View Single Post
Old September 22, 2012, 10:23 AM   #58
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,065
Quote:
tahunua001 brought up a good point regarding service rifles, that being parts interchangeable, that is a critical aspect when you have to deal with logistics during war time.

Americans always see to insist on parts interchangeability, some times causing production delays, such with trying to standardize the M1917 while also trying to produce enough for the troops who were on the ships heading to Europe.

Some times that creates sloppy but reliable guns which also can still be quite accurate as in the case of the M1911, M1917, 1903s and on to our present M9 and M16 series.
Hmm, you might want to read the history of RR and the Chevy Turbomatic 400 Transmission. They licensed it initially, decided those silly America sloppy Americans and tightened it up.
After a miserable failure they went on to have GM supply them with the Turbo 400 (and yes it is true, at least in the 80s the RR used the GM trany)

The point being that you don't want needless tight tolerances in some sitautions and some things simply do not work when you do
Combat weapons are a case in point as they have to work in the muck, dirt, dust and fouled chambers in combat.
Was testing some 9mm rounds in my gauge that would not gauge up right. I was curious as they had been running fine inthe Sig. Pulled the barel and they seated very nicely in the Sigs chamber.
Now Sig does not make a sloppy junky gun, but where it counts for a semiu auto, tight is not necesarily good. The gauge is at the tight end and the chamber for the Sig is at the loose end for reliablity reasons. It shoots very accuarely.
Accuracy is not accidneal, its part of desing. We didn't accidentally wind up with sloppy but accurate guns.

The 1903 barel was too well made for what it needed to do but it sure made it a fine shooter when you needed it.

As the average American like the average Brit infantryman was not a stellar shot (unless in the case of the US he was from the country (and many did not shoot at all or badly) . Once the veterans were thinned out the follow on troops were never as good.

And any infantryman worth his salt is not going to stand out firing in the open when he (or she now) should be hiding behind cover.

Pretty rare case where you had a nice trench, just the right height where you could stand with cover and rapid fire to your hearts content.

And there really is no such thing as long distance accurate fire. It works for machine gusn because they can land a lot of rounds in the area and hit by pure scatter or walk them in (granted a single shot 50 cal di make an amazing shot in Vietnam but how many times had he tried before? ).

Throw enough stuff into an area and you will hit someting. Even excclent marksmen have a tough time hitting a human at 1000 yards let alone 2500+
RC20 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04200 seconds with 7 queries