Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards  

Go Back   Expedition Exchange Bulletin Boards > General
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old March 29th, 2005, 08:15 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I understand your argument regarding the technical benefits of a low bore axis design, John. I just do not agree with your emphasis that it is a major issue. I see it as a minor one that you are overemphasizing and that the SIG Sauer as a package is a very attractive sidearm. While you see a technical "flaw" I am looking at ("feeling") the weapon as a whole.

We're starting to come together here. I don't think the bore axis thing is dispositive, as I've said before. It is merely one of many factors that make a weapon shootable or not shootable. I never said the 226 is a lousy weapon. Rather, I disagreed with Jack's comment that the 226 was the ultimate "double tap" pistol, which frankly I think is a joke. As I've said before, the 226 is one of the worst pistols in this regard, not the best.

Why is it the worst? Is it because of bore axis? Sure, that's one of the reasons. But it is not the only reason. The 226's trigger action is also very unsuited for delivering hammers and controlled pairs quickly and accurately. As I said before, the DA pull is long and heavy with lots of stacking before the release. The DA pull is inferior to that found on revolvers. The SA pull is also terrible, with lots of take-up and lots of overtravel after the release. The trigger is also located away from the butt in a compromise location, and the reach in DA mode is too long and the reach in SA mode too short. I said all of this before.

Is the 226 an attractive sidearm? I guess it could be. It's far from being my first choice but it's a serviceable weapon. There are some things on it that I really like. I dig the stamped construction on the slide and the multi-strand recoil spring. I like these features because they remind me of the late-war Wehrmacht weapons. But other than that the 226 doesn't do it for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
However, the k98 (karabiner mod 98 or shortened Mauser 98) was supposedly a "carbine" so Hitler's alleged bias wasn't against a shorter rifle but rather against a smaller round. My understanding is when he saw the weapon he dubbed it the "assault rifle" due to it's ability to lay down a field of fire when attacking.

Yes, I never said that Hitler was against shorter weapons. He was against reduced power weapons. He didn't veto the MKb project because the weapon was short. That would be ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
Furthermore, there have been "assault rifles" that are chambered for the very rounds you mention as "full-power" such as the .308. Certainly the FN FAL, G3 (I can't remember if the original CETME was .308) and the original AR10 stoner design, M14, etc. I think you might even argue that the 7.62x39 was ballistically similiar to the .308 so the AK-47 as well.

Yes, there are select-fire weapons that fire full-power rifle rounds. These are not properly termed "assault rifles" because they do not fire a cartridge of intermediate power. SIG made the StG57, which fires the 7.5 Swiss round. Though the StG57 is called a "sturmgewehr", is it really? I don't think so. The StG57 is a full-power rifle. It's almost identical in concept to the FG42. The StG57 is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle/battle carbine.

The FAL and G3 fire the .308. These are not assault rifles either. They are battle rifles.

7.62 x 39 is not even close to the power of a .308. I'm surprised you think this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I consider a carbine a "rifle" but simply a special purpose rifle. Shoot, if you argue that the M16 isn't a rifle than what's the M4 carbine?

There is no exact definition of a "carbine", simply because language does not work that way and also because any system of classification is going to have exceptions. For almost every rule there is an exception.

But I think a "carbine" may generally be considered to be a reduced rifle. The weapon may be reduced in length. It may be reduced in weight. It may be generally handier to use/carry than a rifle. It may be reduced in power. It may be one or more or all of these things.

Let's look at length. The Kar98k Mauser is nominally a "carbine". So the British "Jungle Carbine". These designations probably came about because of the reduction in length. While the reduction in length resulted in a slight reduction in weight, the reduction was more in length than in weight. The reduction length and weight made these weapons easier to carry than their larger siblings like the G98 and No. 4 Enfield, so that is probably why they were designated carbines. However, the cartridge power of these weapons was not reduced. They remained chambered for the full-power rounds of their longer siblings. So while they are called "carbines" to distinguish them from their longer siblings, if we were to classify these weapons by type, we would classify them as rifles and not carbines.

Let's take a look at some classic carbine designs. One is the lever-action .30-30. This weapon shows every indication of being a carbine. It is reduced in length. It is reduced in weight. It is reduced in power. The same is true of the M1 and M2 carbines.

The M16 is not properly classified as a rifle. In fact, the M16 fits the classic definition of a carbine. It's shorter in length. It's lighter in weight. It fires a cartridge of reduced power. (I'm talking in relation to its siblings like the M14, M1, etc.)

The US Military has called M16 a "rifle" for political reasons, so that the M16 would be accepted. This is not unlike the reasons for calling the StG44 a rifle. From day one, there were forces within the US Military that were vehemently opposed to the adoption of the M16 on the ground that it was inadequately powered and had limited range and terminal effect. Calling the M16 a carbine woud merely have given these people yet more reason to block the M16's adoption. Hence the designation "rifle" was used.

