Best ISA's? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It shouldn't do!

This should be the Garand?:

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm

A good quote from that page is

The M2 modification, which had a select-fire capability and a magazines of larger capacity (30 rounds, interchangeable with the older 15-round ones), could be described as an "almost an assault rifle" ("almost" is added due to the lack of effective range). Had Americans a little trouble to soup it up slightly in the terms of power and range, they could have a true assault rifle 20 years before they actually did, and probably with much less headache.
 
"Quote:
I think all SMG's had pistol bullets


Your absolutely right, the M1 Carbine,"

The quote is from Glider, the reply from Schwarz. The M1 Carbine wasn't a SMG. The M1 Carbine was a self-loading rifle.
 
Yes, but it was a replacement for service pistols and had the range of an SMG.

It actually fired a pistol-type bullet :D - from a rifle-type cartridge :(

It is a PDW, the closest to that designation being an SMG in WW2.

It was also used in lieu of 'Tommys' and 'Greasers'.

People here seem to be confusing it with the almost identical 5.56mm Mini-14, which is a rifle.

PlanD said:

The Thompson is .45 cal - that's a "pistol bullet". The Carbine is 5.56mm, which isn't a "pistol bullet".

The M1 Carbine was certainly not 5.56mm!
 
The M1 carbine was not capable of automatic fire. It wasn't an SMG. It was considered just what the name suggests: a carbine. That is, a short rifle. Regardless of the fact that the ammunition was closer to pistol ammo than rifle ammo, it was not an SMG. Call it a long pistol if you like, but not a sub-machine gun. Also, as far as I know, for a weapon to be classed as a PDW it must also be capable of automatic fire.

The M2 modification could probably be considered a PDW by today's jargon, but make the distinction between that and the original M1 semi-auto only version.
 
Yes I must admit if I had to put it anywhere now, it would be in the rifles section.

Carbine - perfect!

I think it was the only weapon of it's type?

In M1 form it was only accurate to 100m, lethal to about 50m in most (WW2) cases.

Also, it had about half the muzzle velocity of the PPSh41.

However I have seen a piece of info with:

"stocked Mauser Luger Carbine SMG's)"

The Beretta M9 is also called 'Automatic', even though it is single-shot or semi-auto.

As is the SPAS12.

Also the Villa-perosa is a semi-auto SMG IIRC?

- Maybe it's because I'm thinking Italian??

The Minigun is also even classed by some as manual-operation! :shock:
 
schwarzpanzer said:
The Beretta M9 is also called 'Automatic', even though it is single-shot or semi-auto.

No it is not. The Baretta M9 is my primary weapon as a Helicopter Crewmember and it is classified as Semi-Auto. Atleast in the US Army it is. I really dont like the Gun. It has shitty stopping power and atleast ours (probably because they are so old) dont fire very well. The laser sights that we put on them are great to play around with though! :D
 
Thanks DerAdler, I thought there was a problem there?

I don't want to crash the site! :shock:

The laser sights that we put on them are great to play around with though!

You don't shine them in bus drivers eyes do you?

(UK chav craze :lol: )

Why does everyone diss the M9??

(It's my fave hangun BTW.)

I suppose the HK USP .45 would be better?

Or a DE.50AE!! 8)

Anyway, I wondered what the army called them, I knew the M9 but the cops call it an M92FS or 'Auto'. Maybe a misnomer? :oops:
 
schwarzpanzer said:
You don't shine them in bus drivers eyes do you?

No just at other shiney objects to make disco ball effects and at desert foxes.

schwarzpanzer said:
Why does everyone diss the M9??

Because I actually use it on a regular basis, shoot it about twice a month, and have taken it to war and back and I think it is piece of crap and would trade it in for .45 anyday.
 
:lol:

Yeah the M9's weird, but you get used to it?

It looks cool too! :lol:

A .45 would be very tiring and hard to train, but then again the M9 is weird to grip (unless I've got weird hands? :lol: )

The Calico M950 has to be the best 9mm handgun 8)
 
No the M-9 is just crap. I dont know anyone who really uses it on a regular basis that likes it. I know one in my unit including myself likes it. It is not wiered it is just crap.

The .45 is a much better gun and a lot more stopping power.
 
So, is it just the 9mm that you don't like?

A few people in the forces say this :confused:

They can be found in .40 calibre IIRC?

Clled the M96 IIRC?

Some people even think the .357 isn't enough. :shock:

What are your thoughts on the 5.56mm NATO DerAdler?

You're views are very interesting, cheers!
 
No I just dont like the M9 Baretta! It sucks!

My thoughts on the 5.56mm hmmmm lets see. I dont know I dont have a real opinion of it because I dont use it. It is not my primary weapon. I use a M9 Baretta for self defence and I use a M-60D which is 7.62mm as my door gun from my helicopter. So I dont have much experience with the M-16 or the M-4. My unit does have M-4's though and I shot about 60 rounds at a paper target for the hell of it the other day but my only real experience with the M-16/M-4 is in Basic Training. I have heard from a lot of people that use it like the Infantry they would rather have 7.62 because it has better stopping power but I have no real opinion.
 
Its a close debate. I was looking at an Australin website a few weeks ago and the debate was between the SLR and the M16 as they used both in Vietnam.
You could basically say it was a draw with some for the M16 and others for the SLR. The natural shots tended to go for the SLR and the rest the M16.
The best example of a natural shot was a demo done by of all people a pay clerk. Using the SLR he fired from the hip at a metal dish and hit it every time. What was really impressive was when he fired the last shot in the mag, he changed mags and continued firing before the dish stopped moving.
Turned out he had done two tours in Vietnam often as point and his nerves were gone in a combat zone. But he could do the desk work and demo the SLR.
 
Metal dishes were obviously no problem. ;)

I've fired both, and I must admit I was actually a better shot at the range with the SLR (or C1, same thing.). The 7.62mm obviously gives greater accuracy at long range than the 5.56 but of course the M-16 is easier to handle, being lighter and shorter. It's also a hell of a lot easier to disassemble and clean, which is a nice plus.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back