pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 19, 2017 22:50:27 GMT
Makes one scratch their head in puzzlement when considering why the U.S. army went with 9mm over .45, particularly with potential use of non hollow point ammo. If one wants more ammunition, why not .40 s&w as compromise? I know answer is bean counter and NATO complexity. Yeah, I was sorry to see that happen. I like the Browning High Power pistol as it instinctively points, for me, better than any. I refused it because I dislike the 9 mm although more fatalities worldwide can be attributed to that one calibre than any. I would say due to the fact that so many submachine guns and machine pistols, as well as hand guns use that chambering. Since the US is a member of NATO adopting that calibre was a logical move. I’m from the old school and have a love affair with the M1911, or any .45 for that matter. I heard the argument favouring the 9 mm saying it has a larger magazine capacity. My argument is with the .45 you don’t need a large capacity.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 20, 2017 1:03:08 GMT
Makes one scratch their head in puzzlement when considering why the U.S. army went with 9mm over .45, particularly with potential use of non hollow point ammo. If one wants more ammunition, why not .40 s&w as compromise? I know answer is bean counter and NATO complexity. Yeah, I was sorry to see that happen. I like the Browning High Power pistol as it instinctively points, for me, better than any. I refused it because I dislike the 9 mm although more fatalities worldwide can be attributed to that one calibre than any. I would say due to the fact that so many submachine guns and machine pistols, as well as hand guns use that chambering. Since the US is a member of NATO adopting that calibre was a logical move. I’m from the old school and have a love affair with the M1911, or any .45 for that matter. I heard the argument favouring the 9 mm saying it has a larger magazine capacity. My argument is with the .45 you don’t need a large capacity. Yup, NATO conformity, military/civilian contracts, red tape, lowering fitness standards for smaller female shooters, the price of tea in China, etc...
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Dec 20, 2017 1:35:07 GMT
What if one used the dagger for when the enemy got close up? Although I can imagine one should always try not let that happen, but it seems like it wouldn't be the worst idea to have that shorter weapon for close encounters
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Dec 20, 2017 2:09:18 GMT
What if one used the dagger for when the enemy got close up? Although I can imagine one should always try not let that happen, but it seems like it wouldn't be the worst idea to have that shorter weapon for close encounters I think if you were just gonna use it to gain an advantage on in fighting and not to parry as well, you'd just keep it sheathed until that came up. In general, I've never seen a reason why any unit shouldn't carry a dagger or fighting knife at the belt. They're so useful and dont take up any real space or weight.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 20, 2017 13:09:14 GMT
The same people who make 9mm ammunition are the same people who make .45 auto ammunition, so there are no contract complications. The submachine gun in any caliber is now a specialized weapon when size is important but otherwise made obsolete by the current class of infantry rifles in either 5.56 or 5.45. The older submachine guns were heavier than you would think but when the M16 and M4 are loaded down with all the extras now considered essential, they are also rather heavier than you expect, too. Red tape doesn't enter into the matter.
Any infantry weapon wants all the ammunition you can manage to carry. There was a time when those who made the decisions (they were generals, not bean counters) thought a repeating rifle was wasteful, so magazine cut-offs were designed into rifles, the cartridges in the magazine being reserved for "emergencies." It usually takes a war for everyone to realize what is important and what is nonsense.
Here is such an example: my son was a tanker in Iraq for 18 months (yes, that long). Originally, all members of the crew had pistols and there were two rifles on board, too (as well as three machine guns). Before they left, they turned in their pistols and all got rifles. All discussions of the importance of pistols in the army are excellent demonstrations of Parkinson's Law at work. At least three armies in WWII went to war with pistols chambered for the .380 Browning. Of course, they took along other weapons, too.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 20, 2017 13:28:50 GMT
What if one used the dagger for when the enemy got close up? Although I can imagine one should always try not let that happen, but it seems like it wouldn't be the worst idea to have that shorter weapon for close encounters You are thinking of a dagger as a defensive weapon when it can well be used as an offensive weapon. The Fairbairn-Sykes is a good example of a more modern combat dagger and was used with good advantage in an offensive roll.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 20, 2017 13:59:43 GMT
Here is such an example: my son was a tanker in Iraq for 18 months (yes, that long). Originally, all members of the crew had pistols and there were two rifles on board, too (as well as three machine guns). Before they left, they turned in their pistols and all got rifles. All discussions of the importance of pistols in the army are excellent demonstrations of Parkinson's Law at work. At least three armies in WWII went to war with pistols chambered for the .380 Browning. Of course, they took along other weapons, too. Looking at it from that view point if you go back to WWII, or immediately before, the front line combat troops were issued rifles and the support personnel, truck drivers, tankers, etc. were issued pistols. It was felt that the pistol as not sufficient and a new weapon was needed. Hence enters the M1 Carbine and it did the job for which it was designed, easy to carry, storable in tight quarters, came on target faster and had more range than a pistol, and a larger magazine capacity. On the downside it essentially used a pistol cartridge with less stopping power than the .45. As time went on it was more and more substituted for a rifle, which it never fully achieved. It was upgraded with a bayonet lug and bayonet, and given selective fire amongst other things. But the carbine never fully replaced the pistol and there will always be a place for pistols with combat troops.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 20, 2017 15:58:50 GMT
If you put a .30 carbine cartridge in a pistol, which has been done, both in automatics and revolvers, it's like a super pistol. In a rifle (or carbine), it's considerably more powerful than a .45 auto and more accurate at longer ranges, especially for ordinary troops. It's also more powerful than a 9mm submachine gun and chambered in a lighter weapon, compared with most submachine guns. It's civilian predecessor was supposedly fairly popular in law enforcement circles because of the firepower over other common police weapons. Me, I'm not a policeman and my time in the army was fifty years ago. A few things have changed since then but at least nobody is advocating a bolt-action rifle with a magazine cut-off anymore, not since Jeff Cooper went to the shooting range in the sky.
