US Troops using AK-47s

[robert arndt]

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html

Rob

[BUFDRVR]

"Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in
Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can
kill with fewer shots."

I think pretty much *everyone* says a 7.62 has better "knockdown" power than
5.56.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Regnirps]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>I think pretty much *everyone* says a 7.62 has better "knockdown" power than
5.56.

Certainly true for M14s. I'll take 180 grains at 2800 fps over 55 at 3200 any
day. (unless you want to eat the rabbit).

-- Charlie Springer

[John S. Shinal]

(BUFDRVR) quoted:

>"Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in
>Iraq's dusty environment. "

Ancedotal, but friends back from Afghanistan said they worked
fine in the apalling cement-like dust there.

"M4 with a Master Key" was their favorite. I'm a little
unclear on whether the Master Key is a 40mm or shotgun attachment, but
they used it for room entries.

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:58:31 +0000, John S. Shinal wrote:

> (BUFDRVR) quoted:
>
>>"Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in
>>Iraq's dusty environment. "
>
> Ancedotal, but friends back from Afghanistan said they worked
> fine in the apalling cement-like dust there.
>
> "M4 with a Master Key" was their favorite. I'm a little
> unclear on whether the Master Key is a 40mm or shotgun attachment, but
> they used it for room entries.

I believe its a shotgun attachmment firing a solid round.
There's a term for these things but I don't recall it.
Police forces usually employ a separate shotgun for door
breaching work if they think a battering ram won't do it.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Bill Phillips]

The AK fires the 7.62mm x 39 which is much less powerful that the 7.62mm x
51 used in the M14.

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> >I think pretty much *everyone* says a 7.62 has better "knockdown" power
than
> 5.56.
>
> Certainly true for M14s. I'll take 180 grains at 2800 fps over 55 at 3200
any
> day. (unless you want to eat the rabbit).
>
> -- Charlie Springer
>

[Regnirps]

"Bill Phillips" wrote:

>The AK fires the 7.62mm x 39 which is much less powerful that the 7.62mm x
>51 used in the M14.

Lets rank them by momentum (in oddball units but it doesn't matter for
comparison).

..223 55gr at 3,100 fps --> 170,500
7.62x39 125gr at 2,200 fps --> 275,000 ( 1.6 times the .22)
..308 150gr at 2,800 fps --> 420,000 ( 2.46 times the .22 and 1.53 times the
Russian)

I'll take the M14 any day, but I practive with one a lot (and I picked the high
end. I have seen some NATO ball ammo at 2,300). Assuming they won't let you
have one, which of the other two do you pick?

-- Charlie Springer

[BUFDRVR]

John S. Shinal wrote;

>(BUFDRVR) quoted:
>
>>"Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily
>in
>>Iraq's dusty environment. "

Not my quote.

>Ancedotal, but friends back from Afghanistan said they worked
>fine in the apalling cement-like dust there.

I've heard the same thing.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Bill Phillips wrote:

>The AK fires the 7.62mm x 39 which is much less powerful that the 7.62mm x
>51 used in the M14.

OK, I've never understood the x 39 or x 51. What do these numbers refer to?

So as not to get hit for a non-aviation post; what color is your favorite
aircraft?

;)


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 20 Jul 2004 02:26:43 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

> Bill Phillips wrote:
>
> >The AK fires the 7.62mm x 39 which is much less powerful that the 7.62mm x
> >51 used in the M14.
>
> OK, I've never understood the x 39 or x 51. What do these numbers refer to?

Case length


> So as not to get hit for a non-aviation post; what color is your favorite
> aircraft?

air superiority blue


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Evan Williams]

"Clark" > wrote in message
.. .
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> :
>
> > Bill Phillips wrote:
> >
> >>The AK fires the 7.62mm x 39 which is much less powerful that the 7.62mm
> >>x 51 used in the M14.
> >
> > OK, I've never understood the x 39 or x 51. What do these numbers refer
> > to?
> Cartridge dimension (hint: its not diameter)
> >
> > So as not to get hit for a non-aviation post; what color is your
> > favorite aircraft?
> >
> ummm, low vis grey?

I actually prefer the old off white gloss paint jobs. It was much easuer to
clean on wash day.

[Evan Williams]

<snip>

> I actually prefer the old off white gloss paint jobs. It was much easuer
to
> clean on wash day.

I meant to say easier

[B2431]

>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 7/19/2004 9:26 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Bill Phillips wrote:
>
>>The AK fires the 7.62mm x 39 which is much less powerful that the 7.62mm x
>>51 used in the M14.
>
>OK, I've never understood the x 39 or x 51. What do these numbers refer to?
>
>So as not to get hit for a non-aviation post; what color is your favorite
>aircraft?
>
>;)
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter rounds out
there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 = 7.62 X 63. The Russian
equivilent to the 30-06 X 54R.

Since neither the carbine or 30-06 are in common military use you won't find
many people using the metric form.

Trivia: the 06 in 30-06 refers to the year it was accepted by the U.S. Army,
1906. It replaced the 30-03 for the 1903 Springfield rifle. The round had poor
ballistics and the rifle chambered for it used poor metalurgy and was unsafe to
shoot.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Nele VII]

UHHH... Robert, BUFFDRVR, everyone...

Firstly, this is a interesting subject, but should be noted off-topic. I
might be lengthy, but I hope that is worth of reading. This is a view of a
first-time AK user, plus some comments and observations.


The friend of mine, former US Army-I don't know which branch, the one that
is jumping from Hercules with oxygen bottles and parafoil-back in the 80's
he was in Afghanistan equipping Mujahedins with donkey-mounted howitzers
(yeah, I know what you are thinking. I didn't believe it either until I've
seen the pictures of such all-terain self-propelled howitzers and had a good
belly laugh). A subdued comment on the personal weapons issue in
Afghanistan-was "When you are in Rome...".

