Socialist Rifle Association...

[turbo_vanner]

and you all wonder why antifa gets its panties in a wad when a bunch of white guys start chanting "blood and soil" while waving torches in the air?

If you want to understand the hostility to neo-nazis, you need to realize that some of us are not forgetting the bones of those murdered by their ideology.

 

[Boboclown]

I'm as white as you are a clown. I thought it turned out well in the end, we started talking rifles than military tactics of the Russkies and a bit of WWII.

 

[turbo_vanner]

me? i don't think i'm referring to you.

 

[Boboclown]

Doing my part to be a clown and joke with ya.

But it was getting calm towards the end... Maybe we need to bring in more AK talk.

 

[Colts4me]

The system keeps the average people dumb. As far as military tactics go, that's not gonna work. The worst idea you can think of is to keep your military dumb when it comes to military tactics. Again, there's a reason they were quick to adopt the AK in Russia. Keep in mind, its select fire for a reason. Hell, if it wasn't for the U.S being too stubborn, we likely would have had an assault rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge sooner. There's a reason the M14 did not have a long military service as a standard issue rifle. Am I saying the M14 was bad? Not at all, I consider it a good rifle. Just that they switched over to the M16 for firepower, which worked better with their logistics. Ironically, the FAL (which like the M14s were kept semiautomatic) worked better for the Australians in Vietnam, simply because an assault rifle would not have worked for them due to their logistics being not good.

Now as for the M1 Garand overwhelming them? Yes, but it had nothing to do with the machine guns. In fact, the opposite. The Germans had more K98s (5 round bolt action rifle) than they did machine guns and the STG 44. As for the Germans overall? Their logistics sucked, it really did. It was not the efficient war machine they though they were at the time.

As I post I cite examples of how I formed my oponion.

"While the Americans had standardized a semi-automatic rifle in 1936 (the M1 Garand), the German military kept issuing Karabiner 98k bolt-action rifles due to their tactical doctrine of basing a squad's firepower on the general-purpose machine gun in the light machine gun role so that the role of the rifleman was largely to carry ammunition and provide covering fire for the machine gunners. The advantage of the general purpose machine gun concept was that it added greatly to the overall volume of fire that could be put out by a squad-sized unit.[14][15] The German military did experiment with semi-automatic rifles throughout World War II and fielded the Gewehr 41 series of which less than 150,000 were built, the Gewehr 43/Karabiner 43 series of which 402,713 were built, and introduced the first assault rifle in 1943 – the MP43 / MP44 / StG 44 series, of which 425,977 were built. Due to the relatively limited production of semi-automatic and assault rifles, the Karabiner 98k of which over 14,600,000 were built remained the primary service weapon until the last days of World War II, and was manufactured until the surrender in May 1945."

So realize the average rifleman was there to support the machinguns, the MG 42 had to have 6 spare barrels to keep its rate of fire up. It took 100 men to keep one MG 42 machingun going. The Nazi brand of socialism was considered nationalist socialism. Now I move on to the AK and AR

 

[Boboclown]

As I post I cite examples of how I formed my oponion.

"While the Americans had standardized a semi-automatic rifle in 1936 (the M1 Garand), the German military kept issuing Karabiner 98k bolt-action rifles due to their tactical doctrine of basing a squad's firepower on the general-purpose machine gun in the light machine gun role so that the role of the rifleman was largely to carry ammunition and provide covering fire for the machine gunners. The advantage of the general purpose machine gun concept was that it added greatly to the overall volume of fire that could be put out by a squad-sized unit.[14][15] The German military did experiment with semi-automatic rifles throughout World War II and fielded the Gewehr 41 series of which less than 150,000 were built, the Gewehr 43/Karabiner 43 series of which 402,713 were built, and introduced the first assault rifle in 1943 – the MP43 / MP44 / StG 44 series, of which 425,977 were built. Due to the relatively limited production of semi-automatic and assault rifles, the Karabiner 98k of which over 14,600,000 were built remained the primary service weapon until the last days of World War II, and was manufactured until the surrender in May 1945."

So realize the average rifleman was there to support the machinguns, the MG 42 had to have 6 spare barrels to keep its rate of fire up. It took 100 men to keep one MG 42 machingun going. The Nazi brand of socialism was considered nationalist socialism. Now I move on to the AK and AR

Even your own citation brings up the problem for the Germans. Their logistics sucked. The machine guns and assault rifles were severely limited, they may have tried to use the K98s to support the machine guns, but ultimately their machine guns only supplemented the K98s.

