raids were so dramatic. Airspace still heavily contested, the Allies still figuring out how to use air power.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    The B-17 was a big marketing and propaganda coup. It was pretty much obsolete at the beginning of the war. The “Flying Fortress” moniker, the (mostly bullshit) notion that the bomber would always get through and defend itself, the powerful imagery of battered bombers coming home, and the terrible sacrifices made by the crews made it a legendary symbol. The B-24 wasn’t a pretty plane. The B-29 came too late in the war, and was only deployed in the Pacific. Personally, I find the glorification of the daylight bombing campaigns increasingly gross as I get older. Those men paid a very high price and I wonder if that sacrifice was truly justified.
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      > Personally, I find the glorification of the daylight bombing campaigns increasingly gross as I get older. Those men paid a very high price and I wonder if that sacrifice was truly justified. German here. Given what they fought against, yes it was. Visit any of the too many concentration camp sites across Europe... it's definitely worth the time.
      - sneed_chucker 2y ago
        > Given what they fought against Mass murder of civilians isn't morally acceptable no matter what the "other side" is doing. Firebombing a kindergarten in the Rheinland doesn't do anything to help someone in an extermination camp in occupied Poland. Post war analysis of allied strategic bombing indicates that it did not have a large impact on the war effort and probably wasn't worth the high rate of loss of the expensive airframes and crews.
- cafard 2y ago
  What about the Garand M-1?
- somat 2y ago
  Untrue. The US entered the war with what is wildly regarded as the best rifle of the war. The Rifle M1 designed by John Garand was adopted as the standard service rifle in 1936. and on their entry into the conflict the US was the only belligerent that issued a self loading rifle to the general troop. well, except for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, they always seem the be last in line to get new toys and were still using the 1903 springfield as the standard service rifle. Unless you are talking about guns in the strict military sense(artillery) in which case I have no idea how advanced US artillery was at the start of the war.
  - CapitalistCartr 2y ago
    You are leaving out a major part. Such as that there were not nearly enough. Adopting a "new & shiny" is a long way from all the troops actually having it. My father was in WWII; he was drilling with 2x4s, because they didn't have rifles. The entire division only had two Sherman tanks. A lot of our overwhelming production was 1943 and later.

sandworm101 2y ago

The popular image of WWII is of the late-war technology. We have forgotten that when the US entered the war it did so with gun tech that was already forty years old, tech that was regarded as oldschool during the previous war.

