From Matchlocks to Caseless (1 Viewer)

[fmethorst]

Here is a thread dedicated to the discussion of firearms. As noted in the Comparision of WWII Weapons thread I believe there is some interest in discussing the various firearms carried by soldiers throughout history as well as personal interests/collections etc.

In order to kick off this discussion here are a few pictures that tie in with the title.

Very poor quality video of the G11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XtJ016rFw

 

[trooper]

Over here in the UK the politicians answer to the problem of gun crime is to crack down hard on legal gun ownership ignoring the fact that criminals do not normally register their firearms. In consequence owning a handgun is virtually impossible, even BB guns must be sold only in bright fluorescent colours. Deactivated guns are still OK, for the moment although there are rumours going round that further legislation is in the offing. I have a small collection of long guns, a Brown Bess, a 3 band Enfield, an Enfield carbine (subject of a seperate thread) a Snider carbine, a Martini carbine, a Martini-Enfield, a Lee Enfield no 1 and a Lee Enfield no 4. As far as handguns are concerned I have had to resort to the copies produced by the Franklin Mint which are very good. Having seen one or two of the originals in museums in the States I can say that they are perfect copies in every way. No way could I afford the originals but they look good hanging on the wall.

 

[theBaron]

Over here in the UK the politicians answer to the problem of gun crime is to crack down hard on legal gun ownership ignoring the fact that criminals do not normally register their firearms. In consequence owning a handgun is virtually impossible...

That's the same contradiction that gun control advocates and gun ownership opponents here conveniently overlook, that criminals do not normally obtain their weapons through legal purchase. And your country serves as an object lesson in the failure of the kind of policies they'd like to implement here.

Anthony Burgess was relatively prescient in "A Clockwork Orange", wasn't he, in predicting a society in which honest citizens cowered in their homes, terrorized by and unsecure against punks who ran wild.

Prost!
Brad

 

[theBaron]

As to originals versus reproductions, I know that in there are very good kits available for flintlock weapons from the 18th century, such as Pennsylvania longrifles, or a Jägerbüchse. They're relatively expensive, but the parts are costly to produce.

Prost!
Brad

 

[theBaron]

Hey, I hit the milleneum mark for posts, excellent!

"Mit dem Leutnant, da fängt die Menschheit an!" (from Zuckmayer's "Der Hauptmann von Köpenick")

 

[Spitfrnd]

That's the same contradiction that gun control advocates and gun ownership opponents here conveniently overlook, that criminals do not normally obtain their weapons through legal purchase. And your country serves as an object lesson in the failure of the kind of policies they'd like to implement here.

Anthony Burgess was relatively prescient in "A Clockwork Orange", wasn't he, in predicting a society in which honest citizens cowered in their homes, terrorized by and unsecure against punks who ran wild.
...

No question gun ownership bans are absurd (something some of our dems would promote) but I don't think Burgess was prescient just yet; maybe appropriately cautionary.

 

[fmethorst]

Trooper,

That is such a shame considering the rich firearms tradition the UK has.

Prohibition is a very real trend in many places. While it is often sold to the masses as a from of crime control it is really an ideological position. You always hear silly comments like "Why do you need that? etc. which completely misses the point. Outside of air, water, food and shelter I really don't "need" anything.

Prohibitionists generally always follow a similar pattern. It would be quite difficult to eliminate all private firearm ownership in one fell swoop so they break the project into smaller pieces. The first target is usually includes handguns and semi-automatic long guns which can be further broken down in "military style" semi-automatics. There is a good reason for this. First of all the number of owners of these types of firearms is much lower than those people that own a hunting rifle or shotgun. As a voting threat they have very little clout so they are an easy target for the prohibitionists. They are usually marginalized along with their firearms, the whole good guns and bad guns argument. The hunting rifle / shotgun crowd are for the most part apathetic to this, failing to grasp the big picture. Of course the prohibitionists are not satisfied until they abolish all private firearms ownership so after the easy targets have been eliminated they begin to work on the remaining group usually by vilifying hunting. Of course once the populace can be convinced of the barbarity of hunting and it can be banned the "need" for any type of firearm vanishes. So by chipping away over the years the prohibitionists achieve their ideological goal. When later questioned why it has had no effect on crime they will say that the prohibition needs to be world wide so that guns can't be smuggled from one location to another. I mean taking firearms away from the citizen must be a good thing no?

