schmieg wrote:JimE wrote:High Power wrote:
I can't recall exactly what he said as it has been a long time ago since he wrote his op-ed. The tone and tenor of the article was basically that they were ugly and useless, the only people that owned them couldn't shoot well so relied on the spray & pray tactics in a gunfight.
IIRC, didn't Army brass say that about bolt action rifles when they were switching away from the Springfield trap doors ?
Some folks refuse to accept change in technology and tactics, just as our forces learned the hard way in the Spanish-American war.
As I recall the issue was whether to replace the trapdoor with the Henry and the bean counters won saying that the Henry would allow the troops to fire more rounds in less time, so it would be prohibitively expensive to make the switch.
I qualified with the M-16 in 1976 and really hated it. Fast forward to today, I own three of them and an M&P 15-22. There have been so many improvements with the AR-15 platform that someone could write a book as thick as "War & Peace" and "Gone With the Wind," combined.
On the other hand, I have put more rounds down range with the 1903 Springfield and M-1 Garand than all of my AR-15s. With that said, I can field strip an M-1, blind-folded, faster than an AR-15. The rifle shoulders well with me and I am extremely comfortable with it. When it comes to shooting long-range, I can hit my target better with an M-1 than an AR-15. I get more enjoyment out of an M-1 than an AR-15. However, that enjoyment should not cloud a person's objectivity when it comes to evaluating practicality.
I always wanted a 1932 Ford Roadster but could never afford it. Even if I had one, it would not make sense to drive it to work. So it doesn't make sense to fight a modern war with an M-1 rifle.
With that said, I could not ever say anything bad about the AR-15 and M-16s. With up-to-date improvements, those weapons make more sense for use by military and civilians alike.
In a perfect world, I would carry my 1911. That was my preferred sidearm for concealed carry. That all changed after I was hurt in an auto accident. I could not shoulder a rifle for a year. So my groundhog hunting was limited with the use of a handgun. So I thought I'd try the 9mm on those critters.
I can't tell you how many groundhogs I shot with a Browning High-Power using Federal Hydro-Shock ammunition! In a few words; the round spread the groundhogs' guts everywhere. That changed my bias against the diminutive 9mm. There are those that would say that there is a difference between a groundhog and a two-legged assailant.
That's true but anyone who says that has never hunted enough groundhogs. They are extremely tough critters to kill. If a 9mm Hydro-Shock could cause that much damage on a groundhog then imagine would it could do to an assailant's insides. The FMJ issue is another debate.
So, I could carry twice as many rounds in a 9mm handgun the size of a 1911 and still get the job done in a defensive situation.
I don't want to take anything away from men like Bill Jordan who have risked life and limb to serve our country. Nor do I wish to mitigate their experience in combat. However, when their opinions on new-fangled weaponry are limited to their feelings and do not take in ALL the data then that mentality is the same as an Air Force General who would want to fight a war with B-17s and P-47s.
The British Army of the 18th century relied on the bayonet charge as the preferred tactic in combat. Why? Simply because it worked. We can't understand that today but put yourself in the shoes of a British general in the late 1700s.
To them, the rifle was expensive, slow to reload and wasn't soldier-proof. They saw no practicality in the rifle. The bayonet charge worked except when they went up against General Daniel Morgan's riflemen and later Andrew Jackson. That's what we call a paradigm shift.
I would still like to have the manual typewriter that my mother used to teach me how to type. Yet I can not think of very many uses for a manual typewriter today except that it works without electricity.
I can't remember who said it but when asked if they knew they were going to get into a gunfight, what handgun would they carry. The answer was something like, "If I knew I were going to get into a gunfight, I'd use a rifle."
So this little lady's statement on the 2nd Amendment has a lot of practicality to it.