Top ten guns of all time

[CmdrWilkens]

Now that being said the M1 and M1 Carbine I could see but NOT with the inclusion of the M-14.

Actually, the M-14 is actually a further development of the M-1 Garand. You may not know it, but we actually placed orders for for a lot of T20E2 Garands, which was a M1 modified to accept BAR magazines and with a select fire capability -- the end of the war in 1945 killed it's development.

Oh I know, and thus I know why he stated the M-14 as inclusive of the M1 family. The problem is that the M-14 as a piece by itself is a modestly decent weapon but it brings the whole family down as the M-1 series during WWII was an exceleln weapon and the M-14 would have been an excellent WWII and was a damn fine Korean War weapon, what it wasn't was great or even above average through the rest of its service life.

[Zixinus]

I believe you're referring to the Ferguson rifle. It's main problem was that it requires more maintenance than a breech loader, and if it's not properly maintained, reliability SUFFERS GREATLY. Also, the Wikipedia article on the weapon says this:

Maybe, although I would have to look it up. While the problems of manufacture was obvious and undeniable, the basic idea was still pretty powerful and would later change military warfare.

[Zor]

I am suprised no one brought up the British Lee Enfield Rifle. It had a major advantage in rate of fire and ammunition copacity compared the Mauser, as well as having an detachable box magazine.

Zor

[Master_Baerne]

My vote for best gun of all time goes to the flintlock musket, with which the world was conquered by Europeans. That's got to count for something.

[PeZook]

You know, on the topic of flint locks: I don't know much about the history of firearm mechanisms, but the flint lock is an incredibly simple idea: a spring, a flint, a plate with gunpowder, a hole drilled to the firing chamber.

While before it came about, we've seen shit like matchlocks and wheellocks, both incredibly complicated and prone to failure.

While a matchlock could easily be explained by technology not being able to make proper springs and latches and whatnot, a wheellock required far more precision than the flintlock.

So...why did the flint lock come later on? Or am I horribly mistaken about some aspect of this matter?

[Sidewinder]

So...why did the flint lock come later on? Or am I horribly mistaken about some aspect of this matter?

IIRC, there was difficulty in getting a steady source of the flint.

Wikipedia has this to say on wheellocks:

The wheellock mechanism however gave faster ignition than the flintlock, because the sparks were produced directly in the pan, rather than having to fall a certain distance from the frizzen.

EDIT: The Flintlock FAQ suggests that you don't need HIGHLY SKILLED labor to shape a flint in saying the flint can be sharpened while in the lock, presumeably by the gunman.

[PeZook]

So...why did the flint lock come later on? Or am I horribly mistaken about some aspect of this matter?

IIRC, the flints in a flintlock must be carefully shaped to be useful, which required skilled labor. The flints will eventually wear down, making replacements necessary. There was also difficulty in getting craftsmen skilled enough to make flints useful for a flintlock, as well as a steady source of the flint.

Is it really so hard to get craftsmen skilled in flint-shaping as opposed to careful, clockworker level precision required for a wheel-lock?

[Kanastrous]

Now that being said the M1 and M1 Carbine I could see but NOT with the inclusion of the M-14.

Actually, the M-14 is actually a further development of the M-1 Garand. You may not know it, but we actually placed orders for for a lot of T20E2 Garands, which was a M1 modified to accept BAR magazines and with a select fire capability -- the end of the war in 1945 killed it's development.

Oh I know, and thus I know why he stated the M-14 as inclusive of the M1 family. The problem is that the M-14 as a piece by itself is a modestly decent weapon but it brings the whole family down as the M-1 series during WWII was an exceleln weapon and the M-14 would have been an excellent WWII and was a damn fine Korean War weapon, what it wasn't was great or even above average through the rest of its service life.

I'm a big fan of the Garand, although that en-bloc-loading clip system makes me nuts.

No partially-loaded clips. Single rounds? Kiss your fingertips goodbye. A full bloc, or nothing...and that distinctive k-TWINGGG! noise, notifying everyone around you that the clip has just ejected, and you are holding an empty rifle...

Beretta (I think it was) made a really tasty sort of intermediate weapon, which was basically a license-built Garand "tanker" model, with a box-magazine system of their own design. I don't think they made a lot of them, but a friend owns one and it is a very nice rifle indeed. *edit* The Beretta BM-59, that's what that is...

