In article ,
says...


From: Tank Fixer
Date: 7/7/2004 3:52 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: t

In article ,
on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:33:17 +0100,
Paul J. Adam attempted to say .....

In message , tw
writes
I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
Garand
and the M14?

M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
capability (little used and often deleted)

Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?

/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was
better
still! ;-)

Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry

Trapdoor Springfield in 45-100 !



The 45 indicate caliber and the second nimber indicates grains of black
powder
as originally loaded. I found 45-70 to be more than enough at close range and
noticed no real improvement at 45-80. The smokeless equivalent has just as
powerful but didn't have as much character as black powder. I never tried
Pyrodex.

Have you ever fired 45-100 or equivalent? If so what was the performance?

45-90 and 45-110. At ranges less than 200 meters there's really no
appreciable difference other than greater percieved recoil (I was firing BP).
At ranges greater than 500 meters you can begin to take advantage of the
slightly higher velocity and at 1000 meters and more you get less wind effect
on the bullet. In all cases there's less bullet drop (of course) and greater
effect on the targets as a function of the greater velocity. But it's not all
that much more velocity and not all that much of an improvement. I suppose
that's one reason those larger (longer) cartridges didn't catch on.

Joel