Note that I'm not against the assault rifle concept for military use. I'm merely saying assault rifles are not true rifles and that the term "battle carbine" is more technically correct.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old March 29th, 2005, 08:51 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
LOL.

Greg and John,

I think our last three posts make it clear that if we don't catch the most recent post before we start to type we start to say the same things.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old March 29th, 2005, 09:12 AM
hochung hochung is offline
Ho Chung
W6HC
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Posts: 2,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by traveltoad
I know that I have really left myself open by sticking my head into this thread.

aaron, don't you have a bulletproof arai somewhere?
____________________
Ho Chung

Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old March 29th, 2005, 09:18 AM
traveltoad traveltoad is offline
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,625
Yes, but it will only work against machine carbines not rifles.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old March 29th, 2005, 10:45 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
well that was a lengthy history lesson.
unfortunately it's the same one I've been reading since I was 12 so it's not any kind of news to me.

Yeah, I'm sure you already knew all of this. I'm sure you already knew that the StG44 was originally designated a "machine carbine" and then "machine pistol" and then "assault rifle". I'm sure that you knew the "assault rifle" tag was used for political reasons and not for technical accuracy. That's why you cling to the argument that because the Germans classified the StG44 as a rifle, then it must truly be a rifle.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
I have to say it seems you contradict yourself when you insist that

"Sturmgewehr" obviously means "assault rifle", but just because the word "rifle" is in the name does not means that a sturmgewehr is a true rifle."

and then later say

"The designers knew that the FG was a true rifle and designated it "Fallschirmjaer Gewehr" or "paratrooper rifle". ("Fallschirmjager" means, literally, "hunter from the sky" but it translates to "paratrooper".) Its name was not changed to hide its development or make it more appealing to a governing body. Its classification as a "rifle" is correct in every way."

Contradiction? Where's the contradiction. I have said that the designers originally classified the StG44 as "MKb" but the Germans later re-classified it the StG44 for political reasons, to get the weapon more readily accepted by those who make adoption decisions. Then I said that the designers of the FG42 classified it as a rifle because it was a rifle.

Where's the contradiction? I can see the contradiction in your mind, because your understanding of these weapons doesn't go beyond their names, just as your understanding of cartridge power doesn't go beyond the bore diameter or ostensible size of the cartridge (more on this below). The StG designation was motivated by artifice and political reasons and not for technical reasons. The FG designation was for technical reasons and is technically correct. There is no contradiction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
the fact remains that in it's ultimate form the Germans identified the Stg44 as some kind of rifle. Just as they did the FG42. It's not a Sturmkarabiner44. Neither carbine nor machine pistol. Rifle. Clearly the Germans paid no heed to the guidelines for nomenclature that you have laid out.


Again, you're back to the "they call it a rifle so it must be a rifle" argument. This is absurd. They called it a rifle because they wanted to overcome the hesitancy on the part of those who opposed the adoption of a reduced-power weapon. This nomenclature was used for subterfuge and misinformation. It wasn't used for technical accuracy. This is the very same reason the M16 is classified as a rifle and not a carbine. Just as Hitler vetoed the MKb project, there were those in the American military who vehemently opposed the adoption of any weapon of reduced power. That's why they blocked the NATO adoption of the British .280 round. That's why they did everything they could to block the adoption of the M16.

The M16 and StG44 are not true rifles. They lack the power of a true, full-power rifle. Just because they are commonly referred to as rifles does not make them rifles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
You also say that the 7.92 Kurz is between 8mm Mauser and 9mm parabellum. I'd say it's a hell of a lot closer to 8mm Mauser. You're the one who loves ballistics technicana so I trust you to dig up the numbers to do the math. What's the story there? Don't the 7.92 Kurz and the 8mm Mauser actually share the same bullet?

What? Don't you know all of this already? I'm sure you do, but because you ask and merely for the edification of others who may be interested in small arms esoterica, I'll go into it.

The German military 9mm Parabellum round throws a 124-grain projectile at 1300 f/s. That's from pistols. When fired from machine pistols the velocity is closer to 1450 f/s. The 7.92 kurz round throws a 124-grain projectile at 2100 f/s. The 7.92 Mauser rifle round throws a 150-grain projectile at 2750 f/s. I'd say that puts the 7.92 kurz round between the 9mm and the 7.92 Mauser rounds. The 7.92 kurz round almost splits the difference between the pistol and rifle rounds. It's a true intermediate cartridge.

No, the 7.92 kurz and Mauser rounds do not share the same projectile. The bore diameter is the same, and so I suppose the two projectiles are therefore the same to you. But they're not. The two rounds share the same bore diameter for production reasons, i.e., to simply large-scale production of barrels and such.

The 7.92 kurz's projectile is very stubby and suffers from a very poor sectional density and ballistic coefficient. Thus, it sheds velocity very quickly and is unsuitable for at long range. Furthermore, its penetration against hard targets is necessarily limited because the cartridge is overbored for its power level. The 2100 f/s velocity is very low and has a looping trajectory. Even if this 124-grain projectile were launched at the 7.92 Mauser's 2750 f/s velocity, it would very quickly shed velocity and have poor long-range trajectory and power.

