Military Review

Once again to the question about the Remington rifle with a butterfly valve (part 1).

56
In one of my articles published on the VO website, I talked about the Remington rifle, and the material was prepared based on the publication "Remington Rolling Block Military Rifles of the World" (George Layman. Woonsocket, RIUSA: Andrew Mowbray Incorporated Publishers, 2010 - 240pp ). The author of the book is a unique person in his own way: he served in the US Army for 21 years as a translator from Japanese, but also speaks Korean, German, Hungarian, Swedish, Spanish and Portuguese. He is the author of more than 1100 articles on weapons issues, and has starred in several historical Discovery Channel films as a "talking head". Well, the Remington rifle is one of the areas of his hobby. He collects and studies them. Certainly, the work of such an author deserves attention. At the same time, the previous publication caused a number of doubts among some VO readers. And someone even demanded from me scans of the quoted pages. However, their impatience and excitement is understandable. Not all articles on VO contain links to primary sources. Many therefore think, probably, that the authors are too free to dispose of the material they have, so that reading the text in the original allows you to remove these questions that have arisen, to learn a lot, and to make sure what and how Western historians write about Russia. They are not cheap and often illiterate journalists, and not politicians, but historians, people with good education, who value their reputation. Therefore, I asked my university colleague from the Department of Foreign Languages, Senior Lecturer, Shurupova Irina Vladimirovna, to translate the text that interested readers of the VO, as close as possible to the original source. So, open page 105 of the above edition and start reading:


Once again to the question about the Remington rifle with a butterfly valve (part 1).

Remington rifle bolt. Private collection.

Russia.
From the very beginning, Remington considered Russia as an important and promising customer of a rifle with a butterfly valve. The company did not spare the time and effort trying to draw Russia's attention to its products, but to no avail. In a letter to General Dyer of 23 in May of 1871, Mr. Sam Norris refers to his brother John, who was present at all official trials. But it did not help. Probably no one, including the Norris brothers, knew that Russia had decided to adopt a new rifle, which they could produce on their own. The 1861 in Russia adopted the Berdan-I rifle, which was largely the result of the joint work of Colonel Alexander Gorlov and captain Karl Gunnius with Colt from the United States. The Russians were so determined not to depend on foreign suppliers that in 1871 they abandoned the Berdan-I rifle in favor of the Berdan II single-shot rifle with a sliding bolt because it was better, but because it was easier to produce . As we have seen from the experience of Austrian manufacturers and we will see later on others, the rifle with a butterfly valve was difficult to manufacture, and Russia with its limited industrial capabilities was well aware of the problem of creating a new industry, purchasing machinery, training workers and switching to new weapon and all at the same time.


Book cover by George Lauman. In hardcover without delivery, it costs 40 dollars today.

The second opportunity to open the Russian market appeared during the Russo-Turkish War (April 1877-March 1878). At this time, the Remington company was virtually bankrupt, although it did its best to hide it. Samu-el Norris and Watson Squier arrived in St. Petersburg. Prior to this, Squier received a telegram from Colonel Gorlov, in which he urged him to leave for St. Petersburg that evening. Remington & Sons was so broke that Squier had to pay out of pocket for the trip.


Advertising of the Remington M1896 rifle for cartridges of various calibers.

Gorlov was well-disposed towards the Remington system and did not like Berdan II. He apparently sent a memorandum to the Minister of War General Milyutin with a request to carefully consider Remington. Milyutin showed no interest and wrote a rather caustic note stating that Russia is not the Papal State or Egypt, and that it is very important for Russia to develop its own production of modern weapons.

Nor Norris, nor Squier were not devoted to this correspondence and continued their attempts to interest the Russians with a butterfly valve, and if this does not work out, then with the Remington Keane magazine rifle. They also understood that there could be no question of making new butterfly valves in Russian rifles of Berdan in .42 caliber quickly enough to have hope of receiving an order, so Squier tried to sell them a Spanish model. He wrote to General Barantov: “Although this weapon has the .433 caliber and the Russian rifle, Berdan, the .42 caliber, it was repeatedly found in America that the shell with the Russian Berdan's shell fired quite successfully with the Spanish Remington rifle, with good results in terms of accuracy and range. (The quote is taken from Joseph Bradley's “Weapons for the Tsar”. Univer-City-Press Northern Illinois.)


The stamp model M1867.

28 October 1877 Mr. Squier received a brief note from the head of the artillery department, stating that the Russian government does not intend at present to resort to foreign orders for weapons or ammunition.

In fact, Remington sold rifles with a butterfly valve to Russia, but 35 years later, when they were considered obsolete long ago. The Russian contract for rifles is almost unknown. Some authors, namely Phil Sharp and R.O. Ackley mentioned that the Russian 7.62 caliber cartridges were used in firearm rifles in World War I. But they had no specific information. Although some of them may have been used, the order dates from the period immediately after the Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905.


Advertising Remington 1871 of the Year and the assortment of bayonets attached to it.

I first learned about this royal order in the spring of 1966 in a hobby store that belonged to my father. It was in Wallingford, Connecticut. One of my father's buyers was an 86-year-old elderly gentleman who used to work at the Remington factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and retired at 1947. Before that, he worked at the factory in Ilio, New York, but somewhere then after World War I he was transferred to Connecticut. He had a clear memory, and he remembered well that it was 50 years ago, when Tsarist Russia actually ordered "several thousand rifle bolts." And ... he had evidence. I should have offered him 100 $ for him before I joined the army in 1969. Now I think I did a disservice to Remington and myself by not making a serious effort to get this document. But at least I could read it several times.

This important piece of evidence was the 16-page newsletter for Remington employees, who were most likely hung on a bulletin board in the meeting room. At the top of the page there were a lot of holes from the clerical buttons, the corners of the pages were bent and there was a date - December 1914. It contained a list of foreign shipments of firearms to the company and their number from 1900 to 1914, as well as thanks to the staff for their work 14 years. It also referred to the recently launched war in Europe. Two pages were completely devoted to the “new era for the old favorite — the new model of the small-caliber Remington rifle.” There was a list of approximately 15 countries that bought a new Remington rotary valve with smokeless powder for cartridges from 1900 to 1914 g. Their number was also indicated, some indicated the model and caliber. There were also references to the near future, that is, the First World War. On one of the pages in bold it was highlighted "The former European Customer can again receive his order in significant quantities." This, of course, meant the French Republic. Russia was among these 15 countries. I clearly remember that in the column under the Russian order it was written “two thousand nine hundred eighty-one, model 1897, special small-caliber rifle caliber 7.62-mm for tsarist Russia after the war with Japan”. This document also mentioned some countries in South and Central America, which made purchases of the M1897 rifle. This newsletter should be considered one of the most valuable parts of the Remington Post, produced by the company for its employees during the late remington period with a butterfly valve. All persistent attempts to locate her whereabouts have not yielded any results.


