Printable View
I am just curious. In particular the Army. I have and old Winchester that might be of that Era, but I think it's marked 1947. I have to go look at it. I can get pics if someone is interested in letting me know if it's that vintage.
Did the army ever use .22 pistols? I know about the HD suppressed ones for the OSS, but I mean like training pistols.
There was a model of the Colt Govt Model (1911A1 to the military) called the Service Model Ace. It was .22 LR cal. I believe it was used prior to WWII by the army. It was designed to have recoil similar to the service pistol. Many, many .22 LR cal pistols were used by the armed services for marksmanship competition. I supposed that could be called training but from at least the 1950's to the current time the services had pistol teams that used the .22 LR cal pistols. Probably a thousand times as many were used for competitive shooting as were used by the OSS. If you find a .22 caliber pistol that had markings that identify it with the military services it will almost certainly be pistol team equipment.
There is a book entitled U. S. Martial .22RF Rifles by Thomas D. Batha. My copy is copyrighted 2000 but may still be available. It pretty well answers your question about what .22 Cal rifles were used and when.
Thank you!! I was under the assumption that the army used .22 rifles, also, to train back then. But I have no clue why I thought that. Can't remember. Sounds like a good book to check out.
When I was in college ROTC (1955-1959) I was given what was called preliminary rifle instruction on an indoor range using the Remington 513T. I don't think they were used for basic training. My ROTC Coach was a WWII veteran from the 82nd Airborne Div. He told me the only time they had used the .22 rifle was in a special course of fire at a wide target depicting possible targets and hiding places. The course was primarily to learn to identify targets they were fired on with the M2 Springfield Rifle.
USMC used M65 Reisings for training . Some were equiped with suppressors to deal with small animals in jungle supply dumps . Some were "borrowed " for scouting use.
The Army used 1922 , 1922M1 and 1922M2 Springfields , Mossberg Model 42MBs ( most went to England ) and Model 44-US's , Stevens Model 416-2-T , Winchester Model 75s , and Remington Model 513-T for the most part. There is a smattering of others that may have been used on a limited level , maybe for recreational use.
Pistols used were the Colt Aces and Service Aces , Colt Woodsman , High Standard Model B-US , High Standard Model U.S.A. HD , and the Model U.S.A. HD MS ( suppressed ).
A very few High Standard Model A's and E's , some Colt Police Positives and Official Polices , and a few H&R 999 Sportsmans round them out , but prob'ly not used in training.
HTH , Chris
Winchester model 75's eh? I have to see what that one is I got. I'll be back. Thanks for that list!
I for one never understood the idea (story) of suppressed H&R 65's for rat control. Who was they trying to suppress the noice from? The rats?
In the island fighting , a unit might be pulled back from the line just a short distance for a rest . Get them out of the line , a shower , fresh clothing , a hot meal , and a cot and pillow. They would be sleeping at , around , or near the supply dumps . A 30-06 going off in the middle of the night to kill a rat ( or monkey or what-have-you ) could ( and did a few times ) wake up these sleeping men and start a fire fight in camp. The answer was Maxim suppressors attached to M65s that they already had back in the states . The machine shops in the states just modified the front ends to take the suppressors and shipped them over .
A few of the R&R troops spotted the weapons and thought they could be handy up front , so they took them. The one scout I met that carried one said that 4-5 quick .22s in the head from 10 yds or so was always effective.
Chris
No disrepect and don't want to start a fire fight here. But without proof I for one will just concider it as a nice story. I have in the past posted this story and links to the rifle posted on other forums and never once got a reply.
Frank
No offence taken here. They exist because I have one. Did not know what I had when I bought it. A few rows over from the table I bought it from I ran into the guy that claimed to have carried one. Took it over to my gunsmith friend at the same show and was going to stump him with it , but he also knew about them and said they had one at Trinadad (sp?) . Just thought then that it was a common thing I had just missed knowing about . Later found out most people did not know about them. I have also tried to get USMC to say yea or nay on this to no avail , they just shuffle me around from person to person and department to department till I give up on it. Have found a few vets who say they think they recall it , but again no proof. It is what it is , and there are relitive obscure clues that make me think it's a real deal , but if not , I still have an accurate .22 semi for $100 , so I'm OK.
Chris
Does it charge the action in that cutout on the bottom? Because I see no other way of cycling the action. They are pretty sweet though. I've always liked the reising 50. I never understood why they didn't make a carbine in .45 instead of .30 carbine. Like the resing, even if it would've been in semi. It would have made one less caliber to carry. Although I would imagine the .30 carbine has a little flatter trajectory and may be more affective at 200 meters or so. IDK. I've shot my M1 Carbine at 300 before and kind of stayed on a silhouette. But it wasn't the most accurate thing out at that distance. Of course, it is very old and it probably shot much better with a better muzzle crown and no TE.
Yep , the action bar sticks out from the reciever , under the barrel. End of it has a 90* turndown for your index finger to snag and pull back.
Chris
Interesting way to do it. I think that's how it is on the sub gun too. But it's been a while since I've studied them. I've never seen one in person either.
Also yep , pretty much the same design . The .22 is cheeper made and is not a tilt-lock bolt design . Also lacks the stud and FA parts , so very much like a M60 than a M50 or M55 . Much nicer rear sight , though .
Chris
IMHO, if the reising was more reliable, I would've thought it to be a handier weapon than the Thompson. Lighter and all that. Plus you could get them with the folding stock which would make them really handy for certain people. But I like the normal ole version. Just seems like it would've been a good weapon, as long as it would go boom.
They were and are good weapons . They were commercial , not military weapons when first made. They were hand fitted and the bolt lockup is sensitive to mud/sand/dirt . When the Marines first recieved them , not knowing about the hand fitting , they striped them and cleaned them and got the parts all mixed up. The ones that everyone talks about being thrown in the river were these mixed up ones that were hopelessly mismatched and it was done after the new batch of them had arrived .
Chris
Well what's interesting is any action is susceptible to dirt/sand/grime and even blood. I remember reading one book that specifically recalled an incident that a 1911 didn't go boom because there was so much caked on blood on it. Or something to that degree. I believe it was in the book, "Flags of our Fathers" and it was talking about when they were on Iwo. And I'm pretty sure Garands too. I mean, you put enough gunk into any action, and it might stop it moving. I suppose some actions might be better than others. I don't even want to speculate as to what is the best. I've owned many different weapons systems and there are very few that I have NEVER had a jam with. And that's just on a range. I do have to say though, out of all the weapons I've owned, my Beretta M9 has been the most reliable thus far. It also has the highest round count for me.
Anyways.... I like the reising. I wish I had one. Even if they made a semi version, I'd love one.