The Last 'Big Lie' of Vietnam Kills U. S. Soldiers in Iraq

[Bugfatty300]

Mythbusters showed you could fire guns underwater. When you start talking about clumps of mud and uneven wet spots in the barrel, I don't know what would happen. I wouldn't do it myself, but I believe the story.

I never saw that episode but according to the mythbusters website:

-Tory made sure that there was no air in the barrel because, if there was, the barrel could explode.

-The other guns didn't fare as well. The 12-gauge shotgun cracked on firing with heavy damage to the barrel and stock. The impressive M1 Garand also fared poorly.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_51_myths_reopened.html

In open air with water in the barrel I'd bet you'd get a much different result.

 

[civ_king]

We only were required to carry 35 lb rucksacks (plus water, weapon, etc). My friends and I would do 50 or 70 just to prove we could and be tough. Our Friday road marches were 6, 8, 12 then 0 miles (one friday off). Always full gear and boots, of course.

I once did a sub-freezing 12 mile in 2 hours 20 minutes (35lbs + weapon) (running the downhills). I was 2nd or 3rd place in my company that day.

that's impressive to do average 11m 40s in sub freezing over that distance
only second or third? that guy that was #1 must be tough
I'd probably make that run at about 18 minutes a mile, I'm slow, I'd never make it in the Military

 

[Patroklos]

What the hell did you have in your pack to make it weigh 100lbs? When I go backpacking, 30 odd miles a day for three or four days, the heaviest I have carried was 40lbs.

 

[otago]

I heard the Japanese had the .25 on Guadalcanal....

Yep, they had rifles and MGs in both 6.5mm(.25) and in 7.7 MM.
The Japanese bolt actions rifles were the strongest of WW2.

( Shortly thereafter, the NRA reported testing a M38 in 6.5x50 caliber that had been rechambered for the .30-'06 cartridge by its enterprising owner who indeed hunted with this insane combination. Just imagine firing a .308" diameter bullet down a .264" bore at the pressures generated by the .30-'06 cartridge. The Arisaka digested the load without a hitch although the owner complained that the rifle kicked a lot!

Sending one of the M38 actions to a leading beat treating firm for analysis, Ackley received the following reports:

"The design of the receiver appears to be in some respects superior to the Springfield and Mauser from the standpoint of simplicity of machining and inletting. The receiver was not only carefully but even elaborately heat treated. Its heat treatment appears to be superior to the average Mauser, Springfield and Enfield.")

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_5_50/ai_114283920/?tag=content;col1

 

[MobBoss]

The Japanese bolt actions rifles were the strongest of WW2.

Quite a broad observation. What do you base it on?

And not sure that the distinction of having the best bolt action rifle in an automatic weapon war is really saying that much for them.

 

[cardgame]

There were tons of bolt action rifles in every faction in WW2, Mobby.

 

[Ecofarm]

that guy that was #1 must be tough

A West Point Lt. with a ranger tab bucking for a ranger assignment. He wasn't really human.

We normally did our 12 mile road-marches in ~3 hours.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Being able to fire a .308 bullet down .256 bore says a lot about the strength of Japanese Arisaka rifles.

Comparisons with other WWII rifles show that Arisakas can handle much hotter loads. Something to do with superior heat treatments in their manufacture of the barrel and receiver.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Of course, there were plenty of OTHER problems with the Arisaka.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Of course, there were plenty of OTHER problems with the Arisaka.

Mechanically they were basically modified copies of Mauser 98s. Some had a dust cover which would sometimes jam up the bolt but it could be removed. Arisaka bayonets were ludicrously long, etc.

The worst problems were mostly poor quality standards when being manufactured during the late war years. But pre-war and early-war examples are probably as good as any other bolt-action rifles used in the war. Maybe even better if you count the excellent steel and the sturdy action.

However new Japanese domestic designs were almost entirely crap.

 

[MobBoss]

There were tons of bolt action rifles in every faction in WW2, Mobby.

And a ton of them were considered obsolete vs their more modern semi and fully automatic cousins.

Again, having the best of something on its way to being obsolete isnt really something to brag about. Its like having the very best betamax on the marker when VHS is the modern standard....or trying to sell that really fancy 8 track player when everyone else is going CD.

But you get the point. I hope.

 

[cardgame]

A bullet is still a bullet, and from long ranges a quality bolt-action is surely much more desirable than a Thompson or MP40?

AFAIK all the good snipers barring perhaps the FG42 in the war were bolt-actions.

 

[MobBoss]

A bullet is still a bullet, and from long ranges a quality bolt-action is surely much more desirable than a Thompson or MP40?

You dont win wars with sniper rifles.

 

[cardgame]

Right, you win them with mass infantry charges where a large number of them die.

owaitlolwut

 

[Ecofarm]

The infantry doesn't need to charge. They can just shoot and live and stuff. Mass sniper charges don't work great either, ya know. It's not like those without sniper rifles were treated like Japanese or Soviet conscripts.

Let's not confuse a discussion of the predominantly effective weapons on the battlefield with a discussion of Human Wave military doctrine (which is not a US thing, post civil war, anyway).

As was already mentioned, the M16 is deadly accurate up to 300m with iron sights; however, the AK47 (accurate to about 4 feet) might be an excellent example of a weapon that encourages Human Wave doctrine.

You may have stumbled onto a major drawback of the AK47 there... cheap and crap accuracy -> Human Wave Doctrine.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Bolt-actions were certainly not considered obsolete during World War II.

How many effective self-loading rifle designs were there before and during the war? Not many. The classic M1 Garand of course. The Soviet SVT was good. The Germans tried with the G41 but that wasn't a successful design. They finally got it right late in the war with a handful of revolutionary designs. Most designs before and during the war were crap.

Self-loaders were generally between expensive and hella-expensive to manufacture. Most of them suffered from all kinds of reliability issues. Plus logistic dudes didn't like them because they supposedly ate up ammo too quickly.

Now compare that with the tried and true bolt-actions available at the time. The choice was obvious and as a result only the United States entered the war with an effective self-loading rifle and even then there were still tons of Springfields being used by frontline troops because production of the Garand was still lagging.

 

[Ecofarm]

The point is, though, that having a "good bolt action" is fundamentally inferior to having the US rifle of the time. So a pretty good bolt action, or even a very good one, still sucks. Ninja-snipers excluded, of course, but I suspect the US sniper rifle was world-class or best as well.


I'm happy for you, Pretorian. Ima let you finish, but Zulu had one of the best spearmen OF ALL TIME.


That's what this bolt action talk is.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But pre-war and early-war examples are probably as good as any other bolt-action rifles used in the war. Maybe even better if you count the excellent steel and the sturdy action.

Oh certainly, I'm a big fan of the Arisaka.

The other thing I had in mind was that it was more then a bit too long for the average person using it.

Mobboss does have a very legitimate point though. Japan entered the war with the best bolt action rifle and (I would argue) the best fighter aircraft in the world. But one should remember that automatic weapons weren't USED in mass infantry charges.

The Arisaka was a very nice weapon if you're shooting something 300 yards away. It's a very BAD weapon when you can't see something 15 feet in front of you, like say, I don't know, Burma, New Guinea, Guadalcanal...

 

[Shadylookin]

meh they should stop being a bunch of nancy's and kill their enemies with combat knives like real men

 

[ParkCungHee]

meh they should stop being a bunch of nancy's and kill their enemies with combat knives like real men

I think it's fairly well established that the Japanese should have relied a little LESS on their pointy metal sticks and a little more on shooting the other guys.