9mm or 45cal

[Kirk H.]

Well speaking of 9mm's, here is the latest one I picked up. The new M&P Shield 9mm.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

Kirk

 

[Landman]

Renault, where in Texas are you located? I'm in San Antonio and have quite a few older firearms. I may be in need of a "geezer" that knows what he is doing to work on one sometime

 

[Rathdown]

RE: Armscor manufacturing 1911-style pistols on tooling shipped to the PI before the end of 1941

http://www.armscor.com.ph/profile.htm

My local gun store here in town talked to the distributor in Parump NV he got the back story from them. They were going to make pistols for the PI military and the US Army. The shipment of equipment and material was still crated when the Japenese invaded and confiscated it all.

Well, somebody told somebody a real whopper. Colt, along with all the other US firearms manufacturers, was running at full tilt beginning in 1940, and certainly wasn't in a position to send tooling to the PI. Prior to the adoption of the current service automatic, it was federally mandated that all arms issued to US Forces be manufactured in the United States; there was no way that 1911s would have been purchased from foreign manufacturers, and that would have included buying guns from Argentina which were built on Colt tooling, to Colt specifications.

If the shipment of tooling did take place (and when I spoke to Armscor about it, it was news to them) and, as you say, the still-crated tooling was confiscated by the invading Japanese in 1941, it seems highly unlikely that (a) the tooling would have survived the war, and (b) that it would have been of any manufacturing value after the war when thousands of surplus 1911s came on the market. Finally, even if all went as suggested by your local gun shop, tooling wears out, and it is doubtful that any pre-war Colt tooling would be in use after ten years, let alone seventy years, in the PI.

Gun shop stories tend to be just that-- stories, and stories that are intended to help the sales of product. I always tell folks to whip out the salt shaker before swallowing any of the "facts" handed out over the gun shop counter.

 

[DesertDan]

Congrats on the new M&P, Kirk. I bet that the Shield will be a hot seller this year so you made the right decision to grab one now.

I have thought from time to time that I need to get a soulless, black plastic 9mm bullet hose ( ) but I just haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.

 

[Kirk H.]

Congrats on the new M&P, Kirk. I bet that the Shield will be a hot seller this year so you made the right decision to grab one now.

I have thought from time to time that I need to get a soulless, black plastic 9mm bullet hose ( ) but I just haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.

Thanks Dan. I have been impressed with the M&P pistol (It is the first Smith Auto that I really have been impressed with. Love their revolvers.) We have had had it as a duty pistol for about 4 years now so the controls and ergonomics are the same. I do know what you mean by "soulless, black plastic 9mm" I still love my blue steal walnut grip revolvers.

Kirk

 

[DesertDan]

Well I can appreciate the benefits of the polymer 9mm, especially for compact CCW piece and will probably end up with one at some point. But when it comes to 9mm I am tend to linger over the Browning Hi-Power.

 

[Kirk H.]

Well I can appreciate the benefits of the polymer 9mm, especially for compact CCW piece and will probably end up with one at some point. But when it comes to 9mm I am tend to linger over the Browning Hi-Power.

The Hi-Power is nice too. That is one that is on my short list to get.

 

[Buggnkat]

I always say "If you can help a fellow gun person find something or assist, then it is my sovereign duty to do so"

 

[Buggnkat]

RE: Armscor manufacturing 1911-style pistols on tooling shipped to the PI before the end of 1941


Well, somebody told somebody a real whopper. Colt, along with all the other US firearms manufacturers, was running at full tilt beginning in 1940, and certainly wasn't in a position to send tooling to the PI. Prior to the adoption of the current service automatic, it was federally mandated that all arms issued to US Forces be manufactured in the United States; there was no way that 1911s would have been purchased from foreign manufacturers, and that would have included buying guns from Argentina which were built on Colt tooling, to Colt specifications.

If the shipment of tooling did take place (and when I spoke to Armscor about it, it was news to them) and, as you say, the still-crated tooling was confiscated by the invading Japanese in 1941, it seems highly unlikely that (a) the tooling would have survived the war, and (b) that it would have been of any manufacturing value after the war when thousands of surplus 1911s came on the market. Finally, even if all went as suggested by your local gun shop, tooling wears out, and it is doubtful that any pre-war Colt tooling would be in use after ten years, let alone seventy years, in the PI.