M-16 vs AK-47 (and subversions): M-16 is more complicated and more prone to
jamming. Nevertheless, it provides beter accuracy. As for the calibre, the
7.62 puts more energy onto the target than 5.56, but if you want somebody
dead, 5.56 is better. 7.62 is a "human" round-it goes straight through the
flesh, smashing bones on its way. 5.56, due to its low weight and energy
dissipation, tumbles and "wonders around" (I don't want to go into gruelsome
details) even at zero distance. I remember two cases; one attempted suicide
in the chest with M-70 resulted, basically, in two holes-in&out (a wanabee
dead got out without any damage to major organs). OTOH, a 5.56 round fired
from a M-16 derivative acidentally fired in the back of a fellow comrade
resulted in fatal injuries; the bullet never left the body but smashed
everything inside. But the best example is a Soviet "TT" pistol that is a
copy of the famous Colt 45 chambered for 7.62 mm bullet. Well, that 7.62
bullet is FMJ and the round looks more like a mongrel between pistol and
rilfe bullet! TT puts more energy in Joules on a target than any
mass-produced pistol/revolver in service or use (including famous 44
magnum!), but its real effect is much lower because the reasons above-its
cumulative effect is low. But if you load it with 7.63 Mauser that perfectly
fits TT (hollow point, lower velocity) you make a havoc.

As for replacing M-16 with AK-47 in Iraq (or anywhere), Robert, you would
soon become a permanent resident in Ft. Leavenworth. If you try to make a
point, make it from user's view. If I were given an option to have the AK-47
beside "my" M-16, the answer is simple-I don't have to fiddle much about it,
I would keep my primary gun clean and tidy while I can treat an AK-47 as a
"whore".

Or, if you want to believe in conspiracy theories, nobody is counting your
rounds nor the AK can be traced back to you if you whack someone by
accident... or purpose. You might note that Israelis have a sort of AK-47
copy (5.56mm Galil) but they are not grabbing AK-47s. Basically, it is a
legally-obtained ILLEGAL weapon.

And Stg 44 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with AK-47 but the basic layout
and that is gas-operated. It was one of the German "wunderweapons" that
could fail if there was a slightest difference in the round shape or powder
load; its loading system is completely different; trigger and auto/semiauto
assembly is completely different; its ejection system is completely
different. Actually, you could find more similarities between Smeisherr and
British Mark Sten.

I have handled and been trained to Yugoslav version of AK-47 called M-70 as
well as for "improved maintenace" of it. Generally, you disassemble 3 (or
so) more parts then usual and learn some peculiarities. I had a wooden-stock
earlier version (it was A1, A2, AB1, AB2 or something like that, it was 16
years ago, and since I did not participate in the war I do not remember, but
I remember some details that are uncommon). No maintenace difference,
everything interchangeable between versions, barrel fatigue factor 7 (i.e.
good, I -think- it was on the 10-5 scale). It was 1989, the rifle was over
ten years old.

Yu-version is improved with over-calibre grenade sight (you lift it, it
closes the gas chamber thus disabling the gas-operation- manually work the
bolt to load a chamber from a magazine, aim it like RPG) and accompanying
bolt-on-barrel launcher/ "special" rounds. Like AKM-47 (a more modern,
simplified version of AK-47 with forged instead machined frame), it goes
with bolt-on-muzzle compensator that comes as a standard equipment that
needs to be unscrewed before mounting of the launcher barrel protrusion.
Fold and wooden stock versions available. Foldable luminiscent nightsights.
We were thought that M-70 is the finest from the AK-47 family.

It also comes in machinegun version called M-72 with longer barrel, mouth
compensator and grenade sight deleted and with optional 50 round drum
magazine (rarely used). All parts Interchangeable with M-70.

My "impressions" from live round training-prone position, semiauto/auto.

- Recoil is low to medium. It is quite comfortable, really. Other guys with
folding stock versions were slightly less comfortable. Recoil goes straight
up and is controlable, thanks to the compensator. M-72 guys expirienced some
yaw recoil, but
they were not allowed to use semi-auto on their guns (go figure!).
- For me, it was possible to put all rounds (five of them) in 35 cm circle
after my second try, semiauto (100m, I think). The sights were unadjusted
(it went low/right) but we were not allowed to tamper with them, so I aimed
left/higher. I got two bullseyes.

- In full auto, we were supposed to hit chest targets with three-four round
bursts. I found it quite easy to control it after a second burst. Just a
quick squirt and three are on their way. My third burst got it down. Since
in Yu army you were supposed to get all targets down (you would get "Not all
targets are down!" yell and you knew what to do), we went spraying. Well,
then you discover that you are not going anywhere if you keep it longer then
four rounds burst and that is a waste of ammo.

As for my markmanship, I had some experience with pellet and bolt-action 22
LR. While in high-school, I have also fired 7.9mm M-48 bolt-action rifle
(that's the very same bullet the Bf-109E machineguns had, and we called a
rifle a "donkey" since it was punching on both sides!). Anyway, I was
mediocre at best.

-Maintenace. Well, to tell you the truth, an idiot can take care of it. You
clean the muzzle, gas chamber, bolt piston, receiver (?) and that's about
it. We had a gunsmith on the field and we picked a trick how to clean the
piston (that had some residues on it); stick in the ground, rotate, oil,
wipe. He also told us that M-70/AK-47 "likes" a just a drop of fine gun oil
in the barrel prior to firing/storing. Yes, we asked him about dust and sand
but he said not to worry, that it keeps the barrel from fatigue on a limited
"live" firing since you fire quite a lot black-powder filled practice rounds
on the tactical excercise and it is not bad for storing, although officers
hate to see it-but it is better to get verbally bashed over oily barrel than
be reprimanded for reducing the barrel condition. Since he was making and
modifying weapons at home, we trusted him.

Overall, the M-70 has a very steep learning curve and it is "timid". Simple
and literally jam-free. If you need a automatic rifle, and you need it NOW,
I cannot imagine anything better then AK.