Ultimately, the U.S just happened to have had the best standard issue rifle during the time. We also had SMGs and machine guns as well. So the Germans may have had assault rifles and machine guns, they had more bolt action rifles. So it was ultimately semiauto with machine guns and SMGs vs. bolts with machine guns and assault rifles and horrible logistics.

As for AR vs AK? One normally leaves a bigger hole.

 

[Colts4me]

The commies learned that in their style of war that they had to fight as a collective. They lost a lot of battles because under the socialist culture they were just throwing troops away. So they start useing the same charge in and kill tactics but armed the troops with 72 round subguns and mounted them on tanks. They close with the enemy and who was considered the enemy after the Germans were defeated, that would be us. The AK 47 was developed to beat the M1s tactics.

The AK is not a target weapon and on average will produce about a 5 inch group at 100 yards. It had to be robust because of the charging tactics and poor logistics and while it had a very similar cartridge to the MP 44 and a 30 magazine it was made for close work. The M14 was the military answer to the AK they realized they had the finest rifle ever produced but it didn't have the firepower so they built it magazine fed. M14s were all automatics but it took a part only given to designated people that were wanted to have automatic fire.

A capitalist society allways goes for better products, it breeds smart people that create and solve problems. When the M16 came out we were at war with the commies and the government saw that we were losing badly so government officials told the army to adopt the M16, the military of the time didn't want it. The AR as it first came out was built without a forward assist and the rounds it ran on were filled with extruded powder. When forced to take the rifle the military didnt use extruded powder, only ball powder. The new guns were jamamatics that got many people killed simply because government demanded the military use it without full trials of the weapon.

The adoption of the M16 was our first example of a firearm adopted under our government as it turned more toward socialism.

 

[Colts4me]

Even your own citation brings up the problem for the Germans. Their logistics sucked. The machine guns and assault rifles were severely limited, they may have tried to use the K98s to support the machine guns, but ultimately their machine guns only supplemented the K98s.

Ultimately, the U.S just happened to have had the best standard issue rifle during the time. We also had SMGs and machine guns as well. So the Germans may have had assault rifles and machine guns, they had more bolt action rifles. So it was ultimately semiauto with machine guns and SMGs vs. bolts with machine guns and assault rifles and horrible logistics.

As for AR vs AK? One normally leaves a bigger hole.

Wars fought by attrition the holes are made to put the most men out of the battle per shot. Logistics of taking care of wounded is just as difficult as supply but socialist having little care for the troops didnt' have good medical support.

The Germans had some great subguns and tried to fill the holes left by the k98 with them but sub guns are just what the name implies, a sub powered gun. Really they are best suited for police work against unarmed civilians. Our best subgun was made for WWI and modernized for WWII, the Thompson was the best ever gun but far too heavy for what it was, an 11 pund rifle that shot pistol ammo.

 

[Boboclown]

A capitalist society allways goes for better products, it breeds smart people that create and solve problems. When the M16 came out we were at war with the commies and the government saw that we were losing badly so government officials told the army to adopt the M16, the military of the time didn't want it. The AR as it first came out was built without a forward assist and the rounds it ran on were filled with extruded powder. When forced to take the rifle the military didnt use extruded powder, only ball powder. The new guns were jamamatics that got many people killed simply because government demanded the military use it without full trials of the weapon.

The M14 never suited what the government wanted with their standard issue rifle. They wanted something that can be used full auto, the M14 and its 7.62 NATO did not fit the bill. The reason the M16 jammed so much was because they went away from the original design to cut costs and said they did not need to be cleaned. The U.S were the only ones wanting the 7.62 NATO. Others were looking into intermediate cartidges.

The AK is not a target weapon and on average will produce about a 5 inch group at 100 yards.

Sure, if using bad ammo and you got the barrel red hot.

Wars fought by attrition the holes are made to put the most men out of the battle per shot. Logistics of taking care of wounded is just as difficult as supply but socialist having little care for the troops didnt' have good medical support.

That's the point. They had bad logistics period. The Nazis were never the efficient war machine they thought they were.

 

[Raidingtime]

Unlikely, but yah, agree with ya there.

Ironically, what I find frustrating is that I've observed many times the hippy green peace crowd trashing natural and urban areas.

"Don't smoke kids". Takes a drag of his cigarette.