Canada is part way into the first phase of this process. It's in a strange state in fact. In some cases it is easier to get certain types of firearms in Canada than the US.

There are three types of firearms in Canada

• Prohibited - Includes certain specified models of rifle and handgun as well handguns with a barrel length of less than 105mm 4.14" (with a few exceptions). It also includes firearms with illegal modifications such as "sawed off" barrels etc.
• Restricted - Includes all handguns that are not prohibited and certain specified long guns. Rifles with a barrel of less than 18.5" fall into this class
• Non Restricted - Everything else including the remaining rifles and shotguns.

Here is where it gets interesting. Here are some military style rifles and their classification.

• FN FAL - Prohibited (original owners grandfathered)
• HK 91/93 - Prohibited (original owners grandfathered)
• M14 (converted selective fire) - Prohibited (original owners grandfathered)
• M1A - Non Restricted (You can pack this around the bush if you like)
• M1 Garand - Non Restricted
• M1 Carbine - Restricted due to 18" barrel length
• AR15 (20' barrel) - Restricted (Can take to an approved club for target shooting)
• AR15 (14.5" barrel) - Restricted
• AR15 (11.5" barrel) - Restricted
• Mini-14 - Non Restricted

Now some things jump out right away. What exactly is the difference between an M1A and an HK91? Both semi automatic 7.62x51mm rifles.

The AR15 is another interesting case. Up until recently those with a barrel longer than 18.5" were non restricted but this was changed in the last batch of legislation. Now since they are all restricted the barrel length doesn't matter because they are in the same class as handguns meaning they can have a barrel all the way down to 4.14". This means it's easier to get a short AR15 in Canada than the US where everything shorter than 16" is a hassle.

Anyway I guess you can just scratch your head as we work our way to total prohibition.

 

[1879fanatic]

Frank,

Brilliant thoughts on ideology and how it is implemented! Hold on to your toy soldiers! They are made of lead and may kill wildlife if ingested! It is very possible to legislate stupidity if you don't specifically tell people they are stupid. Mike

 

[trooper]

Frank,

Brilliant thoughts on ideology and how it is implemented! Hold on to your toy soldiers! They are made of lead and may kill wildlife if ingested! It is very possible to legislate stupidity if you don't specifically tell people they are stupid. Mike

Mike, you think you are being facetious but why do you think Britains had to stop making their toy soldiers?

 

[Spitfrnd]

Mike, you think you are being facetious but why do you think Britains had to stop making their toy soldiers?

Why; because they could be melted for bullets?

 

[theBaron]

No, the lead content issue. We had similar campaigns and laws passed here about lead in toys and other objects.

In my opinion, the pendulum swung too far in the direction of safety, to point of near abolition. Yes, lead is toxic, if ingested, or if you work with it and it's atomized through filing/sanding, or if it fumes when melted. But you can take precautions, and it's not plutonium. Don't gnaw your soldiers, and wash your hands, and wear a mask. Common sense ought to prevail, but it's a dwindling commodity.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Spitfrnd]

No, the lead content issue. We had similar campaigns and laws passed here about lead in toys and other objects.

In my opinion, the pendulum swung too far in the direction of safety, to point of near abolition. Yes, lead is toxic, if ingested, or if you work with it and it's atomized through filing/sanding, or if it fumes when melted. But you can take precautions, and it's not plutonium. Don't gnaw your soldiers, and wash your hands, and wear a mask. Common sense ought to prevail, but it's a dwindling commodity.

Prost!
Brad

You mean it was a workplace safety issue? Was it a ban of just legistation enabling safety regulations that made compliance costs prohibitive?

