The "assault rifle" concept

I'm destroying the assault rifle type and concept.

The assault rifle came from Germany's Hitler and his designating the Stg. 44 automatic rifle "Sturmgewehr," or "storm rifle," as in storming your enemies with a quick to fire, handy, light rifle. The moniker was created as propaganda. The storm rifle concept translates to the assault rifle. Once it was demonstrated, the USA and Russia had to develop their own, due to the wide variety of tactics such a rifle concept brings.

But it gets muddy. Where the Germans were ingenious in shortening the full power 8mm Mauser cartridge to be in line with distances that a storm rifle would be best at and the Russians did something of the same, the US still held onto bigger is better and range is good. One thing that's worth giving credit is shortening the .30-06 cartridge from 63 millimeters to 51, it made it more efficient and effective for automatic fire, and in some cases, lightened overall weight. It would take until the '60s that a light rifle round was developed, and even then, it was far smaller than the German 8mm and the Russian 7.62x39. The .223 Remington/5.56x45 NATO dumps the "intermediate cartridge" right on it's head.

What it does do is create the concept that fire from a small, lightweight, light recoil rifle cartridge would reduce soldier carry weight (and allow carrying more versus full power rifle) and produce more accurate volley of rifle fire, where it was easier to maintain target sight picture.

The M-16 has been sometimes thought of as a rifleman's assault rifle, (oops I said it) and the AK-47 a submachine of an assault rifle. With that in mind, there's two different tactics applied to each while in the same rifle type.

But back in the '50s, the US was extremely pushy about the adoption of the 7.62 NATO, so everyone making an automatic rifle had to use it. So you had the FN FAL, M14 and the H&K G3, and before that, the Spanish CETME which would license out to make the G3. All in 7.62.

These rifles were rather terrible on full auto, plus big and very heavy. But they have advantages.

Though the small caliber race (US 5.56 and USSR 5.45) brought low recoil, easier sight picture, more accurate automatic fire, 7.62 has reach and barrier destruction. Barrier destruction for sure, the light calibers cannot compete with.

The term "assault rifle" lightly touches all automatic rifle types, but certain calibers, features and characteristics allow some to work in other usage and tactics. For example, the FN (Fabrique National) SCAR comes in Light (SCAR-L) and Heavy (SCAR-H). Light in 5.56, Heavy in 7.62. Both are built nearly identical. This is a simple designation of type. I think it could work for many others. You can have a light automatic rifle, and a heavy automatic rifle.

A really great example of what conceptually was thought not to work coming out of the '60s that may work today is the usage of 7.62 automatic rifles. Rifles of that type in the '50s and '60s were heavy and long, and highly promoted for automatic fire. Today, in Turkey, their new military rifle is a lightweight, ready for modern optics automatic rifle in 7.62 NATO, where the emphasis is .30 Cal gives a bit more reach, barrier destruction, semi-auto fire as normal usage, automatic fire as "Use in case of emergency." Firing on automatic fire has it's place in short range instead of long range. It's a tool. The idea is not to deprive the user of something because historically it was inaccurate at long range and uncomfortable. It is a tool to be used in efficient and appropriate situations.

The things I do and don't do

I just cannot review pistols like Guns & Ammo can. Don't have that kind of finance. I will report what I know and have experienced, and my most professional opinion. I will try explaining and exploring concepts and terminology.

Browning Hi Power

I love many aspects of history and I love modern military and firearm history. The History Channel and a friend of mine got me turned onto John Browning, and my first in this line of firearms was a FN FAL. Though not a Browning design directly, it is a Fabrique Nationale design which John Browning worked with from 1895 until 1926. Eventually I bought a Browning Hi Power since it is a Browning/FM design.

The design, its elegant look and its history is what attracted me. A brand new Hi Power will be one expensive 9mm, but very much worth the money. But I got lucky and found a series of them being retired from Israel Law Enforcement. I thought why would you discard such a reliable sidearm? Israel decided to adopt their home grown Jericho 941, and I can understand. I'm just glad there were people like me to give these excellent pistols new homes. I bought mine for nearly half the price of a brand new one.

My Hi Power was manufactured in Belgium at Fabrique Nationale in 1969, has a commander style hammer and a factory 13 round magazine. In a lot of ways it's like a European 1911 but in 9mm and filled to the brim with ammo. How does a 45 plus year old pistol function? Flawlessly. Right out of the box and for 6 years has not had a single malfunction.

I'm not the only one to say it has one of the best grips for a high capacity pistol, and the design is 80 years old. When you fire it, it has an awesome feel. It feels elegant, yet has authority. It has a reasonably simple disassembly. Some people may bad mouth the heavy trigger and the magazine disconnect, but I like the trigger. It did not take long for me to become accurate with it. The magazine disconnect is something the European countries are strongly in favor, so it was put in since the beginning, but it is well made and I don't mind it. It's side effect is the magazine partially removes and hangs. It's not drop free, but you just grab it. No biggie.

If you've never shot one and have had all modern pistols from the last 15 years so so, seriously try one. This 9mm taught the modern ones how to walk and talk. But as a word of caution, since the early '90s, there are converted models into .40 S&W. I shot one and it was as accurate as a laser beam, but it felt overpowered to where it lost feel and character. It felt vague. I felt this defeated the original intent of the Hi Power and was aiming to sell the look of this pistol to a bigger market. It would be better to go to an FN FNP40 instead. Make sure you try a 9mm Hi Power first so you understand what its about.

