You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Hot" machine gun ammunition ?
- Thread starter SIGSHR
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
The military liked the performance of the boattail Ball M1 round just fine.
But, as I noted, it made many military firing ranges unusable because of its extended range.
During the depression there was simply no money to expand the ranges, so the most logical choice was to change the ammunition to remove the problem.
Had the firing range issue not been an issue, it's very likely that the US would have entered WWII with the Ball M1 as the standard military issue.
But, as I noted, it made many military firing ranges unusable because of its extended range.
During the depression there was simply no money to expand the ranges, so the most logical choice was to change the ammunition to remove the problem.
Had the firing range issue not been an issue, it's very likely that the US would have entered WWII with the Ball M1 as the standard military issue.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Liking something but finding it to be unsuitable for your purposes and not liking something are completely different scenarios.
Realistically, it wasn't about like or dislike.
It was about functional utility.
Realistically, it wasn't about like or dislike.
It was about functional utility.
On further checking, I found that Mike is correct and that carbide penetraors were post-WWII. My error, and apologies.
Mike, I have been reading an article in Firearms News which is essentially a rehash of all the old garbage about the "perfect" Johnson 1940 rifle ("the most reliable self-loading rifle ever made") and the M1, repeatedly denounced and condemned by the author, Jim Dickson. FWIW, I once owned two Johnsons, both brand new when I got them, and fired both with M1 Ball, M2 Ball and AP. They were good guns, but not the miracle weapons the writer describes. If you have read the article, I would like to see your thoughts and comments.
Jim
Mike, I have been reading an article in Firearms News which is essentially a rehash of all the old garbage about the "perfect" Johnson 1940 rifle ("the most reliable self-loading rifle ever made") and the M1, repeatedly denounced and condemned by the author, Jim Dickson. FWIW, I once owned two Johnsons, both brand new when I got them, and fired both with M1 Ball, M2 Ball and AP. They were good guns, but not the miracle weapons the writer describes. If you have read the article, I would like to see your thoughts and comments.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
Jim, sorry, but I don't get Firearms News anymore.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Dickson, but it sounds as if you're saying that he's still beating the drum about what a horrible mistake adopting the Garand was?
I've never fired a Johnson rifle, only held them (when I worked at American Rifleman I got to handle some of the museum firearms from time to time).
Over the years I have read some of the Rifleman's reporting of the time on the controversy between the two, but that was a long time ago.
One thing that sticks in my mind is that Johnson went through hell and back trying to come up with a bayonet that would work with his rifle because the standard bayonet would completely mess with both the recoil operation and the accuracy.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Dickson, but it sounds as if you're saying that he's still beating the drum about what a horrible mistake adopting the Garand was?
I've never fired a Johnson rifle, only held them (when I worked at American Rifleman I got to handle some of the museum firearms from time to time).
Over the years I have read some of the Rifleman's reporting of the time on the controversy between the two, but that was a long time ago.
One thing that sticks in my mind is that Johnson went through hell and back trying to come up with a bayonet that would work with his rifle because the standard bayonet would completely mess with both the recoil operation and the accuracy.