27 thoughts on “Take the rifle quiz”

  1. They say I scored 9/10, I say they’re wrong.

    Civilian rifle design hasn’t improved much in the past 100 years? Are they stupid?

    Also, the M1 Garand was the first Semi-Automatic rifle? Again, are they stupid? (I got that question “right” since the alternatives were all bolt action … even though there was an autoloading variant of the 1903 … )

    1. I got the same result (9/10). And I think the last question is wrong as well. There have been changes in design and materials. Sure, the basic components (i.e. rifled barrel) remains the same, but there have been major changes.

      The M1 question is also wrong. It wasn’t even the first adopted for use by a military. That, I believe, was the RSC M1917.

  2. LT Rusty’s correct.
    That’s like saying cars have not changed, because they still have four wheels.
    A not very good quiz from people who should know better.

  3. 10/10 You have to put your brain in History Channel mode, and answer how a journalist would answer.

  4. I think Scott nails it. I got the last one wrong, but the journalists wouldn’t know about advances in civilian weaponry.

    Also, the first semi-automatic rifle was NOT the M-1 Garand. They have never heard of the Pederson Device, or the 03/05/07 Winchester.

  5. 10/10. I think the M-1 question was more about “general use” than any specific limited-use weapon. As to civilian rifle design, it really hasn’t changed if you think about it. Certainly there are advances in barrel design, trigger group and how the barrel is bedded, but the basic components are still of a general design: barrel, trigger, stock. Even telescopic sights have been around for over 100 years. Now, if they’d asked about catridge and bullet design, that would be a different answer 🙂

    1. You don’t consider barrel design a major advancement?

      If you use that criteria, military rifle design hasn’t changed since the invention of the gas tube, either.

      They may have meant “general use” with the M-1, but they didn’t ask that.

  6. They were speaking to a general audience..not military professionals. In that context, the rifle in it’s basic design has not changed. Were improvements made to trigger groups? Were improvements made to catridge feed? To barrel? Stock? Sights? Sure. But in basic design, the rifle is a rifle…to Joe Citizen, the people meant to take the test….just like this career civilian 🙂 Was the test meant for the professional warrior and Marine rifleman and part time cannon cocker like yourself? No, it wasn’t.

    1. Okay, let’s talk about advances in civilian rifles over the past 50 years, then.

      We’ll hit the big one right off the top: Button Rifling. This is probably the greatest single thing going. It enables inexpensive mass production of very consistent, very high quality barrels. It’s not as good as cut rifling … but it’s a whole lot less expensive, and it’s a whole lot faster.

      Hm. Next off … let’s hit up composite stocks. No longer does a hunter (or anyone else) have to worry about his stock warping when it gets wet.

      Lightweight materials in general have allowed us to make lots of products that could never have been made back then. Carbon fiber barrels, anyone? Hell, even Aluminum wasn’t all that common a hundred years ago.

      Plastics. I’ve got a bunch of injection molded parts in my 10/22 that replaced aluminum parts in the earlier rifles. Lighter weight and tighter tolerances than were achievable using the aluminum.

      Accuracy enhancing / recoil reducing devices. 1912’s muzzle brakes compared to today’s? Not much of a comparison, really.

      Take an off the rack civilian .30-06 rifle or .22LR mf’d in 1912 and compare it to one made today. Today’s model will come out ahead in every single possible conceivable metric. Because of advances in rifle technology.

  7. You’d think the Military Channel would learn that, when you post something on the internet, you will draw every nerd and geek who has nothing better to do than learn and remember every little detail of largely useless trivia on the subject. You know, people whose heads are filled with worthless knowledge in lieu of something valuable.

    Such as myself, ferinstance….

    1. But, URR, under the circumstances we learn it, it does matter. If for no other reason than you want to learn it just in case the Gunny asks you about it. Heaven help you if Gunny thinks you don’t know enuff.

  8. After taking the test (9/10) I have to say much of the problem is in the wording. The one I got wrong was the question about the M4/M16. It’s proper to call the M-4 a carbine, but a carbine is just a short rifle. In the M-4 case, the action is the same as the M-16 with a short barrel and butt stock instead of the full size furniture and barrel. The M-4 question is a bit petty, but the answer they expect is in line with the tone of the rest of the quiz.

    I’d also have to agree with Byron on the last question. Thinks like stock material and bedding are refinements. The only real change I’ve seen in barrel design, for example, is H&K’s hexagonal rifling. Whether you cut the rifling, or hammer it as Steyr does, makes little difference. The end product is pretty much the same. Anyone that used a Springfield ’03 or Model 93 Mauser, who died and came back to life in 2010 and was shown a Remington 700 would know what it is.

    All in all, I’d also have to agree with Byron. It isn’t a quiz for geeks.

    1. Uhhh … pretty much every time that there’s a rifle and a carbine version of the same design*, the carbine is just a cut down version of the rifle. Look at the Mausers, Mosin-Nagants, Carcanos, Steyr-Mannlichers, Lee-Enfields, etc. The carbines are short barrels on the same action. Even most o the modern versions – FN FAL, Steyr AUG, others – same action, shorter barrel, and maybe a folding or collapsible stock.

      * – M1 Garand and M1 Carbine were not the same design, any more than the M1 Abrams is part of the same design family.

    2. I also take exception with the M4 question. Granted, it is called a carbine, but on the second page (where they tell you that you are “incorrect”) it specifically says that the M16 is not only the US Army’s weapon, but that it is used by all infantry, not just the general army. No infantryman, scout, tanker or any other guy who routinely fights, carries an M16 except for squad designated marksmen may carry an accurized M16 SDMR variant. And, having fielded M4s at several units over the years, I can attest that the M16 is not the current rifle of the US Army, but the standby rifle that continues to be issued only to support units. Oh, and the civilian market has come a huge way; why else would it all cost so much more now?

  9. Roamy, dear, if your goal was to have a bunch of guys arguing about minutiae, you succeeded!!!!!

    1. Roamy’s goal was more along the lines of making you all her minions, serving her fruity drinks with umbrellas poolside. But she’ll settle for a lively discussion.

    2. I would love it if she served us her fruity drinks poolside.

      What is her speciality? *crosses fingers* pleasebemaitaispleasebemaitais …

    1. There has been a fair amount of advance in projectile and propellant technologies, but … some of the most popular ammunition out there is still .30-06 (106 years old), .30-30 (117 years old), .45 ACP (101 years old), 9mm Parabellum (110 years old).

  10. 9/10…
    i’m in full agreement with rusty et al.
    the “civilian” sporting arms offerings have changed in incredible ways over the last 100 years.
    The converse side of this argument might well be:
    “Long arms have not changed much since the advent of their use in the 10th century…..
    They still have a Lock, a Stock, a Barrel, powder and projectile….”
    IMO question 10 is way too subjective.

    Happy New Year to all!

    1. The basic civilian rifle is essentially a turn bolt Mauser. Yes, cartridges have changed in terms of bullets and propellants, but it is still the same basic “metal patched” bullet with powder behind it.

      Refinements, yes. Big changes? Hardly.

  11. Really, people, the Green Jackets had rifles in Spain, so no, rifling is not much different nowadays. Technical improvements yet, but not huge leaps!

Comments are closed.