and again Brian is going to great lengths to tell half truths...
what he's leaving out is the part where he was trying to convince people that the Czech Mauser VZ24 was made is a mythical city of Bruno, when in actuality it's Brno, there is no U... and he only "backed down from adding the U after I showed him that he was not only wrong, but if he looked at the very gun he claimed to own, he would have easily seen the real spelling stamped in steel right before his eyes... now while that would seem trite at first glance, that was also the litmus test of his honesty...
earlier I asked him quite plainly that if he indeed had a VZ24, what where the armory markings... they would read in VERY large letters "BRNO" either on the top or the side of the reciever, and there would simply be no mistaking it if he actually had one... but he repeatedly insisted that it was "Bruno" which is simply wrong, and even when he provided pictures the BRNO was so obvious that for someone to miss it they would have to be seriously visually limited, and if that were the case then he wouldn't likely be shooting a gun in the first place... it was easy to see that he didn't actually own the gun, but it was likely owned by a friend or relative that he made some quick snaps of, but didn't have on hand the first go round to confirm his "story", if he did have it on hand originally it would have only taken seconds to get it right the first time... also note that he didn't even "correct himself" until later after I told him all about the city of Brno (or the German name- Brunn) and the Armory in the city of Brno and how not even an english "translation" would make the proper name Bruno because English doesn't convert the proper name of a city like that... that would be like spelling Berlin as "Berlio" acording to him... Brian also went to great lengths to find a Czech website to try and show how Brno was spelled, and it only confirmed my stance!
LOL he actually helped me prove him wrong
LOL
cracked butt, the '03 doesn't have a "rapid fire", a shooter may only fire as fast as they could cycle the bolt... and a quick firing situation would actually hurt both of their accuracy from the close sucession of recoils, but the '03 would liekly suffer less since you are limited in how fast you can fire it, you almost have to take your time to some extent since you have to manually cycle each round... also beyond that, you wouldn't reasonably do a test of accuracy at rapid fire, you would try to test it with reasonably aimed shots to give a fair assesment of the rifle without risking pulling the trigger, or jerking the barrel, or what have you all in an effort to fire quickly... that wouldn't be fair to either the M1 or the '03 in a test like that since a true gauge of their precision would be obscured by the shooter making unnecessary efforts at speed rather than accuracy, and accuracy being the goal one wouldn't want that sacrificed in such a test...
as for "The M1 can outshoot the '03 in certain circumstances", the only circumstance that would be as far as "out shooting" the '03 would be in volume of fire... no doubt there, the Garand was intended to fire quickly, and as such it does that well, the '03 however was designed specifically for accuracy in an age where the only semi-autos for infantry where pistols... the military mentality at the time was since every man couldn't just "throw flak", it was better to have them make their shots count, and thus well made Mausers, Mosin-Nagants, Springfields and the like where common infantry rifles in the early part of the 20th century... but as do so many other things, the times change to open the door to new methods of war, and the M1 put more emphasis on rate of fire, and allowed one G.I. to fire as many rounds as several Germans could in just a few seconds...
now if you really think an M1 can "outshoot" an '03 Springfield in pin-point accuracy, well, that's your right to believe... however there's a reason that the Springfield was the standard issue Sniper's rifle in WW2 not the M1C or M1D... it's just the very nature of the mechanics of the weapon that allow a bolt action to be consistant in that situation at the extreme ranges, not 200, 300 or even 400 yards but well past 600, 700, and 800 yards well beyond the maximum reliable distances for a Garand... the only defence a sniper has is distance between him and the enemy... which by the way is one of the things that Brian was claiming that the Garand could do as well as or better than an '03 Springfield, which is part of what started the whole arguement, and had to lead to him pandering to another message board to try and find support for his angle by only telling half of the story and either covering up the rest or just lieing his way out of being caught in a fix...
I apologise again that Brian is misrepresenting the arguement here and trying to cast people like myself and others on the other message board in a bad light, it's likely his irritation in being shown up that he can't stomach, and he feels the need to try and redeem himself elsewhere by not telling the whole story and getting support for himself by not telling why he lost support on the other messageboard to begin with...
. 
It's silly really. And it's out of my system. Again, I apologized for bring him to this fine message board, I'll try to keep it on the other board.
