Mike

Mike

James W said
I was on the drill team in boot camp and we had M-14s. The barrels and receivers were chrome. Really nice looking. That was the last I saw of the M-14s. If I remember correctly, Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert, author of SOLDIER hated the AR16s. The were constantly jamming and causing so many problems in Viet Nam. He wanted to stick with the M-14s. He was on TV back in the 1970s constantly telling about how the Viet Nam war was just something to make money for the politicians. I remember reading he was so upset with the way his men were being butchered and dieing. I had a buddy in the Army a few years ago telling me the 92FS was a piece of junk also. He said the first thing you had to do with on was take sandpaper and sand down and file the clip. He couldn't get them in and out of the guns. Plus, they were constantly jamming and terrible to use.
  

We carried and used the Beretta M9 pistols with no issues (the 92FS is a commercial pistol).  The M9's definitely are not "pieces of junk" if properly cared for.  That stated, they most certainly are not a M1911A1 (my favorite).

Bert

Mike

Bert H. said

I discovered something very odd while looking at my November 1885 Winchester catalog (No. 39) to answer a question that Chuck posed... and the answer is, No, it is not marked "No. 39" anywhere on or in the catalog.

Bert
  

Thanks Bert.

1873man said
Bert,
I can say I have never seen 22 WCF or 22 CF in the ledgers. In the 73's they did list some just "22" for caliber with no differentiating for long or short. When I saw a gun that letter just 22 they were either long or short.
Bob
  

I am of the belief (opinion) that Winchester did not ever actually manufacture any Model 1873 rifles in 22 WCF simply because none have ever surfaced in the flesh, or in the ledger records.

The early entries in the Single Shot ledgers for the 22 Short were usually "22 R", "22 RF", or sometimes just "22".  For the 22 Long, the entries were nearly always "22 L", but rarely "22 Long".

Bert

I can say I have never seen 22 WCF or 22 CF in the ledgers. In the 73's they did list some just "22" for caliber with no differentiating for long or short. When I saw a gun that letter just 22 they were either long or short.

Bob

I would have bought that rifle for $3,000.  If you find it again, try to make a deal for it.

Bert

Peter Brigham said

Anthony said

Steven Gabrielli said
Ian is on point.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m14-americas-worst-service-rifle-what-went-wrong/
  

Steve,
As you're well aware of, he usually is!
Good find!
Tony
  

Sorry, couldn't disagree more. I realize I'm late to the commenting game here, but his video is highly misleading and is presented as if no one is aware that the M14 remained in Navy service long after it lost favor in within "Big Army" and Marine Corps (it may still be in use on ships today) and, in fact, was retained in a modernized form by the SEALs, who loved it (hell, it is very likely still in service with them). It also remained in service with Army Rangers for decades afterward, too. (I carried a selective fire M14 in Ranger school in the 1980s, where it gave excellent service (we automatic riflemen always opened up before the machine gunners could, always. Extremely reliable, too). Further, both the Army and Marines relied heavily on two modernized variants of the M14 in Afghanistan: The Army's Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)--two per rifle squad-- and the Marines' Enhanced Marksman's Rifle (EMR)--issued at the platoon level. It was estimated that the Army and Marines had approximately 10,000 modernized M14s in service in the 2010s (perhaps still today, I don't know). Max effective range of these modernized M14s was 800 meters, which is damn good. Further, the Army did not get rid of its Grease Guns (SMGs) until sometime in the late 1980s. Perhaps the last soldiers to employ them were army tankers and Cav scouts when the M1 tanks was fielded. They were replaced by M16s which sure as hell didn't fit in a tank (too damn long) like a short barreled Grease Gun!
Ian missed the boat on this one, IMHO.....
  

As I previously mentioned, the U.S. Navy carried the M14 rifles aboard the Ohio Class Submarines through at least the year 1997 (I transferred off of my last Sub tour in January 1998).  It was sometime shortly after I retired (in February 2000) that the M14 rifles were replaced with the M16A3 and (2) M60s were added to the onboard small arms inventory.

Bert

Bert H. said

1873man said
 
Bert, how did they enter the 22 center fire caliber in the 1885 ledgers?
Bob 
  

The early entries were "22 CF", but sometime within the first year it was changed to "22 WCF".  Serial number 779 was the first Single Shot rifle chambered for the 22 WCF.

 
Bert
  

Bert and I have had this discussion before, and I passed on #779, in the past for about $3,000.00 Bucks ,(my pics tell me 2010), which I did not know was the first S.S. in the .22 WCF caliber. My friend had it, and sold it and can't remember who he sold it to here in Ohio. The hunt continues to help out our beloved 1885 Guru!