![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Evan Williams" wrote in message ink.net... Apologies for off-topicality snip I would have much preferred to carry an M-14 or even an M-1 Garand (I decided a while ago to avoid the argument as to which one is the greatest battle rifle in the entire universe by purchasing one of each). I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1 Garand and the M14? 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! ;-) snip |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... 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) Also, there was the cal .30 carbine. Per TM9-1276: M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic. M1A1 Same but folding metal stock. M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto. M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... 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. Right-ho. That's the one with the full length stock, right? 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) Also, there was the cal .30 carbine. This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine? (M1 carbine and Garand) Per TM9-1276: M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic. M1A1 Same but folding metal stock. M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto. M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341) Thanks for that Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry ![]() I believe we used to fire them in CCF, though they had been rechambered for ..22 instead. That was the underlever rifle we used to "slosh the fuzzie wuzzies"* wasn't it? .45 calibre originally? That must have hurt... *Although Corporal Jones would have you believe the cold steel was the better option. They DO NOT like it up 'em. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "tw" wrote:
This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine? (M1 carbine and Garand) Scroll to the bottom of the page at this link and go from there- http://www.fulton-armory.com/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill" wrote in message ... In article , "tw" wrote: This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine? (M1 carbine and Garand) Scroll to the bottom of the page at this link and go from there- http://www.fulton-armory.com/ Thanks Bill! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , tw
writes "Jim Knoyle" wrote in message ... M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an eight-shot charger. Right-ho. That's the one with the full length stock, right? That's the one: long, hefty brute. Good kit, though. Also, there was the cal .30 carbine. This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine? (M1 carbine and Garand) No. The M1 Carbine was designed as a smaller, lighter weapon for troops that didn't need a full-on rifle but if they *did* have to fight, they needed something more effective than a pistol. (Truck drivers, mortar teams, bakers, et cetera). So it was designed around a lower-powered round that could reach out further than a pistol or SMG, but could still be fired from a light and handy weapon. To expand on Jim's listing of the M1 Carbine family, a folding-stocked version was provided for airborne troops (the M1A1 Carbine), and later the weapon was modified to fire full-auto (the M2 Carbine) which also produced a 30-round magazine - the original M1 had a shorter 15-round mag, though of course either would fit any mark. There was also a M3 designed for use with an early IR sight. The concept's returned in the form of the "Personal Defence Weapon" such as the H&K MP-7 or the FN P90, interestingly. Per TM9-1276: M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic. M1A1 Same but folding metal stock. M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto. M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341) Thanks for that Don't forget the M1 SMG, which was a much-simplified Thompson ![]() military has a respectable selection of M1s... I believe we used to fire them in CCF, though they had been rechambered for .22 instead. That was the underlever rifle we used to "slosh the fuzzie wuzzies"* wasn't it? .45 calibre originally? That must have hurt... Zulu "If it's a miracle, Sergeant-Major, it's a .45 short-chamber Boxer-Henry miracle." "And a bayonet, sir. With some guts behind it." /Zulu *Although Corporal Jones would have you believe the cold steel was the better option. They DO NOT like it up 'em. "Don't panic! Don't panic!" -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-102 pilot kicks sailors ass | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 22 | March 26th 04 05:03 AM |