Glocks and Mausers....

[polishshooter]

Hey, I STUMBLED on something in my mind, after all the discussion over 7.62 NATO vs .308 Winchester, CETMES, Guardia Civils, etc....


SOOOoooo...let's see if I'm onto something here....

I WISH we could have more choices, the poll was tough.....I GUESS what I am trying to see is if there is a connection between the "Mauser Lover Disease" and the "Glock Derangement Syndrome...."

[southernshooter]

Enfiled and Glock

[polishshooter]

Well, SS, you might be the "Exception that proves the rule."

Although, to tell you the truth, as much as I have heard that phrase, I'm STILL not sure what the heck it MEANS...

[Pistolenschutze]

If it's German or Austrian built, it's beautifully engineered and highly reliable!

[Xracer]

Since you didn't specify military....

A pre-WWII commercial Mauser "sporter" in .30-06.....and a nice custom Wilson or Les Baer.

[TRAP55]

Xracer has good taste in guns, same as mine.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

I GUESS what I am trying to see is if there is a connection between the "Mauser Lover Disease" and the "Glock Derangement Syndrome....":

More properly, Polish, the question should be, "Is there an intellectual and aesthetic interconnection between those who appreciate fine weapons like the Mauser rifles and Glock pistols?" The answer is obviously "yes." Only such people, due to a rare but innate sense of engineering excellence, are capable of truly appreciating the utter genius that went into the design of both Mausers and Glocks. It is also true that those who are blessed with such sensitivity, rare as it is these days, exist on a much higher plane of reality than, say, those who--so sadly--believe Mosin Nagant rifles are the epitome of firearms design. Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do!

[k98k792]

Mauser and Sig Sauer would be my choice.

[bunnyhunter12]

Enfield, but you knew that was coming from me....

As for so called "handguns", now I don't know. I DO know that all the guns I played with as a kid were plastic and now that I'm grown, I'd like something made of metel.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by bunnyhunter12

Enfield, but you knew that was coming from me....

Bunny, do you like Holland and Holland too?

[bunnyhunter12]

Nice try Pistol. Trying to get me to admit a fondness for H&H bolts, based on the Mauser? I prefer a nice Parker Hale if a professionaly built sporter is my aim.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by bunnyhunter12

Nice try Pistol. Trying to get me to admit a fondness for H&H bolts, based on the Mauser? I prefer a nice Parker Hale if a professionaly built sporter is my aim.

Curses! Foiled again. But, Bunny, Holland and Holland builds some of the finest sporting rifles in the world, especially if you want a double rifle. Of course, so does Mauser. Funny thing, I don't remember any Enfields chambered for .416 Rigby or .600 Nitro. Must be that weak bolt.

[bunnyhunter12]

Pistol, a funny thing just happened when I was "getting ready" to reply to your "weak bolt" crack. As I took of my wrist-watch to facilitate typing, my roomate looked over and said, "someone just bad mouthed 'your rifles' again, didn't they?". Funny how I only take the watch off to go toe to toe with you about rifles, or when I'm walking home at night and start to feel that the guy walking behind me has been there too long, trying to be discreet.

Now that that is said; I don't need a strong, clunky, slow Mauser action to fire .303Brit and that's all the fire-power I need. The Brit War Ministry felt the same way, that the .303 was plenty of fire power and far from being a "weak bolt", the Enfield bolt was perfectly tailored to the round IT WAS INTENDED to fire. It is fast, smooth, reliable, simple and plenty strong. Sure the Mauser bolt is stronger with all those locking lugs front and rear, and it can fire some HUGE calibres, but as far as being a superior military arm because it can fire monster shells, naw, I never heard of the Krauts lobbing bullets the size of C cell batteries across the lines.

But yes, if I ever feel so inclined to fire something like .600H&H NE, I'll buy a Mauser actioned rifle(feeling dirty the whole time) and go hunt some T-Rexs. I'm off now to try and find the articles I read a while back about the old "Adventurer/Hunter" who used the Enfield in .303Brit quite successfully to take quite a few elephants on the Dark Continant. What WAS his name? Heckuva guy and great taste in rifles.

[polishshooter]

WHY when discussing "Combat Rifles" to the Mausernuts" ALWAYS have to refer to all the copies and clones that make great TARGET ot SPORTING rifles?

Kinda like Liberal Democrats ALWAYS trying to change the argument to THEIR terms...while avoiding the issue at hand...

Like WHY when we discuss "Combat Rifle" the Mauser guys ALWAYS lead us to Africa and Elephants and the .416 Rigby or something like that? We'll give you that, hands down, no argument, the Mauser is HIGHLY effective, maybe even the BEST rifle ever MADE, to use against game that doesn't shoot back...kinda like the Great German Stuka, arguably the BEST dive bomber ever made, as long as the targets were DEFENSELESS...

YES, X, it was intended to be MILITARY rifles...


So lessee if I have this right, if I want to be impressed by artistic expression and theoretical masterpieces of gunsmithing genius that can be improved or converted to shoot extremely well three or maybe five shots into a really SMALL group, or maybe place a killing shot with some African cartridge once or twice on a game animal, and not REALLY care if the darn thing is effective on the battlefield, or can stand up to thousands of rounds in training and/or on the battlefield, I'm supposed to like MAUSERS and GLOCKS, right???