Yet another Yu-version was developed-a sniper rifle-7.9mm semiautomatic but
I don't know the particulars. And hunting version, too. And machinegun
version. And close-combat version.

Where to get an M-70? :))) Well, before the Yu-war, Yugoslavia was covertly
exporting M-70s to Iraq among other weapons. If you try to get it at the
source, it cannot be "demilitarized" in any country of former Yugoslavia as
it is exclusively a combat weapon.

Yu-war experience:

From what I've heard from the both sides, Romanian version is awful, no
precission or accuracy. Poor steel, heats a lot so it was causing burns.
Note that former M70 users, all sides, were used to a longer left-hand
underbarrel grip thanks to launcher sight so one coud adjust it more
comfortably-Romanian version has a -pistol- left-hand grip but a habit is a
habit. Anyway, it was considered to be a piece of garbage and was only good
for overhead spraying from the trench. It was generally discarded if better
AK or M-70 was captured.

During the war, many AKs came from Hungary, but I am not sure if they were
Hungarian (if there was a Hungarian production) or Russian production. They
were reportedly considered allright and from what I see it still makes a
bulk in Croatian Army. Serbia and Montenegro exclusively use M-70 subtypes
since the production is there.

You can put two 30 round magazines together (over/under) with a
duct tape, stab the one with rounds down in the dirt, rotate it to reload
and it would work every time!

Some M-16 derivatives were used by Croatian Army in the first stages of war
(as the weapons were procured through various sources) but was not widely
adopted even when CA was able to purchase it (late in the war).


Sorry for being overly long-I had nothing else to do! :)

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA


Regnirps wrote in message >...
(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
>>I think pretty much *everyone* says a 7.62 has better "knockdown" power
than
>5.56.
>
>Certainly true for M14s. I'll take 180 grains at 2800 fps over 55 at 3200
any
>day. (unless you want to eat the rabbit).
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Nele VII
> writes
>
snip
>
>
>The friend of mine, former US Army-I don't know which branch, the one that
>is jumping from Hercules with oxygen bottles and parafoil-back in the 80's
>he was in Afghanistan equipping Mujahedins with donkey-mounted howitzers
>(yeah, I know what you are thinking. I didn't believe it either until I've
>seen the pictures of such all-terain self-propelled howitzers and had a good
>belly laugh).

Google for 'screw-guns' and 'British Army in India' preWW I

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Andrew Chaplin]

"M. J. Powell" wrote:
>
> In message >, Nele VII
> > writes
> >
> snip
> >
> >
> >The friend of mine, former US Army-I don't know which branch, the one that
> >is jumping from Hercules with oxygen bottles and parafoil-back in the 80's
> >he was in Afghanistan equipping Mujahedins with donkey-mounted howitzers
> >(yeah, I know what you are thinking. I didn't believe it either until I've
> >seen the pictures of such all-terain self-propelled howitzers and had a good
> >belly laugh).
>
> Google for 'screw-guns' and 'British Army in India' preWW I

Smokin' my pipe on the mountings, sniffin' the mornin' cool,
I walks in my old brown gaiters along o' my old brown mule,
With seventy gunners be'ind me, an' never a beggar forgets
It's only the pick of the Army that handles the dear little pets --
'Tss! 'Tss!

For you all love the screw-guns -- the screw-guns they all love
you,....
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Nele VII
> > writes
> >
> snip
> >
> >
> >The friend of mine, former US Army-I don't know which branch, the one
that
> >is jumping from Hercules with oxygen bottles and parafoil-back in the
80's
> >he was in Afghanistan equipping Mujahedins with donkey-mounted howitzers
> >(yeah, I know what you are thinking. I didn't believe it either until
I've
> >seen the pictures of such all-terain self-propelled howitzers and had a
good
> >belly laugh).
>
> Google for 'screw-guns' and 'British Army in India' preWW I
>
> Mike

You dont need to go that far back, pack howitzers were issued
to US and British forces in WW2 and hauled by mules

http://community-2.webtv.net/msn.com/masterofneon2/601stFABnPack/

Keith

[Andrew Chaplin]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, Nele VII
> > > writes
> > >
> > snip
> > >
> > >
> > >The friend of mine, former US Army-I don't know which branch, the one
> that
> > >is jumping from Hercules with oxygen bottles and parafoil-back in the
> 80's
> > >he was in Afghanistan equipping Mujahedins with donkey-mounted howitzers
> > >(yeah, I know what you are thinking. I didn't believe it either until
> I've
> > >seen the pictures of such all-terain self-propelled howitzers and had a
> good
> > >belly laugh).
> >
> > Google for 'screw-guns' and 'British Army in India' preWW I
> >
> > Mike
>
> You dont need to go that far back, pack howitzers were issued
> to US and British forces in WW2 and hauled by mules
>
> http://community-2.webtv.net/msn.com/masterofneon2/601stFABnPack/

First Airborne Battery, RCA, was training for jungle ops in the 1970
with their L5s broken down and hauled by 13 mules each.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Bill Phillips]

If you think momentum is an effective measure of stopping power then throw
rocks; they have more of it.

Most people use energy as a first approximation, with bullet design just as
important but harder to assess.

this gives:

5.56mm x 45, 1798 J
7.62mm x 39, 1993 J
7.62mm x 51, 3276 J

Regarding personal use; I chose the 5.56mm x 45 because it is much more
controlable that the 7.62mm x 39, probably becase less momentum equals less
recoil. With an AK-47/AKM only the first round of a burst has any real
chance of a hit, the rest go over the top, the AK-74 seems to have solved
this with its 5.45mm x 39.5 round and a muzzle brake but I have not fired
one enough to have a real oppinion. Given a head or torso hit either round
will get the job done virtually every time.