Gun shop stories tend to be just that-- stories, and stories that are intended to help the sales of product. I always tell folks to whip out the salt shaker before swallowing any of the "facts" handed out over the gun shop counter.

The shipment was made as it is in the history of the company. They made firearms for YEARS before, and the tools that make weapons do not necessarily come from the manufactureror. I never said in my post Colt sent them the machinery.

The equipment if you bothered to read the history, was in a warehouse where it remained for the duration. Why would the Japenese do anything else with it? Other than scrap it to build their equipment?

By the way tooling, especially that which is used in making the quantities that the gun makers do lasts a very long time. Equipment used to make aircraft last longer than the aircraft do!

Oh and fyi the weapons part may be true but I can tell you be experience parts can and do get purchased locally if the need arises.

 

[Rathdown]

The shipment was made as it is in the history of the company. They made firearms for YEARS before, and the tools that make weapons do not necessarily come from the manufacturerer. I never said in my post Colt sent them the machinery.

Actually, that's exactly what you said in your post (#188): "Just prior to the invasion of the PI by the Japanese Colt sent the machinery to the PI."

The equipment if you bothered to read the history, was in a warehouse where it remained for the duration. Why would the Japanese do anything else with it? Other than scrap it to build their equipment?

Actually, I did bother to read the info posted on the Armscor website, and nowhere does it mention receiving tooling from the USA prior to WWII, nor does it mention anything about a warehouse with tooling stored for the duration. As to my original comments, I'd suggest, once again, that you cite your specific reference... if it is on line, provide a link. If it has been published in a book or as a magazine article, provide the information, ie: the title . As it now stands your version of events keeps bouncing between something you read, and something an Armscor salesman told your local gun store owner, who passed it on to you. (As stated in your post #193: "My local gun store here in town talked to the distributor in Parhump NV he got the back story from them.")

In answer to your question about the tooling supposedly in the PI at the time of the Japanese invasion: "Why would the Japanese do anything with it? Other than scrap it to build their own equipment." If the tooling had actually been in the PI the Japanese most certainly would have sent it back to Japan to be scrapped or re-purposed; tool grade steel was in short supply in Japan and several tons of it would have had strategic industrial value. They wound not have let it rust away in a warehouse somewhere on the outskirts of Manila.

By the way tooling, especially that which is used in making the quantities that the gun makers do lasts a very long time. Equipment used to make aircraft last longer than the aircraft do!

Actually, prior to the Second World War, the tooling used by Colt (and probably others) didn't last very long, and the line was regularly down for repairs. Colt, while manufacturing a range of handguns, would set up its assembly line for one gun, run off as many as they thought they could sell, then break down the line, set up the tooling for the next gun, and get back into production. I was amazed, when I was an editor at Guns and Ammo Magazine, that this same process was still used by Colt in the mid-1970s.

Look, your original post about pre-war 1911 Colt tooling ending up in the PI prior to WWII (and then being used to manufacture 1911 clones sometime after the war) was news to at least two Colt collectors on this forum, and it is only reasonable that we'd want to know more. Now I am the first to admit I am not the most knowledgeable of 1911 collectors, despite have had more than 200 (mostly pre-war) 1911s pass thru my hands in the last twenty years. Everything you have posted could very well be 100% true. Or, you could have been fed a load of bull-pucky by someone at your local gun store trying to sell you a gun. The only way I, or anyone one else on the forum, have of making that determination, is to ask you to provide your source of information. No one was challenging your veracity; all we wanted was either a link to a credible web site, or the title of the publication, so we could do further, in-depth, research.

 

[Landman]

I just took a look at Armscor's website and the home page states that they manufacture their firearms from investment castings and CNC machinery. I think that pretty much rules out using any WWII era equipment. Below is the exact quote from their home page.

"The manufacturing of our firearms involves precision investment casting using ordnance steel; the exacting accuracy of Computerized Numerical Control (CNC) machinery; and craftsmanship"

 

[jkingrph]

The shipment was made as it is in the history of the company. They made firearms for YEARS before, and the tools that make weapons do not necessarily come from the manufactureror. I never said in my post Colt sent them the machinery.

The equipment if you bothered to read the history, was in a warehouse where it remained for the duration. Why would the Japenese do anything else with it? Other than scrap it to build their equipment?

