Show us your Guns!

[Oldsarge]

I've known a chap or two who got hired in a mensstore and who suffered the same affliction!

 

[DeaconKC]

Yup, they sure do look like Remington sights.

 

[Renault]

Well Deacon, don't let that bother you! You bought it to shoot and use. And I know what I would have charged to have put them sights on a barrel and it ain't that cheap. So keep it and use it!! Still gangbusters!

 

[DeaconKC]

Here's a family pic, a 1920 16 Gauge and 1952 12 Gauge:

...and yes, I know I need a 20 and a 28 to finish these off. The 20 Gauge will happen, but I really doubt I will ever be able to afford a 28!

 

[jamespowers]

Here's a family pic, a 1920 16 Gauge and 1952 12 Gauge:

...and yes, I know I need a 20 and a 28 to finish these off. The 20 Gauge will happen, but I really doubt I will ever be able to afford a 28!

You forgot the ten gauge.

 

[Joao Encarnado]

Nice pair.

 

[MikeKardec]

Can anyone help define a rifle for me? Guns are not for me, but I am a great fan of the Richard Sharpe series, depicting the Napoleonic Wars. What confuses me is that a rifle is a weapon with a spiralled barrel, spinning the round, so as to achieve greater accuracy of shot. The musket of choice from that period was known as the Brown Bess. The first rifle, a fullstock flintlock with 30" tapered barrel and .62 calibre bore was England's first official rifle and began manufacture in 1800.

To me, both weapons look the same, they are loaded the same way, they use a ball for a bullet. How can a rifle be accurate, when muzzle loaded, and how can it spin a ball? And if the rifle was far superior to the musket, how come the production of the musket continued? Any authoritative answers would be most welcome.

Brace for a tome -

Both guns fire a ball swaddled in a patch, a cloth square. The patch is actually what makes contact with the barrel and has some compressibility so it can be forced down into the rifling. Today's rifles require vast pressures to force the lead and copper of the bullet to catch hold of the spiral of the rifling and still make it out of the barrel. That spiral isn't very tight or "quick" (in a muzzle loader it might be one turn in 66" so, less than 1/2 revolution in the barrel).

The grooves of the rifling quickly fill with powder residue on a black powder gun. The propellent is very inefficient and leaves a lot of waste behind. To keep firing accurately ... even to keep firing at all ... it has to be cleaned fairly often. The smooth bore musket could keep firing in the heat of a battle and it was also vastly easier to load and not as sensitive to the amount of powder used. On many muzzle loading rifles it is hard to "start" a ball down the barrel, in fact often you have to use a special short ramrod that you can either whack with the palm of you hand or really lean on ... the fit of ball and patch is that tight to the barrel. You can't do this quickly. Rifling also is demanding of an exact load, if the projectile is not going the right speed in relationship to the rifling, then they are actually less accurate than a smooth bore. A rattled soldier under fire could spill half his load ... this would be a more serious issue in a rifle than a smooth bore.

Even when not in the heat of battle soldiers might not be trusted to keep their weapons clean. Black powder tends to cause awful rusting issues to occur. The smooth bore is quicker and easier to clean completely. Therefore, the smooth bore musket was more conscript proof. As I'm sure you know the number of professional infantrymen in those days was quite low, most of them were barely trained and esprit de corps was not all that high.

Just as in today's warfare the volume of fire was very important to suppress enemy fire and maneuver. Without automatic weapons, lots of soldiers with single shot weapons were used. Ranks of soldiers loading and firing in volume were considered important, even if they could barely aim their weapons, even if the weapons were barely accurate. Much of the decisive fighting and killing was done at bayonet point and the firing was just noisy (and slightly deadly) positioning to get into the right space to rush in and go at it like the Greeks and Romans did ... in fact the warfare of the era hadn't evolved all that much in many ways.

Until scientific training took over after WWII it was pretty damn hard to actually get soldiers to kill one and other. Research from social scientists stationed near the front lines in that conflict showed that a VERY small percentage of soldiers were Audie Murphy-like 'stone killers' and the others would fire over the heads of the enemy or do other things to avoid killing. A surprising number of muskets abandoned on Civil War battle fields show many superimposed loads, one ball and charge after another loaded on top of each other to the point where the barrels were 3/4 full. That was done by men pretending to fire then loading again. Men not afraid to die but unwilling to KILL.

Militaries have gone to great lengths over the millenniums to get their soldiers to kill the enemy. Greek and Roman soldiers were issued short swords to emphasize stabbing rather than cutting because stabbing is more lethal. Very often the stone killer types were made snipers and issued much more accurate weapons. To get the average conscript to reliably kill it may have been thought you really needed to get him into a knuckle and skull, him or me, free-for-all, basically bayonet and gun butt, hand to hand fighting ... thus the accuracy of the weapons was a second consideration. Even bayonets were used less regularly than it was hoped! It is one of the wonders of mankind that for so long, until modern training took over, individual soldiers routinely recognized the humanity of their enemies and had to be tricked into killing by governments and armies.

Budgetary constraints also are involved. Rifles are expensive (more labor and precision). Just replacing old weapons with new is such a forbidding subject that our government is still debating upgrading the design of the current infantry weapons. Our rifle is now 50 years old and we only retired the best pistol we had after over 70 years and STILL haven't found an adequate replacement ... it's not like they are not out there but I'm not sure anyone wants to pay the higher prices. The debate still rages and it's possible the pistol may finally change ... probably because it's going to be a lot cheaper than the rifle.

Peer pressure or the support of companions makes crew served weapons much more lethal: Cannon, machine guns, bazookas etc. Snipers are fielded in teams partly to create this psychological "support system." Soldiers in a tight group, each part of the deadly act are more willing to kill. A good book on much of this is "On Killing" by Grossman. He was a West Point psychologist and the book is a history of the attempt of various military organizations to convince or train their soldiers to kill more competently.

 

[Harp]

Brace for a tome -



Until scientific training took over after WWII it was pretty damn hard to actually get soldiers to kill one and other. Research from social scientists stationed near the front lines in that conflict showed that a VERY small percentage of soldiers were Audie Murphy-like 'stone killers' and the others would fire over the heads of the enemy or do other things to avoid killing.Men not afraid to die but unwilling to KILL.

S.L.A. Marshall's Fire Ratio Theory; and other "social studies" echo still a shrill naivete. But believe what you will.

 

[Renault]

Deacon,

My nightstand piece;

 

[DeaconKC]

Hey! I like that a lot! The 12/12 is now doing duty at one end of the house and an 870 at the other end.

 

[Renault]

Hey! I like that a lot! The 12/12 is now doing duty at one end of the house and an 870 at the other end.

Wow! Rough neighborhood! !

That 12 I post pic of I got for a song! It's 1921 and it has a little piece of wood missing from the toe of the buttstock. But the metal was real nice, and no cracks in the wrist (the bane of Model 12's of this vintage). So I had the old leather lace up recoil pad laying around, and I put it to use!

 

[MikeKardec]

S.L.A. Marshall's Fire Ratio Theory; and other "social studies" echo still a shrill naivete. But believe what you will.

There's a bunch of the SLA Marshall material and that of others that is controversial and I don't necessarily believe all of it. But military training did change significantly and pound for pound modern militaries are much more lethal. That is the front line is more lethal, the decisions made by higher ranks may have regressed in many ways. Hopefully the idea, and all I can do is present what I think, that the best military minds of the 19th century didn't simply retain ancient tactics into the firearm age for no reason, is still valid. They may have had more intelligent thinkers on the subject than we do today.

If you know of studies done as close to or closer to the front lines then those of WWII I would genuinely like to read them. You say, "believe what you will." Well, I experiment with believing what I THINK until I find something that holds together for an extended period. I'm always open to gathering new information so I can decide what I think is correct. Facts exist in the world but as soon as we relay them they become opinion, open my mind to new opinions, hopefully based on facts, and I'm willing to turn qualified acceptance of both Marshall and Grossman (a vastly more recent writer) into skepticism!

I am willing. Make me your student.

 

[DeaconKC]

Wow! Rough neighborhood! !

That 12 I post pic of I got for a song! It's 1921 and it has a little piece of wood missing from the toe of the buttstock. But the metal was real nice, and no cracks in the wrist (the bane of Model 12's of this vintage). So I had the old leather lace up recoil pad laying around, and I put it to use!

Actually, I live in a really nice neighborhood. But, I make my living as a Parole Agent on a high risk unit. I have had several threats against my family, so as a former scout, I am prepared.

 

[Harp]

Until scientific training took over after WWII it was pretty damn hard to actually get soldiers to kill one and other.

If you know of studies done as close to or closer to the front lines then those of WWII I would genuinely like to read them. You say, "believe what you will." Well, I experiment with believing what I THINK

Antietam's September 17, 1862 killed tally has been estimated at 3,650 with 17,300 wounded.
Gettysburg July 1-3, 1863 estimate is 7,058 killed and 33,264 wounded.

The American Civil War is considered a modern conflict due to technological advance proved in battle. Rifled artillery and musketry
increased accuracy and range; further improvements in field artillery and breech loading rifles attest First World War carnage.

Marshall and Grossman, and others proved astigmatic as to both History and human nature; and carved niches of individual
supposition bereft of solid empirical factual analysis. Marshall in particular has drawn abundant criticism for his dereliction.

In my reckless youth I was a soldier and I have seen combat, and I later taught the trade to American and foreign troops
and fire discipline and effective accurate marksmanship are standard for soldiers throughout the world.
So too is the humanitarian instinct, and I can attest that a man's conscience speaks even amidst chaos.

 

[MikeKardec]

In my reckless youth I was a soldier and I have seen combat, and I later taught the trade to American and foreign troops and fire discipline and effective accurate marksmanship are standard for soldiers throughout the world. So too is the humanitarian instinct, and I can attest that a man's conscience speaks even amidst chaos.

I am very interested in this subject: Do you believe that you were trained to a higher standard than soldiers in WWII? Do you believe to were trained to react more quickly to enemy contact?

I am often concerned that modern kids who play computer games and thus train themselves in an "if it moves shoot it" manner will be more dangerous than other generations if ever given weapons.

 

[Harp]

I am very interested in this subject: Do you believe that you were trained to a higher standard than soldiers in WWII? Do you believe to were trained to react more quickly to enemy contact?

No to both questions.
War is a learned trade, a protracted trial and error, and a sixteen week Infantry is too brief for what awaits the soldier.
And luck plays more than a small part in all of it.

 

[Renault]

"I am often concerned that modern kids who play computer games and thus train themselves in an "if it moves shoot it" manner will be more dangerous than other generations if ever given weapons."

Shooting, real shooting, is a discipline. And there is a great difference between real combat and a computer game.

 

[Joao Encarnado]

Any kind of computer simulation is no match for real life.

 

[Horace Debussy Jones]

I agree. Anyone "trained" to shoot in a video game would get them selves killed right away in a real battle!

"I am often concerned that modern kids who play computer games and thus train themselves in an "if it moves shoot it" manner will be more dangerous than other generations if ever given weapons."

Shooting, real shooting, is a discipline. And there is a great difference between real combat and a computer game.

 

[Thundercolt]

Ruger Old Army