The genius of John Moses Browning.

P.S.
How come the military didn't choose the sturdy and proven S&W DA/SA auto, if they wanted a higher capacity 9mm big clunk to replace the 1911?
Click to expand...

Insufficient "firing pin energy" as I recall from gunzine reports on the trials.
 
How come the military didn't choose the sturdy and proven S&W DA/SA auto, if they wanted a higher capacity 9mm big clunk to replace the 1911?
Click to expand...

Because the '92 was the more reliable gun. Clearly. Sorry about that. I always chuckle about why the '92 won.

Now if you wanted 45 power and wanted to stay with the 1911, I could see that.

But the US military wanted high capacity...and that meant a 9mm. And it's hard to say that the decision was political when Beretta had to actually build a factory here to win the contract.
 
* * * The M1911 Army trials consisted of firing thousands of rounds non stop without a single stoppage, that was in March 1911. Today some engineer wannabe buys some obscure 1911 that don't work and issues a blanket verdict complete with necessary improvements and rules the M1911 to be design defective.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that MIM parts are, allegedly, deemed to be superior to good hard tool-steel parts by people who should know better. :rolleyes:
 
If any of you want to challenge yourself....completely dissemble a 1903 Pocket Hammerless. And get it back together without the aid of anything but your hands. No helper. No rubber bands. No vice to hold anything while you get that grip safety and hammer in.

Put it on youtube.
 
I have a photo from my Dad's duck hunting club from 1928. There is a stack of shotguns in the picture. There are 5 1897 Winchesters. Also pictured are two Model 12s and one Auto 5. My first trip was in 1959 and I took a picture of the two gun racks. 18 guns. My Springfield 20 gauge pump, one Fox double barrel 12 gauge, the other 16 are either Auto5s or Remington 11s. Until the 70s the Auto5 was the king in the duck blind. My friend still hunts ducks with one.

If you look at that as a history leeson it alone should amaze you that one man's shotgun design, the Auto5 has lasted over 100 years. But he has that one, the 1911 for over 100 years and the Ma Deuce. Then everything else. Guys are still buying and shooting Winchester High walls.

I am going to go out on a limb here (not really) and boldly declare he was and is the greatest gun designer living or dead, hands down
 
If he were still here, would he have anything to do with a "plastic" gun? I would like to think not but who knows? By the way, I do have one. I will say though, I believe the 336/36 Marlin was a superior design to the Model 94 Winchester. Maybe not as graceful but much easier to take down for simple maintenance.
 
"His machine gun and handguns are probably the reason we don't speak German today."

Yeah, the industrial/economic juggernaught that was the United States had nothing to do with it. :D
 
But the US military wanted high capacity...and that meant a 9mm.
Click to expand...

That's not quite right. The US military was required to adopt the 9mm, and since it was going to be a 9mm no matter what, they decided they wanted a high capacity pistol.

And it's hard to say that the decision was political when Beretta had to actually build a factory here to win the contract.
Click to expand...

I can't say just what, if any politics was involved in the choice of the 92, but I can tell you Beretta had no choice but to build a factory in the US, if they wanted a shot at the contract.

The US is still one of the nations that requires our military arms to be made at home, "made in the USA". Actually, the arms for testing can be made anywhere, but the winner has to make the production guns in the USA. And, while I don't recall exactly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a time limit between winning the contract, and providing the production guns to the military.

IF so, waiting to build a factory in the US until after you win the contract might mean delays, which might mean loss of the contract, or at the least some kind of penalties. Even though it's a gamble, putting up a factory here before you win means IF you win, you will get to keep the contract.

And there is more than just the money for the contract involved. Think of the loss of prestige a major arms maker would suffer if they won a US military contract, and then could not meet the terms, and on time, simply because they "cheaped out". That loss of face could (and likely would) affect all their sales, military and civilian, worldwide. And that, is BIG money.
 
"but I can tell you Beretta had no choice but to build a factory in the US, if they wanted a shot at the contract."

As written, the RFP documents stated up front that the winning competitor must either have a manufacturing capability in the United States (Colt, S&W) or must, within X months of contract award (I THINK it was 36, but I may be wrong about that), build a manufacturing facility in the United States and manufacture all contract handguns stateside after that date.

Failure to do so would have resulted in contract default.

In other words, everyone had a shot at the contract, even if they didn't have a manufacturing presence in the US.
 
I was trying to put this in perspective to a friend of my in the Regiment's F Troop (aviation).

I told her that the M-2 was adopted in 1933 for the U.S. military.

And at time of adoption, the Air Corps would still be flying Boeing P-12s that were blue and yellow, as a Cavalry guy I'd still be on a horse, and as a girl, well, she could look forward to being allowed into the WAACs in about ten years.
 
