Would the remington model 8 have been a better standard issue in ww1 than the 1903?

Would the remington model 8 have been a better standard issue in ww1 than the 1903?

>semi auto
>not as harsh of a recoiling caliber
>reloaded with stripper clips
>reliable

Why wasnt this gun ever serially looked at from a military perspective?

Attached: qqa6it.jpg (1037x692, 243K)

Other urls found in this thread:

forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/chargers-stripper-clips-for-the-remington-8-and-81-slrs/2853
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1914_Enfield
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

it was too similar to the ak, a foreign weapon

Well considering we overlooked the 1903 for the 1917 and were itching to use it, not very likely.

0/10

Can't be reloaded with stripper clips; cartridges are underpowered next to what the military establishment of the day considered acceptable.

That said, the police model with removable clipazine would have made a hell of a trench broom.

Attached: police model 8.jpg (1200x412, 71K)

The Model 8 is an amazing gun (I want one) but it was way too complex and expensive to manufacture.
The ammo it used was adequate for varmint and deer hunting, but it was far weaker than the .30-06 and it would have been rejected on those grounds alone.

>cant use stripper clips

wut

>forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/chargers-stripper-clips-for-the-remington-8-and-81-slrs/2853

I understand it was seen then as too weak but a .25 remington is fairly close to a .223 remington which works just fine. I am not saying it would have worked, but I am surprised it did not get looked at when even the winchester 1907 got looked at.

I will go ask them

Attached: 311FF597-7BE4-4FEB-AD9B-7ADFB8FEC8C5.jpg (4032x3024, 3.43M)

>post a knock-off mauser

It doesn't matter if it's close to 223, we aren't arguing that it's a bad cartridge, it's just not 30-06 or 8mm, so they wouldn't adopt it, you fu king troglodytes can you read and understand context? Fucks sake.

by the end of the war the MP18 was a thing and the pederson device was a thing. Obviously they were flirting with the idea of a smaller cartridge. Yet the Model 8 was never even glanced at.

Just kidding

>Why wasnt this gun ever serially looked at from a military perspective?

To answer your question
The 1903 was selected or adopted in...1903
The Remington was introduced in 1905.
Too late.

Cry me a river.

Attached: B883C63F-786C-4B5C-BF07-76AD5CE8FED2.jpg (1535x2048, 669K)

Why would you ever ask questions of this kind? We all know that the answer is that good developments are overlooked all the time because the military is literally run by boomerfudds.

Wrong the 1911 was picked up and that is the single greatest handgun ever made.

The military truly made the correct choice choosing it over the luger.

*Sip* Ayuuuuup, right about that one, son. Only reason that they made it in .45 was because .50 wussint invented yet!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall "Blackhawk" Dale Jr.
65th Coast Guard Reserve 1961-1962
God bless our troops and God damn our enemies!

Would it have mattered? Was there a problem with the 1903 that stopped the US advance in WW1? A tool that does it's job isn't automatically superceded by a more expensive tool that does it a little better, there are more logistics than that in a war. Besides, the 1903 was in use well after ww2 as a marksman rifle. The caliber was correct, the recoil wasn't a factor, and it didn't need to be semi-auto.

Can you field strip it in the dark?

Does it have small pieces that are going to drop into the trench mud and get lost forever?

Can it go hundreds/thousands of rounds without cleaning?

Attached: 98E4E71D-0CEB-4E33-836A-9B4661259CCE.jpg (576x768, 48K)

Semi auto = grunts will waste all their rounds immediately without aiming.

Huh. I stand corrected.

>gives soldiers FA M16s firing 900rpm

This
And the British adopted the pattern 13 enfield which was being made in the US.
Which lead the the US adopting the M 1917 when they couldn’t make enough 1903s

P17/P14 is better.

And what did they do with them?
They wasted all their ammo.

After owning an a5, absolutely not. Long recoil has a brutal recoil impulse, long recoil is a nightmare to machine large scale, and the biggest part is these guns are very finely, very intricately made. Taking the a5 down (which I assume to be similar to the model 8), you have like 9 screws and 4 small springs you have to deal with.

John Moses Browning was a genius, but god help you when you decide to take down any of his longarms

>.25 remington
that round 100 years ago is nothing like modern .223 ammo

M2 isn’t so bad neither is a 1911.