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Phillips" wrote:
>
> >The AK fires the 7.62mm x 39 which is much less powerful that the 7.62mm
x
> >51 used in the M14.
>
> Lets rank them by momentum (in oddball units but it doesn't matter for
> comparison).
>
> .223 55gr at 3,100 fps --> 170,500
> 7.62x39 125gr at 2,200 fps --> 275,000 ( 1.6 times the .22)
> .308 150gr at 2,800 fps --> 420,000 ( 2.46 times the .22 and 1.53 times
the
> Russian)
>
> I'll take the M14 any day, but I practive with one a lot (and I picked the
high
> end. I have seen some NATO ball ammo at 2,300). Assuming they won't let
you
> have one, which of the other two do you pick?
>
> -- Charlie Springer
>

[BUFDRVR]

>The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter rounds
>out
>there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 = 7.62 X 63. The Russian
>equivilent to the 30-06 X 54R

Thanks to all for the answer. I'm assuming the larger x number, the longer the
case and the longer the case the greater the load of powder?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Paul A. Suhler]

Nele VII > wrote:
....
>Or, if you want to believe in conspiracy theories, nobody is counting your
>rounds nor the AK can be traced back to you if you whack someone by
>accident... or purpose.
....

My ops sergeant once told me that in Vietnam his platoon
sergeant had kept an AK-47 for the express purpose of
shooting any of his own people who fell asleep while on
watch. Or at least he threatened to. Whether he actually
did was not clear.

[B2431]

>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 7/20/2004 7:01 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter rounds
>>out
>>there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 = 7.62 X 63. The
>Russian
>>equivilent to the 30-06 X 54R
>
>Thanks to all for the answer. I'm assuming the larger x number, the longer
>the
>case and the longer the case the greater the load of powder?
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

Generally, just keep in mind the evolution of propellents so modern cartridges
can accomplish higher pressures in shorter cases. Competition shooters are
doing amazing things with ammunition now.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Dave Kearton]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
|
| Generally, just keep in mind the evolution of propellents so modern
cartridges
| can accomplish higher pressures in shorter cases. Competition shooters are
| doing amazing things with ammunition now.
|
| Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Only up to a degree. Military ammo may have to sit on the shelf for 30
years or more (I remember shooting 50 cal that was 35 yo), be fired with
newer or older batches on the front line and be compatable with the oldest
firearms that it's likely to encounter.


The major changes were (obviously) black powder to nitrocellulose based
propellants, which would be a major advance for gas operated weapons.


Since then, most ammo development, _within a calibre_, has been for shelf
life and stability, less residue and more consistent performance
round-to-round.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Regnirps]

Here is a hadful from my desk drawer

www.regnirps.com/cartridges.jpg

Left to right:
..22 Long Rifle
..22 Magnum
..22 Hornet
..223 (5.56 NATO)
..243 Winchester (necked down .308 and proposed US Mil standard)
7.62mm by 39mm (AK-47, SKS, etc)
7.62mm by 51mm NATO (.308 Winchester)
30-06
..300 Winchester Magnum
..50 BMG

-- Charlie Springer

[Dave Kearton]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
| Here is a hadful from my desk drawer
|
| www.regnirps.com/cartridges.jpg
|
| Left to right:
| .22 Long Rifle
| .22 Magnum
| .22 Hornet
| .223 (5.56 NATO)
| .243 Winchester (necked down .308 and proposed US Mil standard)
| 7.62mm by 39mm (AK-47, SKS, etc)
| 7.62mm by 51mm NATO (.308 Winchester)
| 30-06
| .300 Winchester Magnum
| .50 BMG
|
| -- Charlie Springer
|
|



Nice collection, you don't have a 'still in the back yard as well ?





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Evan Williams]

Just in case you aren't confused yet, here's some more trivia. Cartridges
such as 44/40 and 45/70 come from the old black powder days. The second
part after the slash denotes how much powder was inside the casing and that
gives you the size of the casing. It sometimes helps to know the history of
the round.



Evan Williams



"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter
rounds
> >out
> >there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 = 7.62 X 63. The
Russian
> >equivilent to the 30-06 X 54R
>
> Thanks to all for the answer. I'm assuming the larger x number, the longer
the
> case and the longer the case the greater the load of powder?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[M]

Bill Phillips >
> Most people use energy as a first approximation, with bullet
> design just as important but harder to assess.

Bullet behaviour on impact is of decissive importance
when assessing the effectivity ("stopping power"). FMJ
7.62x39 tends to be relatively stable on impact in soft
tissue, it just turns 180 degrees to leave base first, but
does not break up nor tumble more. Thus the 7.62x39 bullet
often tends to go through the target relatively cleanly,
expending only a fraction of its energy in causing damage.

Lighter, smaller calibre, but faster, assault rifle rounds,
like 5.56x45 and 5.45x39.5, are much less stable on impact.
The higher speed and smaller diameter to lenght ratio, tends
to cause lots of tumbling in soft tissue. 5.56x45 also tends
to break up, while 5.45 with its bimetal design tends to deform.
The higher speed gives a stronger shock wave too. Thus a larger
percentage of the energy of these rounds is expanded inside the
target, causing more severe wounds at normal battlefield ranges
(at long ranges, however, the target effects are much reduced).
5.56x45 is actually _more_ effective against soft tissue at
typical ranges than slower full-sized FMJ rounds, like 7.62x51,
which tend to go through the target with much of their kinetic
energy still left. (Rifling is most relevant here too, eg 5.56
at 1:7 is more stable and less lethal on impact, than the former
standard, 1:9).

5.56 is also intrinsically better at armour penetration than
7.62x39, as the surface pressure is larger due to the smaller
calibre. Otoh, armour-piercing capability depends a lot on the
bullet design, and I dunno how the various dedicated AP bullets
compare. Full-sized rounds (7.62x51 etc) have much more kinetic
energy, and hence allow for more effective AP rounds.

5.56 and 5.45 have lower recoil than 7.62x39, allowing for
quicker/more accurate aimed rapid (semi-auto) fire and better
control of full-automatic bursts. This is a big advantage. The
recoil of 7.62x39 is however low enough for a competent user to
control an assault rifle at auto. In contrast, assault rifles with
full-sized rounds, like 7.62x51, are practically uncontrollable at
full auto. Muzzle brakes can be used to somewhat reduce the recoil,
but at a cost in the signature and/or weight and length of the
weapon.

