Thread: 9mm vs.45
View Single Post
  #56  
Old March 29th, 2005, 07:27 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,490
Of course I knew the history of the StG44. It's no big accomplishment. Pick up a single Ian Hogg book and you can hardly avoid it. Watch the History Channel three times and you probably learned it.
Common knowledge.

How can you compare a modernized .308 round to the first iteration? What are the ballistics of the .308 in the 50s? Comparable or inferior to .30-06 from the same period. I'm talking about why the .308 was introduced. Not how it ultimately was adapted. I'm not even sure we're talking about the same round. I sincerely think that when the .308 was introduced, it's designers sought to occupy a middle ground with the smaller cartridge. Not to match the ballistics of the .30-06 in a smaller package. I know all of the dimensional figures for these rounds because they are part of their very designations, but I don't know the fps and ft/lbs for all of them. That's why I'm asking.

7.92 Kurz and .30 carbine differ most significantly in the profile of the bullet itself. As you know .30 carbine has rounded pistol type bullet while 7.92Kurz is a conical spitz. I have to believe that penetration is superior in the 7.92 Kurz if the two bullets of a similar weight and velocity differ only in this regard.

.280? what about 6mm Lee Navy? Is this a rifle round?

I didn't call the G98 a "musket". You should know better. I thought you were more familiar with military small arms than that. I said that in some instances the larger of the two variants was called a musket while the other was dubbed a carbine. Mostly in America. Specifically the Krag-Jorgensen and the Winchester 1895. The longer guns are officially "musket" despite having rifled barrels and other features which differentiate them from the musket standard.

Again, I ask if the M16A2 and M4 are not rifles, then what weapon occupies the rifle roll on today's battlefield?

I can hardly accept that because various military officials, Hitler included, resisted the introduction of an intermediate round that the weapons that utilized these rounds are not rifles. They claimed that these guns could not sufficiently occupy the rifle role in combat. History has overwhelmingly proved them wrong. Certainly there are always people who believe bigger is better without fail but the worlds armies come to fight with intermediate rounds. Is the American military unprepared to face a .308 equipped enemy? Hardly.

What bore and velocity determines what a rifle is if it is based on cartridge alone? Is the Sharps 45-70 a rifle? Is the Martini-Henry a rifle? Is the Brown Bess a rifle? The projectile, delivery and ballistics of these weapons have nothing in common with the .30 caliber weapons you have offered as examples of true rifles. Certainly 7.92 Kurz is superior in every weigh to a .60 caliber black powder bullet? Can you possibly say that these earlier infantry long arms were not rifles?
Reply With Quote