@Nancy Hart It is unlikely that a lifetime, even, of firing no caliber larger than a .22 cal. rifle, will cause much hearing loss. Pistols are more likely to do so, even in .22 cal., because the blast of gases exits closer to the ears. In my own case, a lifetime of firing all types of "hand-cannons" has left me in old age pretty clinically deaf. Hearing aids help, but not enough to hear as I did at 20. Frank
@Lulu Moppet Interesting, that you equate "sanity" with firearms possession. For what length of time do you suppose a truly "insane" individual possessing a firearm will continue to do so? Frank
Just being humorous. Come to think of it, there was a lot of alcohol involved in our get togethers. Lucky most of us were happy drunks. One of our band of friends in Wisconsin, out of a jealous rage, killed his girlfriend with his rifle. I met him on his parole. He had been accepted back into their circle of friends as they were all from the same small town and apparently knew each other all their lives. Another shot his wife's dog. Never liked that guy, always tried to stay out of his way. We were all mostly in our early thirties. More civilized in New Hampshire, IMO.
@Hal Pollner The M-1 Garand is said, despite being mass-produced, to have had the most inherently accurate barrel of any military rifle ever constructed. The design had drawbacks, however, which the M-14, though very similar, eliminated. The main one was the Garand's "magazine" clip (for it really was a clip!): 8 rounds were firmly held in place in each clip. To load one into the rifle required that the bolt be locked open, while a loaded clip was forced downwards into the gaping open breech. Immediately upon seating, the bolt snapped quickly forward, severely injuring many an unwary thumb! This was the first poor feature. The other was that upon firing the last round, the rifle forcefully threw the clip up and out, emitting a loud "clang", which often gave away the soldier's position to his adversary, as well as announcing he had fired the last round. Those clips were found lying about our house when I was a kid, as my Dad, being a Tool & Die Maker, built numerous dies which blanked the clips out of springy sheet metal. After testing each die, rather than throw away the clips, he brought some home. I quickly learned spent .45 Auto casings stacked tightly in those clips, and whiled away plenty of time playing soldier with them. I was 3 years old when the War ended. EDIT: Here is the rifle General Patton declared as the "Best battle weapon ever devised by man". And, here is a fellow about to lose his thumb:
@Hal Pollner Here is the short-lived M-14: As can be seen, it used a detachable "box" magazine, inserted into the rifle from it's bottom side. M-14 was used I believe in Korea exclusively, though some use was made in Viet Nam. It was widely-stated that it's successor, the early-on ill-fated M-16 issued universally throughout that era, was often discarded by our men when they occasioned on being able to secure an M-14 and ammunition, instead. M-16 used a radically-different gas extraction system for the spent rounds, in which gas was inletted directly into the receiver, causing early gumming-up of the works. Eventually, the ammunition was blamed as the cause, but it remains factual that every rifle using the M-16 gas impingement system will suffer clogging up of the upper receiver interior. M-14, on the other hand, similar to M-1, syphoned a bit of gas out of the front end of the barrel, into the stubby little tube seen under the barrels above. That gas drove a piston rearward, which drove the bolt back and open via a "charging lever". M-14 could reliably fire thousands of rounds without failure. Here are examples of the ammunition used: .30-06 was used in the M-1 Garand, .308 Winchester (or 7.62 X 51 NATO) was used in the M-14. M-16 used 5.56 X 45, actually a .22 caliber bullet; the other two were .30 caliber, the .308 round being a slightly shortened .30-06. I submit this post as evidence that I am answering the OP's question: Yes, I am comfortable. Frank
@Tex Dennis the guys (mostly men) have something called "Youth Shooting Day" in June. It is a reservation-only day of firearm familiarity and training for those from 13 to 17 years of age. When I had children at home, it was one of the high points of the year for them. I believe it was limited to 350 young folks, with an Eddie Eagle Program for the younger brothers and sisters, as well as archery. They shoot everything from .22 caliber to fully automatic .50 caliber machine guns, although only about 10% of the kids get to shoot each auto weapon (not the same 10% for all the auto weapons, though) in order to keep things moving (it takes longer to get kids familiar with the big guns) and the expense involved with 35 people shooting .50 cal ammo. They have a number of handguns (including cowboy shooting) and black powder rifles. There is skeet, trap, and sporting clays as well. I don't know the cost per kid, but it wasn't bad when we used to go, and lunch is provided. Usually one of the military units would put on some kind of demonstration, as well as the Anchorage or Alaska State troopers. A friend of mine has a range on his property,and every May, he has what he calls a Turkey Shoot, although no turkeys are involved although I think the prize was once a frozen turkey. It started as a Scouting event, but has moved beyond that as he no longer participates in Boy Scouts since the policies have changed. He has large and small caliber rifle shooting, skeet, tomahawks, slingshots, and archery. The kids and most of the adults camp overnight on his land and receive a safety training program conducted by Alaska Fish and Game the night before, and the competition starts in the morning and concludes with a barbecue in the late afternoon. Also great fun! @Frank Sanoica I remember guys in Vietnam complaining about the M-16, and saying the switch was made because they were getting ready to introduce women into combat roles and they couldn't carry the heavier rifle with ammo. Don't know about that, but @Bobby Cole might have an opinion on that. I know that in Iraq, troops were trying to M-14s back into service for house-to-house fighting. I was told that the M-16 round would go right through a Jihadist and he many times didn't know he was hit until after he killed the guy who shot him with an M-16 at 20 yards. The M-14 made that scenario much less likely.
Don’t know about the women in combat thing in regards to Vietnam. Other than the Donut Dollies (Red Cross women) and the nurses at Camron Bay, I didn’t see any “round eyed women” (as we called them) anywhere. Matter of fact I do not think I even heard of the Pentagon wanting women in combat but that doesn’t mean they weren’t thinking about it. There was such a fuss about draft dodgers and being there in the first place, I can’t see them wanting to involve women any more than they were. We were more concerned with weight. The M-16 is around 3 lbs lighter than the M-14 and much more maneuverable because of it’s overall size. Add in a fully loaded mag and and a heavier kick, we have a shoulder buster after a heavy CA with the 14. Even the weight between the 5.56 and 7.62 was considerably different hence one of the reasons for chopper mounted mini-guns use of the 5.56. My 60’s used the 7.62 but at 3-5K rounds a minute, the mini-guns had the spotlight on weight management for ammo. Now as far as soldiers going back to the M-14 in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t know. It would seem that with the advent of all the extra gear and body armor that a soldier carries today compared to my day, an M-14 wouldn’t be my weapon of choice unless of course we’re talking about close order combat. An M-14 wields like a club but the toy-like features of the M-16 make it less formidable especially when we’re talking about a wooden stock vs the light weight near plastic one of the 16. That all said, yes, the 7.62 does make a much larger hole which makes it a put down and stay down kind of a weapon.