All the more amazing when you consider that a pencil, ruler, informed intuition and thought were his tools; no CAD, just experience and thoroughgoing knowledge.
 
Don't forget the all the other wood and metalworking tools too! He carved several (if not most?) of his designs out of wood before doing it again in metal!

of course, being skilled "with your hands" was a much more common thing in his day than it is today...
 
"His machine gun and handguns are probably the reason we don't speak German today."

Yeah, the industrial/economic juggernaught that was the United States had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

If that war was over which language we speak today, I'm afraid it failed miserably. The Amish speak German, the conversation at my grandparent's homes was mostly in German, the street conversations in the town I was raised in was mostly German, I spoke mostly German as a young child.

Anyway, the defeat of Nazi Germany had a lot to do with B-17 bombers, P-51 Mustangs, and the Red Army, especially the Red Army.
 
As a somewhat serious student of WWII, and the equipment used, in particular, I feel fairly confident saying that there is no single weapon, weapon system, branch of service or even nation that won, or lost that war.

We argue and debate endlessly over which thing did what better, where things went right, or wrong, etc., but the simple truth is that it was the combination of tremendous numbers of factors including having something(s) happen at just the right or wrong time that created the history we have.

If you must look at one single thing, then I'd say it was because the Axis planned and counted on a short, victorious war, and the Allies didn't give them one.
 
I took some heat for saying that the Army played a large part in making the 1911 what it is, but then folks compare it to the Winchester 92, and the Model 8 Remington, and other Browning designs. I rest my case. Those rifles are more typical Browning designs than than the 1911, as is the dual link system. The Army boards' insistence on a gun that could be easily be stripped for cleaning and parts replacement gave us a gun that is a lot better than it would have been if Browning's first design had been adopted as he submitted it.

Jim
 
James K said:
I took some heat for saying that the Army played a large part in making the 1911 what it is, but then folks compare it to the Winchester 92, and the Model 8 Remington, and other Browning designs. I rest my case. Those rifles are more typical Browning designs than than the 1911, as is the dual link system. The Army boards' insistence on a gun that could be easily be stripped for cleaning and parts replacement gave us a gun that is a lot better than it would have been if Browning's first design had been adopted as he submitted it.
Click to expand...
There is IMHO a huge difference between saying "The Army's suggestions made Browning change things for the better" as compared to "The Army played a large part in making the 1911 what it is." To me, as a writer and editor, the latter statement implies that the Army was actively involved in the design process. They were not. All they did was tweak their specifications as they saw successive prototypes get closer to what they decided (on a moving basis) was what they needed.

I am reminded of the (perhaps apocryphal) story about Henry Kissinger when he was Secretary of State. Many documents produced by his office were not authored by him, they were written by assistants. The story goes that an assistant would submit a first draft to Kissinger. Without even glancing at it, Kissinger would mark across the top "Needs work," and send it back.

The assistant would make revisions and resubmit. Again without reading it, Kissinger would write on the top, "Better, but could stand improvements," and send it back again.

The assistant would revise a second time and resubmit. On the third draft, Kissinger would actually read through it and make specific suggestions, or demand specific changes. The fourth draft was pretty much the final document.

Kissinger was responsible for having caused the document to be improved, but did he "play a large part in preparing the document"? I vote no.
 
I am not sure which wording you would prefer, but the Army board (there were several) members were men who were very knowledgeable about guns, not just a bunch of second lieutenants with nothing better to do. The cavalry, especially, had a great interest in any handgun that was proposed for adoption, and their representatives were quite vocal. Of course, Browning and Colt implemented the proposed changes and did a superb job, but the documentation indicates that the board members had no hesitation in going beyond mere suggestions, sometimes indicating just how they thought a change should work and look.

Browning, like all inventors, thought that his latest and greatest was the best possible pistol and, some documents seem to imply, was not always happy with "suggestions" from the Army. But there is no doubt that the board members did not feel that they were there simply to give a yes or no to whatever was presented to them or to make vague suggestions. They played a part in making that gun immensely better than the gun Browning presented to them. How that input can or should be defined I will leave to others; I think the contributions of the Army were important and crucial in making a better pistol than Browning first proposed.

Jim
 
james k said:
Browning, like all inventors, thought that his latest and greatest was the best possible pistol
Click to expand...

As a mechanical design engineer for almost 30 years, I know a few inventors, and I personally hold almost 2 dozen patents, many of which are improvements on earlier mechanisms just like Browning's firearms patents.

Neither myself nor any of my friends would consider anything that we invented to be the "best possible", there are always new technologies, materials, and processes coming on line. I'd be VERY surprised if Browning thought that the 1911 was the best possible pistol, any more than he thought his Model 1903, Model 1908, Baby, or Model 1910 (FN Blowback) was the best possible pistol. Why keep trying to invent something new if you've already created the "best possible"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top