From: Tank Fixer
Date: 7/7/2004 3:52 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: t

In article ,
on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:33:17 +0100,
Paul J. Adam attempted to say .....

In message , tw
writes
I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
Garand
and the M14?

M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
capability (little used and often deleted)

Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?

/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was better
still! ;-)

Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry

Trapdoor Springfield in 45-100 !



The 45 indicate caliber and the second nimber indicates grains of black powder
as originally loaded. I found 45-70 to be more than enough at close range and
noticed no real improvement at 45-80. The smokeless equivalent has just as
powerful but didn't have as much character as black powder. I never tried
Pyrodex.

Have you ever fired 45-100 or equivalent? If so what was the performance?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired