Myths, Old Wives Tales and Outright Lies...

Like many if not most of you I've 40 years of shooting experience. And like all of you, I was a newbie once. And I did not always have access to sober, responsible advice on shooting and weapons. Accordingly, I developed some bad habits and spewed nonsense I'd heard with confidence. Luckily I joined the US military and most of the active stupid was wrung out of me by 20 years old or so. Heck, If I'm truthin' it was probably a few years after that. :surrender:
So I was wondering what myths, legends, or just stubborn habits you held on to for maybe a little too long despite evidence to the contrary? I know admitted fault isn't popular these days, so I'll go first. These words spewed from my lips more than once back in the day " If it'll shoot a .22LR it'll take a .22 Magnum no problem". I seriously hope no one got hurt listening to me on that. I always said the "no problem" part with authority too. :nono:
What's yours? :madsmile:

AR rifles suck (uttered during my early years as a SWAT member when H&K firearms were considered the "cool" guns to carry and deploy). I have since learned that the AR platform is superior to the H&K platforms for tough, work related applications. Definitely teaches you that limited experience and what you see in the movies and on TV are no match for true, long term actual experience.

The Russians can use our ammo but we can't use theirs...(they did that deliberately...)

I have others too...they weren't mine though. I'd have to work to disprove them.

As for your .22 over .22 magnum, in our east coast there was a thought process I met when posted there that used to run a 1/4" drill bit into a .22 rifle and make it into a .22 magnum... They were adamant it was perfection. Picture your Cooey ace or Winchester thumb trigger in .22 mag?

Wow, 117 views and only two comments. I must walk among giants. :rolleyes:

I'm surprised...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atticus Thraxx

only two comments

---

LE rifles are inaccurate because of rear locking.
More than any other rear locking rifles.

LE rifles aren't as strong as other military rifles because or rear locking.
Although the other military cartridges of its time had similar ballistics and pressures.

The No5 Mk1 has tremendous muzzle blast and recoil.
Much more than any other similar make carbine. Although the writers stating that, haven't ever fired one.

At the impressionable age of 12 I was told by a gun shop bubba that WWII vintage optics were too old and fragile to use, turning me off vintage sniper rifles (specifically the No. 4 Mk I (T), which was a dream rifle) for a good 14 years. Although I didn't preach it, I did believe it for a number of years...

The Armalite's capabilities if it hit you in the hand the hydraulic shock would kill you!

But probably the best ones I have witnessed personnaly at our club one was a new guy trying to zero his 7mm Rem Mag at 700M he gave up did a combat roll off the mound ! He was asked not to return to the club.:surrender::banghead:

Another guy with his Rem 700 Police .308 tactictile type rifle trying to zero it at 400M put @40 rounds through it it was so hot you could smell the hot steel from 10 feet behind him carried on the breeze he gave up in disgust as it would not group it only had a standard thin profile barrel so would have been hard pressed to group after 20 continuous rounds:surrender:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

LE rifles aren't as strong as other military rifles because or rear locking.
Although the other military cartridges of its time had similar ballistics and pressures.

---

They aren't as strong, the reality is they are strong enough for what they need to do. They just aren't overbuilt like most other actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

They just aren't overbuilt like most other actions.

---

Well said!

The only old wives tales I used to really believe was that the AR-15 was insufficient as a service rifle. Over time, after handling many alternatives (M14s, Tavors, VZ58s, Type 81s, etc.), and realizing what capabilities it brings to the table (mainly quick repeatable shots, which is in a reliable, light weight, easy to maintain platform), that changed for me. Its going to suck when I have to turn mine in.

The most persistent one I was told by many was the Japanese could use our ammo in their rifles but we could not use theirs. That was why we had to gather up all ammo laying around loose during a battle. Year after year after year I heard this from people who should have known better.

Some of the Japanese machine gun ammo was almost identical to 303 IIRC. They used lots of captured British stuff too.

Not just "close": 7.7 x 56R WAS .303.

