What would you take to battle? - Page 3 - The Firearms Forum

Charlie the sniper · 01-09-2009, 02:23 PM

A bloody big Army, with Air superiority and Navy back up...just in case. ....Oh and God for the commanding officer.

Pistolenschutze · 01-09-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie the sniper

A bloody big Army, with Air superiority and Navy back up...just in case. ....Oh and God for the commanding officer.

I'm shocked, Charlie! I should think as a good Britisher you would need only the Coldstream Guards and perhaps a few Harriers from the RAF.

Charlie the sniper · 01-09-2009, 03:22 PM

Well at least "GOD" is British

I think we are down to our last Harrier now, and the Coldstream Guards have no boots.
"More tea Vicar".

sewerman · 01-12-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stash247

In WWII, or any other conflict, Just four things; both my Senators, my Congressman, and lots of Sour Mash Whiskey.
Draggin' their asses into the real world would eliminate a lot of conflicts, even faster than the Enola Gay did, at the end of WWII.

dam* good idea and the M1 garand for me too, though not mentioned the enfield NO 1 MK III is probably the bolt action i would choose.

sewerman

citydesk175 · 01-15-2009, 03:36 PM

At the risk of stirring up the pot, let me pose a few later era questions:
1. Why not carry an M14 with the Auto Switch as opposed to the Garand or the BAR?
2. Or the MINI 14 with auto switch?
3. Are either of these 2 superior to the M1 Garand?
4. I had an M16 in Nam so I have no questions on it other than "Why?"
5. What is the best post-Garand infantry weapon?

regards
citydesk175

Vasily Zaytsev · 03-17-2009, 11:27 AM

1) Ill take the 06 M1 over a M-14 anyday. At combat ranges the 14 can poop out more rounds. The Garand is better balanced, Ive carried both, and only own a Garand.

2) Minis are a joke, they over heat and jam. Not a battle rifle

3) Mini, heck no way inferior. M-14 yes. carries more ammo, spits it out faster. Mr Bowning said in 1936 " In the history of firearms, they never made a better one, only a faster one."

4) Lighter, carries more rounds, Designed to be human and wound VS kill.
No my cup of joe

5) M-14. If I had to return to combat, (and I hope I never have to, for we dont play by modern rules) it is the only firearm I would take.

The only reason being ammo availiblity.

Defending harth and home. The Garand.

islenos · 03-17-2009, 12:40 PM

Hard to beat a Garand

LeSabreUltra · 03-17-2009, 05:30 PM

World War II combatant? M1 Garand.

If we bring up the stage to modern day though, my first and only choice is an AK-47.
.
.
.

spectre14 · 03-18-2009, 08:33 AM

I'm suprised only one person mentioned the mp44. The Sturmgewehr 44 was the worlds first assualt rifle. Historians have said that if Hitler had agreed to the production of the weapon things would have been different. 30 rounds of 7.92x33mm Kurz in detachable box magazines sounds good to me.

94z07 · 03-18-2009, 09:59 AM

M2 Carbine for the win.

ltcboy · 04-05-2009, 08:05 PM

I dont care if I were going into combat in Europe/Pacific in WWII or going into battle in Louisiana during Katrina, I would want my M1 Garand. I know that it would very rarely fail me, I can load it quicker than any of the other choices, I can pop somebody at 300 yrds no problem, it will go thru concrete walls, and Clint Eastwood made it look cool to do in "Gran Torino".

"We used to stack fu**s like you five feet high in Korea... Use you for sandbags."

View Poll Results: What would you take to battle?
M-1 Garand	8	61.54%
Thompson SMG	3	23.08%
BAR	2	15.38%
1941 Johnson	0	0%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

01-09-2009, 02:23 PM	#51
Charlie the sniper Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: England, thats the USN aircraft carrier near europe. Posts: 751	Re: What would you take to battle? A bloody big Army, with Air superiority and Navy back up...just in case. ....Oh and God for the commanding officer. __________________ Never Forget, the price paid for Freedom.

01-09-2009, 03:22 PM	#53
Charlie the sniper Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: England, thats the USN aircraft carrier near europe. Posts: 751	Re: What would you take to battle? Well at least "GOD" is British I think we are down to our last Harrier now, and the Coldstream Guards have no boots. "More tea Vicar". Attached Images __________________ Never Forget, the price paid for Freedom. Last edited by Charlie the sniper; 01-09-2009 at 03:33 PM..

01-15-2009, 03:36 PM	#55
citydesk175 Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan Posts: 32	Re: What would you take to battle? At the risk of stirring up the pot, let me pose a few later era questions: 1. Why not carry an M14 with the Auto Switch as opposed to the Garand or the BAR? 2. Or the MINI 14 with auto switch? 3. Are either of these 2 superior to the M1 Garand? 4. I had an M16 in Nam so I have no questions on it other than "Why?" 5. What is the best post-Garand infantry weapon? regards citydesk175

03-17-2009, 11:27 AM	#56
Vasily Zaytsev Registered User Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 72	Re: What would you take to battle? 1) Ill take the 06 M1 over a M-14 anyday. At combat ranges the 14 can poop out more rounds. The Garand is better balanced, Ive carried both, and only own a Garand. 2) Minis are a joke, they over heat and jam. Not a battle rifle 3) Mini, heck no way inferior. M-14 yes. carries more ammo, spits it out faster. Mr Bowning said in 1936 " In the history of firearms, they never made a better one, only a faster one." 4) Lighter, carries more rounds, Designed to be human and wound VS kill. No my cup of joe 5) M-14. If I had to return to combat, (and I hope I never have to, for we dont play by modern rules) it is the only firearm I would take. The only reason being ammo availiblity. Defending harth and home. The Garand. Last edited by Vasily Zaytsev; 03-17-2009 at 11:29 AM..

03-17-2009, 12:40 PM	#57
islenos Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Texas Posts: 1,244	Re: What would you take to battle? Hard to beat a Garand __________________

03-17-2009, 05:30 PM	#58
LeSabreUltra V.I.P. Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Alabama Posts: 102	Re: What would you take to battle? World War II combatant? M1 Garand. If we bring up the stage to modern day though, my first and only choice is an AK-47. . . . __________________

03-18-2009, 08:33 AM	#59
spectre14 Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ohio Posts: 11	Re: What would you take to battle? I'm suprised only one person mentioned the mp44. The Sturmgewehr 44 was the worlds first assualt rifle. Historians have said that if Hitler had agreed to the production of the weapon things would have been different. 30 rounds of 7.92x33mm Kurz in detachable box magazines sounds good to me.

03-18-2009, 09:59 AM	#60
94z07 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 337	Re: What would you take to battle? M2 Carbine for the win.

04-05-2009, 08:05 PM	#61
ltcboy Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3	Re: What would you take to battle? I dont care if I were going into combat in Europe/Pacific in WWII or going into battle in Louisiana during Katrina, I would want my M1 Garand. I know that it would very rarely fail me, I can load it quicker than any of the other choices, I can pop somebody at 300 yrds no problem, it will go thru concrete walls, and Clint Eastwood made it look cool to do in "Gran Torino". "We used to stack fus like you five feet high in Korea... Use you for sandbags."**