But, I'm sure you already knew all of this already.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Also in my mind .308 also represents an intermediary cartridge when listed next to the other rounds you mention. The other traditional .30 caliber rounds you name are so similar to each other that the .308 seems to stand out among them. Clearly the introduction and use of the .308 in select fire battle rifles was an attempt to mitigate the shortcomings of the use of 8mm mauser in the FG42 and G43 and .30-06 in the BAR and Garand. It represents a reduction from what you have identified as full size, full power rifle rounds.

LOFL. This is also hilarious. So the .308 is an intermediate round? I guess you've seen .30-06 cartridges and .308 cartridges and compared the size difference between the two cartridges and concluded that the .308 is weaker because of its smaller size? Well, this just shows how little you know about rifle ballistics.

The .308 is indeed a smaller cartridge than the .30-06. The .30-06's case is 63mm long. The .308's case is 51mm long. That's a 12mm difference and that's a significant difference. But that is not to say that the .308 is a weaker round. It's not.

In the 50-odd years between the development of the .30-06 and .308, propellant technology developed to the point that the .30-06's ballistics could be duplicated in the shorter .308 case. The military M2 .30-06 load propels a 150-grain FMJBT projectile to 2700 f/s. The military M80 .308 load propels the identical 150-grain FMJBT projectile to the identical 2700 f/s. The two rounds are identical in power. The 7.62mm NATO round is merely a more modern version of the .30-06 M2 round, and enables a full-power rifle cartridge to be fired from a shorter/lighter/handier weapon. The round also requires slightly less raw materials because of the shorter case. This makes a difference because these rounds are loaded in the bazillions to wage a war.

The .308 may be an "intermediary cartridge" in your mind because of its shorter OAL, but that doesn't make it an intermediate round. It's a full-power rifle round, every bit the equal of the .30-06, 7.92mm Mauser, 7.5 Swiss, 7x57 Mauser, etc. That's why military weapons chambered in .308 like the FAL and G3 are properly termed "battle rifles" and not "battle carbines" or "assault rifles". This is what happens when one has only a superficial knowledge of rifle ballistics and goes by the appearance or dimensions of a particular cartridge.

But I'm sure you already knew all of this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
To me "carbine" is always a tricky word. To some it's simply a shortened version of a larger rifle such as the Sharps, K98, Carcano, Jungle no. 5, Mosin M44, Krag-Jorgensen, Winchester 1895 or Arisaka type 38. Sometimes in these instances the the longer variant is identified as the "musket" to distinguish between the two other times not.

This is also hilarious. The G98 is a musket? LOL. A musket by its very nature does not have spiral grooves in its bore. This rifling is what separates a musket from a rifle. A G98 cannot be a musket because it does not have a smooth bore. Calling the G98 a musket is about as accurate as calling the Three Swordsmen the "Three Musketeers". Just because people commonly do it does not make it correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
While I recognize that the StG44 utilize a round that is unique in its application, that round is all too similar to the 8mm Mauser in my mind. It doesn't represent a significant enough departure from pistol or rifle cartridge trends as .30 carbine does.

Again, also hilarious. I've said above why the 7.92 kurz and 7.92 share nothing in common except bore diameter. You also compare the 7.92 kurz to the .30 carbine round and say the two are different. Let's take a look at the two rounds and compare them.

7.92 kurz propels a .311" diameter, 124-grain projectile at 2100 f/s. The .30 carbine propels a .308" diameter, 110-grain projectile at 1970 f/s. Where is the difference in these two cartridges? In power? In trajectory? In hard target penetration? Anyone who knows anything about ballistics rates these two projectiles as all but identical in performance.

I find it hilarious that you think the 7.92 kurz round performs well but the .30 carbine round does not, when they're all but identical in performance. Perhaps it's the "carbine" label for the .30 carbine round and the "rifle" label for the 7.92 kurz round. This labeling actually worked on you. LOL. Perhaps if the US Army ordnance had dubbed the M1 carbine an "assault rifle", you would think the M1 carbine was a true rifle as well?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
In one sense 7.92 Kurz is naturally more like 5.56. which is another smaller intermediary round based on rifle cartridge design principles.


This is not correct either. The 7.92 kurz and 5.56 are both intermediate cartridges. That is true. However, the 5.56 is a completely different approach to the intermediate cartridge problem. The 5.56 at least as a rifle-like trajectory. It lacks the power of a true rifle but at least the 5.56 has the rifle cartridge's trajectory. Rounds like the 7.92 kurz and .30 carbine do not. The 5.56 also has very good hard target penetration for a round of its power level. The 7.92 kurz and .30 carbine do not, as they fire very fat/stubby projectiles at a low velocity.