The lethality of 7.62x39 against soft targets can be much increased
using soft point (expanding) bullets, like hunting bullets, but
these are illegal in military usage. I'd guess that a deforming
legal(?) bullet could also be developed, perhaps along the lines of
the bimetal hollow-tip FMJ 5.45x39.5. Cost would be an issue though.

7.62x39 does have an advantage over the more modern smaller
calibres though. It's less likely to be deflected by foliage,
and is also more effective when shooting through trees or berms
at a target in cover behind. I'd guess that manufacturing issues
were the historic reason why the Germans and Soviets went for 7.6*
in their AR's, rather than a faster smaller calibre round.

Full-sized rifle rounds, like 7.62x51 or 7.62x53R, typically
only have an advantage over modern assault rifle rounds at
ranges longer than normally useful for an assault rifle. The
much heavier ammunition and much larger recoil, make these
calibres badly suited for infantry assault rifles. Hence
all technically advanced armies use lighter intermediate-sized
rounds nowadays. Sniping rifles and GPMG's are another matter,
and there 7.62x51 and 7.62x53R still prevail. The particular
terrain (typical lenght of LOS) is also an issue here.

Otoh, short-barreled small-calibre carbines, like M4, have a
reduces muzzle velocity as compared to normal lenght AR's, like
the common M-16. The lower muzzle velocity of M4 impairs lethality
beyond 100m or so, which is already relevant.

Another issue is bullet drop. The faster the bullet, the less
there is bullet drop. The relatively slow 7.62x39 does particularily
badly here.the bullet drop of AKM (7.62x39) is about 70cm, which makes
adjusting the sights or aim necessary at the longer normal infantry
ranges (ie up to 300m or so). 5.56 is also superior in this respect
to the 7.62x51 at typical ranges.

[M]

(B2431) writes:
> The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter
> rounds out there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 =
> 7.62 X 63. The Russian equivilent to the 30-06 X 54R.

To confuse matters more, even the metric designations aren't
always based on the actual exact dimensions, and the same round
may have several designations. Eg, 7.62x53R and 7.62x54R are the
same round, the rimmed-cartidge (that's what the "R" stands
for) full-sized rifle found.

[B2431]

>
(B2431) writes:
>> The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter
>> rounds out there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 =
>> 7.62 X 63.
>
>To confuse matters more, even the metric designations aren't
>always based on the actual exact dimensions, and the same round
>may have several designations. Eg, 7.62x53R and 7.62x54R are the
>same round, the rimmed-cartidge (that's what the "R" stands
>for) full-sized rifle found.

The Japanese did this better than anyone. They had at least three 7.7 mm rifle
rounds. To be fair one was for a machine gun. The type 99 rifle used another
7.7 mm.

It's a wonder more Japanese didn't get killed or maimed by their own weapons.
The nambu sidearm was an abortion. The type 99 rifle I own was unsafe to shoot
straight from the factory; it has no noticable erosion so I slugged the barrel.
The bore is a couple thousandths too big.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Evan Williams"
>Date: 7/21/2004 2:53 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>Just in case you aren't confused yet, here's some more trivia. Cartridges
>such as 44/40 and 45/70 come from the old black powder days. The second
>part after the slash denotes how much powder was inside the casing and that
>gives you the size of the casing. It sometimes helps to know the history of
>the round.
>
>
>
>Evan Williams

If you really want to confuse things bring up calibers of artillery over the
years. The 40 mm bofors and 40 mm DIVAD rounds have the same diameter, but the
lengths vary. The largest round in my collection is 105 mm in both the howitzer
(AC-130) and cannon (tank and artillery) shell lengths.

If memory serves (and it doesn't always) the 50 caliber naval round is 5 inch
diameter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Harry Andreas]

In article t>, "Evan
Williams" > wrote:

> Just in case you aren't confused yet, here's some more trivia. Cartridges
> such as 44/40 and 45/70 come from the old black powder days. The second
> part after the slash denotes how much powder was inside the casing and that
> gives you the size of the casing. It sometimes helps to know the history of
> the round.

If you aren't confused yet, and want even more...
the "44/40" (sic) is actually the .44-40 also originally called the .44 WCF ,
for Winchester Center Fire, but when other companies started chambering
weapons for the .44WCF they didn't want to use Winchester's name, so they
called it the .44-40 for the 40 grains of FFFg black powder in the case.
And even more confusing, the old cases were thin and had "balloon" heads,
newer cases developed in IIRC the '20s or '30s had thicker walls and a solid
head and will accept maybe 35 grains of powder, so it's not even a .44-40
anymore.

Similar story with the .45-70. First released in 1873 for the trapdoor
Springfield, was called the .45 US Gov't, then popularly renamed the .45-70.
There were 2 loads for the rifle, one used a 405 grain bullet, the other a
500 grain bullet. Then there was a load for the carbine that the cavalry
carried that used the 405 grain bullet but a reduced load of powder with
only 60 grains, but still called the .45-70.

Not to mention the .38 WCF also called the .38-40 which is the .44-40
necked down, not to .38, but to .40. So it really ought to be called the
..40 WCF or .40-40, but I guess Winchester had some Marketing issue
with the name of that one, so despite the fact that it's a 40 caliber they
called it a .38

1860 through 1930 was a fascinating and fast moving time in the arms
industry.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Bill Phillips]

I think you are confused by the method of measuring barrel length in
calibers,

Thus a 5 inch, 50 caliber gun has a barrel 5 x 50 = 250 inches long.

I think that the US Navy had a 5in 50 caliber gun in WW1.

>
> If memory serves (and it doesn't always) the 50 caliber naval round is 5
inch
> diameter.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ian maclure]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:18:23 +0000, B2431 wrote:

[snip]

> The Japanese did this better than anyone. They had at least three 7.7 mm rifle
> rounds. To be fair one was for a machine gun. The type 99 rifle used another
> 7.7 mm.