>a round whose development stopped 90 years ago is nowhere near the modern day gold standard for military calibers

You don’t say?

If I remember correctly its not that hard to remove to bolt assembly from the model 81 basically the same as model 8.

Was this semi auto?

>P17/P14
What is a P17/P14?

It would have been very expensive, and truth is it would have been miserable in the mud hells a lot of the battlefields turned into.
Also no real way to mount a bayonet, and more importantly nor for launching grenades, so those were dealbreakers.

US/British Enfield Pattern rifles.

The real reason is that Remington started marketing the Model 8 to furries.

Attached: ideal for coyotes.jpg (566x560, 69K)

The Luger was the best service pistol in the world until the advent of the 1911.

He made manual repeater shotguns and rifles too.

Complexity was the biggest issue. There was at least one attempt to get it into a military trial though

Attached: bea6aef3759776ebffa7c92adad3873f.jpg (2448x3264, 650K)

US never had a P17/P14 rifle

What us that pic of? I’ve never seen one with wood to the end.

did you even read what i was replying to

Attached: youdontsay.jpg (500x500, 19K)

Those are two different rifles
The P17 is the .30-06 version US
The P14 is the .303 version UK
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1914_Enfield

Jow Forums, I have zero knowledge of firearms engineering whatsoever, what would be the main obstacles towards designing a .308 version of this rifle in the modern era?

Cost of production.

I made a mistake. That one is a one-off target rifle in military dress made for J.W. Hessions. They were never considered for service, but the army did buy a few for developing tactics for self-loading rifles

Attached: IMG_20190720_213224.jpg (3072x4096, 3.85M)

Convincing people that a long-recoil .308 Winchester rifle is somehow a good idea.

There's just way better self-loading actions today, there's a reason long-recoil stayed in the early 20th century.

^This, in spades.
Quality firearms of this period (and most of John Browning's designs) used a solid steel receiver that had to be forged in one piece. Then internal grooves and keyways had to be machined. The bolt and other parts were also made of steel, usually with several machining steps. They would need to be hand-fitted to interface as smoothly as possible. All this took a lot of time and skill.
The final result was a gun that had a wonderfully smooth and strong action and an elegant design. It was also a gun that would be ruinously expensive today, due to the cost/scarcity of the skilled labor necessary and the numerous machining steps.
Modern guns in general use as little machined steel as possible in favor of molded or cast polymer and aluminum.

Yeah, I just saw the Forgotten Weapons video about this and now I realize it.

>clips

>not as harsh of a recoiling caliber
My .35 Remington Model 81 recoils worse than any of my .308s or 30-06s.

>ideal for coyotes
So .25Rem is for shooting roadrunners?

Attached: whoa-be-gone.jpg (240x180, 7K)

There is no such thing as a P17 and the fact you refer to the M1917 rifle as one shows how much of a dumb newfag you are. Lurk at least 6 months before posting and read books so that your only source of firearms knowledge is not teenager video-games.

Honestly we have regressed.

What mount is that

this, it's why i like ak's so much, their is a lot of skill in making them

p17 is better than the m1903 but I think the m1903A3 might be better than the p17.

Attached: 1911 ww3.jpg (2000x2000, 3.34M)

>Can it go hundreds/thousands of rounds without cleaning?
>implying the average soldier in WWI would live long enough to fire hundreds/thousands of rounds

Finicky, overengineered trash gun.

yes, but back then semi autos were seen as less reliable, and honestly in those conditions I wouldn't be surprised if the model 8 was. machine guns had a place, but the average soldier needed a rifle that would absolutely not fail.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield
There is no model P17
>formally named "United States Rifle, cal .30, Model of 1917"

You ae wrong, though.
The 1917 has ben referred to as "P17" or "Pattern '17" officially on several occasions.
For example in the pocket book of the British Home Guard, where the following is listed:
>So-called "Springfield". American-made model of (a) [Enfield Pattern 1914] named "Pattern '17" - identical with (a) except for different model of cartridge and bore .300

If you'd ever actually taken one apart, you'd know why.

>implying any rifle is never used by more than one soldier

And gang members refer to guns as
Gats
Stick
Bulky
Strapped
Hammer
Nine

Should we all now refer to the model of 1917 by.a slang name to make you happy?
Maybe we should call it a rooty tooty point and shooty rifle.
Or
Maybe you should just use it’s real name.

