revolvers in the brush

[S.B.]

Robert357, your pockets must be very full?

[SHOOTALL]

the Brits also carried a bolt gun into WW2 . not the best choice of armies to copy !
didn't we beat them on a couple occasions ?

[S.B.]

 

[SHOOTALL]

lets face it military weapons are chosen by the guys that buy them not the guys who use them !
bet not one solider of the 7th. CAV. would buy a trapdoor Springfield ! I realize it works out sometimes but others it does not !
can you think of any army that took the 45 cal. out of service and replaced it with a 9mm./ .38 that the guys in the trenches liked the switch ?

[S.B.]

SHOOTALL, enlighten me, your last two posts don't seem to relate to Revolvers in the Bush? Am I missing something here?

the Brits also carried a bolt gun into WW2 . not the best choice of armies to copy !
didn't we beat them on a couple occasions ?

lets face it military weapons are chosen by the guys that buy them not the guys who use them !
bet not one solider of the 7th. CAV. would buy a trapdoor Springfield ! I realize it works out sometimes but others it does not !
can you think of any army that took the 45 cal. out of service and replaced it with a 9mm./ .38 that the guys in the trenches liked the switch ?

The British were a very effective force during WWII and made large contributions to the war effort, even with their SMLEs. They carried the ball by themselves for quite a while, before we decided to get into the fight. Their SAS and Marine Commandos (small units)were engaged in some vicious fighting.
I find it hard to belittle an ally, who fought along side of us.

[SHOOTALL]

like at places such as Dunkirk , Netherlands , North Africa , Sicily ?
They like us had their problems and bad decisions along with their victories ! nothing wrong with learning from our mistakes or theirs !
now the fact that the Brits used a bolt gun not only for WW2 but into the 50's doesn't show a willingness to improve their weapons . The 38-200 was a less effective gun than the 455 web. as has been stated by them . I only wish i could remember the Brit who said " when a solider needs a hand gun he needs a big one ". it was in an article i read years ago about the switch to the 38-200 .
as far as who buys the weapons , it reflects that the small er ammo often chosen to help with transport and cost may not be as effective a gun revolvers in particular !
all was in reply to the post on the 38-200 ! just because the Brits used it doesn't make it good, suitable or in the running as a brush gun . IMHO !
I wouldn't care to face a bear with any hand gun but if it  happened let me have a 40 something ! i also would not care to depend on non standard ammo from a limited source . BTJM !
hope this puts my post in perspective fer ya ! and don't worry its not intended to convince you or anyone just stating how i see things .
if i have to carry a revolver its a 44mag !

[Graybeard]

Get it back on topic. If you guys want to discuss warfare or military shoulder fired arms take it to a different forum.

[SHOOTALL]

to that end i wouldn't trade a 44 mag. for any 357 for dangerous game protection and in 357 the 125 gr. hp seems to work if the stats are correct for two legged attackers ! so the slow 38-200 seems useless in the brush unless you just feel like using old school ! not bad just old ! and that's from someone who carries 158 gr. semi-wad-cutter hollow points in a j frame ! talk about old school !
didn't mean to go off track , that was a round mentioned and that was the end user with the most brush experience !