Scheme of the device and operation of the Remington shutter.

Before I found the rifle, which is shown here in the photo, I saw only two of these mysterious Russian rifles with a butterfly valve. I found the first one in Vietnam in 1971 at a dump of weapons seized from the enemy. I was able to look at it and take some notes, but there could be no talk of photographs, even if I had a camera. She had a typical Vietcong, fabric-sewn, home-made rifle belt. The markings on the back of the receiver were erased, but approximately 3 inches in front of the cracked and repaired trigger handle could be pretty clearly disassembled "CAL.7.62R". Something was written in Russian Cyrillic on the sealing gasket of the receiver and on both sides of the body. I clearly remember that in several places was the serial number 428. I had a feeling as if I had found the Grail. In addition to the caliber, I also noted the 2TA barrel and that there was nothing for the ramrod.

The Russo-Japanese War began in February 1904 with a surprise attack by the Japanese on Port Arthur in the Russian Far East. All hostilities took place in China, Manchuria and Korea. At the heart of this conflict were the claims of Russia and Japan on the territory and trade privileges, and it is generally accepted that Japan won a convincing victory.

(To be continued)
Author:
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. qwert
    qwert 4 May 2016 07: 20
    +7
    There was no need to divide the article into short parts. A twice as much volume would be just right.
    I understand that for the war with Japan, the tsarist government bought ONE-CHARGE rifles ??? And Mosinsky, who did not have time to produce in the right amount? A store purchase, it was a pity for the money? In short, I'm in shock
    1. kalibr
      4 May 2016 07: 58
      +3
      Very large articles are difficult to read. And then you can always download both parts, connect and read at any time slowly.
    2. Aposlya
      Aposlya 4 May 2016 08: 19
      +2
      And how did this rifle load? Through the open shutter in the breech?
      1. kalibr
        4 May 2016 11: 53
        +2
        The cartridge was inserted into the chamber and pressed against the shutter. Then the trigger came down and hit the drummer passing through the bolt!
    3. Amurets
      Amurets 4 May 2016 08: 28
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      I understand that for the war with Japan, the tsarist government bought ONE-CHARGE rifles ??? And Mosinsky, who did not have time to produce in the right amount? A store purchase, it was a pity for the money? In short, I'm in shock

      Now I was looking at the literature on this topic. Also there was bewilderment. The Mosin rifle, the first 7,62mm weapon in the Russian Imperial Army. Here is a link to the most complete list of small arms. Barsukov: "Artillery of the Russian Army1900-1917" I'll give you a link.http: //militera.lib.ru/h/barsukov_ez2/13.html
      In general, Barsukov’s book is a 4-volume edition of 1948-1949.
  2. AK64
    AK64 4 May 2016 08: 19
    +1
    The adventures of American crooks in Russia, so called
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 4 May 2016 08: 35
      +1
      Quote: AK64
      The adventures of American crooks in Russia, so called

      The adventures of "crooks from weapons" in Russia began after the * Crimean War of 1853-1856 *, when they began to replace smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones.
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 May 2016 09: 07
        0
        The adventures of "crooks from weapons" in Russia began after the * Crimean War of 1853-1856 *, when they began to replace smooth-bore weapons with rifled ones.

        Yes, before: as the contacts began, the crooks climbed up the natives with a pair of beads for gold. Well, with the development of transport and the number of crooks increased.

        But if we talk about single-charge --- Peabody Martini, it was a great design: it’s both simple and quick. And this Remington ... / and spat out /
        1. Forest
          Forest 4 May 2016 10: 49
          0
          Remington is an excellent rifle, no need to distort.
          1. Dora2014
            Dora2014 4 May 2016 12: 15
            +2
            how do you know and different from what? So, blurted out on the clave and hello ...
            1. Forest
              Forest 4 May 2016 13: 01
              +1
              How do you know that is bad?
              1. AK64
                AK64 4 May 2016 13: 04
                0
                How do you know that is bad?

                How do you know what is good?

                What's bad: just look at the drawing.
                One simple example: if the sleeve is inflated (a sore point at that time), then how to tear it out? thumb movement with such a small lever? Oh well...
                1. kalibr
                  4 May 2016 13: 33
                  +2
                  The rifle was very widespread. If the aforementioned defect took place, then information about it even then would spread quickly. So not so often this happened. In addition, the sleeve can be knocked out with a ramrod.
                  Quote: AK64
                  (sore point at that time)

                  Here you write that this is a sore point. Supposedly you are a specialist. But you do not really know this for sure! Where, in what article, by whom and when this issue was examined? Maybe just at Remington the sleeve was never inflated? And vice versa - some rifles often. But often not for everyone. That is, you do not know exactly, you assert it without proof. So, by and large, it is impossible. It is necessary to indicate where, when, by whom such a study was carried out, the frequency of inflation. The most "inflated sleeve" ... The most "non-expandable". Then everything will be objective and without fantasies!
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 4 May 2016 13: 53
                    0
                    The rifle was very widespread.

                    That's for sure --- all sorts of natives. None of the first-class armies took this. and neither the patent nor the license rushed to buy.
                    Even the wild Turks - and then Peabody Martini and the Winchesters found out for some reason. Looks like stupidity - did not see where the happiness.

                    If the aforementioned defect took place, then information about it even then would spread quickly. So not so often this happened.

                    Yeah ... Here in the Russian instructions, for example to Krnk, it was recommended to open the shutter blow palm, not finger. The reason is precisely the extraction of the liner. And about the bolt the same "stupid" Russians directly wrote "only bolt provides reliable extraction". And they wrote not today but then .
                    But why should Shpakovsky read what stupid Russian natives write? Whether it’s civilized Americans ...

                    In addition, the sleeve can be knocked out with a ramrod.

                    And how will this affect the rate of fire?
                    Who needs a rifle from which cartridges, even if one of 50, have to be beaten with a ramrod?

                    On the hunt, it’s okay: the second time you shoot. And in battle?

                    So you write that this is a sore point.

                    I am writing, I am writing ...

                    Ostensibly you are a specialist.

                    I don’t embroider a cross.

                    But you don’t really know this!