By the way tooling, especially that which is used in making the quantities that the gun makers do lasts a very long time. Equipment used to make aircraft last longer than the aircraft do!

Oh and fyi the weapons part may be true but I can tell you be experience parts can and do get purchased locally if the need arises.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but went back and read a few pages of posts and noticed that the link you provide states that Armscor inported and sold guns in the Phillipines prior to WWII, and finally were allowed to start manufacturing arms in 1952. It did not state what they started making at that time.

I'm like the others, for credibility, this story needs good documentation to be accepted. Perhaps from Colt as they have good archives, can provide history on individual guns. Surely they would have info on shipment of large tooling orders.

 

[Buggnkat]

The provenance of the story may or may not be true, and I am willing to ceed that. Now if I did as quoted say Colt sent the machinery I was mistaken, I didnt remember typing it that way but that is the way it showed and that is wrong. My laptop cursor has a way of jumping around and may be the cause of that and I apologize.

Being a shooter and not a researcher, I am interested in a story, but less so than performance of a weapon. The Rock I own and the owners I have talked to at the range that own Rocks, all say the same thing, "These pistols are fantastic to shoot, are well made and function out of the box as well as or better than higher priced copies". I shoot every week and mine has functioned flawlessly.

as for tooling, most weapons manufacturers do not make their own machinery. Especially today with CNC and the like. Now prewar, that may have been true as I said I can understand and buy that, but new weapons defintely not. Weapons today are cut on machines with tolerances only dreamed of during the war.

As for US only buying from US manufacturers, that I need to see in writing when actual weapons handled since the American Revolution have routinely used foreign supplied weapons. Case in point WW1 when the AEF went overseas, several AEF units were equipt with British Enfields, or French rifles so supply would not be an issue. Heck for over 10 years when the Army retired the M72 LAW antitank launcher we used a Swedish based and manufactured weapon. So I would LOVE to see the documentation on that when there is a large volume to contradict that.

US weapons are seldom top of the line or the best on the market. We are recipients of the winner of the lowest bid. Case in point the M16. When introduced it was a POS of the first order. It wasnt till the A1 came out the many of the initial short comings were addressed and corrected. The rifle evolved into a pretty dependable weapon that served and is still serving well over 40 years since accepted as the main battle rifle for the US military. Every once in a while we get lucky and get a weapon that covers a broad base and is dependable and accurate, example M14.

Irregardles of how Armscorp started or produced its version of the venerable 1911, they did a fine job. My parts change out with GI parts with no adjustments or corrections (for my full size pistol) so the machinery and measurements must be pretty spot on to Colts design and specs.

 

[Rathdown]

Actually, the Enfields supplied to US troops in WWI were manufactured in the USA; more than 2 million model 1917 Enfields (chambered for the gov't. .30-'06 round) were issued to US troops between 1917 and 1918. In point of fact, most US troops carried US built Enfields, not Springfields.

But the one thing we can agree on is this:

RIA/Amscor .45s ROCK!

 

[Buggnkat]

Yes you are refering to the P17s which were not actually Enfields as they used Mauser actions.

But troops of the 1st ID AEF were issued Enfields and there were units of the 3rd ID 30th IR that were also issued British Enfields. These were some of the first AEF units that were placed in the lines. They had their 03s taken away from them and were issued these rifles for supply and logistic reasons. Main body of the AEF had not made the trip across the Atlantic so resupply of the 30-06 round was not possible. The reason these units went straight to the line was that they were regular army with few draftees to train up.

There was American made Enfields in service, I believe these were No 4 MkI which if memory serves were made by Savage?

You are correct about the 03s being the lowest numbered in regards to issue to US troops. Several accounts I have read soldiers stated they disliked the actions of their Enfields and missed the smooth actions of the 03s they trained on stateside.

 

[mrtman]

45 cal. why piss em off when you can kill em dead?

 

[Rathdown]

Yes you are refering to the P17s which were not actually Enfields as they used Mauser actions.

Actually, the P17s were British P14 Enfields that were developed by the British as a replacement for the .303 SMLE; by the outbreak of the war both Remington and Winchester had been contracted to manufacture P14s for the British. In late 1916 the British decided to cancel their contracts (having ramped up production of .303 SMLEs in Britain). To prevent both Remington and Winchester suffering huge losses, the US Government bought the tooling (which had cost the British $2 million) for $900 thousand, and ordered that the rifles be delivered chambered for the .30-'06 cartridge.