To return, briefly, to the subject at hand, I have trouble thinking of an off-hand weapon when using a saber, ignoring the possibility of a handgun. Anyway, everyone is taught that a handgun requires two hands to use these days and that it is next to impossible to shoot otherwise. That, together with the insistence that to be in good condition, you need to shoot upwards of one or two hundred rounds a week. So, obviously, it can't be a handgun. The only other possibility is a knife, which requires no training at all, provided it is sharp.
I imagine that using a combination of weapons, still referring to a saber as the primary weapon, would require a rethink of technique, depending on what your technique is to begin with. And that depends on the saber. An army officer's saber, for example, is a true cut and thrust weapon and isn't a bad weapon, assuming it is sharp. Otherwise, of course, it is only a thrust weapon. But given that it has a light blade, as virtually all similar sabers are and were, it doesn't have much real chopping power, although, again provided that it is sharp enough, it can be a wicked enough slashing weapon on a few select body parts. I think the provisional manual produced for the experimental army saber at the turn of the century is probably the best reference for using the US Army officer's sword, even though the manual tends to be oriented towards mounted use.
Most, but not all, other sabers are rather heavier and would have to be used a little differently.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 20, 2017 18:02:35 GMT
If you put a .30 carbine cartridge in a pistol, which has been done, both in automatics and revolvers, it's like a super pistol. In a rifle (or carbine), it's considerably more powerful than a .45 auto and more accurate at longer ranges, especially for ordinary troops. It's also more powerful than a 9mm submachine gun and chambered in a lighter weapon, compared with most submachine guns. It's civilian predecessor was supposedly fairly popular in law enforcement circles because of the firepower over other common police weapons. Me, I'm not a policeman and my time in the army was fifty years ago. A few things have changed since then but at least nobody is advocating a bolt-action rifle with a magazine cut-off anymore, not since Jeff Cooper went to the shooting range in the sky. The carbine cartridge has more energy than the .45. It is surprisingly good at penetrating armour. Good range. However, when it comes to stopping power in the GI FMJ form, it’s lacking. Too many of my Marine friends having used it have related to me their personal experiences in the islands for me to believe otherwise. I’ll be glad to continue this and if wish to do so I suggest we start a new thread in the SBG Forum Cafe, or your choice, rather than hy-jack this one.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 20, 2017 18:04:31 GMT
Oh, I think I'd rather hear your recommendations for a saber, there being no specification mentioned so far.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 20, 2017 20:31:29 GMT
I've not handled any decent spadroon, although they seem practical under certain conditions. But I could see a shortcoming in a weak blade. That is also my criticism of the US Army officer's sword/saber. It's rather whippy.
I think a longish dagger might be a handy backup, whether or not you had it in your left hand. But it occurs to me that since Cold Steel makes left-handed swords....
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 20, 2017 20:49:10 GMT
My spadroon’s blade is anything but whippy.
