Glocks and Mausers....

Discussion in 'Curio & Relics Forum' started by polishshooter, Aug 17, 2007.

?

Pick TWO guns, one type of rifle, one handgun below that you PREFER the most....

  1. Any German made Mauser...

    51.6%
  2. Any Russian Mosin Nagant OR Any English Enfield....

    45.2%
  3. Any pistol made or designed by by Glock

    19.4%
  4. Any 1911 or 1911A1 designed by Browning.

    71.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. k98k792

    k98k792 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    Third stone from the sun
    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."
  2. 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.
  3. 300 H&H

    300 H&H Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Iowa
    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
  4. 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. :D ;) :p
  5. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    Indiana
    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.....":D :p ;) ;) ;) :D)

    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....":p



    But so MANY MYTHS. so LITTLE TIME....;) :D :D :D
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2007
  6. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Oh here we go again, once all the Mauser lovers run out of poor arguments for their beloved rifles we get steered off topic. Grasping at straws to hide the fact that there are no real arguments FOR the Mauser that can't be shot down with logical arguments for obviously better arms. :D
  7. Balderdash! as our fabled British allies are wont to say. :D

    In terms of complexity, the Enfield was AT LEAST as complex as the Mauser, Bunny. Every try to take apart a Lee-Enfield bolt? Why do you think the Brits went through umpty ump "Marks" to get the silly thing to work correctly? OK, OK, the Enfield had ten shots, and the Mauser only 5, but those Brits from London and Liverpool needed ten to hit anything! :D The basic Mauser action has been copied all over the world for both military and sporting applications. Heck, even the Brits at Holland and Holland copied it, not to mention the Americans with their Springfields.
  8. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    "Needed ten to hit anything?" What? The level of Britsih marksmanship during BOTH world wars was beyond reproach. And when you count Canadians armed with Enfields you had a really deadly combination. The Canadian military mantra of "every man a sniper" was built on the Enfield. How many reports from German soldiers have I read stating that nothing struck more fear in them than seeing an assault coming with those red and white, Canadian flag shoulder flashes in view. They knew that if they gave a Canadian with an Enfield a target it was going to be hit, period

    The Diemaco C7 (M16 clone) that the Canadian forces use today comes standard with an Elcan x3.4 optical sight. We don't believe in spray and pray, every possible shot must find its mark. THIS is why our forces were so feared during the WWs. In the assault, the Brits usually put the Canucks up front to breach the lines and then poured their superior numbers throught the gap. I t was known that the Canadians, fervant hunters, had grown up shooting rifles and were GOOD at it. The one Korean vet I know humped an Enfield all during THAT war, even though the FN C1 (FAL) was standard. He got his hands on "Emily" and though he doesn't like to talk about such things in detail, they "did some killing, Emily and me..............".

    And yes Pistol, I've done the bolt tear down on many Enfields, showing my friends how to do it with their own rifles, just once each. It's really a job that I like doing because once I show "Billy" how to do it once, he never needs help again. I don't see what's so complex about the Enfield bolt. Here's the numbers, parts comprising JUST THE BOLT; Enfield 10, Mauser 9 Mosin Nagant 6. But how often did a soldier with an Enfield or MN have to tear apart his bolt? And I wasn't just talking about the bolt, I said "action", and the Enfields or MNs is dirt simple, while the Mausers "superior" engineering adds a lot of crap that need not be there.

    I submit this, when a "superior" engineer designs something that can only be fixed by a wrench that does not exist, he will design that wrench, then a new wrench to fix that wrench, then a new type of screw to make a new screwdriver that requires the new screw to use said screw to fix the latest wrench variant.

    Again, the engineering on the Mauser action is PERFECT for handling large loads in a sporting arm but far and beyond what is required or practical for a military weapon.
  9. No argument on the Canadians as soldiers, Bunny. The raid on Dieppe and their actions on D-day at Juno Beach proved that beyond any doubt. I've always believed though that both the Germans and the Commonwealth allies in World War II were foolish to rely on bolt action rifles when semi-auto designs were well within the capability of either to produce. The American Garand proved that beyond any doubt.

    I still say, though, that the Mauser was the best bolt action battle rifle ever designed. Why else would so many countries have carefully picked up all they could find after the war, then reconditioned and rearsenaled them? Indeed, the Mauser design continued to be produced, on German equipment, for many years after the war.
  10. Ursus

    Ursus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    El Salvador, Central America.
    Enfield and a 1911 will do for me.
  11. RamblerReb

    RamblerReb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Ditto on the Enfield and 1911. If I could have a Winchester Model 12 riot gun, all bases would be covered.
  12. AngelDeville

    AngelDeville New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    676
    Location:
    ABQ
    ball peen hammer and a hunting knife.....
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Curio & Relics Forum what are turkish mausers packed in? cosmo? Jan 13, 2014
Curio & Relics Forum turk 8mm mausers Jul 30, 2013
Curio & Relics Forum Spanish Mausers; Whats your take? Apr 8, 2009
Curio & Relics Forum Mosin Nagant 1891/30 vs Mausers, again! Hakim too. Nov 25, 2007
Curio & Relics Forum yugo mausers Sep 5, 2007