3 ms·
> Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s famously statistics-driven Pentagon was itching to replace the M14, an Army-designed gun that, despite its successful use
by jewbacca 14y ago
> Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s famously statistics-driven Pentagon was itching to replace the M14, an Army-designed gun that, despite its successful use in World War II.
With information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle:
The M14, while "developed from a long line of experimental weapons based upon the M1 rifle" (a semiautomatic rifle which certainly saw widespread use in WWII), did not enter production until 1959. Compared to the M1, the M14 was fully automatic rather than semi-, had a much larger magazine size, shot a different bullet, and was actually significantly lighter -- so even knowing nothing about how the actual mechanism and whatever other properties of a gun that impact its performance were changed, it's safe to say it's not the same gun, and this is a factual error.
The fact that, as someone who has never even seen an unholstered gun outside a museum much less shot one, and has no domain knowledge outside of movies and a single decade-old video game, I could spot this error from a mile away, makes me skeptical about this article. I know this seems like useless nitpicking, but it reminds me of reading mainstream articles about relatively esoteric high tech subjects: in domains I know better, these articles are often so nakedly full of holes and errors that they totally waste whatever argument the author is working towards. So whenever I spot easy errors on topics I know little about, it puts me on higher guard for what else might be bullshit that I don't recognize.
That said, this is a fascinating article, and even with skepticism it has adjusted my perspective on the debate.
- D9u 14y agoThere are 2 distinctly different "M1" rifles. The 1st type is known as the "M1 Garand" which fires a Winchester .308 (7.62 mm NATO) round. The 2nd type is known as the "M1 Carbine" which fires a smaller, .30 cal. round. The M14 fires the 7.62 mm NATO round, the same as the M! Garand.
- hga 14y agoA correction: the M1 Garand, designed before WWII, as issued originally fired .30-06; .308/7.62 NATO is a 1/2 inch or so shorter round, using much improved powder and a 147 vs. 150 or maybe 152 (Wikipedia) grain bullet to achieve the same exterior ballistics as M2 Ball I think. I've read that shaving off 1/2 an inch of overall length (the case was quite long because our powder in 1903 wasn't as good as the German's) allows decreasing the receiver length by about an inch ... but I'm now ashamed to realize I never measured them when I had my Garand and a couple of M14 semi-auto investment cast receivers "just in case" for legal grandfathering. However, the gun will fire any round with .30-06 or .308 dimensions if the pressure profile is a good match. I had my Garand refurbished and rebarreled in .308/7.62 NATO, and it was quite reliable. The Navy started doing that sort of thing the earliest that I know of, with a sleeve fitted into the chamber (!).
- D9u 14y agoI stand corrected. Thanks for setting it straight. I've heard of verified open-sight shots from match-grade M1 Garand hitting targets over a mile distant. What's the farthest shot you've heard of from credible sources?
- hga 14y agoNothing even close to that. Normal Garand match ammo, at least the typical Federal .308 (don't know about .30-06) Sierra MatchKing match loads, are supposed to have real difficultly reaching 1,000 yards. If you want to stay in the envelope it's recommended to go down to, say, 6.5 mm bullets, a diameter where you can get much higher ballistic coefficients, e.g. the .260 Remington and its ilk. Note this is all stuff I've just read, I've never been at a range that was longer than 300 yards, and almost always 200 or less.... :-(.
- D9u 14y agoWhile not using an M1 Garand, the link below says 2 miles! http://www.researchpress.co.uk/longrange/sandyhook.htm http://www.researchpress.co.uk/longrange/sandyhook.htm