To quote Ian Hogg, the lot of a Japanese Logistics offcier was not a
happy one.

> It's a wonder more Japanese didn't get killed or maimed by their own weapons.
> The nambu sidearm was an abortion. The type 99 rifle I own was unsafe to shoot
> straight from the factory; it has no noticable erosion so I slugged the barrel.
> The bore is a couple thousandths too big.

Late war production weapons were like that.
Prewar or early war production are OK or so I understand
I gather the Arisaka/Type 99 was a popular conversion for hunting
rifles here after the war. Why, I cannot imagine.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:32:20 -0700, (Harry Andreas)
wrote:


>There were 2 loads for the rifle, one used a 405 grain bullet, the other a
>500 grain bullet.

With a bullet that size, ideal for felling locomotives on the hoof.
--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht

[robert arndt]

"Nele VII" > wrote in message >...
> UHHH... Robert, BUFFDRVR, everyone...
>
> Firstly, this is a interesting subject, but should be noted off-topic. I
> might be lengthy, but I hope that is worth of reading. This is a view of a
> first-time AK user

.... which qualifies you as what exactly?


plus some comments and observations.

.... which is what most of your post is.
>
>

>
> M-16 vs AK-47 (and subversions)... you mean "subvariants?"

We are talking M4 vs AK-47, so your broad generalization right off the
top tells us how unfamiliar you are with small arms.


- snipped irrelevent basic info


> As for replacing M-16 with AK-47 in Iraq (or anywhere), Robert, you would
> soon become a permanent resident in Ft. Leavenworth.

I already stated in the other thread that I never said they got rid of
or turned in their M4s for the AKs... just preferred using the
captured stock for very good fighting environment reasons plus
dissatisfication over the M4 performance in the theater.




If you try to make a
> point, make it from user's view. If I were given an option to have the AK-47
> beside "my" M-16, the answer is simple-I don't have to fiddle much about it,
> I would keep my primary gun clean and tidy while I can treat an AK-47 as a
> "whore".

You aren't a combat "user" in the field and even opened up your post
by saying you are a first-time AK user. What you are giving is your
opinion. In any case the "whore" in question is arguably the world's
best assault rifle and you can find it anywhere in the world.
>
> You might note that Israelis have a sort of AK-47
> copy (5.56mm Galil) but they are not grabbing AK-47s. Basically, it is a
> legally-obtained ILLEGAL weapon.

The Galil uses the best operating systems and architecture from both
the AK-47 and Western 5.56mm assault rifles and it is not an AK
copy... it is a LEGALLY made IMI weapon.
>
> And Stg 44 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with AK-47 but the basic layout
> and that is gas-operated.

Go back and read the original thread, my 7/18 post that refutes that
with plenty of reference materials.

-snipped tons of irrelevent information.

Please note also that all of this pointless since the US troops in
Iraq have been grabbing AK-47s and using them for months. I wrote
about it, Dan disputed it and then the US Govt. issues a phoney press
statement about "permitting" US soldiers to use them. It is
embarassing for our image where everything US has got to be the best
and then have our own troops grabbing AKs for street fighting.

Rob

> Nele
>
> NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>
>
>I already stated in the other thread that I never said they got rid of
>or turned in their M4s for the AKs... just preferred using the
>captured stock for very good fighting environment reasons plus
>dissatisfication over the M4 performance in the theater.

You lie. I guess I shouldn't expect different from a child who has confessed in
this NG to felonies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:
>
> If memory serves (and it doesn't always) the 50 caliber naval round is 5 inch
> diameter.

Well, the Navy has to do it differently, if at all possible.

The 5"/50 caliber designation means a 5" diameter shell fired from a
(naval) gun that is 50x its bore diameter in bore length. IIRC. IMBW.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Greg Hennessy > wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:32:20 -0700, (Harry Andreas)
> wrote:
>
>
> >There were 2 loads for the rifle, one used a 405 grain bullet, the other a
> >500 grain bullet.
>
> With a bullet that size, ideal for felling locomotives on the hoof.

Well, it *was* hard on bison. Although some hunters went for bigger
rounds, like a .45/110 or .50/140.

Should serve to keep rhinos out of your lettuce bed.

[B2431]

>From: "Bill Phillips"
>Date: 7/21/2004 2:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I think you are confused by the method of measuring barrel length in
>calibers,
>
>Thus a 5 inch, 50 caliber gun has a barrel 5 x 50 = 250 inches long.
>
>I think that the US Navy had a 5in 50 caliber gun in WW1.
>
>>
>> If memory serves (and it doesn't always) the 50 caliber naval round is 5
>inch
>> diameter.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey, I was close <g> or does that only count in horse shoes and thermonuclear
devices?

Someone tried to auction a 380 mm German coastal artillery shell on e-bay
recently. I'd love to have it, but his starting bid was 5 kilodollars.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "ian maclure"

>
> Late war production weapons were like that.
> Prewar or early war production are OK or so I understand
> I gather the Arisaka/Type 99 was a popular conversion for hunting
> rifles here after the war. Why, I cannot imagine.

Simple, there were a lot of them, the good ones are hard to destroy, the 6.5 mm
Jap was a tidy small hunting round and they were cheap.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[George Shirley]

B2431 wrote:

>>From: "ian maclure"
>
>
>> Late war production weapons were like that.
>> Prewar or early war production are OK or so I understand
>> I gather the Arisaka/Type 99 was a popular conversion for hunting
>> rifles here after the war. Why, I cannot imagine.
>
>
> Simple, there were a lot of them, the good ones are hard to destroy, the 6.5 mm
> Jap was a tidy small hunting round and they were cheap.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I was a part-time gunsmith from 1962 until 1976. In the early sixties
the local GI surplus store sold me entire cases of Arisaka rifles, 12 to
the case, mostly the 6.5, at 9 bucks each. I converted them to sporting
rifles, of a sort, and sold them for 50 bucks. Paid the same price for
long SMLE's, Carcano's, and the odd P-14 Enfield that came by.
Springfield 03-A3's cost me 15 bucks each as did 1917 Enfields. Local
navy base was mothballing WWII ships and would sell me large boxes, I
mean about 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet of carbine and 1911-A1 magazines
for 6 cents per lb. I could resell them for a buck apiece and make money
on them. Damned if I don't wish I had kept a bunch of everything until
today. Most people thought the Carcano rifle was junk but they made
excellent small caliber hunting rifles.