                    How is it "I don't know"? It is constantly mentioned in Russian documents. Not about Remington specifically, but generally mentioned.
                    Talk at least with hunters who old brass sleeves repeatedly rebooted: regularly sleeves in a trunk bursts. But at the break, it’s quite easy to tear it out: it rustles around the aspen, and you bend it. (You can birch: if there is no aspen.)

                    Where, in what article, by whom and when did this question be understood?

                    В
                    Russian
                    instructions.

                    The advantage of a bolt in a single charge --- only one --- confident extraction.

                    Maybe just at Remington the sleeve was never inflated? And vice versa - with some rifles often. But often not for everyone. That is, you do not know exactly, you assert it without proof. So, by and large, it is impossible. It is necessary to indicate where, when, by whom such a study was carried out, the frequency of inflation. The most "inflated sleeve" ... The most "non-expandable". Then everything will be objective and without fantasies!

                    Yah?
                    So we will buy cartridges from America?
                    We will not produce at home?

                    It does not depend on a gun. It depends on the sleeve.
                    And then the sleeves were generally copper --- and copper is much worse than brass specifically for inflating: there is little elasticity in it.


                    (Oh, these historians are to me ... Almost like philologists ... I remember when I studied at the university, I loved philology very much ...)

                    PS: the most famous example of inflation and extraction problems: a 20-mm ShVAK gun, which had regular plugs precisely because of extraction. All the way to tear the sleeve
                    1. kalibr
                      4 May 2016 14: 04
                      +1
                      All that you wrote above is about nothing. Specifically, you did not answer my questions. In the instructions ... Funny! Where are the comparisons? Where% in which rifle shells inflated more? And why switch to guns? What was the logic in your university? The dispute must be conducted correctly and reasonably.

                      “How is this“ I don’t know? ”It is constantly mentioned in Russian documents. Not about Remington, but in general it is mentioned” - to read to me personally it is simply ridiculous. Usually give the title, year of issue and number of pages.
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 4 May 2016 14: 11
                        0
                        All that you wrote above is about nothing. Specifically, you did not answer my questions.

                        Now - I’ll give up everything and run to Shpakovsky to answer.


                        In the instructions ... Funny! Where are the comparisons?

                        Manual to Crank.

                        Where% in which rifle shells inflated more?

                        And this does not depend on the gun, but on the sleeve. Including from the material from which it was made.

                        And why switch to guns?

                        Who cares? itwidely known example mass bloating.
                        Known even to children.

                        What was the logic in your university?

                        \ yawning \
                        I only have tribunes in diamonds - and in the rest there are five ...

                        The dispute must be conducted correctly and reasonably.

                        With links to American authorities? The ones that confuse Sevastopol with Leningrad? (Met at theirs "historians" and such)

                        reading to me personally is just ridiculous. Usually they give the name, year of issue and No. of pages.

                        (1) funny - don't read. Or vice versa - read
                        (2) I have no desire to waste time on the convictions of a stubborn ignorant historian. No. I said --- and who made what conclusions — so people in a free country are free — have the right
                      2. kalibr
                        4 May 2016 16: 15
                        0
                        Then do not answer! Nobody makes you answer.
                        Quote: AK64
                        With links to American authorities? The ones that confuse Sevastopol with Leningrad? (Met at theirs "historians" and such)
                        Why? You wrote about our documents, do you refer to them? Well, about the "ignorant historian" you are in vain. When the last time there was a dispute, I found the material and brought it. And while you write only empty words.
                      3. AK64
                        AK64 4 May 2016 17: 01
                        0
                        You wrote about our documents, do you refer to them? Well, about the "ignorant historian" you are in vain. When the last time there was a dispute, I found the material and brought it. And while you write only empty words.

                        I repeat once again: I do not intend to waste time convincing the "historian Shpakovsky" (or anyone else at all).

                        If the obvious arguments do not convince, then I do not care: from the fact that Shpakovsky didn’t understand the rest, the lock-during-shot-shutter is bad - my dream will not suffer.

                        But here's an "argument" like "passan and you with what region?" in the mouth of an intelligent person cannot but amuse.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  • AK64
    AK64 4 May 2016 08: 30
    +3
    Many people therefore think, probably, that the authors are too free to dispose of the material they have, so reading the text in the original allows you to remove these questions, find out a lot, and make sure that and how Western historians write about Russia. Not cheap and often illiterate journalists, and not politicians, namely historians, people with a good education, who value their reputation.

    In fact, they, Western historians, write this .... Ears are curled up into a tube. They "value" their "reputation" in the West - what is the Russian reputation to them?

    What is the opinion that the Soviets delivered Remington rifles to Vietnam ... Yeah, the Soviet had nothing to do - remington in the warehouse to look for and bring them to Vietnam.

    In Russia there was a fair amount of Berdanok, both the 1st and 2nd. They did not know what to do, and they sold the population like hunting weapons. And most importantly, there were plenty of cartridges for them. The last Berdanks shot civilian7 (After civilian, they are only found in private hands.)

    So why do Russians remington? And he is, especially in comparison with Berdanka.

    A normal Russian historian should be able to treat “sources” with skepticism. A normal historian knows that you shouldn't believe everything that is written. Moreover, you should NOT believe anything, and PROVE the truth of what is written.

    History is a section of agiprop. I have said several times here that the "world history" which the whole world is "studying" was written in the village of Bychiy Brod, bychinnobrods, that is, wise men. (One of those then, out of boredom, also wrote some lengthy "war and peace" about the rings) What exactly they wrote there - you yourself understand: you need to filter everything through gauze.
    1. Rom14
      Rom14 4 May 2016 10: 21
      +1
      Last year, with a 32-caliber Berdank, he fired a bullet .., thing.!
    2. kalibr
      4 May 2016 12: 06
      +1
      Quote: AK64
      What is the opinion that the Soviet delivered Remington rifles to Vietnam ...

      And where does Lauman say that they were supplied by the USSR? "Found" and "put" are completely different verbs in meaning.
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 May 2016 13: 01
        +1
        And where does Lauman say that they were supplied by the USSR? "Found" and "put" are completely different verbs in meaning.


        This is a hint.
        And the correct verb is there: invented. Invented he is everything.

        They write:
        I saw only two of these mysterious Russian bolt-action rifles. The first I discovered in Vietnam in 1971 at a dump of weapons seized from the enemy. I was able to examine it and make some notes, but there was no question of photographs, even if I had a camera. She had a typical Vietnamese, fabric-sewn, home-made gun belt. The marking on the back of the receiver was obliterated, but about 3 inches in front of the cracked and repaired trigger handle, the “CAL.7.62R” could be read quite clearly. On the sealing gasket of the receiver and on both sides of the case, something was written in Russian Cyrillic. I clearly remember that in several places there was serial number 428. I had the feeling as if I had found the grail. In addition to the caliber, I also noted the 2TA barrel and that there was nothing for the ramrod.


        That is, dude found the grail (he said so himself !!!), admired her, and ... threw her away. And then he went. But then he began to tell everyone: "Yes, I found the grail: here are those cross! "

        And should we believe that? Oh well..

        He didn’t have a camera, he couldn’t take a picture ... Yes, such a worried collector would have bought it, or stole it - but would not have left it.
        And in order to remove copies of the stamps - the camera is not even needed: Russian commanders, with 5 classes of education, managed a leaf from a notebook and a pencil. (Well, by the way, everything is true - where did Amer get a pencil from? He has a golden Parker! Well, he could use a dirty finger - after all grailBecause he said so!)
        1. kalibr
          4 May 2016 13: 38
          +1
          He was the wife of the war, not at a picnic. I looked, threw it and went. It wasn’t before. And it’s unlikely that the Americans should look for hints. Why should he hint? Would you like to say so? The man is the author of 1100 articles that have been read by serious experts - sorry, not a couple to you - so do not quibble over him. And by the way, this is not a Bible to believe. A person writes about facts that took place to be, but which is still impossible to verify. This happens all the time. Well, let's wait for something to appear.
          1. AK64
            AK64 4 May 2016 14: 05
            +1
            He was the wife of the war, not at a picnic. I looked, threw it and went. Not before.


            Yep ...
            Illiterate, with 5th grade, Soviet commanders in the Second World War somehow managed to copy all labels from new (for them) samples of German technology. No camera. (Previously, all Soviet schoolchildren knew this method: a little notebook from a notebook and a Whack-Whack pencil ... And even if there is no pencil, you can use a dirty finger)

            And it is unlikely that the Americans should look for hints. Why should he hint? Would you like to say so? The man is the author of 1100 articles that serious experts read - sorry, not a couple to you - so do not quibble over him.

            Typical scoop ...
            A scoop, it’s like: a scoop, he doesn’t understand arguments and arguments. But the scoop understands only the mandates: whoever has a greater mandate - that means, and right.
            How many times have I met this incident from Soviet scientists: it will rest against a wheeze until you show it a mandate - and then it immediately subsides, immediately relents and even looks guilty.

            So, Mr. Shpakovsky, I have a mandate. And he is not very small.
            Another thing is that I consider it indecent to shake it, even in the company of Soviet people. (He was like that since childhood, he didn’t like screaming instead of arguments, but over the past ... years he also completely decomposed from his surroundings)

            And by the way, this is not a Bible to believe. A person writes about facts that took place to be, but which is still impossible to verify. This happens all the time. Well, let's wait for something to appear.


            He spells out his fantasies.
            Not one of the first-class European armies took a weapon for arms - and this is a fact. Only the natives or poor Spaniards used it (reached, poor fellows, to the point)
          2. AK64
            AK64 4 May 2016 14: 05
            0
            He was the wife of the war, not at a picnic. I looked, threw it and went. Not before.


            Yep ...
            Illiterate, with 5th grade, Soviet commanders in the Second World War somehow managed to copy all labels from new (for them) samples of German technology. No camera. (Previously, all Soviet schoolchildren knew this method: a little notebook from a notebook and a Whack-Whack pencil ... And even if there is no pencil, you can use a dirty finger)

            And it is unlikely that the Americans should look for hints. Why should he hint? Would you like to say so? The man is the author of 1100 articles that serious experts read - sorry, not a couple to you - so do not quibble over him.

            Typical scoop ...
            A scoop, it’s like: a scoop, he doesn’t understand arguments and arguments. But the scoop understands only the mandates: whoever has a greater mandate - that means, and right.
            How many times have I met this incident from Soviet scientists: it will rest against a wheeze until you show it a mandate - and then it immediately subsides, immediately relents and even looks guilty.

            So, Mr. Shpakovsky, I have a mandate. And he is not very small.
            Another thing is that I consider it indecent to shake it, even in the company of Soviet people. (He was like that since childhood, he didn’t like screaming instead of arguments, but over the past ... years he also completely decomposed from his surroundings)

            And by the way, this is not a Bible to believe. A person writes about facts that took place to be, but which is still impossible to verify. This happens all the time. Well, let's wait for something to appear.


            He spells out his fantasies.
            Not one of the first-class European armies took a weapon for arms - and this is a fact. Only the natives or poor Spaniards used it (reached, poor fellows, to the point)
            1. kalibr
              4 May 2016 16: 20
              0
              Look how you got it. Mandate! Well, eat and rejoice. But again, these are the words. Few people have anything ...
              1. The comment was deleted.
    3. bbss
      bbss 4 May 2016 13: 24
      0
      And the camera didn’t happen ... Now they usually say that the battery on the phone is dead ...
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 May 2016 13: 37
        0
        And the camera didn’t happen ... Now they usually say that the battery on the phone is dead ...


        Not a fotik, not a pencil, not even a notebook: a dude went digging into a pile of trophy scrap (he describes it as scrap). But at the same time he did not take either a camera or a pencil with him. Found a dude in a crowbar Grail vessel (his own words!). I looked, played around - and ... threw it back into the pile.

        But then he told everyone. Yeah.
  • AK64
    AK64 4 May 2016 08: 35
    +2
    We look:
    I clearly remember that in the column under the Russian order it said "two thousand nine hundred eighty-one, model 1897, a special small-caliber rifle with a caliber of 7.62 mm for tsarist Russia after the war with Japan."

    That is, we have:
    (1) there is no document, but the author "who values ​​his reputation" clearly remembers ". Well, well ... Are there no copiers at the Remington company? The "historian who appreciates his reputation" did not find a camera to make a copy? Only "clearly remembers".
    (2) Is that what it says "Tsarist Russia"? That is, in the document allegedly of 1914, "Tsarist Russia"? That is, there was some other, not "royal"?

    In my opinion, this is enough to throw this little book in the trash6 regardless of its price of $ 40 in a hard cover.
  • AK64
    AK64 4 May 2016 10: 17
    +2
    Quote: Amurets
    Perplexity also appeared ..

    Well, you should have been puzzled when Shpakovsky published his first article. There data on the rate of fire and "simplicity": utter crap.
    It is clear that Shpakovsky did not invent it himself, but quotes this "historian of Remington". But why believe obvious advertisements?

    Let's compare Remington Castle with
    (1) Peabody Martini
    (2) Krnk
    (3) Berdanka-2
    (4) banal hunting break.
    So, in comparison with any of the renamed, literally any of them, the "revolving lock" of Remington looks very bad.
    And all the stories about the "simplicity" and "rate of fire" of the Remington castle are nothing more than advertising, which costs 2 kopecks (and these 2 kopecks were sold to Shpakovsky for $ 40 --- people can do it, enviable.). Only Russian natives can buy into this (and, as we can see, they did not buy in real life - already in the 19th century there were completely naive ones. But in the 20th, glory to the CPSU, new ones appeared)

    If you want, then the ideal of the army (namely the army, and not, say, hunters) single-shot, then this is Peabody Martini. Definitely. Simple, easy, surprisingly fast.
    1. kalibr
      4 May 2016 12: 01
      +1
      This "crap" is taken from Markevich, Plotnikov, Shokarev and Dragunov. These are our authors from different years. All well-known experts, authors of many books. This is their asset. What do you have in your assets, Andrey? We look at the profile: a visitor, 0 articles, that is, only an opinion, nothing but skepticism is not confirmed. But, alas, the opinion of different people is worth it in different ways! The opinion of some is expensive, others ... very few.
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 May 2016 12: 52
        0
        This "crap" is taken from Markevich, Plotnikov, Shokarev and Dragunov. These are our authors from different years. All well-known experts, authors of many books.

        Yeah - compilers are not "authors". Just like you, copy and paste from the English language. With the difference that you honestly cite a source of life-giving knowledge.

        This is their asset. What is your asset, Andrey? We look at the profile: visitor, articles 0, that is, only an opinion that is not confirmed by anything but skepticism. But, alas, the opinions of different people are different! The opinion of some is expensive, others ... very few.

        Oh yes, there are no articles on the site ... "In our circle of philatelists, nobody knew... "The argument, what. WHY do I need articles on the site? The highest reputation in the circles of nose pickers?"

        So, at least 20 articles, at least a hundred - but the spinning shutter of the remington sucks, even in comparison with Krnk. But Krnk is an ersatz, an improvisation, a conversion gun, which was converted from a muzzle charge into a treasury charge. But at the same time, the result, in the sense of just a shutter and only a shutter, was better than remington! It is simpler, cheaper, and even more reliable, in the sense of extracting bloated cartridges (a sore point at that time, who understands. Yes, and today a sore point).

        For low energy, that is, for hunting - a break is much better.
        For army single-shot: not only Martini-Henry, but even Krnk is better.
        1. kalibr
          4 May 2016 13: 47
          +1
          Quote: AK64
          Oh yes, "there are no articles" on the site ... "In our circle of philatelists, nobody knew ..." WHY do I need articles on the site? Highest reputation in nose picking circles?


          Well, why are you so about people you don't know? It's just an indicator of competence. When a person writes for people ... he develops his mind, "gray cells", as Hercule Poirot said. Muscles develop by swinging, and brains by writing. This is not my idea. Moreover, no one argues with you that Remington is a dead-end branch, that it appeared and disappeared "without leaving offspring." And Minister Milyutin wrote about the same - I have about it! It's just that the peremptory nature of your judgments is alarming. To say this, you must have a right to this, confirmed by the opinion of experts, and by whom and when was your opinion confirmed? It will be more polite not to chop off the shoulder. Not all of them are junior scoopers of the sewage wagon ...
          1. AK64
            AK64 4 May 2016 15: 41
            -1
            Well, why are you so about people whom you do not know? It’s just an indicator of competency.

            This is an indicator of demagoguery. When instead of arguments - the amount of paper written.

            When a person writes for people ... he develops his mind, "gray cells", as Hercule Poirot said. Muscles develop by swinging, and brains by writing. This is not my idea.


            I can tell you a joke on the topic: once in a certain university a book publisher walked around the department and spoke with potential authors of books. And so he says in one quite famous professor in circles:
            - how many articles do you have?
            - Yes, 30 or something ...
            - How 30? Look, your neighbor is so young, just an assistant professor, and he has as many as 130!
            - Ahhh ... So I have others Articles

            So what you call "articles" only makes you smile. I try to write exactly others articles. Right now, instead of finally tapping the changes at the request of the publisher, I spend time on you.
            (And you, note, do not appreciate)

            Moreover, no one argues with you that Remington is a dead-end branch, that it appeared and disappeared "without leaving offspring."

            And Martini-Henry did not leave.
            But Martini-Henry for a single charge is cheap, easy to manufacture and use, fast, compact. And ringing is expensive, complex, weak, unreliable.

            And Minister Milyutin wrote about the same thing - I have about it! Just peremptory of your judgments alarming. To say so, you must have the right to this, confirmed by the opinion of specialists, and by whom and when has your opinion been confirmed? It will be polite and will not chop off the shoulder. Not everyone here is the junior scoop of the wagon train ...

            This is not "categorical" - it is brevity.
            The forum is forcedly telegraphic style - without commas.
            The limited amount of forum posts does not imply a lot of debate. And I already have a lot written here.

            So I try to be brief.

            Well, that did not get up twice:
            why is remington expensive and unreliable?
            In addition to the obvious problem with extraction, remington has an ugly property: the shutter locks during the shot. Not locked up, but locked in the process. This in itself is bad in a simple single-charge mechanism. (In automatic such things are inevitable, but they are not very fond of them there.) But besides the fact that this is bad in itself, the accuracy of fitting the surfaces of the bolt block and the trigger is extremely important. And exactly means expensive.
            Further, sand or other dirt on this surface - and .. failure.

            But at the rifles or Martini-Henry everything is locked until shot, with a pen. No special purity or accuracy is required anywhere, and if you get the sand where you’ll close it, you either close it by force or, understanding the problem, open it. you blow it and close it. But in a remington you will find out about this only if you refuse to shoot.

            That's why the price, and therefore the unreliability.
            The principle of "locked when fired" is obviously not good enough.
            1. kalibr
              4 May 2016 16: 23
              0
              Quote: AK64
              So what you call "articles" only makes you smile. I try to write exactly other articles. Right now, instead of finally pushing for changes at the request of the editors, I'm spending time on you.
              Oh, others? And the editors dare to make you comments and you correct them? But how ... And you can read them in the Questions of history, yes, or ... where? And how do you know that she is yours? And what citation index do you have Scopus, Hirsch, Rinz - interesting?
              1. AK64
                AK64 4 May 2016 17: 13
                0
                Oh, others? And the editors dare to make you comments and you correct them?

                Well, they asked to shorten the introduction.
                That's what: a friend there was asked to divide the article into two ... (He was offended and published these 70 pages with a hook in another place.)

                But how ... And you can read them in the Questions of history, yes, or ... where?

                And where did you get the idea that I'm a historian?

                And how do you know that she is yours?

                Why do you need to find out? First of all, I don’t understand why I should deceive you: you’re not like a duffer, and I don’t seem to have any serious intentions in your address ...

                If you were a girl, up to 30 years old, I would certainly try to deceive you, and more than once. And so why should I strain on nothing? What is the point?

                And what citation index do you have Scopus, Hirsch, Rinz - interesting?
                Why do you need it? Without mandate you can not?
                I actually stick to the rule "came to the bathhouse - take off the order"
                Funny in the bath in the orders, and it’s burning
                1. kalibr
                  4 May 2016 17: 32
                  +1
                  "But in different ranks we are" - you know about me, but I do not about you. And my interest is simple, I don't like dealing with anonymous people. Used to, you know, dealing with people I know. And I do not see anything shameful in this, to introduce myself to another person. About cheating ... I believe, but I'm just wondering what other people interested in weapons are working on. It enriches any knowledge. And about your buddy ... scientific articles are now being published for money. Therefore, more than 5-8 pages are not published - it is expensive. There are VAK and SKOPUS editions, there, too, for money (in SKOPUS $ 1 on average), and there, too, no one will take 70 pages. And he will not have enough money to buy that much himself. And for free in Questions ... 10-15 pages maximum. And the question is, what did he write and where did he manage to publish, where are such miracles? I don’t know, although I was published in the VAK publications, and with Hirsch and Rinz ... You surprised and intrigued me. Or maybe a lie, eh?
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 4 May 2016 18: 46
                    0
                    You know about me, but I do not know about you.

                    First, why do you need it? No, really, how will this knowledge change your life? It seems to me that it will not change in any way.

                    And secondly, it’s reasonable to ask for personal information in PM. (This doesn’t mean anything, I will let you know, but it’s better to ask in PM.)

                    Again, I know nothing about you.
                    That is, I understand that knowing the Name and about the position, you can find everything else. But since I was not looking, and since I do not need it at all, I don’t know anything.

                    Even if you write, I will most likely miss, and here I will forget.

                    And my interest is simple, I do not like to deal with anonymous. I'm used to, you know, dealing with people I know.

                    Well-oo-oo-oo-oo ... This is the Internet: they come here that they send. Get used to it.
                    Your claims, let’s say, would be true and fair if I deliberately insulted you: insulting using anonymity is somehow ugly.
                    The rest - you have to get used to it. After all, people can be anonymous for many reasons.

                    As for cheating ... I believe, but I'm just wondering what other people interested in weapons are working on.

                    I’m not very interested in weapons - more interesting are the convolutions of people's thoughts.
                    Invented a lot not because that's better, and often because all previous solutions were protected by patents. This castle, like a twist of thought, is very interesting. (But he was only intelligent for comparatively low-powered weapons.)

                    Well, if you are so interested, then I will write to you in PM. But on condition: that in PM is chipboard.


                    And about your friend ... now scientific articles are published for money. Therefore, they do not publish more than 5-8 pages - it is unprofitable. There are editions of the Higher Attestation Commission and SCOPUS, there are also for money (in SCOPUS on average $ 1) and there, too, no one will take 70 pages. And he does not have enough money to buy that much himself. And for free in Questions ... 10-15 pages maximum. And the question is, what did he write and where did he manage to publish, where are such miracles? I don’t know, although I just didn’t publish it in the publications of the Higher Attestation Commission, or with Hirsch and Rinz ... You surprised me and intrigued me. Or maybe the bullshit, huh?


                    So, Vecheslav, I don’t need stories. I'm in the editorial boards of nine magazines. Why nine - but because it was ten but the tenth in December decided to close, something did not go from them. So what I know about it all .

                    Decent (in my opinion) journals continue to publish for free, even in Russia. Well, there are "options": they offer "open access" for money, they ask for money for color pictures, and so on. But overall, academic science continues to be published free of charge.
                    Over the past 20 years, of course, a bunch of paid magazines have opened. But these are focused on "the Chinese": the fact is that "freedom-loving Chinese" pay their own people for every publication in the international journal, and they pay well (what would I live like that!). Accordingly, the Chinese themselves are willing to pay for publication. As a result, it became flood: we flooded ... This is a disaster, naturally.
                    Well, under those ready to pay, a bunch of magazines opened up.

                    Well, yes, this has nothing to do with remington.

                    And I can give an article to Sasha (in PM), she’s very good, by the way. Sasha is generally a powerful man, in every sense
                    1. kalibr
                      4 May 2016 19: 30
                      0
                      Nine magazines are awesome! Particleboard - guaranteed! Write in a personal ... Or I'll write you what it is about. But free magazines from the VAK list are Motherland and Questions of History ... This is my specialty. All the rest are paid, and I also know everything about this, because I work at a university and our work is published. This is a rating, these are awards, that's all. And "in general" somehow surprises me. I didn't have that opinion. Well, yes, I think we will find out.
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. Aqela
              Aqela 8 May 2016 00: 46
              0
              A strange kind of brevity of 30-40 lines with a lot of grammatical errors and lack of punctuation ... By the way, reading and writing not only train "gray cells", but also contribute to the development of instinctive spelling. If we mention demagoguery, then it is demagogues who abuse peremptory attacks with a complete lack of intelligible arguments and shock by the non-existent "mandate". I read all your posts above. Something I do not see evidence, one boltology about the bolts. fool
  • brn521
    brn521 4 May 2016 12: 08
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    If you want, then the ideal of the army (namely the army, and not, say, hunters) single-shot, then this is Peabody Martini. Definitely. Simple, easy, surprisingly fast.

    Wikipedia by this name only shows lever rifles. Which at the beginning of the 20th century became unsuitable even for cavalry - cavalrymen increasingly had to dismount and shoot from a prone position, which greatly interfered with the lever.
    1. AK64
      AK64 4 May 2016 12: 32
      0
      Wikipedia by this name only shows lever rifles.

      Not "lever" but "with Henry's lever".
      Shutter blocks for the Vietnamese using the Henry lever were very different.


