The 1911 Project

[Evil_Joe]

I'd take a USP 45 over a 1911 (any make of 1911) but that's just personal preference. Alot of good points but keep in mind what you take to a pistol competition and what you take to the battlefield are very different things. Very true about what you can put on your 1911 frame but if your arguing what the mil should use in quantity you kind of have to go with the stock production model right? No military is going to mass issue custom guns.

The SOCOM is great for movies and video games but in real life its kinda big for a side. And I've seen more .45 tacticals then SOCOM's in service. The SOCOM is a specialty weapon plain and simple. I'm not a big fan of the m-9 but its what they give me and it works. Bit heavy for a pistol again i'd rather have a USP (pick caliber I don't care) or a sig 228.

 

[OICW]

Evil_Joe: where have you been (besides being busy with 2.9 obviously)!?

 

[Meplat]

Sara- In brief, you got it.(Been reading the "Black Rifle"?) The U.S. Army insisted on using "reformulated" powder.. All nitrocellulose propellants are basically the same, the diffrence being the grain size, and coatings. What was done, was the slurrying of excess stocks of everything from artillery, to handgun powder in an acid solution, then it was blended, and regranulated to the desired grainform. Calcium Carbonate was added to neutralize the acid, and in the gas system of the M-16, this would precipitate out as a calcium salt. Not a fault of design. A fault of economics.

With the propellant the weapon was intended to use, it all but was self cleaning. Very low maintenance. The issuance of the weapon into an environment known for it's ability to generate corrosion without any appropriate cleaning equipment, or instructions, combined with the reformulated ball powder was a recipie for disaster.

But it had nothing to do with the design of the weapon. A first generation Costa Mesa made "Armalite" is just as useable today as the newest M16A2.

Meplat-

 

[SaraP]

I think it's important to remember why the Army adopted the M-16 at all: because soldiers were buying Armalite AR-15s off the shelf with their own money and kicking ass with them.

 

[jaunty]

You forgot about them cheaping out on the chrome lining for the chamber, and letting the troops think they didn't have to clean it.

 

[SaraP]

You forgot about them cheaping out on the chrome lining for the chamber, and letting the troops think they didn't have to clean it.

No I didn't:

...and also decided not to chrome the weapon's chamber and bore as is generally done with military weapons.

Then they told soldiers the M-16 was self-cleaning and didn't issue any cleaning kits...

 

[jaunty]

You instaposted me. I was talking to melpat.

 

[Meplat]

Jaunty- Interestingly enough Gene Stoner was very opposed to chromium plating the chamber, or bore. Early AR-15's (Not the colt made units, but the Fairchild/Armalite ones) did fine with the powder intended, and no chrome bore. Anymore however, I think one would have to be DAMN sure what they wanted to not want a chromium lined tube. There is a LOT of just funky .223 out there.

The comment on "cleaning" was in my second paragraph, somewhat buried in a squadron of five dollar words.

Meplat-

 

[SaraP]

Stoner said chrome plating wasn't necessary, which is true as long as you use IMR powder and keep the rifle properly cleaned so it doesn't rust.

 

[jaunty]

It might not have been necesarry in perfect conditions, but common sense says that when you're wading through a jungle, it's probably a good thing, even if you do have the right powder.

 

[Meplat]

Jaunty- *Shrugs* With the exception of the SKS, and AKM, the Vietminh did very well with non chromium lined bores. It's a matter of maintenance, and care for a weapon.

Other examples? With the exception of the type 99 Arisaka rifles, all the firearms used in the pacific theater during WW2 had non chromium lined bores.

Chrome bores are a nice thing to have, maintenance wise, but will not make or break a design. CURRENT common sense, looking back has a luxury the developers of the weapon in the 1950's did not. "If I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" works both ways.

Meplat-

 

[jaunty]

Yes, but they had outstanding Russian stuff like the PPSh-41 (which has a crhomed bore... sometimes). Simple rule, which you know, Russian stuff is more often than not, as reliable as it gets. Even before the AK, robustness and reliability were principles held paramount in Russian design.

 

[jayhova]

If I recall correctly, the M-16's primary problem was that the U.S. Army insisted on using ball powder (which was cheaper and more readily available because it was used for the M-14's rounds) instead of the Dupont IMR powder recommended by the manufacturer and also decided not to chrome the weapon's chamber and bore as is generally done with military weapons. This meant that not cleaning the M-16 was a big deal; using ball powder meant a lot more residue built up inside the gun, and not chroming it meant that the residue was a lot harder to clean off.