@Don Alaska @Bobby Cole Beyond a doubt, the M-14 is a more formidable weapon. The drawbacks are true: heavy, very long length (except some Paratroop versions, which were said to experience gas functioning problems), especially given those ridiculously long flash hiders, adding about 5 inches. 5.56 is sufficiently inadequate power-wise that it is not allowed for game hunting in some jurisdictions. Interesting about adversaries continuing to fight on after being drilled through by a 5.56 round! Regarding M-16's (AR-15 civilian versions also) gas system: various kits are on the market which convert them to gas impingement outside of the receiver, just like the M1/M-14 (and the great bulk of other gas-operated rifle actions). I've yearned to try one, but so far, no go. Weight differences are obvious without hefting them. M-16 receivers, both upper and lower, are of aluminum alloy; only the barrel, front sight structure, and lock-work is of steel. M-14 is all steel with heavy full-length wooden stock, though later versions had black fiberglas stocks. They are NICE! Somewhere back in the '70s, Colt lost a govt contract to provide M-16s, and had a bunch of beautifully-made contractor-supplied collapsible stocks inventoried. Those were of alloy, but coated with hard rubber; several production runs of AR-15s were sold publicly having those stocks. One of those babies today is likely worth several Grand. Colt produced 2 runs that I know of, of Model 6450 Carbines, chambered for pistol-round 9mm ammunition. Those had 16 inch barrels, bayonet lugs, collapsible plastic stocks, and came with Colt-made magazines with 32 round capacity. The mag well of the lowers was modified by insertion of a cast alloy insert, retained in place by 3 tiny roll-pins. Bolt carriers were specially-made, no gas system, recoil operated, each carrier having a heavy "slug" of metal inserted into it's hollow center. Those rifles were sold just before implementation of the Clinton Crime Bill, and their value, becoming banned from future production, but "grandfathered" to possessors, climbed very quickly. Initially, gun store price was $595; I bought two, tucked them away, waited a few years, and sold them (fool!). The crime bill expired after 10 years, was never reviewed as called for by the "law", and allowed to expire. During those 10 years, all such rifles were embossed, "Police and Law Enforcement Only". FWIW, my nephew, enlisted in Marines early 2000s, was issued what was termed an M-4, the M-16 version having a burst-fire choice, as well as full auto and single round only. By then all issues had the "forward-assist", a "fix" for poor design which occasionally worked when hammered with a rock! Likely saved very few lives, IMO. Frank
The story I got from guys coming back from Iraq was that all they were supplied with for the M-16 were high velocity rounds designed to penetrate body armor. When fired against an un-armored attacking Jihadist, the projectile just whizzed right through and didn't do enough harm to stop them if they were close. That is why they were trying to get the M-14s; they had enough stopping power that nobody continued when hit near center mass with the 7.62 projectile.
At close range, (about 25’) the M-1911 .45 has more knock down power than either the M-16 or the 14. I know it was the pistol of choice in WW-II, Korea and Vietnam for mostly officers but I do wonder if it is still being used in modern day warfare?
I don't know if the 1911 is still used by the military or not. I know they now make it in a number of different calibers. My daughter picked up a 1911 in a 9 mm, as she was not confident that she would practice with a .45, and I was offered a 1911 in 10 mm...for $1600. Couldn't afford it, but perhaps the price has come down.
I shoot 2 classes mostly with handguns Glock 17's 9mm and a 1911 45 I try to shoot close to 500 rounds a week, I have reloaded most all of my life and for a time commercial loading for dealers, this weekend we do have a larger match a 3 gun handgun, carbine and shotgun, depending on weather will dictate the turnout guessing about 25+ many more if good weather, when I go for an eye exam as did so recently I take a handgun with doctor's ok with me to check eye focus distance to sights, and have along time done so, I want it correct with extended arms.
@Bobby Cole The venerable Colt .45, designed by John Moses Browning, was discontinued for general use by our military forces quite some time ago, in favor of Beretta pistols in cal. 9mm Parabellum. This happened shortly before my nephew became a Marine, and he did not like the idea of being issued a foreign-made pistol. Since then, yet another contender has unseated the Beretta, I think perhaps a Sig-Sauer, obviously also foreign made. I have owned and used the Sigs in various calibers; they are in general over-priced as well as over-rated. Their basic design has a flaw which I've called out many times, a tiny, single-bend whisker-spring which engages the trigger to the sear via a transfer bar. If that spring breaks, the pistol will only fire if held upside-down, a fact few are aware of. Smith & Wesson's basic designs employ coil springs throughout, far more fool-proof and reliable. They originated a series of double-action/single action way back in the '50s, highly-reliable, and offered in high-capacity models using double-stacked magazines. That was their model 59, followed by an identical model but of stainless steel, the 659. A few plain steel models were made as 559; find one and buy it reasonably if you can. Frank