Maybe we should acknowledge that we all know what someone means when they say "M1917" or "Pattern 17" or "American Enfield" or "1917 Eddystone rifle" or "United States Rifle, cal .30, Model of 1917" and not get pissy about using the correct designation when other terms invoke exactly the same picture.

Don't you tripfags have a containment thread? Why do you feel the need to shit up every other thread? No one cares that you don't know shit about the model 8, why do you feel the need to give us a name with your ignorance?

Who the fuck calls a piece a bulky? You just made that shit up. Also, "strap". Fucking sort your shit out.

Changing the goal posts I see
Maybe if he had used that terminology, but he didn’t.
Would you refer to a glock 17 as P17 and expect people to not to laugh at you.
Or refer to a 1911 as a P11

>P17/P14
There is no p17 rifle, it’s slang at best but mostly ignorance.

Stop living in a basement

It doesn't matter. Somebody referred to a United States Rifle, cal .30, Model of 1917 as a "P17" some 70-100 years ago, nobody laughed at him, the name stuck and is now a well recognized nickname.

You people are fucking idiots.

The reason aluminum and plastics are used is that we have worked out some very good concepts on how to have a strong and secure lockup without having to have an entire receiver machined out of steel, not needing the bolt to lock into recesses machined into the receiver.
You can have the same strength and the same quality for less weight and for less money.

These were concepts they could only dream about in that era, and if they could have done it, they would have without hesitating.

>t. Brainlet

You're assuming too much based on a short statement, you don't have half the facts. I'm not against modern materials and designs, I just regret the loss of craftsmanship. Who doesn't like stocks made by skilled woodworkers and receivers carefully milled from a block of steel? On the other hand I love Glocks and the utilitarian value of modern materials, which can also be combined with good craftsmanship but so often aren't.

>colt forgetting (aka all the people who knew died) how to make a fucking python isn’t a big deal because the new cobra is just as strong!

Doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near as impressive of a feat as a python.

1911 isn't a longarm. I have 0 science with a m2 Browning

Yeah they're a massive pain in the dick to detail strip while cleaning. I've owned an a5, an 1894 win, and an 1897. They're all tremendous cunts to take apart.

Because of the operating system of the firearm, the recoil was quite harsh on those things

I never defended nuColt in that statement.

>implying the recoil on a 30-06 bolt isn’t harsh.

Think he meant to say “blicky” you abrasive defect

You called it a P17
That’s cute.

Attached: F8FED577-A5D4-4CD2-BE28-481965871D43.jpg (3761x1261, 1.74M)

Attached: 1561449115787.webm (800x450, 2.18M)

So you just go around fronting like you know what you're on about, but in reality dont know fuck all and hope no one corrects you?
Why? What gain do you get out of spreading misinformation?

Welcome to /k
Where anons puke back what they heard once at the gun store.
Where people with no knowledge will be the first to give their opinions

That's Phil.

Attached: phil-loves-boy-cock.png (1165x844, 99K)

Attached: 1544386812869.gif (256x188, 3.56M)

isn't phil a mod or janitor?

Why is the model 8 so expensive?

>Why is the model 8 so expensive?

It's also a neat gun, nice to look at or to shoot, plenty of shooters want one, and nothing like it will ever be made again.

Because ordinance department has and always will be concerned about muh fuckin stoppin powah

You also forget iron, gas, heat (yes old slang like that still makes the rounds), pointers (apparently derived from Hi-Point), and milli.

Old, also finely made. I want one just to try and make a turn off the century boogaloo load out

>long recoil has a brutal recoil impulse
Are you retarded? Set your friction rings tardo. Everything else is Trudeau, it's not that you couldn't make it work like the chauchet and m2 aren't very complex overall, but civilian guns don't need to be simplified.

no friction ring in the model 8 stupid nigger.

trench warfare mentality would be my guess.

Long recoil slomo footage is so satisfying

Attached: images(3).jpg (192x263, 6K)

new production model 8 in .458 win mag when

That will not be pleasant to shoot at all.

basedcuck

t.basedboy

Enjoy long-recoil exacerbating your recoil impulse.