What the fuck were the people in charge of supplying the army doing during the turn if the 20th century?>adopt the krag >go to cuba to fight the spanish American war>so few krags that the rough riders had to use trapdoor springfields >pretty sure there was no draft at the time so everyone would have been volunteers so idk why they got stuck with trapdoors>army drops the krag>adopts the 1903>so few 1903s are built by 1917 that something like 2/3rds or 3/4ths of all the rifles use by the American expeditionary force are 1917 Enfields>the bongs only ever used the 1914 Enfields as home guard guns
>>64888345The best part is where they deliberately sabotaged the M16 by using shitty gunpowder and not the ammunition specs that Stoner created and was tested by troops in Vietnam.
>>64888345>>so few 1903s are built by 1917 that something like 2/3rds or 3/4ths of all the rifles use by the American expeditionary force are 1917 EnfieldsYou forgot>interwar>have infinite 1917s, a superior rifle to the 1903>standardize on exploding 1903s instead
>>64888372the 1917s were heavier. idk which guns were more accurate or if it was enough to notice. I've never heard anyone say good things about the 1917 sights. Like they are receiver peep sights, but the font sight is small as fuck for some reason
>>64888372>government owned arsenals are all tooled to make 1903 rifles, make 1903 parts, and refurb 1903s>only actual advantage of the 1917 is the rear sight which was added to 1903A3 >already working on semi-autos >wtf why did they adopt the 1917the M1917 vs M1903 argument is only ever made by midwits with video game logic
>>64888359myth. the original powder put forward by Stoner was excessively high pressure and hard to procure in large quantities. the "shitty" powder they switched to is the same stiff we use today. most of the problems the M16 had were do to the shitty edgewater buffer, corrosion do to lack of chrome lining and general lake of maintenance.
>>64888389>idk which guns were more accurateNTA; They were both really accurate. M1917 sights were so good that the US military added them to the M1903A3
>>64888427Ord department apologist
>>64888450maybe? I have some weird opinions about the M14, but I think the M16A2 was mostly shit.
>>64888450Stop being such a wounded bitch about you personality rifle. It's in service, it won, stop acting like the world is out to get you. And no, the AR-10 as it appeared in US trials was shit, full stop
>>64888456I meant mostly ok. the M16A2 is mostly ok. I don't know why I typed shit.
>>64888462Big Ord is paying you
>>64888470Damn I wish, where's my free M14 and M60 for saying the early AR-10 was bad?
>>64888427Stoner had zero input into powders. He was not part of the cartridge design group.The powder used today is not the powder that was causing problems.
>>64888481>The powder used today is not the powder that was causing problems.the powders they switched to were WC844 and WC846 (H335 and BLC-2) and are still commonly used today.
>>64888516M193 was loaded with WC846. This is what caused issues.It is now loaded with WC 844, a different powder.
>>64888523WC846 (BLC-2) is still commonly used. WC844 (H335) is MORE common, but that's about it. the issues the M16 had was that the edgewater buffer was unreliable and soldiers were not cleaning their rifles.
>>64888560The issue was calcium carbonate building up in the gas tube.This was ended when they made WC844, a low carbonate formulation of WC846. M193 still does not use WC846 for loading.WC846 =/= BLC-2 just like H335 =/= WC844. Similarity in burn rate does not make different formulations the same powder.
>>64888581>WC846 =/= BLC-2 just like H335 =/= WC844you are *technically* correct since WC844 and WC846 are non-canister grade versions of H335 and BLC-2.
>>64888440>M1917 sights were so good that the US military added them to the M1903A3The M1903A3 sight is nothing like the M1917 sight. Receiver-mounted sights for the M1903 were proposed even before the US became involved in WW1 (note rifle third up from the bottom), but after WW1 the US Ordnance Dept. became fixated on adopting a self-loading rifle (which would have a receiver sight) so retrofitting the M1903 was given low priority. It only ever happened in 1942 because Remington was designing new tooling to make M1903 receiver forgings and hey why not make that tooling produce a receiver forging with an integral sight base while we're at it.
>>64888644is that spike permanently affixed? the one under it looks like an smle and the one under that looks goofy as fuck with that front sight hood
>>64888345Pic is a helpful visual aid representing declining testosterone levels over 300 years.