So I think you have it backward. The 7.92 kurz has a lot more in common with the .30 carbine than with the 5.56.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old March 29th, 2005, 06:27 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
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
  #57  
Old March 29th, 2005, 09:35 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

Aaah, so the truth comes out. Ian Hogg and the History Channel? So, that's where you obtained your knowledge about assault rifle development. This explains a lot.

I don't mean this as an insult, but I don't think I'm far off the mark in saying that you have at best a very cursory knowledge of assault rifle development and rifles in general. You know just enough to be wrong on almost everything. For example, you claim to know the development history of the assault rifle and why it came about. But this statement is very revealing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
now as for 9 vs. 45 it's sort of a pointless debate, but I won't let that deter me.

9mm.

think of all the great 9mm pistols throughout history in comparison to .45s



Other firearms, pistol and submachinegun alike could not be improved by a switch from 9mm to something else or were best left as they were or were never changed.

especially subs:
MP40
MP5
Uzi

The assault rifle concept came about because the Wehrmacht found its 9mm machine pistols severely wanting. These weapons delivered very high rates of fire, but they were limited in range and terminal effect. This became patently apparent very early in the war. I believe work on the 7.92 kurz cartridge began in 1939. It's development was not like, "hmm, maybe we should try something new just for shits and giggles?". Rather, it was more like, "this shit isn't working; we need something else and we need it now." Had the 9mm machine pistol been sufficient for its task as you claim, then the 7.92 kurz would not have been developed at all.

It's easy to look at a catalog of arms and see the numerous machine pistols chambered for 9mm Parabellum and conclude that the 9mm is a satisfactory cartridge, for if it were unsatisfactory, then why are so many weapons chambered for it? The serious student of small arms knows why. The serious student of small arms also knows the numerous examples of new cartridge design that arose out of the insufficiency of the 9mm as both a pistol and a machine pistol cartridge.

Incidentally, this other statement from that same post is also very revealing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Certainly the thompson was an effective weapon, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery why wasn't it widely copied like great 9mm designs? The reality is that it can be a heavy akward weapon for a sub and it's extremely difficulty to produce. A lot of these problems stem from the .45 chambering and open bolt design. War era thompsons cost $350 to produce in comparison to the $15 for a M3. Not that I like the M3, I hate it, but it does illustrate the price gap.

I fail to see how the .45 ACP chambering of the Thompson had any effect on its cost to produce. You state in one sentence later that the M3 grease gun was able to be made for $15. Isn't the grease gun chambered in .45 ACP, just like the Thompson? And how is open-bolt operation more expensive to produce than closed bolt? If anything, closed-bolt operation is more expensive because more components are required.

Just for the record, the Thompson was very expensive to produce, but not because of its .45 ACP chambering. Rather, the Thompson was very expensive to produce because of its method of manufacture, extras it was originally fitted with, and the very high quality standards to which it was originally made. The Thompson originally was made with a machined receiver. The rear sight alone required intricate machining and probably cost more to make than the entire grease gun. The barrel had cooling fins on it. The compensator required intricate machining. The Thompson's bolt also incorporated a Blish Lock, even though it was not required at all for the .45 ACP chambering.

Later in WW2, the US Military greatly simplified the Thompson's method of manufacture and greatly lowered its production time and cost. And still the chambering stayed in .45 ACP.

Again, I see a very cursory knowledge of weapons. True, the early Thompsons were very expensive to make. But it was not because these weapons were chambered in .45 ACP. It was a reason entirely different.

OK, now we get to the fun stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

LOL. I can see that this one truly caught you off guard. Your reaction says it all. Was the .308's intermediate nature part of your History Channel understanding of the assault rifle's development? Or perhaps you read this one in some Ian Hogg coffee table book on the bargain books rack at Barnes & Noble? Well, it ain't so. I'll cover each of your points, one at a time.

How can I compare a modernized .308 round to the first iteration? Well, I'm not. See below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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.


If you truly understood rifle development and rifle history, you would know that the .308 Winchester is merely a commercial version of the 7.62mm x 51 NATO round. The military version came first. The original load for the 7.62mm x 51 NATO round, the load that started it all, the load that is still used today, is the M80 ball load. This load fires a .308" diameter FMJBT projectile at 2700 f/s. These ballistics are identical to the ballistics of the US Military M2 load for the .30-06 Springfield, the load that was standardized in 1906 and employed in the Springfield, Garand, Browning medium machineguns, and the BAR. If you doubt me, look it up. I'm quite positive on this point. I'm not sure you'll find this on the History Channel or in Ian Hogg books, but the information is out there if you want to find it.

Not that this article is the end-all, be-all of history, but even a quick Google search found this article on the .308's development:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...08/ai_n9092276

Here's a pic of the 7.62mm's wound profile, as measured by Martin Fackler, the head of the US Army's wound ballistics lab.


Note the projectile weight and velocity figures.