Yes legislation to preclude the need for common sense (or related law suits and recoveries) is one of the worst legacies of modern society. Of course any one who has any experience with legislators knows that they do not think about the effects of thier laws, only how they will play (or whether they appear to serve some god given personal agenda); that is if they think at all Why think when the government and the special interest groups can [think] for you. Come to think about it, thinking is a dwindling commodity.

 

[1879fanatic]

That's what you get when you fill the Legislature with lie...lawyers

 

[Louis Badolato]

You mean it was a workplace safety issue? Was it a ban of just legistation enabling safety regulations that made compliance costs prohibitive?

Yes legislation to preclude the need for common sense (or related law suits and recoveries) is one of the worst legacies of modern society. Of course any one who has any experience with legislators knows that they do not think about the effects of thier laws, only how they will play (or whether they appear to serve some god given personal agenda); that is if they think at all Why think when the government and the special interest groups can [think] for you. Come to think about it, thinking is a dwindling commodity.

As an Appeals lawyer, I have a respect for what is referred to as the "common law", i.e. the law developed over centuries through jurisprudence - case precedents that a series of the best Courts have developed and tuned over lifetimes of work. The problem with legislation is that bottom of the barrel failed lawyers who haven't a clue how the system has developed and worked, end up running for office, and deciding that they (or the special interests paying them) know better then the great minds who worked together over centuries to create a working system, and "reform" the system with just the stupidity you are talking about. Anytime I hear a politician talking about "tort reform" or some other such stupidity, I realize I am hearing some special interest (usually an Insurance Company, the richest lobby) about to line its coffers at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Louis Badolato]

That's what you get when you fill the Legislature with lie...lawyers

Your absolutely right, lawyers are lyers, or more accurately "spin doctors". That's the way our adversarial system was designed to work, and when left alone, works very well. Great minds in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and midaevil Great Britain figured out the obvious - someone paid to represent someone will never be fair and even handed, he will always have a bias, so rather than pretending otherwise, they declared that each attorney, referred to as an "advocate" would present the evidence in the light that most favored his client (i.e. his side versus her side, to paraphrase the old adage), and an impartial jury would decide "the truth" (verdict comes from the latin root word for truth). It works well most of the time, unless one lawyer is incompetent (sadly all too often the case) or overmatched (usually the case when one side has substantially more funds than the other and can pay for much higher quality representation). Big problems tend to arise, however, when politicians start futzing with the system. For my opinion of this, see my last post on this thread.

 

[theBaron]

You mean it was a workplace safety issue? Was it a ban of just legistation enabling safety regulations that made compliance costs prohibitive?

Yes legislation to preclude the need for common sense (or related law suits and recoveries) is one of the worst legacies of modern society. Of course any one who has any experience with legislators knows that they do not think about the effects of thier laws, only how they will play (or whether they appear to serve some god given personal agenda); that is if they think at all Why think when the government and the special interest groups can [think] for you. Come to think about it, thinking is a dwindling commodity.

No, as I understand the history, it was more on the product safety side of the issue. As Ed Poole, I think it was, put it in his chapter of O'Brien's book, (and I paraphrase) that someone figured out that lead wasn't healthy for small children to eat

 

[Spitfrnd]

As an Appeals lawyer, I have a respect for what is referred to as the "common law", i.e. the law developed over centuries through jurisprudence - case precedents that a series of the best Courts have developed and tuned over lifetimes of work. The problem with legislation is that bottom of the barrel failed lawyers who haven't a clue how the system has developed and worked, end up running for office, and deciding that they (or the special interests paying them) know better then the great minds who worked together over centuries to create a working system, and "reform" the system with just the stupidity you are talking about. Anytime I hear a politician talking about "tort reform" or some other such stupidity, I realize I am hearing some special interest (usually an Insurance Company, the richest lobby) about to line its coffers at the expense of everyone else.