Oh, yeah - honorable mention, maybe, to the Moisin-Nagant M1891 family. I picked up a Westinghouse model for about $60 (including about $20 worth of cosmoline...) and that thing is an absolute tack-driver. Even if it's just a little bit tiring, to shoot.

[Adrian Laguna]

I'm a big fan of the Garand, although that en-bloc-loading clip system makes me nuts.

No partially-loaded clips. Single rounds? Kiss your fingertips goodbye. A full bloc, or nothing...and that distinctive k-TWINGGG! noise, notifying everyone around you that the clip has just ejected, and you are holding an empty rifle...

American soldiers managed to turn that liability into an asset by working in pairs. One of them always makes sure to have a few more bullets than the other, the krauts would hear the "I'm out of ammo!" noise, pop out to shoot, and get themselves shot by GI whose clip still wasn't empty.

[Isolder74]

I'm a big fan of the Garand, although that en-bloc-loading clip system makes me nuts.

No partially-loaded clips. Single rounds? Kiss your fingertips goodbye. A full bloc, or nothing...and that distinctive k-TWINGGG! noise, notifying everyone around you that the clip has just ejected, and you are holding an empty rifle...

American soldiers managed to turn that liability into an asset by working in pairs. One of them always makes sure to have a few more bullets than the other, the krauts would hear the "I'm out of ammo!" noise, pop out to shoot, and get themselves shot by GI whose clip still wasn't empty.

Or they'd pocket empty clips and load up their guns then one of them(or all of them) would toss an empty clip over their shoulders and wait for the enemy to pop up to advance on them.

[Kanastrous]

It's a good solve, but should the guys in the field have to make lemonade out of lemons provided by the armory...?

[Dark Flame]

It's a good solve, but should the guys in the field have to make lemonade out of lemons provided by the armory...?

They shouldn't have to, but what else could they do? It's still a very solid weapon, and they did their best to overcome it's flaws.

[Kanastrous]

It's true that it's a good design and a fine rifle. I guess that just makes its peculiarities stand out, in sharper relief.

[CmdrWilkens]

It's a good solve, but should the guys in the field have to make lemonade out of lemons provided by the armory...?

The alternative was significantly lower ROF plus the lower clip size which has an add-on effect to ROF. When you are blasting away at each other ROF is what keeps you alive and a good old fashion bolt action just doesn't do as well. The reason the Garand is such a quality piece is when you compare it against what it was fighting against.

[Shroom Man 777]

How would the M1 carbine rate, then? It doesn't have the rifle version's funny clips, right?

[Ma Deuce]

How would the M1 carbine rate, then? It doesn't have the rifle version's funny clips, right?

The M1 Carbine had a proper box magazine that could be replaced at will, although some other aspects of the weapon made earlier models unreliable (these were later fixed), and it fired a relatively weak round, though this wasn't a huge issue as the Carbine was intended for rear-area troops and specialists, and was never meant to be used in the same role as the Garand.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the M16 was never intended originally to replace the M14; It was supposed to replace the M2 Carbine (basically a select fire version of the M1, which filled the same role as it's predecessor), with the M14 continuing as the frontline "battle rifle". Of course McNamara had other ideas.

[Sidewinder]

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the M16 was never intended originally to replace the M14; It was supposed to replace the M2 Carbine (basically a select fire version of the M1, which filled the same role as it's predecessor), with the M14 continuing as the frontline "battle rifle". Of course McNamara had other ideas.

I'm VERY interested to know what got McNamara the idea to have what is essentially a personal defense weapon as a "battle rifle," especially considering the likelihood that if the M16 was issued only to rear echelon troops, we'd hear SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER stories of infantrymen getting killed because their weapon jammed in the middle of a firefight.

[Kanastrous]

I'd be interested, to know where McNamara got a lot of his ideas.

[Elfdart]

I'm a big fan of the Garand, although that en-bloc-loading clip system makes me nuts.

No partially-loaded clips. Single rounds? Kiss your fingertips goodbye. A full bloc, or nothing...and that distinctive k-TWINGGG! noise, notifying everyone around you that the clip has just ejected, and you are holding an empty rifle...

American soldiers managed to turn that liability into an asset by working in pairs. One of them always makes sure to have a few more bullets than the other, the krauts would hear the "I'm out of ammo!" noise, pop out to shoot, and get themselves shot by GI whose clip still wasn't empty.