There's far far more out there. Just open your eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

Well, just because you're under the impression that the .308 was an intermediate round does not make it so. It's a full-power rifle round, every bit the equal of the M2 military load for the .30-06. Both the M80 and M2 ball loads propel a .308" diameter FMJBT projectile at 2700 f/s. Same bullet diameter. Same bullet weight. Same bullet shape. Same bullet construction. Same velocity. Same everything. The .308 is simply shorter in length.

I'm still cracking up about this one. I can imagine you when you're 12 and studying assault rifle development and looking at the two rounds and concluding the .308 is a reduced round because it's shorter in length. Or, perhaps you were reading an Ian Hogg book and saw the .30-06, .308, and 7.62 x 39 rounds standing side by side and that's when Ian Hogg said that the three rounds represented a spectrum of three different power levels. It would be just like Ian Hogg to say something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

Sure, the 7.92 kurz projectile is a spitzer design and the .30 carbine's is round-nosed. Yes, there is a difference. But is the difference substantial? Does the difference make one cartridge demonstrably superior to the other? Hardly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
.280? what about 6mm Lee Navy? Is this a rifle round?

The 6mm Lee Navy a rifle round? Sure, I think it is.

I can see what's going through your head now. "John says the 7.92 kurz isn't a rifle round but the smaller-diameter Lee Navy is a rifle round? Ding ding ding. Contradiction!" LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

No, you didn't use the words, "The G98 is a musket." However, you did say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
To me "carbine" is always a tricky word. To some it's simply a shortened version of a larger rifle such as the Sharps, K98, Carcano, Jungle no. 5, Mosin M44, Krag-Jorgensen, Winchester 1895 or Arisaka type 38. Sometimes in these instances the the longer variant is identified as the "musket" to distinguish between the two other times not.

You mentioned the k98 and said that in some instances the longer variant of the carbine (the G98 in this case) is often identified as a musket. I used the G98 as an example, but we can use any rifle you want. Arisaka? 1895? Krag? All of these are rifled weapons. The longer versions are not and never were muskets. Again, some people may mistakenly refer to them as muskets, but that does not make them muskets. A musket cannot have a rifled bore. If it did, it would cease to be a musket, as a musket by definition does not have a rifled bore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
I ask if the M16A2 and M4 are not rifles, then what weapon occupies the rifle roll on today's battlefield?

No weapon does. Rifles are not used today. Sure, there are specialty weapons such as sniper rifles and whatnot, but I'm talking more about widespread use and I believe you are too. There is no true rifle in widespread use today. The armies of the former combloc are armed with a battle carbine. The armies of west are armed with several different battle carbines. The various other armies of the world basically follow the combloc and western armies and use battle carbines.

Wars today are no longer won with personal small arms. Most casualties today are inflicted with high explosive and support weapons, not rifle fire. The role of small arms in modern warfare has changed dramatically. Also, the personnel making up today's armies are different from those of past armies. Soldiers today grew up in cities and are not the marksmen their forefathers were, and thus it is very difficult to train them to shoot the rifle well because of its greater power. It is much easier to train them to shoot the battle carbine, because the battle carbine is chambered for a weaker round and thus is easier to master or at least shoot decently. The true rifle is uselessly powerful and unnecessarily accurate for use by these masses. Since what they can do with the rifle is very little and they cannot capitalize on the rifle's tremendous reach and power anyway, the battle carbine will probably serve them just as well. For these and other reasons, the major armies of the world have gone to the battle carbine. I can hardly say they're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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.

Is that what I said? Funny, I thought I said that the weapons utilizing intermediate rounds are not rifles because they utilize intermediate rounds and not rifle rounds. I thought I said that the weapons utilizing intermediate rounds are not rifles because they are incapable of reach, and reach is one of the primary virtues of the rifle. I thought I said that the weapons utilizing intermediate rounds are not rifles because they do not deliver a terminal blow, and power is one of the primary virtues of the rifle. I have said this numerous times, but all you hear is "Hitler said so." I never said said, "Hitler says it or Studler says it so it must be true." I leave that to you and your Ian Hogg arguments.

Did I say that the development of the assault rifle and its universal adoption by the modern armies of the world was a mistake? That's odd. I don't remember saying that. Did I say that the modern solider would be better served with a battle rifle than a battle carbine? I don't remember saying that either.

I do, however, distinctly remember saying, " Note that I'm not against the assault rifle concept for military use. I'm merely saying assault rifles are not true rifles and that the term "battle carbine" is more technically correct."

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
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?

If you're looking for an exact definition of a "rifle cartridge" or a "rifle", there isn't one, just as there is no exact definition of a "carbine". I do remember saying previously, that "any system of classification is going to have exceptions".

Sure, there are many characteristics to what makes a rifle. For certain, a rifle must have a rifled bore. A smooth-bore weapon is not and cannot be a rifle. A rifle is shoulder-fired, with both hands. A rifle fires a powerful round and has great reach. These are general indications of what makes a rifle and are not exact.

