The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 23, 2015, 02:43 PM   #26
madmo44mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,522
I may be wrong but I would bet more people owe their life to JMB than to any other man in history.
__________________
Texas - Not just a state but an attitude!
For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW
madmo44mag is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 04:09 PM   #27
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Pedersen and Saive had a number of good designs. Both were "house" designers for major arms makers, Pedersen for Remington and Saive for FN.

But still, when it comes to the wide variety of his designs, and the length of his active career, Browning stands out in any company.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 04:20 PM   #28
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
The military worked a bit differently than today in procurement. Today, the government will submit a detailed specification, then determine if the product submitted meets the spec. At that time, a company submitted a gun, then the military board critiqued it and added their own ideas, even as to how something should look. So I feel that the military did play a larger role in the adoption of the 1911 than a simple "take it or leave it." Also, at that time, field maintenance was very important. There were no ordnance trucks following the troops with full shop facilities; the troops were expected to do much of their own cleaning, and "first echelon" maintenance got deeper into the gun than is the norm today. Hence the requirement for ease of dis-assembly in areas that would be "off limits" to a GI today.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 04:26 PM   #29
RickB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,511
The military also did a lot of field testing, in surprisingly large quantities, of guns that were never adopted.
I was reading about some rifle, that I'd never heard of, with 1000 purchased by the Navy and 1000 by the Army, for testing.
Compared to the size of the inter-war military, 2000 rifles was . . . a lot of rifles! Can you imagine the Army ordering 5000 Tavors, just to see if they liked it? More likely, they'd spend three times that much on a few guys in a lab, trying to replicate the info that they'd get from issuing the 5000 guns!
RickB is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 04:57 PM   #30
polyphemus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2012
Posts: 1,055
The military was different then and John Browning was a man of his time.
He played by the rules and met the challenges and demands and when it came
to the money he accepted what Uncle Sam offered without dickering or regret.
Love for his country.
polyphemus is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 10:35 PM   #31
osbornk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2012
Location: Mountains of Appalachia
Posts: 1,598
When a Mormon with a 6th grade education has 128 patents for guns and has over 100 produced that includes rifles, shotguns, machine guns that were single shots, semi-automatic and fully automatic, he was a genius. His machine gun and handguns are probably the reason we don't speak German today. He averaged a new gun every three months for like 15 or 16 years.
osbornk is offline  
Old January 23, 2015, 10:43 PM   #32
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Browning generally sold his designs for a lump sum. He did dicker, often. The famous exception is the BAR, where he didn't dicker, he accepted the Govt.'s first (lowball) offer, under the condition that the first rifles go to his son's unit in France. They did. There is a famous picture of Val Browning carrying the Automatic Rifle his father designed.

Browning sold the Auto 5 design (his last completed one, I think) not for a cash sum, but for royalties on production.

As noted, many other gun designers, before and after have produced excellent designs, some have even produced quite a few. I can't think of any who personally designed as many highly successful firearms as JM Browning.

Can you?

And here is another thing, Browning usually didn't completely work out his designs on paper to begin with. A few rough sketches usually, and then he would carve and built his test models from wood, switching over to steel after he was sure the basic concepts would work. it truly was a different era.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 10:34 AM   #33
berettaprofessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Then imagine trying to do them in the field real quick.
Not just a simple field strip, but a total disassembly.
And trying to not lose any parts.
While I know nothing about "the field", I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to completely disassemble and reassemble either the Beretta 92 nor the 1911 quickly.

But I'm pretty darned sure the takedown for routine cleaning is easier and quicker on the 92 than on the 1911. Wanna race?
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 10:53 AM   #34
Auto5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2013
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 662
My first gun was a 20 gauge A5 (thus, my handle). HD duty has been shared between my BPH and one 1911 or another for over three decades. Last year I picked up an FN 1910/55, just because I've always wanted one. I guess you can include me in the JMB fan club.
__________________
At the young age of five, a bear told me that I was the only person who could prevent forest fires. Why I was chosen, I'll never know.
Auto5 is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 11:56 AM   #35
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
But I'm pretty darned sure the takedown for routine cleaning is easier and quicker on the 92 than on the 1911. Wanna race?
No thanks, I won't race you for field strip times. Not with a 1911A1. Now, with my Browning BDA.45, I would!