Got inspiration to resume this blog

When I first started I thought I would review guns that's I've shot, but I can't afford to test tons of guns. It requires facility and gun rental fees. But recently I have found that I can bring to this my experience, thoughts and expressions. So I'm going to be writing about experiences I've gained. I have a lot more to work with since the first months I started this blog. I'm not an expert, but I know and understand a lot. I will not tolerate anyone picking out things I say and using it to say I don't know crap and putting me down. This is supposed to be a bit more of an information exchange, not a "I know more than you" exchange.

Glock part 2

I didn't follow up on the Glock thing right away. I got it back after they updated it and refinished the slide, it looked nice. It functioned brilliantly. But I eventually got bored of it. I like Glock, but I'm not fanatical about them. I sold it and bought a Romanian AK, and then in early 2011 I bought an Israeli issue Browning Hi Power, made by Fabrique Nationale, and I still have and enjoy that one.

I do have a baby Glock 26 9mm that I carry around it it's served me well.

suspended

I appreciate all the pageviews I have got since I opened this blog, but since I can't cover the news anywhere near as fast as the major publications, and I have tons of hobbies and my regular life that I attend to, that I can't do much of anything for this blog, but I will keep it up in its current state.

Nick

New Times, New Guns

It's been a long time since I posted on my blog. It's rather hard for me to do reviews and stuff like that because they already have been done. Instead I can relate about my experience and give thoughtful opinion. Last year I bought a baby Glock 26 in 9mm, I like it. I choose to carry it. Then last summer I built an FAL battle rifle from a brand new Argentina built kit (minus receiver), bought the receiver from DSA, a good friend of mine and I put it together, and I've been working rounds through it. It's my second, the first was a Century International Arms built one, and it was far from perfect. This one is superb and shoots fantastic. Then earlier this year, I bought a former Israel Police duty Browning High Power, made by Fabrique Nationale in Beligium, with the commander style hammer. Some wear adding to character, but a beautiful pistol. It was manufactured in 1969, and was told that it may not like hollow points (many handguns didn't get the throating treatment until the '80s when hollow points were getting closer to perfection), but I haven't had an issue. So that's pretty much the update.

Glock troubles and rewards (part one?)

I bought a second generation Glock model 17, looked it up and it was manufactured in 1994 I think it is. Got it for really cheap, I think some of the members of the shop I bought it from have overall mixed feelings of Glock, but I don't take it seriously because most come from a traditional point of view regarding handguns, such as 1911 and .45, the 'best combination there is.' Something like that. I highly respect that. However, polymer is no mere plastic. Its just a new and different way to make a potent, reliable firearm. But since it was second hand with quite a bit of holster wear, it had character and some wear. I cleaned it well, but time after time of targetshooting, the feeling I was getting as it recoiled was getting worse. Then I had heard about some of the services Glock performs for really reasonable, such as refinishing the slide to factory look, and that they do a free inspection, I figured that is the way to go. So I sent it in last week, I hope to hear from them soon about how it's going.

The Lee Enfield (SMLE) infantry rifle Part 1

The Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) combat military rifle had seen service for over 60 years, starting right at the turn of the century. The British had learned hard and quick that when they went into battle with the Boers in South Africa that the early Mauser rifles were superior to early Enfields........(read part 2)

The Lee Enfield (SMLE) infantry rifle Part 2

One of the major problems was the mismatch in sizes made for different troops. Early Enfields that still accomadated black powder were taken out of the equasion, and the Lee Enfield was made one universal length. When the Mk. III hit The Great War (WWI), many didn't think it was any better, but since it was stuck in the middle of battle, there was no looking back. Once the Germans advanced, the Lee Enfield showed its newfound superority. The bolt action was rugged and smooth, and exceptionally quick. It was soon found that British soldiers could fire what was called "The Mad Minute." The Mad Minute was 30 rounds in one minute fired at their enemy, some could fire more than that. The rate of fire from one rifle could rival that of an automatic fired weapon. This rate of fire from many British soldiers would decimate German troop advances.

The Lee Enfield (SMLE) infantry rifle Part 3

Many versions have been built through many different eras, but the same rugged, reliable, accurate basis of a rifle was still there. Even though the British would eventually go with a large caliber battle rifle, and then a small rifle caliber assault rifle, some would say that none are completely much better than a good 'ol infantry bolt action at the hands of a good rifleman. For all the history, and characteristics the rifle has to offer, I plan on adding one to my collection.

Be careful who you vote for

I'd rather not get into politics here in my blog much, however I feel that whos going to be in office soon may have an impact on your right to keep and bear arms. I seriously hope there aren't any firearms enthusiasts who are voting for Obama. I don't think people know the half of what they are voting for if they have Obama in mind. He has consistently voted time and time again for gun bans and ammunition bans, while giving you the campaign talk that he wont do anything with firearms rights, or lately talks about what is "reasonable." His version of "reasonable" restrictions are that you only have single shot guns. If thats so, whats the point? Be careful who you vote for. The second amendment is the foundation of most of what everything in our country is laid upon, and without it, all the other promisses one may make are just securities without liberties.