You mention the Sharps and Martini. These are both rifles, they're just not "modern rifles". The around-.30 caliber cartridges mentioned previously are merely examples of modern rifle cartridges. Again, they are merely examples. They are not an exhaustive list of all rifle cartridges. The .270 Winchester is undoubtedly a modern rifle cartridge, but I did not list it previously. The .45-70 and Martini .577/.450 cartridges do not have the reach of the modern rifle, that is to be sure. But that does not mean they are not rifles, since they were invented before the introduction of the modern rifle round with its smokeless propellant that drives its long/thin, heavy-for-caliber bullet of streamlined shape and high sectional density to very high velocities. At the time those weapons were invented, they had the reach of standard rifle rounds of their day.

Note that this is distinctly different from the 7.92 kurz, 5.56, etc., which are both modern developments and have, by design, a reach and terminal effect substantially lower than their full-power siblings like the 7.92 Mauser and .308.

You also mention the Brown Bess. I'm not sure if this weapon was a rifle or not, as I don't know if it had a rifled bore. I was under the impression that this weapon had a non-rifled bore, but I'm far from certain about this as my interest in weaponry starts with the metallic cartridge and I don't enjoy learning about these types of weapons. So I know very little about them.

Also, the classification of a weapon as a "rifle" does not depend on cartridge alone. For example, a varminter chambered in .223 is still more properly described as a rifle than a carbine. This is so because the varminter doesn't substantially fit the definition of a carbine. Sure, it fires a cartridge of reduced power in the absolute sense, but its primary target is varmints and not human beings. Cartridge power is not something to viewed in the abstract. Rather, it's to be viewed in light of its intended target. Viewed in that light, the .223 varminter's cartridge is very powerful. Tag a groundhog with a .223 and the results are decisive. Also, the varminter usually is fitted with a heavy barrel and large telescope that make the weapon long, heavy, and not generally handy to carry. So the varminter chambered in .223 is more properly classified as a rifle than a carbine. Again, cartridge alone is not dispositive.

You mention the Enforcer pistol and say it's not a carbine. You say it's a pistol, even though it's chambered for .30 carbine. I completely agree. This is yet another example of cartridge anomaly. Just because this example exists does not negate the fact that the .30 carbine is most properly described as a carbine round, and not a rifle round or not a pistol round.

It's very easy to find exceptions to weapon classifications. Greg's .600 Nitro Express revolver is one of a thousand examples of oddball weapons that some person invented just for shits and giggles. Does the fact that there is a .600 pistol out there make the .600 Nitro Express not a rifle round? Hardly. There are many pistols chambered for .308. That does not make the .308 a pistol cartridge? No.

When classifying weapons and cartridges, the best way is to exercise one's judgment rather than black and white rules. We are dealing with differing shades of gray, and not black and white. So I recommend abandoning your attempt at finding an exact bore diameter or velocity to determine what constitutes a rifle cartridge. It's futile. One cannot reasonably say, for example, that 2400 f/s is the minimum velocity required to be a modern rifle round, because all of the Nitro Express calibers would be eliminated. What would they be then? Carbine rounds? Hardly. They would have to be the most powerful carbine rounds ever created.

Just accept that the 7.92 kurz is not a rifle cartridge and the StG44 is not a true rifle. That much is clear. It's reality. Just accept it.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old March 29th, 2005, 09:56 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
As I said before, the DA pull is long and heavy with lots of stacking before the release. The DA pull is inferior to that found on revolvers. The SA pull is also terrible, with lots of take-up and lots of overtravel after the release. The trigger is also located away from the butt in a compromise location

I disagree. The DA trigger pull is overly long. No argument. Stacking? Certainly no worse than the average revolver. Single action? IMHO it is one of the best out of the box! I'm starting to wonder if you've shot a Glock. I think I had cast pot metal cap guns as a kid that had had a more precise trigger feel. In fact, a cheap cap gun with plastic internal moving parts that bend and sway is where I'd put the Glock trigger action...


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Yes, there are select-fire weapons that fire full-power rifle rounds. These are not properly termed "assault rifles" because they do not fire a cartridge of intermediate power. SIG made the StG57, which fires the 7.5 Swiss round. Though the StG57 is called a "sturmgewehr", is it really? I don't think so. The StG57 is a full-power rifle. It's almost identical in concept to the FG42. The StG57 is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle/battle carbine.

The FAL and G3 fire the .308. These are not assault rifles either. They are battle rifles.

This is starting to sound like Congress debating what makes an "assault weapon". I think most people think of the term "rifle" in the generic sense (i.e. rifled barrel long weapon of no specific length with a stock). A carbine, "battle rifle" "assault rifle" are descriptive terms further denoting a subclass of "rifle" in order to define with more specificity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
7.62 x 39 is not even close to the power of a .308. I'm surprised you think this.