It was part of the package adopted by the Imperial Japanese Navy when they "adopted" most of their Naval technology, equipment, uniforms, and 'traditions" from the Royal Navy, WAY back in the late 19th century. It was used in "clones" of Vickers and Hotchkiss guns, the latter widely deployed by IJN "infantry", i.e., specialist landing parties. I have a couple of rounds here. A bit "crusty" but the marks from being in Hotchkiss strips while immersed in sea-water for years are quite evident.

There was, apparently a Japanese clone of the Lewis gun in the same round, as well.

Note that Italy also used their own "copy" of the .303 in at least one of their machine-guns.

The Britain / Japan "link" was two-way, as well. The RN acquired huge numbers of Type 30 rifles and bayonets, and some Type 38 rifles, for ship-board use. This helped to maintain supply of SMLE rifles and associated .303 ammo for "land' forces. The Type 30 bayonet, hooked quillon and all, was THE model for the Patt 1907 bayonet for the SMLE. This came about after "the system" decided that the Patt 1903 bayonet on a SMLE did not allow as much "reach" when bayonet fighting, compared to the "longer" Lee Enfield / Pat '88 combination and just about everybody else's rifle / bayonet rigs.

The Japanese Army seemed to prefer the Prussian "model", however.

The Russians, who were at war with the Japanese (1904/05), during which time they captured quite a few Arisakas, bought more before and during WW1. Thus the cartridge was well known in Russia. Hence its use in the Federov automatic rifle.

Kynoch in Britain manufactured a prodigious amount of 6.5 x 50 ammo both for the RN AND Russia.

Most of the RN rifles and ammo apparently ended up dumped in the Atlantic, post WW1.

"Ross rifles can always blow back"

"Ross rifles can never blow back"

Both myths.

Or, as Mark Twain succinctly put it:

"It ain’t what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so".

Several of the ones mentioned before I have heard.

The two most prevalent: "they can use our ammo but we can't use theirs" and the Lee Enfield is "weak and inaccurate because of the rear locking lugs, two piece stock and inferior cartridge."

Lets see I can think of a bunch:

The M1 rifle had a defect as when it fired the last round the "ping" of the ejecting clip would cause 30 or 40 Germans/Japs to rush the chap with an empty rifle. as if you could hear that or anyone would not worry about the other 7 or 8 man in the squad whose rifles were not empty.

The MG42 fired too fast...not if you understood German doctrine it didn't, and the Germans were the ones that used it....pretty darned effectively, it is the only WWII design still seeing active service nearly 80 years later (with a caliber change)

6.5 Jap MGs used a weaker cartridge than the Type 38. False, only took 45 years for that to be shown to be untrue.

The AR cannot be a winning 600 yard service rifle. Got disproved in 1994.

You cannot win the Finals at Bisley with anything other than a rear locking Enfield, disproved in 1986 by Tucker and a rather ugly Swing action. Of course it did depend on RG getting an improvement on the priming consistency.

The Jap 6.5 type 38 rifles were weak: often said until the famous 6.5/30-06 wildcat 1959 squeeze-bore showed otherwise.

Low number M1903 rifles were time bombs waiting to explode at any minute with safe M2 ball ammo. Strangely that was not the case in the USMC, the US Army in WWII and indeed they supplied reworked rifles to Greece in 1948.

Firing a few rounds of non corrosive ammo after a range session of corrosive ammo will blow out the fouling.

The G36 is way better than the M16 series of weapons, all the experts said so in 1996~97. 23 years later the G36 is fading away and the M16 series seems to still be plodding along towards 60 years of active service.

The 300 Win mag is the unbeatable cartridge for the Wimbledon cup (any rifle/any sight)... was true for many years last century...Until it wasn't any more, now almost no one shoots one in serious 1000 yard competition.

The M1903 was the most accurate service rifle ever fielded...until the K31 came along.

The K98K was really a hunting rifle in a military disguise…..No, it was a service rifle optimized primarily for snap shooting. Pretty effective in its intended role.

I am sure there are many more, those just popped into my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

The K98K was really a hunting rifle in a military disguise…..No, it was a service rifle optimized primarily for snap shooting

---

Could you post the basis for this please? I would love to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

The MG42 fired too fast...not if you understood German doctrine it didn't, and the Germans were the ones that used it....pretty darned effectively, it is the only WWII design still seeing active service nearly 80 years later (with a caliber change).