George

[Dave Kearton]

"George Shirley" > wrote in message
...
| B2431 wrote:
|
| |
| I was a part-time gunsmith from 1962 until 1976. In the early sixties
| the local GI surplus store sold me entire cases of Arisaka rifles, 12 to
| the case, mostly the 6.5, at 9 bucks each. I converted them to sporting
| rifles, of a sort, and sold them for 50 bucks. Paid the same price for
| long SMLE's, Carcano's, and the odd P-14 Enfield that came by.
| Springfield 03-A3's cost me 15 bucks each as did 1917 Enfields. Local
| navy base was mothballing WWII ships and would sell me large boxes, I
| mean about 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet of carbine and 1911-A1 magazines
| for 6 cents per lb. I could resell them for a buck apiece and make money
| on them. Damned if I don't wish I had kept a bunch of everything until
| today. Most people thought the Carcano rifle was junk but they made
| excellent small caliber hunting rifles.
|
| George
|


The Carcano was an interesting piece. Referred to by the Italian Army as
"Il Humano" , because it never hurt anyone, it featured a progressive
twist on the rifling. Didn't make it any more accurate, just harder
to manufacture.


One of the local councils around my way, post WWI, used thousands of K98
and G98 Mausers (war reparations) as reinforcing for concrete roadways and
footpaths.

In case you're wondering, it works well under those conditions, but it's
pretty hard on the metalwork.




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[George Shirley]

Dave Kearton wrote:

> "George Shirley" > wrote in message
> ...
> | B2431 wrote:
> |
> | |
> | I was a part-time gunsmith from 1962 until 1976. In the early sixties
> | the local GI surplus store sold me entire cases of Arisaka rifles, 12 to
> | the case, mostly the 6.5, at 9 bucks each. I converted them to sporting
> | rifles, of a sort, and sold them for 50 bucks. Paid the same price for
> | long SMLE's, Carcano's, and the odd P-14 Enfield that came by.
> | Springfield 03-A3's cost me 15 bucks each as did 1917 Enfields. Local
> | navy base was mothballing WWII ships and would sell me large boxes, I
> | mean about 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet of carbine and 1911-A1 magazines
> | for 6 cents per lb. I could resell them for a buck apiece and make money
> | on them. Damned if I don't wish I had kept a bunch of everything until
> | today. Most people thought the Carcano rifle was junk but they made
> | excellent small caliber hunting rifles.
> |
> | George
> |
>
>
> The Carcano was an interesting piece. Referred to by the Italian Army as
> "Il Humano" , because it never hurt anyone, it featured a progressive
> twist on the rifling. Didn't make it any more accurate, just harder
> to manufacture.
>
>
> One of the local councils around my way, post WWI, used thousands of K98
> and G98 Mausers (war reparations) as reinforcing for concrete roadways and
> footpaths.
>
> In case you're wondering, it works well under those conditions, but it's
> pretty hard on the metalwork.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>

I guess that counts as beating them into plowshares Dave. <VBG>

George

[Ian MacLure]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>From: "ian maclure"
>
>>
>> Late war production weapons were like that.
>> Prewar or early war production are OK or so I understand
>> I gather the Arisaka/Type 99 was a popular conversion for hunting
>> rifles here after the war. Why, I cannot imagine.
>
> Simple, there were a lot of them, the good ones are hard to destroy,
> the 6.5 mm Jap was a tidy small hunting round and they were cheap.

Sounds like an explanation to me.
Much like the Lee Enfield in the Commonwealth.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ian MacLure]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>From: "Bill Phillips"
>>Date: 7/21/2004 2:48 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>I think you are confused by the method of measuring barrel length in
>>calibers,
>>
>>Thus a 5 inch, 50 caliber gun has a barrel 5 x 50 = 250 inches long.
>>
>>I think that the US Navy had a 5in 50 caliber gun in WW1.

5"/51. I think they were removed from battleships.
The SS Jeremiah O'Brien has one of these I think.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[B2431]

>From: George Shirley
>Date: 7/21/2004 7:41 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>
>>>From: "ian maclure"
>>
>>
>>> Late war production weapons were like that.
>>> Prewar or early war production are OK or so I understand
>>> I gather the Arisaka/Type 99 was a popular conversion for hunting
>>> rifles here after the war. Why, I cannot imagine.
>>
>>
>> Simple, there were a lot of them, the good ones are hard to destroy, the
>6.5 mm
>> Jap was a tidy small hunting round and they were cheap.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>I was a part-time gunsmith from 1962 until 1976. In the early sixties
>the local GI surplus store sold me entire cases of Arisaka rifles, 12 to
>the case, mostly the 6.5, at 9 bucks each. I converted them to sporting
>rifles, of a sort, and sold them for 50 bucks. Paid the same price for
>long SMLE's, Carcano's, and the odd P-14 Enfield that came by.
>Springfield 03-A3's cost me 15 bucks each as did 1917 Enfields. Local
>navy base was mothballing WWII ships and would sell me large boxes, I
>mean about 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet of carbine and 1911-A1 magazines
>for 6 cents per lb. I could resell them for a buck apiece and make money
>on them. Damned if I don't wish I had kept a bunch of everything until
>today. Most people thought the Carcano rifle was junk but they made
>excellent small caliber hunting rifles.
>
>George

George, I used to do gunsmithing too. Most of the 6.5 calibers made excellent
hunting rifles. I agree with you on the carcanos. I liked the Springfield
action over that of the Enfield. Either one was a smooth action that was hard
to mess up in the field.