throwaway48476 2y ago
This understates civilian firearms development that was cutting edge. Notably the Thompson gun and BAR. Of course the US then kneecapped the industry with the NFA. The 1911, while being an old design lasted for many more decades as well.
- mhalle 2y ago
  NFA == National Firearms Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
- hotspot_one 2y ago
  1911 is still a great design. yeah, single-action trigger, but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these-- and double-action requires a heavier first trigger pull, which can throw your aim off both for the first shot (heavy pull) and second shot (massively easier pull but you are expecting heavy). Yeah, small magazine compared to 9mm, but that's because police tactics have changed; the 1911 was not designed for "fire and maneuver" tactics. 1911 is more "one shot stop", something which 9mm doesn't do reliably.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    I agree somewhat generally, but some minor things: > yeah, single-action trigger, but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these The 1911 is sorta designed to be carried with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked, relying on the grip safety and thumb safety. But militaries often didn't (still don't sometimes?) have people outside of MP carry pistols that way, because the pistol is a last resort backup. The accident rate from stupid during normal times outweighs the benefit of a fractionally faster draw in the rare case of use. Which brings to the second point: > 1911 is more "one shot stop", something which 9mm doesn't do reliably. That was the working theory for many decades (like.... 8-9 decades). That's been thoroughly disproved by modern science and ballistics. Size of pistol bullet doesn't really do anything (compared to other pistol calibers that can penetrate far enough), but increased accuracy does work much better. This is especially true in a military context where the rifle is designed around one shot stop (mostly due to 3-4x faster velocities). Law enforcement agencies will still make bad decisions around this for political / optical reasons. See e.g. the FBI's terrible choice of going to 10mm, backing off to 40s&w, and then finally coming around to 9mm
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Pistols are horrible weapons, and anyone who HAS to use guns will do anything they can to avoid having to rely on a pistol. You use a pistol because you need it to be small, unobtrusive, or it's your last option. A rifle or a shotgun is almost always better than a pistol if you don't have the size constraints (which are sometimes optics - a police office with a holstered gun looks way less threatening than one with a rifle).
  - qball 2y ago
    >something which 9mm doesn't do reliably Neither does .45, of course. Handguns (well, 9mm anyway) dispense what is functionally a single pellet of buckshot- the pellets (while still potentially lethal) aren't that powerful on their own, which is why the shotgun launches 8 of them at a time. >but there are draw techniques which rack the slide and the gun is designed to enable these The 1911 was designed back when pistol doctrine was "carry with chamber empty" and "fire one-handed", despite that not being particularly conducive to accuracy. Pistols are a badge of rank more than anything else; the overwhelming majority of military casualties caused by them are same-side (used on deserters, etc.). >small magazine compared to 9mm Not really. Remember that until the '80s, the concept of a "double-stack" handgun was limited to the Hi-Power; every other 9mm handgun had a capacity of 7-8 rounds, just like the 1911. And now you know why revolvers lasted so long in service- because not only were you not giving up capacity in those days, but you had a consistent and safe (though heavy) trigger pull, and you could use hollow-point ammunition without risk of a jam (which 1911s are just flat out unreliable with).
vundercind 2y ago
A notable exception is the B-17, in use before the US entered the war. It’s the symbol of the US strategic bombing effort in pop culture, with a bunch of films centering around it. The B-29 only seems to get any notice because of the Enola Gay, and the B-24 Liberator is practically invisible in culture despite its large role. I think it’s because the B-17 raids were so dramatic. Airspace still heavily contested, the Allies still figuring out how to use air power.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  The B-17 was a big marketing and propaganda coup. It was pretty much obsolete at the beginning of the war. The “Flying Fortress” moniker, the (mostly bullshit) notion that the bomber would always get through and defend itself, the powerful imagery of battered bombers coming home, and the terrible sacrifices made by the crews made it a legendary symbol. The B-24 wasn’t a pretty plane. The B-29 came too late in the war, and was only deployed in the Pacific. Personally, I find the glorification of the daylight bombing campaigns increasingly gross as I get older. Those men paid a very high price and I wonder if that sacrifice was truly justified.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Personally, I find the glorification of the daylight bombing campaigns increasingly gross as I get older. Those men paid a very high price and I wonder if that sacrifice was truly justified. German here. Given what they fought against, yes it was. Visit any of the too many concentration camp sites across Europe... it's definitely worth the time.
    - sneed_chucker 2y ago
      > Given what they fought against Mass murder of civilians isn't morally acceptable no matter what the "other side" is doing. Firebombing a kindergarten in the Rheinland doesn't do anything to help someone in an extermination camp in occupied Poland. Post war analysis of allied strategic bombing indicates that it did not have a large impact on the war effort and probably wasn't worth the high rate of loss of the expensive airframes and crews.
cafard 2y ago
What about the Garand M-1?
somat 2y ago
Untrue. The US entered the war with what is wildly regarded as the best rifle of the war. The Rifle M1 designed by John Garand was adopted as the standard service rifle in 1936. and on their entry into the conflict the US was the only belligerent that issued a self loading rifle to the general troop. well, except for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, they always seem the be last in line to get new toys and were still using the 1903 springfield as the standard service rifle. Unless you are talking about guns in the strict military sense(artillery) in which case I have no idea how advanced US artillery was at the start of the war.
- CapitalistCartr 2y ago
  You are leaving out a major part. Such as that there were not nearly enough. Adopting a "new & shiny" is a long way from all the troops actually having it. My father was in WWII; he was drilling with 2x4s, because they didn't have rifles. The entire division only had two Sherman tanks. A lot of our overwhelming production was 1943 and later.