      Which at the beginning of the 20th century became unsuitable even for cavalry - cavalrymen increasingly had to dismount and shoot from a prone position, which greatly interfered with the lever.

      Martini – Henry (for some reason, in Russian is known as Peabody-Martini, in English it is more often Martini-Henry) this is actually the year 1871. Onaya service was 1871-1888.
      So what kind of "20th century" are we talking about?

      But since he was talking about Henry’s leverage:
      (1) Henry's lever provides a much higher rate of fire than any other mechanisms, perhaps with a sliding forearm (which, however, has a bunch of other flaws).
      An exception is the need for a long bolt stroke. With a long stroke of the bolt, the lever movement was simply not enough. But Martini-Henry did not have a bolt, there is a swinging bolt block.
      (2) to tilt the rifle the cavalrymen of course did not know.
      But this is not the point: for a rifle-shop with a long cartridge, the lever needs to go very far.
      But Martini Henry has NO bolt!
      (3) For single-charge, the extraction of the sleeve was a problem (including because the first shells were inflated basto). For remington, this is really a sore point. But with a lever you always turn the sleeve. Or a bolt.
    2. kalibr
      4 May 2016 13: 56
      0
      I held both rifles in my hands, worked with the bolt ... I did not get the impression that Henry was more comfortable than Remington. And if you train a person on "his" rifle, he will definitely show a high result on it.
      1. AK64
        AK64 4 May 2016 15: 06
        0
        I had no impression that Henry was more comfortable than Remington.

        The lever opens the shutter in one movement and cock the trigger.
        In Remington, two movements are required (with a finger).
        But nevertheless, "the impression did not work out."
  • wei
    wei 4 May 2016 14: 15
    0
    could not help but remember laughing
  • saygon66
    saygon66 4 May 2016 14: 35
    0
    - Do not tell me whose brand on the receiver? The imperial crown ... is not typical of the States. British military reception?
    1. kalibr
      4 May 2016 17: 19
      0
      I just can’t find where. At first I did not pay attention, and then ...
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 4 May 2016 17: 46
        0
        - A similar image of the crown of the Belgians and Germans ...
        - Left Belgium ...
  • brn521
    brn521 4 May 2016 14: 49
    0
    Quote: AK64
    Henry’s lever provides a much higher rate of fire than any other mechanisms,

    When using smoky gunpowder, rate of fire does not solve much. Smokeless gunpowder was only mastered in the early 80s, manufacturers were breaking prices almost for the gold ruble for hunting cartridges. And by the time we had mastered smokeless on a scale adequate for military needs, we had a more effective three-line rifle.
    Quote: AK64
    tilt the rifle cavalrymen of course did not know

    Guessed, but cursed greatly. For a long time, it’s inconvenient, the weapon crawls back and forth along the trench mud, scooping up the garbage. Conventional rifles during such shooting are much more convenient, and later in a shortened version became the main weapon of the cavalry.
    I do not argue, there was a successful design, mass production. But World War I completed the history of these rifles.
    1. AK64
      AK64 4 May 2016 15: 19
      0
      When using smoky gunpowder, rate of fire does not solve much.

      Truth? Surprisingly, the military did not realize this.

      Smokeless gunpowder was only mastered in the early 80s, manufacturers were breaking prices almost for the gold ruble for hunting cartridges. And by the time we had mastered smokeless on a scale adequate for military needs, we had a more effective three-line rifle.

      Y-yes ...
      I don’t quite understand what I’m talking about ...
      Someone broke something somewhere ...

      But the fact is this: in Russia there were at least three types of conversion rifles.
      Then Berdan-1 was added to this. (Berdan, by the way, is an American)
      But for some reason the Russians switched to Berdan-2. With a bolt.

      What did all the previous Russian do not like? But they wanted a bolt: reliability during locking and extraction.

      Where's the remington here? But the Russians didn’t even want to consider the remington, even under the remaking ones: he did not arrange the Russian remington in any capacity.

      And rightly so.

      Guessed, but cursed greatly. For a long time, it’s inconvenient, the weapon crawls back and forth along the trench mud, scooping up the garbage.

      Amazing cavalrymen ...

      I do not argue, there was a successful design, mass production. But World War I completed the history of these rifles.

      For WWI in the first-class armies with leverage for a long time there was nothing. During the WWII, Russia bought some Winchesters there, but this was out of great need (the tsar had 15 million by the end of 1916 under arms, and it was necessary to arm them with something).
      By the way, there was an opinion that the Vinestester soldiers were just fond of the rate of fire: all the same, lever movement is faster than bolt movement.
      1. brn521
        brn521 4 May 2016 20: 26
        0
        Quote: AK64
        I don’t quite understand what I’m talking about ...
        Someone broke something somewhere ...

        About the expensive Martini-Henry rifles in production, or whatever else they are. Nowhere to squeeze them in the military history of Russia. When the industry was pumped and a decent cartridge of its own on smokeless powder appeared, weapons of a similar design were already outdated. And before that, they would have cost us their weight in gold. However, purchased. In small batches and privately. Wealthy hunters and Cossacks, for example.
        Quote: AK64
        Amazing cavalrymen ...

        Smokeless gunpowder and magazine guns appeared. And yet, the effectiveness of the cavalry fell sharply. In times of smoky gunpowder, rate of fire was limited by the fact that the line of sight was blocked by a cloud of smoke. For the infantry, this is a problem; it is easier for riders.
        Quote: AK64
        Truth? Surprisingly, the military did not realize this.

        They were in the know. And ordinary users, like hunters, too. Shop rifles and gunpowder revolvers are more likely the exception. The bulk of the weapons produced was of a completely different nature.
        Quote: AK64
        For WWI in the first-class armies with a lever for a long time there was nothing

        As they say, the British had about a million of these rifles. Full-fledged, initially designed for a more powerful cartridge. The rogue had redistribution from smoke powder to smokeless, which quickly failed. But the English rifles did not survive the PMV, eventually going to the remelting, in contrast to the more convenient weapons.
        Quote: AK64
        By the way, there was an opinion that the soldiers of the winster just loved

        Cossacks and hunters loved, even before the WWII. Or some single skirmishes. For example, clashes with the local population and the Chinese in Siberia in the 19th century - those generally had ramrod guns, or even muskets. But as for the trench exploitation, the very same English scolded strongly. Therefore, for remelting.
        So where do these Martini-Henry rifles go with us? Arm the Cossacks before the advent of the three-ruler - so this gun and ammunition will cost more than the Cossack himself and all his property. And the infantry did not need anything at all, during the time of smoky gunpowder, she acted in formation and fired volleys. While recharging, the smoke is at least slightly dispersed or is blown away.
        1. AK64
          AK64 4 May 2016 20: 52
          0
          About the expensive Martini-Henry rifles in production, or whatever else they are.