Actually I agree with you. However, I an old Viet Nam MC vet I spoke with argued this point with me not too long ago. He argued that when he gave up his M14, the NVA had a ballistically-similiar weapon in the AK47. When issued the M16 he was giving up an advantage in range and a more flat trajectory that he had with the M14 to a more unreliable (albeit lighter weight) weapon with less range than the AK. I didn't argue other than to state that if the 7.62x39 was so similiar to the 7.62x51 then why the Dragunov SVD etc chambered for the ancient 7.62x54R? He stated that most marine sniper used the 30.06 when he was in and that the majority of small unit combat in Viet Nam took place at such a range that negated any difference between the AK and M14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
There is no exact definition of a "carbine", simply because language does not work that way and also because any system of classification is going to have exceptions. For almost every rule there is an exception.

I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
...The same is true of the M1 and M2 carbines.

Let's look at that. It's my understanding that the M1 and subsequent auto M2 were basically a compromise since the US military found that the average tanker, cook, driver, etc. was woefully inaccurate with the .45 auto sidearm. They issued the .30 cal M1 carbine to compensate. Practically a pistol round with a rifle stock. I don't consider these in the same league as the other "rifles/carbines" discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The M16 is not properly classified as a rifle. In fact, the M16 fits the classic definition of a carbine. It's shorter in length. It's lighter in weight. It fires a cartridge of reduced power.

That brings up my previous comment re: if that's true, then what's "proper" nomenclature for the M4 or earlier CAR15? Mini-carbines? Assault machine pistols?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
(I'm talking in relation to its siblings like the M14, M1, etc.)

By M1 I assume you're referring to the M1 Garand not carbine right?

BTW Jack, just say NO to Ian Hogg and his books.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old March 29th, 2005, 11:01 PM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
http://www.winchestercollector.org/guns/1895.shtml

"Configurations were rifle, carbine and musket."

all three have rifled barrels.
In this case, as with the Krag "musket" refers to a full length wooden stock.

now on to your arguments about my understanding of assault rifle development and the mp40 having reached it's pinnacle in 9mm. I stand by what I have said. The StG44 is no way shape or form a submachinegun. The shortcomings of the MP40 were not addressed by cramming a larger round into a sub. The wermacht did not develop 7.92 Kurz for the MP40 platform. Instead they chose to develop an entirely different firearm which they utilized on the battlefield alongside the MP40. No cartridge change was going to make the MP40 any better than it already was so the only answer was something completely different.

I've learned what I know about military firearms from many places, Ian Hogg included. It certainly isn't limited to one source. But as I inferred, even the most rudimentary lesson (Hogg and History Channel) can clearly define what a rifle is, was and shall be.

All you've managed to prove to me is that your ideas about the StG44 and it's descendants not being rifles are nothing more discernable than a general opinion. I cannot gleam from all the text you've written any hard and fast theory or litmus test which defines unequivocaly how to classify these various small arms. You seem incapable of offering any evaluation that isn't fraught with exceptions or which changes with context.
Most dissappointingly these ideas aren't even your own. You've simply adopted another trendy Jeff Cooperism and now your forced to scrape together an argument for someone else's statement.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old March 30th, 2005, 06:52 AM
traveltoad traveltoad is offline
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,625
There's going to be some great fireside chat this weekend!!!
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old March 30th, 2005, 07:47 AM
JSQ JSQ is offline
Jack Quinlan
KI6CTP
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,487
Not if my battle carbines have anything to say about it.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old March 30th, 2005, 08:08 AM
traveltoad traveltoad is offline
Aaron Shrier
KI6BCA
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,625
My machine pistols say YES!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old March 30th, 2005, 09:24 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I disagree. The DA trigger pull is overly long. No argument. Stacking? Certainly no worse than the average revolver.

Really? I gotta disagree here. The average DA pull on revolvers is much more refined than the average DA pull on the wondernines like the 226, and this is true for the 226 in particular as well. The stacking is much more pronounced on the 226's DA pull. The wide trigger is also unsuited for DA use. I much prefer the narrow trigger found on non-target revolvers.

Another problem with the 226's trigger action is that DA pulls are best delivered with the first crease of the trigger finger while SA pulls are best delivered with the first pad, and the 226 basically requires the shooter to shoot the first DA shot with the first pad of his trigger finger. This is why the trigger reach in DA is too long and the reach in SA is too short. If the 226 operated in DA for every shot or SA for every shot, this would not be a problem since the shooter could naturally change his grip to accommodate the weapon's dimensions. But hammers and controlled pairs are delivered with such a speed that shifting the hand position between the first and second shots is impossible. Thus, the shooter is forced to manipulate the DA pull with the first pad of his trigger finger. Not a huge deal. This technique can certainly be mastered. But it's not the best way to shoot the DA trigger action.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
Single action? IMHO it is one of the best out of the box!