---

As I just happened to see a photo of a Browning M2 in British first line use, can this really be true? And of course the M2 was practically a WWI design, was it not?

Anyway, you've clearly got more of this info to hand than the rest of us, but that jumped out at me. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Browning M2 in British first line use

---

Unless you are certain this is an older gun, older pic...they aren't the same gun at all. If you didn't train on the new QCB version, you might have some problems. Not much the same, even the ammo is different.

Good catch on the M2 HMG, I should have clarified a regular rifle caliber MG used by the Infantry. You could also make a case the M1919 is still in use someplace in south America, but mostly on vehicles.

But as far as MMG or Univeral MMG it seesm the PKM, FN MAG and MG42/MG1/MG3 are pretty much it.

So my list possibly had a myth, depending on how deep you dive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

Could you post the basis for this please? I would love to know.

---

So the thing the K98K is critiqued for:

1) Open V/front ^ sight: not so precise sights.
2) rising comb on buttstock, if you use the standard target shooter cheekweld it gives you a nice shove.
3) Carbine sling, does not work in traditional shooting position, does work as anything but a slight hasty sling support.

But all of these features plus the following make it great snap shooter.

1) The laminated stock and bedding mean the rifle zero is very stable. Walnut rifles.......regulations required any stock that had zero shift problems was to be removed and replaced.
2) The sight ladder can be adjusted with the non-firing hand in position, in 50 M clicks. This can be done without looking at the sight

The German Infantry rifle concept was based on the idea that a fire firefight was a series of short time moments, when targets were available. Most of the time there will be no visible targets. When there are, a shot must be made immediately.

So the primary mission of the rifleman in engaging an enemy is:

1) loaded rifle at ready, head scanning for target for moment.
2) when target detected, keeping eye on the target (as if it stops and you look away you will lose the target
a) bring the rifle to your shoulder, large sights allow alignment without removing eye off of target
b) if range adjustment needs to be made, it can be done without disturbing sight alignment.
c) execute a quick shot. the rising comb helps keep the rifle recoil stable, as the cheekweld is not that heavy.

3) While observing the target area for the effect of shot, reload. Now because the primary purpose is to observe the effect, removing the rifle from the shoulder to operate the bolt is not discouraged. Action right in front of your face is likely to draw your attention away from the target, dropping at least the muzzle so that the bolt motion is not in your direct line of vison .

The compromises made in the design make a lot more sense when you consider the doctrine behind its use.

I am a novice with firearms I know a little but not a expert and I have gotten into a few discussions with people over .22 and .223 being the same caliber . Those people would argue that the .223 was a WAY BIGGER bullet . Weight wise yes I would agree but basicly same size around . I have had them pull out a .223 and say look at this , this is way bigger . I couldn't get them to under stand CALIBER . These people were few and most the AR type rifle they had was the only rifle they ever owned .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Unless you are certain this is an older gun, older pic...they aren't the same gun at all. If you didn't train on the new QCB version, you might have some problems. Not much the same, even the ammo is different.

---

Couldn't say how different this one is, but it certainly looks like the receiver, shroud, barrel and basic configuration are the same or nearly the same.

Frederick303, it seems most of the points you mention are applicable to all the military rifles of the same age; some more, some less. All problems solved by proper training.

I would like to read up about the doctrine, sounds very interesting. Could you recommend some sources please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

Frederick303, it seems most of the points you mention are applicable to all the military rifles of the same age; some more, some less. All problems solved by proper training.

I would like to read up about the doctrine, sounds very interesting. Could you recommend some sources please?

---

Read the German manuals: there is a pre WWII Weimar one that covers it conceptually, I think the number was Zdh 240 to 242.