My grandfather told me that Marines were chucking empty stripper clips during the fighting on Cape Glouster when many units had switched from Springfields to Garands. He said it worked almost like a duck call: Japanese troops would pop up to shoot, hurl grenades or just look around when they heard <KLING!> and were promptly shot.

I think both Marines and Army were doing it all the time in Korea.

[Elfdart]

How would the M1 carbine rate, then? It doesn't have the rifle version's funny clips, right?

The M1 Carbine had a proper box magazine that could be replaced at will, although some other aspects of the weapon made earlier models unreliable (these were later fixed), and it fired a relatively weak round, though this wasn't a huge issue as the Carbine was intended for rear-area troops and specialists, and was never meant to be used in the same role as the Garand.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the M16 was never intended originally to replace the M14; It was supposed to replace the M2 Carbine (basically a select fire version of the M1, which filled the same role as it's predecessor), with the M14 continuing as the frontline "battle rifle". Of course McNamara had other ideas.

I always wondered why they didn't just make an M2 Carbine in 5.56 (essentially a mini-14) as the REMF weapon. The M-1 design was sturdy and reliable.

[Elfdart]

I'd be interested, to know where McNamara got a lot of his ideas.

Easy: He was a numbers-cruncher who worshiped the bottom line. If switching everyone over to a new, light-weight rifle would make transport and production that much cheaper, while keeping arms makers happy, so be it.

The thing that sucked so hard about him (aside from his lack of conscience) was that his calculations were so fucked up. If you're going to be an amoral numbers guy you should at least do better math.

[Adrian Laguna]

Easy: He was a numbers-cruncher who worshiped the bottom line. If switching everyone over to a new, light-weight rifle would make transport and production that much cheaper, while keeping arms makers happy, so be it.

He was an unrepentant corporate guy, it's to be expected.

The thing that sucked so hard about him (aside from his lack of conscience) was that his calculations were so fucked up. If you're going to be an amoral numbers guy you should at least do better math.

He was also the unrepentant corporate guy behind the Ford Edsel, so that is also to be expected. Seriously, the best question of all is what the hell was Kennedy thinking when he appointed him, and Congress when they approved it.

[phongn]

I'd be interested, to know where McNamara got a lot of his ideas.

Land-based supersonic nuclear strike bomber requirement? Carrier-based fleet air-defense fighter requirement? Oh, we can have one airframe do both!

[Ma Deuce]

I always wondered why they didn't just make an M2 Carbine in 5.56 (essentially a mini-14) as the REMF weapon. The M-1 design was sturdy and reliable.

That could have worked, though standardizing the cartridge between the "rifle" and "carbine" was still a good idea: A good candidate at the time would have been the experimental .280 (7x43mm) cartridge the British made for the Enfield EM2. The Brits must have found it infuriating at how the Americans rejected the .280 in the '50s as being too weak, insisting on .308, only to adopt a much weaker cartridge only a few years later.

[Stuart]

I always wondered why they didn't just make an M2 Carbine in 5.56 (essentially a mini-14) as the REMF weapon. The M-1 design was sturdy and reliable.

It's been done; I believe Rock Island in the Philippines made a small batch of them. The Lopburi Arsenal in Thailand made a version of the M2 chambered for 7.62x39mm intended as a police/internal security weapon. I've fired one of those, it had a punchy kick but was otherwise a pretty nice weapon.

Easy: He was a numbers-cruncher who worshiped the bottom line. If switching everyone over to a new, light-weight rifle would make transport and production that much cheaper, while keeping arms makers happy, so be it. The thing that sucked so hard about him (aside from his lack of conscience) was that his calculations were so fucked up. If you're going to be an amoral numbers guy you should at least do better math.

There's more to it than that. McNamara was the only person the Kennedy clan could find who would do what they wanted. They had a specific set of defense policies in view and wouldn't accept any dilution of them. Unfortunately, everybody they touched for Defense Secretary took one look at the program they'd be stuck with and turned the job down. Eventually, they worked their way down to McNamara.

McNamara's basic flaw was that he approached every question from the answer backwards. He had the answer, so he framed every question to lead to that answer and nothing else. He then refused to listen to anybody who said anything else. In that respect he was very religious.

Interestingly, he lost most of his arguments. For example, in the B-70 debate, the SASC voted against him (and in favor of the B-70) by 31 - 4. The F-12B was also voted into production over his objections. It was only because he was a Kennedy lap-dog that he was able to kill both programs.