Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We often, as lads and the Sat. afternoon Matinees and Westerns, wondered how the heroes and villains could keep on firing their Colt 6 shooters w/o ever reloading-and hit a target more in rifle range than for a Colt SA .45 revolver, while riding full tilt on horseback over rough terrain. Here's my "Movie Guns" FUBAR-- The great Clint Eastwood/Gene Hackman movie- Unforgiven: takes place in the West, WY? maybe, in a fictional town named "Big Whiskey"--1881-- near the end, when Hackman rounds up a volunteer posse, one of the members said something like this, if memory serves: "Hey, Little Bill (Daggett-Hackman's character)-- "blank name here-possibly owner of the town gunshop- "Won't give us any 30-30 shells on credit!" Sounds about right, the owner wanted to be paid in cash for any ammo- as always uncertain who would be coming back from such a "excursion" after desperadoes, right? OK- except the 30-30 Winchester didn't come on the scene until 1894- some 13 years later--Hello The Basket,
There is no doubt that each case needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
The problem with that idea is that it gives no guidance as to weapons selection and caliber differences and we know there must be some differences.
That is the value of the Marshall statistics; When the results are collected from a significant number of shootings and compared, there are some noticeable differences.
When one caliber results in a one shot stop in 80% of known cases and another results in only a 50% one shot stop, one can be reasonably certain (assuming enough shooting cases) that the first caliber was superior.
When the result is a 65% to a 70% or one does not believe that there are "enough" cases to be meaningful, then the results are not as obviousl.
The raw data is useful. The conclusions are subject to debate especially if they are fairly close in percentages.
Regarding Movie Guns:
As I have always told my kids, Movie Guns are special.
In the hands of a bad guy, they usually miss. In the hands of the good guys, they often hit regardless of how unlikely or absurd that hit would be in real life. Movie Guns also have infinite magazine capacity and never run out of ammunition.
In Dirty Harry's case, the impact of a hit is often so powerful that it throws the victim backwards. Laws of Physics are irrelevant.
Dirty Harry's S&W Model 29 was special in yet another way: Unlike any gun I have ever seen, its barrel length changes depending on the scene and camera angle.to be even more intimidating when needed!
I wish I had a Movie Gun. I may not be a hero, but I think I am a good guy.
I would never need to practice or even to aim. Heck, I would not even have to have ammunition!
- Ivan.
3 Garands in "tripod mode" with the front stacking swivels employed. My guess, early 1940=1941== I believe that later in WW11 the cotton webbing style sling replaced the leather sling-maybe not 100%, but cotton or fabric would hold up better to wet and nasty battlefield conditions, and would be way cheaper to mfg.-just my guess.. HansieThe idea behind the .30 carbine was to give the "2nd line troops" something more effective than a pistol and yet something less cumbersome than a full sized rifle. Giving them Springfields does away with that "advantage". I would note that many european countries had used short barreled carbines for some 2nd line troops although 2nd line isn't quite an accurate description of artillerymen, engineers(sappers) and other combat troops who's primary job is NOT weilding a rifle. The Springfield and SMLE had been given 24in barrels instead of the near standard 29-31in barrels of "full" sized military rifles and the 16-20in barrels of the carbines in the hope that one medium rifle could cover both uses.
Armies had changed from before WW I to the 1930s with many more troops being used in "auxiliary" roles, like truck drivers and support weapon crews. What rifle do you give mortar men if you expect them to carry either mortar parts (barrel, baseplate,etc) or mortar shells on backs or in hands? I believe the "idea" was that the short light carbine would be kept readier to hand (like on the soldier) more often than kept in a rack or stacked in a group at some not so convenient distance from where the work was being done. The US had issued a considerable number of pistols and the idea was that .30 carbine would replace a number of those. Full size bolt action rifles weren't really going to replace pistols and were not going to really free up any large number of full sized M 1 rifles for front line troops.
View attachment 481847
What the Ordnance Dept thought and what troops did in the field were often different things.
No difference between ballistics of 7.62 and 30-06. Both too powerful A 7mm similar to 7-08 would have offered better long range trajectory. Even smaller would have been better. 7mm Pedersen was about right, no need for anything heavier. A 7mm rimless version of the 25 Remington loaded to 50-55 thousand psi with 125 grain bullet would have been enough.Id have to agree on NOT using a rimmed cartridge for an autoloading or select fire weapon. I chose the M14 not only for the reasons stated earlier, but also for the cartridge it was designed around. The 7.62 NATO is 90% of a 30-06 in a shorter package, hits hard, has the range for nearly every conceivable engagement scenario, and a BAR or other squad automatic weapon would also be effective with the same cartridge.
Im not a big fan of intermediate cartridges. While the "average engagement" range is 300 meters, give or take, it really depends on the terrain youre fighting on. A mountainous area is going to require longer shots on average, for example. A jungle enviornment puts you nearly face to face with your enemy. The advantage of a full power cartridge in dense growth is the ability to go thru the vegetation rather than being stopped by it.
Full automatic fire for every infantryman's rifle is an ammo load you dont want to have to carry. Might not mean much for a mechanized infantry unit, but to a leg or airborne infantry outfit, every pound counts.
No difference between ballistics of 7.62 and 30-06. Both too powerful A 7mm similar to 7-08 would have offered better long range trajectory. Even smaller would have been better. 7mm Pedersen was about right, no need for anything heavier. A 7mm rimless version of the 25 Remington loaded to 50-55 thousand psi with 125 grain bullet would have been enough.
This is not something most people even worry about with modern commercial bullets. How true it was in the 1940s and early 50s with government issue ammo I have no idea. However there are reasons that people use match bullets in rifle matches, they work
I will note that the 7mm doesn't really give you a large reduction in bullet weight compared to the .30 cal and 8mm if you are looking to reduce recoil while keeping your long range ballistics up.
In my day you had to keep your weapon with you at all times. At least arms reach.
The Japanese and Italians made some very nice carbine but they had the weaker 6.5mm round so having a shorty was less issue.
The 1903 was already short so taking more off would be cutting it too fine as recoil and blast would come into it.
My point is or was that America could have given front lines troops the Garand and others kept the 1903. I would assume that is what armies with less money or industrial horsepower would have done