Then they told soldiers the M-16 was self-cleaning and didn't issue any cleaning kits, which led to a lot of cases in which the rifle jammed because the gas system was too clogged up to cycle the action. Also, the non-chromed chamber tended to rust and become pitted when left uncleaned in the hot, humid jungle weather; a pitted chamber could make a spent round stick, and the cartridge rim would then shear off when the bolt extractor tried to pull it out.

In other words, it was the Army's fault for being cheap and stupid, not any inherent flaw in the rifle itself.

The rifle jammed so often because in addition to leaving extra residue, ball powder burns significantly faster that stick powder. This means that the gas pressure was higher in the chamber. The higher pressure caused the gas mechanism to operate sooner and with more force. When a rifle is fired, the cartridge case expands in the chamber and locks in place. As the pressure and heat fall off the case shrinks and can be extracted. Unfortunately with the early M16s using the ball powder the case was not given time to shrink so that the extractor would tear through the rim and not extract the case. The bolt would continue back, strip another round from the magazine and jam it into the rear of the damaged case. This resulted in the case being jammed further up into the barrel. If he was lucky the soldier might be able to open the breach and hit the rifle butt first on the ground and dislodge the case. Otherwise he would be forced to use his one issued cleaning rod to ram down the barrel and knock the case loose.

When the GI M16s came with chromed chambers this changed things. Because of the chroming, the chamber was slicker and the case would slide out more readily. And the use of the proper powder reduced fouling and corrected the timing problems. Unfortunately the chroming required that the rifle have a stiffed buffer spring as the bolt now tended to travel too hard backwards (due to the reduced friction from the chroming).

 

[Meplat]

Jayhova- Yes, the reformulated ball powder burned slightly faster, but this was a secondary issue to the calcium salt deposits, lack of cleaning siupplies, and equipment. (tough to get a .30 caliber M-10 rod, down a .223 bore). The only change made in deference to the ball powder was the addition of some weight to the buffer, and the urethane anti bounce bumper. A well polished steel chamber is every bit as slick as a chromium lined one when maintained.

"Timing" problems did not really crop up til the introduction of the XM177.

Meplat-

 

[LCJr.]

As for the original topic a 1911 would be nice but... With the other pistols already in the game it would be hard to jusitfy the amount of work that would be required.

As for the M16 here's an interesting article on it, "The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam" aka "The little black rifle that wouldn't shoot".

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/


@Jaunty Do you have any sources for the PPSh41 having a chrome bore? Far as I know they didn't start chrome plating until sometime after WW2.

 

[Grim_Reaper ~UFS~]

Holy ****! It's LCJr! Long time no see, how goes it?

 

[Evil_Joe]

I haven't been with the inf team in... years (not to say I don't miss those days though). I've been away with army... going away late spring early summer as well.

 

[Meplat]

LCJr- Interesting article. His description of "carbon buildup" probably was the calcium salt deposits. The issuance of 20 round magazines, and the explination of why 30's were not issued in 1967 is interesting however. (Going by the first date I could find) A major problem early on in the issuance of the '16 was reconfiguring the LBE to allow a mag carrier for the then prominent 20 round magazine.Pictures of soldiers using the bandolier for either M14 clips, or the later clip bando for the 5.56 are common, yet ones showing the nylon case for four 20's are hard to find.(Hell, the cases themselves are scarce.) Most sources and info I have points the issuance of the 30 to the very late 60's, due to problems working out the curvature. Early high cap efforts were downright freakish looking.

Regarding chromium plating bores, I'm not aware of any Soviet efforts, but the Japanese were definitely chrome plating the bores on type 99 rifles during WW2, as I stated above.

Meplat-

 

[Bushwack]

Interesting fact: the 1911 MEU/SOC pistol costs the USMC only $247 dollars per unit to replace.
The SOCOM costs about 4 times that much to replace, as well as its accessories, the LAM/light is upwards of $800 {only civilian price i could find}.

 

[Meplat]

Bushwack- I was always under the impression that the SOCOM was anything but a broad issue weapon. Does'nt the MEU/SOC see a significantly larger issuance than the SOCOM?

Meplat-