Swiss guns...
 

Bought a Swiss model 1911 rifle yesterday, I love it! Best $315 I ever spent!

Its in amazing shape, the bore is really good even for a Swiss rifle...as far as I can tell its pretty much like new.

Its my new favorite rifle, a heck of a lot better than the modern stuff or even the K31. It was built during an age when people gave a crap about their work and it shows. It was built by a chraftsman and even 100 years later its tight. The machine work on the metal is typical Swiss quality, stripping it is like pulling apart a Swiss watch.

I took it to the range today for a quick trial and put 20 rounds through it, it was like a laser...I can't get over how accurite it is, I'm taking it to the Appleseed!:cool::D

When did you suddenly decide to get another one?

What are the main differences between this and the K31? (Besides length obviously....)

I'm just trying to round out my collection, they are like Pokeman you have to collect them all!:D

The 1911 has a slightly different action, and a simpler trigger design. The biggest difference is the barrel, the 1911 is free floated, where as the K31's is not.

I prefer the 1911's action because you can totaly field strip it, on the K31 you can't take the firing pin and spring apart. Both are marksmans rifles, but the 1911 was built to a higher standard, and while not as compact is the more accurite rifle. Both are able to hit someone at 1k yards, but the 1911 could probably place it on the helmet at that range.

This rifle also has a plastic handle, which was pretty expensive 100 years ago. Today its just cool, because people say plastic is junk well its held up fine for 100 years.:P:D

Also since its rather large, and was issued with a 14in bayonet it makes a wonderfull war club when you run out of ammo.:D Compared to today's rifles you could bayonet someone from accross a river with it.:D

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_cftkbCCtDWo/S6...0/DSC05333.JPG

So wait the Swiss downgraded when they adopted the K31? Thats a bit odd (I know that the general consensus was that engagement ranges had descreased but that didn't happen till after WW2)

Well in a sense they did. The K31 is a better field rifle, where as the 1911 is a better target rifle. Still both will shoot a minute of German at 1k yards.

The K31 was designed as part of a realization that musket length rifles didn't really offer any advantages for the average solider.

I would want to carry a K31, its more handy. But for a target gun I want a 1911.

It seems the 1911 was built a bit better because they didn't have to mass produce it as quickly or build as many. The Swiss did make the K11 which was a carbine length 1911, and it was very popular. Thats where they got the idea for the K31 from.

Makes sense and it would explain why the 1911 was in service until the 1970s. (Although the length as you mentioned would be an advantage in a bayonet fight if it ever happened)

Yep, the Swiss straight pull action is one of the fastest bolt actions ever fielded, its a heck of a lot faster than the Mauser action. Only the Lee Enfield could keep up with it.

After the bolt guns the Swiss fielded the STG57 or Sig 510 which was the Rolls Royce of battle rifles. I would buy one in a second if they were CT legal.

Yeah i'm reading up on it now. Looks like it's a damn good rifle with some very unique features. How would you compare it to my old favorite the G3A3?

'The biggest difference is the barrel, the 1911 is free floated, where as the K31's is not.'

Actually, the exact opposite:

"The new carbine also had several other new features. The barrel was intended to be free floating. The action itself only connected to the stock by two screws, one attaching to the chamber, with the second attaching to the tang. This allowed the Swiss to eliminate the aluminum barrel collar used in the Schmidt-Rubin series."

http://www.swissrifles.com/sr/

Billybob go take your 1911 and look at the fit of the barrel to the barrel bushing and stock. Now compare that to your K31.

Tell me which one has the more free floating barrel.

The G3 is a cheap stamped gun with a funky charging handle thats not that pleasent to shoot or that accurite. Other than being cheap and reliable it's not a very good rifle.

The Sig510 probably cost 5 times what a G3 costs to make.

A more fair comparison to the G3 would be a Fal...I don't think many would argue in favor of the G3.

Never having been in combat with any rifle I can't comment with any authority. But in my opinion target like accuracy is all very well and good but somewhat overrated frankly. By far the most important thing in a battle rifle is reliability. You only need to be able to hit a man sized target at about 300 yards or less. And you don't need to be able to hit his nose either, only somewhere on his body.

I have shot both the FN FALand the Galil when I was doing my military training back in South Africa. The FN FAL was a more comfortable rifle to shoot, (and to march with for that matter) but it was superceded in SA by the Galil because it was regarded as a crap combat rifle in the bush. Being subject in some ways to the same kind of reliability/maintenance problems as the US experienced with the M16 in Nam. It wasn't quite as bad but it became obvious during the length of the "bush war" as it was called during the 70's and 80's that the AK47 was a far superior battle rifle to the FN FAL

The ability to hit a target at 500 meters doesn't mean dick when you cant see your opposition further than 100 meters away because the bush is so thick and they are busy hosing you down with lead from 50 meters distance.

SA also had G3's. Not as many and they were seldom used in combat so I can't relate much about them except to say that they didn't require as much detailed maintenance as the FAL-'s did so they are probably a better battle rifle all round.

Much as I love the fine craftsmanship of the Swiss rifles, if I were in combat with a bolt gun it would be a K98 every time and in modern times, likely some kind of AK or maybe a G3 type.

- Peter.

Yes the differences between battle rifles and assault rifles needs to be kept in mind. Battle rifles are best used single shot to hit things at a longer range while your assault rifles are for getting up close and personal on full auto or burst.


I've heard plenty of stories about soldiers in the field preferring the lighter FN FAL over the G3 but several times relatives, who fought in Angola, have shown a great preference to the Ak-47 (The gun and it's rounds were a lot lighter and easier to carry through the vast African countryside.) Still with all that the G3 was liked for it's ability to take someone down at a distance with a single shot. (Haven't heard about any reliability issues with it either)

There's no real difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle. The only meaningful definition is between target ie civilian rifle and battle rifle ie military/combat what have you. So the modern battle rifle is an assault rifle whereas the previous generation battle rifles were bolt actions.

How do you come to have relatives who fought in Angola. Happily for me I was never deployed there.

- Peter.

Well I havn't used them in combat but I have shoot plenty of PTR91's aka G3's and they are ok but crude, the FAL is still pretty crude but its a step up. Both are 2-3 MOA rifles.

The M1A is the Cadillac out of the bunch, best sights, best quality, and best shooting. My FN49 is right up their to.

Although I'm told the new Scar 17H is quite nice, I havn't shoot one so I can't comment on it.


I think a lot of poor country's used G3's because they were cheap, same as with the AK.