There is not a good English source, as most of the translations of German manuals do not explain the underlying meaning of technical words all that well. To be honest it was WWII vets in the Rifle club that explained most of what these words meant. An example is the word "Zeitbild" It literally translates to "time picture" but as used in the manuals "zeitbilder" would be better translated to "time moments" German is full of these words which are in essence a concept, clear to a native speaker but not so clear to those of us who are trying to decipher meaning in a second language. Most of concepts most stated in the MG manuals, they cover the Zietbilder and the difference between "fire power" (rounds per second) and striking power (effective power, meaning either a hit or complete suppression of the opponent reducing his abiity to fight to zero). The German idea of fire suppression was different, rather than volume of fire, they looked at the effect of fire. So a large barrage of fire was considered less effective that a small volume of fire that hit. That concept was applied to all small arms, not just MGs. The German idea of fire suppression was different, rather than volume of fire it was effective hits that count, or strictly translated "striking power". A strike that hit a man in the jaw was much more effective in keeping an enemy squad down, not observing, or actively taking part in action then 50 rounds simply hitting the parapet. while the latter suppressed them at the moment, it had much less effect on their moral or state of fighting spirit once the fire was lifted. In that regard the single shot coming in and hitting one man who raised his head would me far more effective, which is the basis for rifle fire, it is always a point weapon. The primary way such fire can be effected is in observation and careful shots rapidly applied upon target detection. Hence rapid rifle fire like we do, (rapid fire stages) did not exist as a suppression concept, until the Russian campaign when things started to change due to mass Russian charges in the summer/winter of 1941.

hence the development of the K41/K43 and eventually the MP44. But I digress.

I suppose the problem would exist for a person who English was a second language. When you read "mission oriented orders" in a US manual what does it mean as opposed to normal "operation orders"? I seem to recall it was explained verbally when I first heard the phase, with examples to illustrate to the different between a task oriented order and a mission oriented order. So trying to get an first hand source that covers the nuance is difficult, Manuals are meant to be taught and references, they are not exhaustive. I would suggest knowing what the doctrine is and then reading the manuals will help illustrate the subtle different from

The idea originated in WWI, and the result was a new musketry course which was first applied to the strosstruppen, then the regular Infantry in the fall winter of 11918, That is confirmed in the long edition of "Storm of Steel " by Ernst Junger, where he discusses that. I was introduced to shooting by a US WWII Vet, whose father had gone through that course of fire in January-Feb 1918. For WWII training based on this concept, I believe the official history of the 12th SS has a detailed section on the small arms training. How it was taught. There is a 2 volume English version of this history. When you get done you will see where the US train fire program came from.

Sajer, Forgotten Soldier, if you read his book, covers both the doctrine in small arms training in Poland and how it was applied in his first firefight against partisans ( another German word: feuerkampf, which seems to have come over to English)

Shore in his book with British snipers to the Reich discusses a bit of this with misunderstanding. His emphasis on the rigid positions employed by the Germans in training misses that the technique was to ensure the same pressure points on the rifle, so one zero would work in all positions.

Many of the ideas translated over to the New Bundeswehr and most certainly the Bundesgrenzeschutz. Jac Weller discusses this in this 1960s/1970s American rifleman articles on rifle training though most of it goes over his head, because he sees rifle training in a commonwealth/US orientation. As such he misses the emphasis on rapid engagement with reasonable accuracy. If you can fined a Bundeswehr man trained prior to 1996 or so you can still see the concept in how they saw the G3 to be employed. Maybe latter what changes occurred with the G36 I know not.

I think if you are curious that will get you started.

So the doctrine was a smaller volume of effective fire suppresses better than a larger volume of near misses? Anyone who doubts that just needs to read the accounts of a sniper pinning a company to the ground.

So how does the high rate of fire of the MG42 tie into that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

The M1 rifle had a defect as when it fired the last round the "ping" of the ejecting clip would cause 30 or 40 Germans/Japs to rush the chap with an empty rifle. as if you could hear that or anyone would not worry about the other 7 or 8 man in the squad whose rifles were not empty.

---

We were told this exact thing at Military School...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

As I just happened to see a photo of a Browning M2 in British first line use, can this really be true? And of course the M2 was practically a WWI design, was it not?

Anyway, you've clearly got more of this info to hand than the rest of us, but that jumped out at me. ;)

---

UK used the M2 as a ranging gun in the Chieftain before the introduction of Tank Laser sight. It became a "thing" in GW1 with the Marines (and several senior officers) "obtaining" them from store, however the ammunition was in short supply. The UK stock was mostly APTI for ranging. Kynoch were the only UK manufacturer of .50 and they had stopped production years previously.