 

[Colts4me]

The M14 never suited what the government wanted with their standard issue rifle. They wanted something that can be used full auto, the M14 and its 7.62 NATO did not fit the bill. The reason the M16 jammed so much was because they went away from the original design to cut costs and said they did not need to be cleaned. The U.S were the only ones wanting the 7.62 NATO. Others were looking into intermediate cartidges.

Sure, if using bad ammo and you got the barrel red hot.


That's the point. They had bad logistics period. The Nazis were never the efficient war machine they thought they were.

The M14 was a semi auto rifle developed from past wars the military won. When they invested in the Garand action it was because all the military tactics were built around a battle rifle that won wars. To change to an assualt rifle was a huge departure from a winning weapon to an unknown one that required changing how you fight. At the time it was a disaster to field such a weapon and it cost us dearly.

Once they chrome lined the AR barrels and developed a cleaning strategy which included cleaning kits the AR began to take shape but still had a long way to go as a fit assualt rifle. The hot barrels were simply because they made pencil barrels in the early guns and not even the same shape for the full length. Look at today's AR and compare with the old original Armalite guns, not much is the same except the crummy gas system.

 

[Boboclown]

The M14 was a semi auto rifle developed from past wars the military won. When they invested in the Garand action it was because all the military tactics were built around a battle rifle that won wars. To change to an assualt rifle was a huge departure from a winning weapon to an unknown one that required changing how you fight. At the time it was a disaster to field such a weapon and it cost us dearly.

When we chose the M14, it was mostly politics and trying to use old machines to cut costs. Ultimately, this proved for naught. The M14 and 7.62 NATO did not suit the government's demand for a rifle that could be semiauto and full auto, as it was too much to handle in full auto. The FAL, which was used by way more NATO countries, wouldn't have stopped the M16, it was going to happen one way or another. The only difference would have been a few years at most.

Once they chrome lined the AR barrels and developed a cleaning strategy which included cleaning kits the AR began to take shape but still had a long way to go as a fit assualt rifle. The hot barrels were simply because they made pencil barrels in the early guns and not even the same shape for the full length. Look at today's AR and compare with the old original Armalite guns, not much is the same except the crummy gas system.

The ARs today have pistons as an option. The marines adopted the M27, and apparently some special forces folk will use the HK 416. Though, I think the M27 is the only piston AR being adopted as a standard issue rifle, or at least in the process of it.

 

[CLT65]

I appreciate you all trying to turn the discussion towards guns rather than politics, but I fear that this thread is irreversibly political, and was from the very start with the link to the "SRA" site.

You might be better served by starting a new thread if you want to avoid the politics.

 

[Quartermaster]

@RedArms You have "anarchists" in your organization. Pfft!

 

[Colts4me]

When we chose the M14, it was mostly politics and trying to use old machines to cut costs. Ultimately, this proved for naught. The M14 and 7.62 NATO did not suit the government's demand for a rifle that could be semiauto and full auto, as it was too much to handle in full auto. The FAL, which was used by way more NATO countries, wouldn't have stopped the M16, it was going to happen one way or another. The only difference would have been a few years at most.


The ARs today have pistons as an option. The marines adopted the M27, and apparently some special forces folk will use the HK 416. Though, I think the M27 is the only piston AR being adopted as a standard issue rifle, or at least in the process of it.

The M14 was developed from what they had and the tactics they used at the time but it was a rifle and not suited to assualt rifle tactics. Add to that it was built for winning past wars and nobody conceived having a jungle war fight gainst assualt rifles. We fought in jungles before but never against well armed enemies.

Capitalism has been working well changing the flaws in the AR design to make it work better but we have basically the same assualt rifle we had in the 1960s. What hasn't changed is socialism.

 

[Quartermaster]

Back to the key point of this thread. I would never support someone in war time that I wouldn't support in peace time.

 

[turbo_vanner]

the key point of this thread was to let you all know what you might run into out there. It's pretty obvious where the majority of peoples political stances lay on this forum.

y'all complain about this as much as liberals complain about cops or something. lol.

 

[Boboclown]

y'all complain about this as much as liberals complain about cops, who they don't trust at all, not being the only ones with guns because they're the only ones they can trust with a gun. lol.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Quartermaster]

Fixed it for ya.

The day the clown clowned the clown.

 

[turbo_vanner]

doesn't really matter what they bubblegum about.... same point.