I would expect a gun designed 60 YEARS LATER (Beretta 92) than the 1911 to have at least SOME features that were superior. Amazing how few actually do, isn't it?

Want a real race? Lets start with both guns fully assembled. Race to see who can fully strip their pistol first, and then reassemble it. NO tools allowed. Who do you think will win that one? I'd bet on me, and my 1911A1!

Ok, to be "fair" I'll allow one "tool" I get a single M2 ball .30-06 cartridge, you get a single 5.56mm round. (something a soldier on the battlefield would have, or easily find). Who do you think will win now? I still bet on the 1911!

Sometimes, people in combat do things that on later reflection even they themselves will ask "why?" I ran across one such in my reading, from Iwo Jima (IIRC). A BAR gunner, during a lull in the action removed the "firing group" from his BAR to clean it. (probably trying to get the sand out). Action heated up, shells came in, the parts were lost.

The gunner carried his (now useless) BAR for some time, until he found another BAR gunner, one who had been killed. He then took the needed parts out of the dead gunner's BAR, and put them in his, and returned to the fight.

Later he said he should have just taken the other BAR and dropped his, never could figure out why he did what he did, only that it seemed to make sense at the time.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 01:27 PM   #36
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
I grew up around firearms, including the Government Model, and for whatever reason, taking down my M-9 is always an exercise in frustration.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Read my blog!
"The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 07:17 PM   #37
Guv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2012
Location: South Texas
Posts: 2,126
Isn't the BDA 45 a Sig220, one of the best Browning's?
Guv is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 10:56 PM   #38
Gregory Gauvin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Posts: 368
Everyone youtube "Remington Model 8".

Oh man, imagine running around in a trench with a semi auto .35 Remington eight years after he invented it.
Gregory Gauvin is offline  
Old January 24, 2015, 11:08 PM   #39
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
Supposedly, there were a couple of old Regular Army Sergeants, like guys who fought the Spainards, Moros, and Mexicans, who were assigned as bodyguards to General Pershing.
And they were armed with Remington Model 8 rifles
__________________
NRA Life Member
Read my blog!
"The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 25, 2015, 10:56 AM   #40
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
Yer On!
On your mark, get ready, go!
Oh wait, now I'll have to take a pause and go buy a 92.
Damn sneaky of you, that.
The 1911 has about 25 less parts than the 92.
The parts for the 1911 are mostly large and hard to misplace.
The ones for the 92 are a lot of little "fiddly bits."
P.S.
How come the military didn't choose the sturdy and proven S&W DA/SA auto, if they wanted a higher capacity 9mm big clunk to replace the 1911?
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”

Last edited by g.willikers; January 25, 2015 at 11:09 AM.
g.willikers is offline  
Old January 25, 2015, 11:18 AM   #41
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,486
Quote:
P.S.
How come the military didn't choose the sturdy and proven S&W DA/SA auto, if they wanted a higher capacity 9mm big clunk to replace the 1911?
Insufficient "firing pin energy" as I recall from gunzine reports on the trials.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old January 25, 2015, 11:28 AM   #42
berettaprofessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
How come the military didn't choose the sturdy and proven S&W DA/SA auto, if they wanted a higher capacity 9mm big clunk to replace the 1911?
Because the '92 was the more reliable gun. Clearly. Sorry about that. I always chuckle about why the '92 won.

Now if you wanted 45 power and wanted to stay with the 1911, I could see that.