Actually, you have proved my POINT , if you are more impressed by PRETTY you like Mausers...if it's FUNCTION when your life depends on it in battlefield conditions, its the Mosin or Enfield...

And (steering the argument back to the point no mauser guy EVER wants to answer... )


Name for me again, if you will, the war or wars any country armed with "the superior" Mauser as it's main infantry weapon ever WON? When the opponent was not ALSO armed with it too?

IT really IS a simple question guys, just name them, don't BORE us with any more obfuscation or explanations or excuses....

[k98k792]

IT really IS a simple question guys, just name them, don't BORE us with any more obfuscation or explanations or excuses....[/QUOTE]

That is the pot calling the kettle black!

[Pistolenschutze]

Face it, Polish. Comparing a Mosin Nagant to a Mauser is like comparing a beat up Zhiguli to a brand new Porche 911. Both will get the job done, but somehow the Porche does it with just a bit more style. Mosins are fine if all you need is something to arm the cannon fodder and shoot more or less in the general direction of the enemy. The Germans were just a bit more demanding and required a rifle intended to be used as a rifle . . . instead of as a pike!

[polishshooter]

More like "Required any old rifle regardless of it's complexity or whether it's unsuited to the task, since it was only to SUPPORT the MGs and since German infantryman were simply ammo humpers anyway" and NOT to arm "riflemen" is more like it PS....


And K, MOI??? Surely you don't think I "obfuscate or use explanations or excuses" right?


(Or were you referring to the "boring" part?... )

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

And K, MOI??? Surely you don't think I "obfuscate or use explanations or excuses" right?

Not at all, Polish, but the word "obnubilate" does come to mind. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnals.

[k98k792]

When we are done discussing the Stuka,maybe we could go on to the
ME. 262.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by k98k792

When we are done discussing the Stuka,maybe we could go on to the
ME. 262.

I still say Hilter could have defeated, or at least very severely delayed the strategic bomber offensive, had he built the ME 262 in quantity from the outset. No one had anything that could match its performance. I'm sure Polish will disagree, though. He thinks the P-40 was the absolute epitome of American fighter design.

[k98k792]

Very true!

Here is a interesting qoute.

"On 1 September 1944, USAAF General Carl Spaatz expressed the fear that if greater numbers of German jets appeared, they could inflict losses to the USAAF bombers heavy enough to cause cancellation of the Allied daylight bombing offensive."

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by k98k792

"On 1 September 1944, USAAF General Carl Spaatz expressed the fear that if greater numbers of German jets appeared, they could inflict losses to the USAAF bombers heavy enough to cause cancellation of the Allied daylight bombing offensive."

The Germans almost managed to do that using only ME-109s and FW-190s, K98. With ME-262s in quantity, especially before the U.S. had long-range escort fighters like the P-51 available, the U.S. bomber loses would not have been sustainable. We would have been forced, I think, to adopt the British tactic of night area bombing, a much less effective technique.

[300 H&H]

Hey pistol, It would appear that polish and bunny hunter were about to gang up on you!!! Can you swing two swords at once, in case of such threat? Seriously the ME-262 in great numbers would have changed the air war totally. The germans have several technologcally advanced weapons systems that could have changed the war, but they never got the chance as the rest of the free world "ganged up" on them for the defeat. Kirk

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by 300 H&H

Hey pistol, It would appear that polish and bunny hunter were about to gang up on you!!!

Sad but true, H&H. Those Canuks and Pollacks often hunt in packs . . . . Not to worry though, my new wonder weapons will overcome all opposition in the end.

[polishshooter]

The ME-262 WAS impressive, but essentially meaningless to the war, like a LOT of other German weapons...to expensive, too much for their engineering and manufacturing processes to actually make work, too little too late...

(Have you noticed YET that virtually ALL arguments about the "Superiority" of any German weapon ALWAYS includes the famous qualifier...."IF ONLY....." )

Like any German weapons, at that stage of the war, the ME-262 development probably HASTENED Germany's defeat rather than SLOWED it....


But without, question, even though it wasn't the FIRST "jet" to go operational, it PROBABLY was the better of the TWO...

And it was STILL vulnerable, even in the air, to P51s...


No, as the Japanese found out on the OTHER end of the world, that their pre-war doctrine that "enemy aircraft are best destroyed in the AIR" was wrong...they are best destroyed ON THE GROUND...

The Germans had NO way of stopping the "air offensive," unless they could strike at allied BASES....


And PS, "There you go again!"

Name for me ANYWHERE where I claimed the P-40 was the BEST, much less as you claim, the "epitome...."

All I did was correct your and other's mistaken appreciation of the facts, destroying the longstanding "myth" that it just "marked time" until the "superior" later American fighters came and destroyed the Japanese... ...the P40 along with the F4F, FAR from being "obsolete" or "poor designs," merely fought the "vaunted" JNAF and JAAF top a STANDSTILL fairly early in the war as soon as our pilots got combat time in them, and then were SUPERIOR even to the Zero even fairly early in 1942,, and virtually DESTROYED both forces as effective Air forces by early 1943 (Granted, with help from superior "Tactical" allied bombers as well...) but BEFORE the "advanced" US Fighters got on the scene to "mop up" the turkeys....

All I had to do was point out the FACTS to you and you were not only better informed FOR it, you are not any more belaboring under at least THOSE myths...as Mark Levine would say...'So THANK me...."



But so MANY MYTHS. so LITTLE TIME....