Well Louis as a business and contracts lawyer (who occassionally does some administrative and appeal work), I agree with much of what you note but I suggest that legislation is not the sole culprit in the trend toward an idiot proof society. For example, the common law of negligence and products liability has been distorted beyond all recognition in cases providing recoveries for all manner of accidents that should have been prevented by a little common sense. So where do you place that blame; on the contingent fee system, class action rules, tort lawyer greed, well meaning but over zealous juries or somewhere else? I candidly tell you that there are far too many members of our profession that I wouldn't want to be associated with and I am not sure how we got to that point. I do know that I was frequently appalled with many of the cases that the litigators in my firm wanted to pursue; not because I didn't think they would win but because I didn't think they should. So when someone says tort reform, I cringe in part because much of what the legislature does to correct a problem is worse than the problem itself but part of me says we need to do something to reverse the spiral toward a complete lack of personal accountability.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Well Louis as a business and contracts lawyer (who occassionally does some administrative and appeal work), I agree with much of what you note but I suggest that legislation is not the sole culprit in the trend toward an idiot proof society. For example, the common law of negligence and products liability has been distorted beyond all recognition in cases providing recoveries for all manner of accidents that should have been prevented by a little common sense. So where do you place that blame; on the contingent fee system, class action rules, tort lawyer greed, well meaning but over zealous juries or somewhere else? I candidly tell you that there are far too many members of our profession that I wouldn't want to be associated with and I am not sure how we got to that point. I do know that I was frequently appalled with many of the cases that the litigators in my firm wanted to pursue; not because I didn't think they would win but because I didn't think they should. So when someone says tort reform, I cringe in part because much of what the legislature does to correct a problem is worse than the problem itself but part of me says we need to do something to reverse the spiral toward a complete lack of personal accountability.

It seems like what you are talking about when you mention recoveries for "all manner of accident that should have been prevented by a little common sense" refers to the change from contributory negligence as it existed under the common law (i.e. if the injured party's negligence was partially responsible for an accident's occurence, the injured party couldn't recover) to comparative negligence (even if you were say 60% responsible for an accident, you can recover 40% of your damages if the other guy was 40% responsible) -- a statutory change. I agree with you on all other points, particularly (1) the number of people in our profession that are so incompetent or unscrupulous that they give the whole profession a bad name and (2) much of what the legislature does to correct a problem is worse than the problem itself. However, to me the solution you seek about reversing the spiral has already presented itself, and it is the solution that has always been inherent in the system: at least where I practice, juries are both throwing out b.s. cases in their entirety, and awarding far less than they were when I started practising 15 years ago. Further, as you are aware, Appellate Courts are far stricter on both dismissing cases and in reducing excessive verdicts than they ever were in the past.

If you leave the system alone, it always self corrects in a short period of time. The problem is when someone thinks he knows better than all his forebears, and tinkers with a system they works well the vast majority of the time.

 

[1879fanatic]

Your absolutely right, lawyers are lyers, or more accurately "spin doctors". That's the way our adversarial system was designed to work, and when left alone, works very well. Great minds in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and midaevil Great Britain figured out the obvious - someone paid to represent someone will never be fair and even handed, he will always have a bias, so rather than pretending otherwise, they declared that each attorney, referred to as an "advocate" would present the evidence in the light that most favored his client (i.e. his side versus her side, to paraphrase the old adage), and an impartial jury would decide "the truth" (verdict comes from the latin root word for truth). It works well most of the time, unless one lawyer is incompetent (sadly all too often the case) or overmatched (usually the case when one side has substantially more funds than the other and can pay for much higher quality representation). Big problems tend to arise, however, when politicians start futzing with the system. For my opinion of this, see my last post on this thread.

Louis,
You are correct, and should know, being in the thick of it! My experience in the criminal side from local to District level taint me a tad. No offence at all to your chosen, honorable profession(fighter pilot, right?). Mike

 

[trooper]

Returning to the original purpose of this thread for a moment, I recall reading in Guns and Ammo magazine sometime back in the 1950s of a man who handbuilt a revolver chambered for the 0.50 calibre MG round. I believe I am right in saying that he only fired two rounds before his wrist was either broken or sprained. Can anyone remember his name, what he called the beast and whether it still exists in a collection or museum somewhere?