|
|
|
Post by demonskull on Dec 20, 2017 20:49:11 GMT
Judging by the weight of most sabres i'd probably use something along the lines of a D guard bowie for offhand use. I'd assume my opponent would be using simliar. Unless this would be a fantasy fight club type scenario, where you'd have your chose of bladed weapons. In that case I'd stick with sword, buckler, helm and maille.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 20, 2017 22:46:59 GMT
Now if I felt the need for an off-hand dagger, it would probably be due to at least one of these circumstances: a) ease of carry, which would let me to abandon a shield (or other more potent weapons) and/or b) expecting a fight in confined spaces (without the opportunity of having a shield). With situation b) in mind, and preferring the thrust above the cut especially in confined spaces, I’d choose a light and nimble straight bladed weapon with at least some cutting ability, which would make me choose a spadroon for the main weapon and which happens to be easy to carry, too. Working from the guard in seconde with the sword, I’d hold the dagger at my left side, in a simple forward grip, with the tip aiming upwards, at the height of my left temple. At this position, it would interfere the least with my sword hand’s actions, while still giving some protection to the left side of my head and neck, could quickly be brought downwards to aid in parrying a thrust and be quickly be aimed at the opponent’s upper quarters, if he should choose to rush on me. With all that said, I think you may still be selling a dagger short. Here’s a brief video that I’ve shown before so it maybe redundant to some with me sparring with my neighbour right after I received my now discontinued Windlass Poignard. It was the first time that I had sparred in some years and it shows, no partner. We took it slow and still had a couple of accidents. My neighbour wasn’t sure if he should really try to hit me and you’ll see him stop in the beginning and ask if I was sure. I did a take away in the first two scenes. The second didn’t look right in the clip but in slow motion I saw that it worked, the sword had lodged between us briefly before gravity had his way. There was the time I applied too much pressure on the pressure point and he took me down with him, he has a good 50 kg weight advantage. In a real situation I would have finish him on the ground. And then there was the time I caught his temple with the quillion. I didn’t do much more than just touch him but it impressed upon me the potential power there. We were just horsing around for me to try my new dagger. As for cutting, Aikidoka has a video of him cutting mats using the Poignard. I have no mats so I have to settle for the usual run of soft targets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 23:41:58 GMT
Through the ACW, the left hand weapon was a pistol. Hence the right hip cross draw holster. Swords were abandoned entirely by some ACW cavalry and the myth of multiple pistols true, albeit a bit overdone in period "journalism" An example would be the battle after the Centrallia massacre with Anderson's lot wielding only pistols in a charge against mounted infantry. For expedience, a fast food offering for a fantasy thread such as this. www.centraliabattlefield.com/the-battle.htmlRE 9mm vs .45, I read some units returning to the .45 after many years of the Beretta ruling the roost as the mainstay. No reason to not have a variety of calibers in a shtf scenario but realize that the 9mm Luger will be the most available pistol round (on a global scale). Picking up a 92fs from your fallen foe will save having to carry much more than a few more magazines. Sabre play, like many in single hand swordsmanship is to offer as narrow a target of oneself as possible. Look at highland broadsword, smallsword, what have you; one hand tucked well in to not be a target. Dual wielding of say, a case of rapiers or even earlier to Morazzo was practiced in a civilian context. There are instances, for sure in a battlefield, be it sticks or whatever but one presents themselves with a broader target. Nothing wrong with the fictional fantasy of "what if" until it becomes a reality instead of electrons providing entertainment. I'm headed for more popcorn but offer up a bit of an intermission. Merry Christmas from semprini Tater
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 21, 2017 0:55:54 GMT
Some historical treatises include a weapon in the other hand; other do not. Some appear to suggest using the other hand (always the left hand), even though it had no weapons, though not necessarily empty. And some swords were two-handed anyway. But none that I have seen that covered the saber showed anything in the left hand. Besides, a mounted combatant would be controlling the horse with his left hand.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 21, 2017 1:09:36 GMT
RE 9mm vs .45, I read some units returning to the .45 after many years of the Beretta ruling the roost as the mainstay. No reason to not have a variety of calibers in a shtf scenario but realize that the 9mm Luger will be the most available pistol round (on a global scale). Picking up a 92fs from your fallen foe will save having to carry much more than a few more magazines. My sources tell me that the US is considering bringing back the .45 with a new pistol for it. Looks like the top brass after all the expense has decided the .45 is the better after all. Thompson did good way back when. The reason not to have a variety of calibres is logistics.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 21, 2017 11:36:24 GMT
"Logistics" is an overrated issue with small arms ammunition. Historically, according to staff officer planning manuals, very little pistol ammunition was used in WWII, relatively speaking.
Think they'll ditch the 5.56 and go back to the 7.62?
Still looking for suggestions for a saber to fit the scenarios described here in this thread. Defining a saber as a sword with a curved blade for this purpose, most available examples appear either too light or too curved (for thrusting, anyway). But a few seem to be about right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2017 11:49:56 GMT
Vietnam involvement re ammunition was possibly one of the most diverse situations of the 20th century. There were many wwii rifles in store, often supplying the Republic of Vietnam Military, ARVN Special Forces and Vietnamese Rangers; as well as US special forces. Thompsons and m1a2 carbines quite plentiful.....but.....not to forget buckets of .38 specials and a dwindling .06 supply. Knife carry as well dwindling but a lot of private carry, while some barred from carry with not even bayonets issued.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2017 12:09:02 GMT
"Logistics" is an overrated issue with small arms ammunition. Historically, according to staff officer planning manuals, very little pistol ammunition was used in WWII, relatively speaking. Think they'll ditch the 5.56 and go back to the 7.62? Still looking for suggestions for a saber to fit the scenarios described here in this thread. Defining a saber as a sword with a curved blade for this purpose, most available examples appear either too light or too curved (for thrusting, anyway). But a few seem to be about right. One of many, many, many in which you will find no off hand secondary weapon and a publication well into reliable firearms/pistols. Condensed from a couple of centuries of cut and thrust swords. books.google.com/books?id=iVACAAAAYAAJA whole lot more can be find in the ubiquitous Matt Easton 17th 18th and 19th century lists at the bottom of his forum pages www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/index.php?
|
|