The one modification I did that I wish I had made another of was converting a
garand to take BAR mags. I made several that would take M-14 mags after I
rebarrelled them to .308.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Regnirps]

"Dave Kearton" wrote:

>Nice collection, you don't have a 'still in the back yard as well ?

No, but I know somebody who does ;-) It actually tastes like bourbon and the
equipment is from NZ!

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

Another picture

www.regnirps.com/NYMM14.jpg

That's Not Your Mother's M14

Made the stand yesterday and it goes on the block Sunday. Gotta pay the bills.
It is an early Super Match with, ...sob... I can't go on :-(

-- Charlie Springer

[Dave Kearton]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
| "Dave Kearton" wrote:
|
| >Nice collection, you don't have a 'still in the back yard as well ?
|
| No, but I know somebody who does ;-) It actually tastes like bourbon and
the
| equipment is from NZ!
|
| -- Charlie Springer
|



Sweet


Nothin' like sitting on the front porch with a glass or three of rocket fuel
and watching the weekend go by .....





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[George Shirley]

B2431 wrote:
>>From: George Shirley
>>Date: 7/21/2004 7:41 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>B2431 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>From: "ian maclure"
>>>
>>>
>>>> Late war production weapons were like that.
>>>> Prewar or early war production are OK or so I understand
>>>> I gather the Arisaka/Type 99 was a popular conversion for hunting
>>>> rifles here after the war. Why, I cannot imagine.
>>>
>>>
>>>Simple, there were a lot of them, the good ones are hard to destroy, the
>>
>>6.5 mm
>>
>>>Jap was a tidy small hunting round and they were cheap.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>I was a part-time gunsmith from 1962 until 1976. In the early sixties
>>the local GI surplus store sold me entire cases of Arisaka rifles, 12 to
>>the case, mostly the 6.5, at 9 bucks each. I converted them to sporting
>>rifles, of a sort, and sold them for 50 bucks. Paid the same price for
>>long SMLE's, Carcano's, and the odd P-14 Enfield that came by.
>>Springfield 03-A3's cost me 15 bucks each as did 1917 Enfields. Local
>>navy base was mothballing WWII ships and would sell me large boxes, I
>>mean about 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet of carbine and 1911-A1 magazines
>>for 6 cents per lb. I could resell them for a buck apiece and make money
>>on them. Damned if I don't wish I had kept a bunch of everything until
>>today. Most people thought the Carcano rifle was junk but they made
>>excellent small caliber hunting rifles.
>>
>>George
>
>
> George, I used to do gunsmithing too. Most of the 6.5 calibers made excellent
> hunting rifles. I agree with you on the carcanos. I liked the Springfield
> action over that of the Enfield. Either one was a smooth action that was hard
> to mess up in the field.
>
> The one modification I did that I wish I had made another of was converting a
> garand to take BAR mags. I made several that would take M-14 mags after I
> rebarrelled them to .308.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Never did that one, Garands were still pretty costly in the early
sixties and M-14's were the standard so there wasn't much surplus on
them. After the M-16 became the standard I could bid on scrap iron at
the Navy base that consisted of Garand and M-14 operating rods, cleaning
sets, Garand clips, M-14 magazines, etc. Lots and lots of big boxes of
..30 carbine magazines with bonus mags included pretty regularly. things
like Colt Ace magazines, selling at the time for about $20 each. I do
love DOD surplus sales, sometimes you find unexpected things in the
mixed bag.

I still smith on my guns and those of my family but gave up doing it for
a living when my management job in the oil bidness got to taking up most
of my time. Met a lot of nice folks working on their guns.

George

George

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

> Thanks to all for the answer. I'm assuming the larger x number, the longer the
> case and the longer the case the greater the load of powder?

True to a good first-order approximation: case capacity matters a
great deal, and certainly gives you a decent expectation of the
performance class to expect.

In a broad view, the full-power thirtysomethings (.303 British,
7.62x54 Russian, 8mm Mauser, and .30-06 and its shorter, somewhat
differently shaped successor 7.62x51) did about the same thing in
about the same way; and that is rather more (at a penalty in weight
and volume and recoil) than the lighter cartridges that have been the
postwar trend, and far more than you would get from a reasonable
sidearm-type pistol; and they look as though this ought to be the
case (no pun intended and not much of one achieved).

Of course, God is in the details and so is the devil. Length doesn't
tell the whole story; the shape/diameter of the case, the technical
limits and conventions restricting the pressure of the cartridge, and
the choice of powder type and bullet weight can all be substantial
variables. The result of all this is not only differences between one
cartridge and another, but a range -- sometimes big -- of performance
potential for each cartridge.

Usually the military chooses one or a few points in this parameter
space and sticks to 'em. They are not necessarily maximal -- the
way that bolt-gun-only hunting loads for .30-06 can bend certain parts
of the M1 Garand is a case in point.

Shape is interesting. Makers of civilian rifles and ammo have been
exploring the power and accuracy potential of shorter, fatter
cartridges. Of course, their customers' priorities are much
different than the army's, including many factors that bear upon the
number of rounds in the magazine; and there is more variety in what
they need. Individual hunters and target shooters also have a lot
of freedom to chase the latest trend in search of better performance
(and/or treat themselves to a new bit of sporting goods) -- polar
opposite to the military's motivation to buy, maintain, and train upon
huge quantities of a few standard items.

So one hardly expects, say, .243 Winchester Super-Short Magnum to be
the next military cartridge; my guess is that, role by role, the
continued resurgence of 7.62x51 amid the existing assortment is more
likely, at least until something entirely different comes along.
But it goes to show how complicated the parameter space is, and how
much innovation (some of which, admittedly, will always lead up blind
alleys) is still occurring in what one might have imagined to be a
very mature field.

Cheers,
--Joe