          What is "dear" about them? Exactly what an affordable solution. There is a complicated one - only a coil spring. But the drummer is easily constructively changed to a regular trigger.


          And before that, they would have cost us their weight in gold.

          The utter untruth: "worth its weight in gold" in fact, the whistle with alterations cost: the alterations did not save anything as a result.

          However, purchased. In small batches and privately. Wealthy hunters and Cossacks, for example.

          Are there any examples?
          Why is this happiness for a hunter?

          Smokeless gunpowder and magazine guns appeared. And yet, the effectiveness of the cavalry fell sharply.

          I fought in the Second World War.

          In times of smoky gunpowder, rate of fire was limited by the fact that the line of sight was blocked by a cloud of smoke.

          It is a pity that the generals did not know.



          They were in the know. And ordinary users, like hunters, too. Shop rifles and gunpowder revolvers are more likely the exception. The bulk of the weapons produced was of a completely different nature.

          / sighed /
          And why did Henry and Winchester make gardens?
          And before them, after all, there was also Colt, Smith, Wesson, and a bunch of other different ...
          But ignorant people - did not know that this was not necessary.

          As they say, the British had about a million of these rifles. Full-fledged, initially designed for a more powerful cartridge.

          Someone was lying somewhere.
          At least one used in the army?
          Let's say Berdanki-2 was used. And the British?

          Cossacks and hunters loved, even before the WWII.

          I wrote: the soldiers were loving.
          They bought quite a lot for the army in the WWII.
  • gladcu2
    gladcu2 4 May 2016 20: 14
    0
    AK64

    For rifles with a lever, the bullet must be recessed behind the sleeve flange. Or a circular ignition capsule.
    Apparently, the army did not like it. Therefore, it did not take root. Presumably.
    1. AK64
      AK64 4 May 2016 20: 45
      +1
      For rifles with a lever, the bullet must be recessed behind the sleeve flange. Or a circular ignition capsule.

      No. You confuse the tubular magazine and Henry's lever. One is not connected with the other. Martini Henry is generally a single charge.
      Apparently, the army did not like it. Therefore, it did not take root. Presumably.

      The Russians wanted a bolt.
      The reasons, apparently, were those that the bolt gave the most reliable extraction of the sleeve, and with it on the hinged shutters (the most common shutter at first was a hinged shutter), they were tormented.

      In addition, historically and conceptually, the bolt turned out to be the right decision: in the end, there’s a lot of miscarriage (all the way to Kalash). That is, the Russians caught the trend correctly, despite.

      I mentioned Martini-Henry just as an example of a very simple, really simple, and effective solution.
  • brn521
    brn521 5 May 2016 12: 13
    0
    Quote: AK64
    What is "dear" about them? Exactly what an affordable solution.

    He looked, my impression was formed according to the recollections of hunters of the 19th century. Dear rifle on a large beast. But it turns out such rifles were made specifically for hunters, they weighed less than the military, got off and decorated. And what about the military-style Martini Henry? Our rifles of Berdan No. 2 cost us 1870 rubles in 10. a piece. Therefore, we riveted them 3 million, the British of our Martini-Henry - 1 million. If there is evidence of English rifles, you can ask the price and make a conclusion.
    Quote: AK64
    The utter lie: "worth its weight in gold" in fact, the whistle with alterations cost

    Everything related to patent law automatically became "golden" for the Russian economy. For example, half of the cost of the Maxim machine gun in pre-revolutionary Russia was made up of patent royalties. But it still turned out to be cheaper than buying these machine guns abroad.
    Quote: AK64
    Are there any examples?
    Why is this happiness for a hunter?

    Why does a hunter need a large-caliber precision nozzle?
    Now there are no examples. More than 10 years have passed, I don’t remember where, from whom and what I read. Some memoirs, entertainments of the nobility, hunting clubs, as well as simpler hunters and researchers traveling around Siberia.
    Quote: AK64
    I fought in the Second World War.

    As well as in WWI. On the jump - edged weapons. Carabiners when dismounting. The main task is reconnaissance, raids on enemy rear lines, and the fight against enemy cavalry. Therefore, the lever is not the topic.
    Quote: AK64
    It is a pity that the generals did not know.

    What are the generals? How many years did they push Maxim's machine gun under the ammunition from the Berdank? I don’t remember how much we eventually bought them, or 12, or 16. In other countries, things were no better. Best of all, quick-firing rifles and machine guns under smoky gunpowder showed themselves when it was required to drive all sorts of natives in the jungle. And the real prosperity in range and rate of fire came at the time of adopting high-quality cartridges with smokeless powder. We made such Maxims at once under 300, and then we set up production.
    And the revolvers? A. Popov, from the "explanatory note to the charter of 1908": "From combat experience it is known that you have to use revolvers in battle in the most exceptional and rare cases. Whoever has to shoot at long distances, then of course he will shoot from a gun, and at At close distances, one must bear in mind the transience of the battle, in which the ranks, armed with revolvers and sabers, some prefer a saber for personal protection, and others a gun with cartridges for it, taken from the dead. "
  • brn521
    brn521 5 May 2016 12: 18
    0
    Quote: AK64
    And why did Henry and Winchester make gardens?
    And before them, after all, there was also Colt, Smith, Wesson, and a bunch of other different ...

    They wanted to cut money. The main market is private, for especially wealthy users. Plus, they were spinning with snakes, trying to fuse their creations into troops in any large quantities. At the same time, even grabbing orders, they eventually managed to go bankrupt. And the generals counted ammunition and cursed. This fear that the soldiers will release the entire ammunition into milk at the beginning of the battle, and the unit as a result will cease to exist as a combat unit, persisted until the time of the Second World War. For example, in our manual for a small platoon. So they got expensive advanced rifles only elite units, and even then, subject to the availability of a sufficient number of rounds.
    Quote: AK64
    Someone was lying somewhere.
    At least one used in the army?

    After decommissioning in 88, it became an auxiliary weapon of the "second line". Artillery, auxiliary cavalry, rear services.
    Quote: AK64
    I wrote: the soldiers were

    I didn’t come across something like this. Why did they love her, while the rest swore at the inconvenience of such reload levers in trench wars?