But the US military wanted high capacity...and that meant a 9mm. And it's hard to say that the decision was political when Beretta had to actually build a factory here to win the contract.
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old January 25, 2015, 11:50 AM   #43
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
And I was thinking that folks on the procurement committee wanted a lot of free trips to Italy or something.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old January 25, 2015, 12:19 PM   #44
agtman
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
* * * The M1911 Army trials consisted of firing thousands of rounds non stop without a single stoppage, that was in March 1911. Today some engineer wannabe buys some obscure 1911 that don't work and issues a blanket verdict complete with necessary improvements and rules the M1911 to be design defective.
Not to mention that MIM parts are, allegedly, deemed to be superior to good hard tool-steel parts by people who should know better.
agtman is offline  
Old January 25, 2015, 05:45 PM   #45
Gregory Gauvin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Posts: 368
If any of you want to challenge yourself....completely dissemble a 1903 Pocket Hammerless. And get it back together without the aid of anything but your hands. No helper. No rubber bands. No vice to hold anything while you get that grip safety and hammer in.

Put it on youtube.
Gregory Gauvin is offline  
Old January 25, 2015, 11:40 PM   #46
hgmeyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 147
I have a photo from my Dad's duck hunting club from 1928. There is a stack of shotguns in the picture. There are 5 1897 Winchesters. Also pictured are two Model 12s and one Auto 5. My first trip was in 1959 and I took a picture of the two gun racks. 18 guns. My Springfield 20 gauge pump, one Fox double barrel 12 gauge, the other 16 are either Auto5s or Remington 11s. Until the 70s the Auto5 was the king in the duck blind. My friend still hunts ducks with one.

If you look at that as a history leeson it alone should amaze you that one man's shotgun design, the Auto5 has lasted over 100 years. But he has that one, the 1911 for over 100 years and the Ma Deuce. Then everything else. Guys are still buying and shooting Winchester High walls.

I am going to go out on a limb here (not really) and boldly declare he was and is the greatest gun designer living or dead, hands down
hgmeyer is offline  
Old January 26, 2015, 06:34 AM   #47
Guv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2012
Location: South Texas
Posts: 2,126
If he were still here, would he have anything to do with a "plastic" gun? I would like to think not but who knows? By the way, I do have one. I will say though, I believe the 336/36 Marlin was a superior design to the Model 94 Winchester. Maybe not as graceful but much easier to take down for simple maintenance.
Guv is offline  
Old January 26, 2015, 07:15 AM   #48
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
"His machine gun and handguns are probably the reason we don't speak German today."

Yeah, the industrial/economic juggernaught that was the United States had nothing to do with it.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 26, 2015, 10:04 AM   #49
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
But the US military wanted high capacity...and that meant a 9mm.
That's not quite right. The US military was required to adopt the 9mm, and since it was going to be a 9mm no matter what, they decided they wanted a high capacity pistol.

Quote:
And it's hard to say that the decision was political when Beretta had to actually build a factory here to win the contract.
I can't say just what, if any politics was involved in the choice of the 92, but I can tell you Beretta had no choice but to build a factory in the US, if they wanted a shot at the contract.

The US is still one of the nations that requires our military arms to be made at home, "made in the USA". Actually, the arms for testing can be made anywhere, but the winner has to make the production guns in the USA. And, while I don't recall exactly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a time limit between winning the contract, and providing the production guns to the military.

IF so, waiting to build a factory in the US until after you win the contract might mean delays, which might mean loss of the contract, or at the least some kind of penalties. Even though it's a gamble, putting up a factory here before you win means IF you win, you will get to keep the contract.

And there is more than just the money for the contract involved. Think of the loss of prestige a major arms maker would suffer if they won a US military contract, and then could not meet the terms, and on time, simply because they "cheaped out". That loss of face could (and likely would) affect all their sales, military and civilian, worldwide. And that, is BIG money.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 26, 2015, 11:20 AM   #50
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
"but I can tell you Beretta had no choice but to build a factory in the US, if they wanted a shot at the contract."

As written, the RFP documents stated up front that the winning competitor must either have a manufacturing capability in the United States (Colt, S&W) or must, within X months of contract award (I THINK it was 36, but I may be wrong about that), build a manufacturing facility in the United States and manufacture all contract handguns stateside after that date.

Failure to do so would have resulted in contract default.

In other words, everyone had a shot at the contract, even if they didn't have a manufacturing presence in the US.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13270 seconds with 9 queries