Why doesn’t our military use 19th century guns?
The more advanced our rifles, shotguns, and machine guns get the less reliable and more likely to jam they become. I’d rather have a Winchester 1873 or a Model 1887 Shotgun than a M-16/M-4. At least my gun won’t jam every few magazines or if a piece of dust gets into the gun. Don’t even get me started on Semi Auto Shotguns. The M60 isn’t exactly reliable either. The ironic thing is, the fancier your gizmos get, the less reliable and prone to failure they become. Plastic guns (like the plastic cars) of today cannot ever hope to live up to the legacy as the weapons that won the west.
legacy of the*
Did I say anything about COD? Nice try getting out of the fact modern guns are unreliable pieces of crap. Oh, and by the way, I’m pretty sure the outside of an M-16 is plastic. It looks pretty plastic like to me.
Also I never said anything bad about the AK. It is still far better than our weapons. It’s a prime example of NOT JAMMING.
Posted in military guns
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
It is obvious that you have never seen combat, and unlikely that you ever will. When those machine guns start spraying 1000 rounds per minute of lead right toward you, I promise that you will be wishing that you had more than a lever action rifle.
Keep in mind that a lever action rifle has to use either pistol ammunition, or round/flat nosed rifle ammunition. This means that the rounds do not have as great a range or as great a penetration capability. When you are in a firefight with the enemy, you will want something that can go several hundred meters and still produce a kill. .44-40 and .38-40 ammunition just cannot produce this kind of performance.
Finally, I can guarantee you that you have never used the M16/M4 before. The major jamming problems that you mention were largely due to the rapid initial fielding of the weapon. Unfortunately, first impressions are everything and many of the earliest M16′s were imperfect when they were fielded to troops in Veietnam. Ever since then, the legacy has stuck, but for the most part, the M16 is an incredibly reliable, accurate, and trustworthy weapon.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Ak47.. Very Reliable and Automatic 30 round clip fire… Yes a winchester is MUCH better
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
M16s don’t jam every few magazines if they’re properly taken care of. And the M16 is made out of aluminum and steel. Not plastic. This isn’t Call of Duty. I hope you’re not serious…
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
For the same reason our military doesn’t bring a knife to a gun fight retard
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Sorry, you won’t be providing much covering fire with a lever or a pump. They have limited capacity. You can’t cover someone with a Winchester 94 if you’re up against an AK74.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
well because they are 19th century weapons….seriously asking this question?? today’s weapons shoot further and more accurate than they did 100 years ago.
That isn’t exactly true…there are weapons out there that are stainless steel plated on the insides which virtually make it so they don’t rust…no rust…no oil…no oil…no carbon residue to get stuck in the oil…no carbon residue…no jamming… its not the "DUST" its the oil that gets caked in there with the dust. In my experience…a weapon will jam, if you don’t take care of it.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Clearly there is Shi+, and clearly there is Shinola.
Clearly you can’t tell the difference.
You know NOTHING about firearms, chief.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
weapons from the 1800′s? Like a f*ckin rock and a pointy stick? Well… I guess if their gun jams you can just… poke out their eyes… or throw the rock?
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
First off, it’s not true that guns have become less reliable. If you’ve served in the military post-Vietnam then you’d know that. Secondly, you’re not asking a question to which you expect an answer, as you’ve already given your verdict on the matter in your post.
Finally, I’ll give you some practical reasons why they wouldn’t want to, to humor you;
One, the materials they use now for certain parts of the guns (stock, grip, etc.), being synthetic, are much less prone to fatigue and warp.
Two, the mechanics of the guns have been greatly refined, assuming you’re not using some crappy knock-off of an AK (and some derivatives are actually quite good).
Three, the accuracy, range, and barrel-life of modern guns are almost across-the-board better than 19th century ones.
Lastly, if you ever face-off against someone with an M4, W2000, SAW, or mini-gun with your "trusty" Winchester 1837, you’ll be dead before you can blink.
My gun might jam after ~4 mags, but that’s already 30×4=120 bullets (with an AK or M4). Your guns would have ceased to function long before that many shots without proper maintenance.
In summary, modern guns can send more lead across the battlefield more accurately and longer than any of your 19th century guns.
Now, if you’d said early 20th century guns, you’d actually be closer to having a real argument.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I think everybody here has done a pretty good job of tearing this moron a new one, but I just wanted to point out something that hasn’t been touched on yet,,,
The M60 Machine Gun has been effectively obsolete since the early ’90s when we started phasing in the M249 SAW and the many variants of the M240.
My M240G worked fine for me in An Nasiriyah, Iraq, but hey…what do I know?
(On a side note though, the M249 SAW really is a jamming piece of sh*t, especially when magazine fed)
Just my 2 cents.