As part of the run up to GW2 a load of QC barrel change ones from ManRoy were bought as UOR. They are good, but much more picky with what ammo they like due to the mounting swiping recoil energy. Firing one over the side of a light vehicle can lead to stoppages as the rolling of the suspension takes even more.. Recoil operated guns... need recoil!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

The Russians can use our ammo but we can't use theirs...(they did that deliberately...)

---

That seems to be a popular thought that probably started in WWI when US GI tried German 8mm Mauser rounds in their M1903 Springfields and M1917 Enfields. Probably several GI telling war stories in the trenchs that the German rounds can be used in a pinch if we run out of ammo. It only takes one or more Sad Sacks to try. Hatcher actually studied these incidents after the war. The same story was probably told to his son who carried an M1 rifle in WWII and tried that same as it too made the popular rounds of the BS table.

The only Russian weapon system that I am aware that uses "our" munitions but we cannot use theirs is the Russian 82mm Mortar System. The Russian 82mm mortar can use the US 81mm Mortar rounds but the US 81mm mortar cannot use the Russian 82mm mortar rounds. I know the US military actually publish the firing tables for the use of US 81mm mortar rounds in the Russian 82mm mortar.

The other two tales that seems to get around is that the M16 5.56mm round is too small to kill. I usually tell the less informed "Then way does the US military still use the round since the mid 1960's I am pretty sure it is not to be humane. The other is the M16/AR platform does not need to be cleaned as it is self cleaning. While there is a bit of true to that statement it was a very errorous selling point in Vietnam that the rifle did not need to be cleaned. Yea, that got a lot of good Marines and GI killed. But its a story that will not die.

I had another one that an AK47 will not hit a man size target at 100 yards. I took the "gentleman's" AK and put 5 rounds the size of a fist into the chest of a man size target off hand standing. I gave the rifle back to him and said, "operator error."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjruple

That seems to be a popular thought that probably started in WWI when US GI tried German 8mm Mauser rounds in their M1903 Springfields and M1917 Enfields. Probably several GI telling war stories in the trenchs that the German rounds can be used in a pinch if we run out of ammo. It only takes one or more Sad Sacks to try. Hatcher actually studied these incidents after the war. The same story was probably told to his son who carried an M1 rifle in WWII and tried that same as it too made the popular rounds of the BS table.

---

It is amazing what you will do when things get desperate. For the Austrian-Hungarians captured 7.62x54r would be used in a emergency in their M95 and M88/90 rifles when the standard 8x50r wasn't available. Fortunately for them it just resulted in dismal accuracy, no real dangerous (to the shooter) side effect.

Thank you Frederick303. The doctrine makes it clear, seemed to work well for the German forces. Their concept of mission oriented action worked very well in South African operations in Angola too.

I'll read up what I can but my German isn't.

A story I heard while working in Riyadh just after the end of the first Gulf war:

A soldier in Kuwait wanted to test the indestructability of his Kevlar helmet; by pulling the pin on a live grenade then covering it with the helmet and sitting on it. When the grenade went off it blew his legs off.

The Enfield .38-200 No.2Mk.1* double action only revolver was designed for tank crews so the hammer spur wouldn't catch on things inside the tank. A load of complete and utter crap/mythology that continues to be written in every book time and time again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

A story I heard while working in Riyadh just after the end of the first Gulf war:

A soldier in Kuwait wanted to test the indestructability of his Kevlar helmet; by pulling the pin on a live grenade then covering it with the helmet and sitting on it. When the grenade went off it blew his legs off.

---

I've seen photos of the result of a American service man attempting to disassemble the bolt in his 50 cal, with a live round, striking the stuck firing pin with the primer end. Not a pretty photo.

Just thought of another commonly repeated myth. The whole all grey finished Belgian Mausers are 'Naval' issue. This was not the case and was simply the type of finish they decided on later in time so when these Mausers and FN-49s were refurbished depending on the date, some got greyed, and some were blued. Makes no sense when you think about it, as why would the Navy need so many firearms?