Both the 1903 Springfield and the P17 Enfield were based on Mauser patents (the US Government paid Mauser $200,000 for the rights, plus a 50¢ royalty on each 1903 rifle made). The P14 was a superior rifle when compared to the SMLE due to its ease of manufacture, better accuracy (P14s were used as sniper rifles until the end of WWII), it's ability to be field stripped without the need for tools, and the fact that its bolt could be interchanged between P14s without the need of an armorer (the bolt in SMLEs was hand fitted to each receiver and they were not interchangeable in the field). In all respects the P14 and P17 with their Mauser-based actions were superior to the Lee-action used in the Enfield manufactured SMLE.

But troops of the 1st ID AEF were issued Enfields and there were units of the 3rd ID 30th IR that were also issued British Enfields. These were some of the first AEF units that were placed in the lines. They had their 03s taken away from them and were issued these rifles for supply and logistic reasons. Main body of the AEF had not made the trip across the Atlantic so resupply of the 30-06 round was not possible. The reason these units went straight to the line was that they were regular army with few draftees to train up.

It is my understanding that, as a matter of national pride, the first US Troops sent to Europe (the 1st US Infantry Division and the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions were armed with the 1903 Springfield rifle. As stocks of these rifles became depleted the P17 Enfield was phased into service, as were Model 1896 and Model 1898 Krags (usually issued to Engineer and Pioneer Battalions). The 27th Division, over Pershing's objections, was placed under British command and for reasons of logistics, were issued with .303 SMLEs. The 93rd Infantry Division (comprising the 369th, 370th, & 372nd Regeiments of the National Guard and the 371st Army Regiment) were placed under French command and for reasons of logistics in the field were issued the 1907/15 Lebel rifle, along with French "tin hats" and leather gear to replace the canvas items issued by the US Government.

There was American made Enfields in service, I believe these were No 4 MkI which if memory serves were made by Savage?

Savage may have made Enfield rifles under contract during the Second World War, but not during WWI. The US P14 and P17 Enfields were made by Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone (a subsidiary of Remington).

You are correct about the 03s being the lowest numbered in regards to issue to US troops. Several accounts I have read soldiers stated they disliked the actions of their Enfields and missed the smooth actions of the 03s they trained on stateside.

I'm not sure how much training was done with the 1903 Springfield as from 1917 the US Government found itself in possession of literally tens of thousands of Mosin-Nagant rifles that had been manufactured in the USA under contract from the Czarist government. Remington and Westinghouse were contracted for a total of 3.3 million rifles and delivered approximately 1.5 million rifles before the collapse of the Russian government (the vast majority of these rifles having been built by Westinghouse). Called the US Rifle Model 1916, these Mosin-Nagant rifles were purchased for $32 each (and after the war sold off thru the NRA for about four bucks each!) and were used primarily for training purposes, as well as to arm the two Russian Expeditionary Forces in 1918, and the Siberian Expeditionary Force in 1920. Of course, another factor to consider is that different training camps may have used different rifles, so it is possible that a soldier could have been trained on one rifle and issued another before shipping out.

What is known is that the British troops issued P14s disliked them because they were longer (by 2-inches) and heavier (by almost a pound) than the Boer War SMLEs they were used to. The US troops, being generally bigger than their British allies, didn't seem to notice the length or weight of the rifles.

But, to bring this thread back around to the topic of "9mm or .45 cal": Why did Gary Cooper carry a Luger in the movie "Sgt. York"?

 

[Landman]

"But, to bring this thread back around to the topic of "9mm or .45 cal": Why did Gary Cooper carry a Luger in the movie "Sgt. York"? "

Now I have to find the movie and watch it! I never knew that.

 

[cw3pa]

I heard that the 1911 wasn't able to function or made to function with blanks, and the P08 was. I don't know how true this is , but it's possible.

 

[Baggers]

But, to bring this thread back around to the topic of "9mm or .45 cal": Why did Gary Cooper carry a Luger in the movie "Sgt. York"?

Oh, this is good.
The prop department at Warners didn't know how to get a 1911 to cycle with blanks at the time?