How are you measuring trigger quality? By weight and by how crisp the release is? Certainly, the 226's SA trigger action releases at a suitable weight and with adequate crispness. It's not a glass-rod release, but it's more than enough for a weapon of its type.

But those were not my criticisms of the 226's SA pull. I said previously that what's wrong with the 226's SA trigger action is that the take-up is too long and that there is too much overtravel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I'm starting to wonder if you've shot a Glock. I think I had cast pot metal cap guns as a kid that had had a more precise trigger feel. In fact, a cheap cap gun with plastic internal moving parts that bend and sway is where I'd put the Glock trigger action...

Certainly, the Glock's trigger action different from that of traditional SA pistols like the 1911. I can see why lots of shooters don't like it. However, I do think that it's a much more usable system than the DA/SA trigger actions found on the typical wondernines and such. When I shoot at Glock, it takes a magazine to get accustomed to its trigger action but thereafter the weapon shoots just fine for me. I really like the Glock.



Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I think most people think of the term "rifle" in the generic sense (i.e. rifled barrel long weapon of no specific length with a stock). A carbine, "battle rifle" "assault rifle" are descriptive terms further denoting a subclass of "rifle" in order to define with more specificity.

I agree that most people think of "rifle" in that sense. However, that does not mean it is correct. Most people think of the metallic cartridge as a "bullet", but that is not correct. Most people think of "shrapnel" as a general term for shell splinters, when this is incorrect (shrapnel is composed of round balls). Most people refer to a magazine as a "clip", but knowledgeable people know that a clip and a magazine are two distinctly different forms of cartridge retention. Jack seems to think that a rifle with a full-length stock is a "musket", but this incorrect as well because a musket is a smooth-bore weapon. The list goes on and on. Just because most people think something does not make it correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I an old Viet Nam MC vet I spoke with argued this point with me not too long ago. He argued that when he gave up his M14, the NVA had a ballistically-similiar weapon in the AK47. When issued the M16 he was giving up an advantage in range and a more flat trajectory that he had with the M14 to a more unreliable (albeit lighter weight) weapon with less range than the AK. I didn't argue other than to state that if the 7.62x39 was so similiar to the 7.62x51 then why the Dragunov SVD etc chambered for the ancient 7.62x54R? He stated that most marine sniper used the 30.06 when he was in and that the majority of small unit combat in Viet Nam took place at such a range that negated any difference between the AK and M14.

Yes, the ranges at which infantry engage each other today largely negates the differences between the carbine and the rifle. I believe the vast majority of combat engagements take place at under 200 yards. The 7.62 x 39 and 5.56 are enough for these ranges. In fact, they are more suited for use these ranges than the full-power rifle because the full-power rifle can't deliver the same volume of fire that the battle carbine can, and fire superiority is a big deal for infantry. The rifle is also more difficult for most soldiers to shoot because of its greater recoil. These are some of the reasons why the battle carbine is an eminently suitable weapon for modern military use.

However, that is not to say "that the 7.62x39 was ballistically similiar to the .308". Note how combloc sniper rifles are chambered for full-power rifle rounds. The same goes for western armies. The sniper uses the rifle for the role it was intended: to reach out and engage single targets and deliver a decisive blow to the target. There is no need for fire superiority for sniper use as there is with standard infantry. The rifle's virtues come into play for the sniper and he is better served with a rifle than with a carbine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
It's my understanding that the M1 and subsequent auto M2 were basically a compromise since the US military found that the average tanker, cook, driver, etc. was woefully inaccurate with the .45 auto sidearm. They issued the .30 cal M1 carbine to compensate. Practically a pistol round with a rifle stock. I don't consider these in the same league as the other "rifles/carbines" discussed.

That's my understanding as well, although I would also include officers and such.

I agree that the .30 carbine round is not as effective as the modern 5.56 round, but I do classify the two rounds into the same category. The 5.56 is a better carbine round than the .30 carbine, but it's still a carbine round. The 5.56 does have better trajectory and range, and it does have better hard target penetration than the .30 carbine round, but I do think the 5.56 shares more in common with the 7.62 x 33 kurz and .30 carbine than it does with the full-power rifle. The 5.56 is designed for use at ranges at which the 7.62 kurz and .30 carbine are still effective, 200 yards and under. The 5.56 delivers very little lethality at ranges past 200 yards, as its velocity diminishes to such a point that its bullet will no longer fragment in soft tissue. This problem is compounded even further in the M4 with its shorter barrel. 5.56 fired from the M4 will not fragment in soft tissue at ranges beyond 100 yards.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
That brings up my previous comment re: if that's true, then what's "proper" nomenclature for the M4 or earlier CAR15? Mini-carbines? Assault machine pistols?

Sorry I didn't answer this one previously. I thought it was a rhetorical question. The M4 is a carbine. The CAR15 is a carbine. Neither is a machine pistol, because neither fires a pistol cartridge.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old March 30th, 2005, 02:08 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
LOL. Here we go again on the 1895 thing. This weapon is nothing more than a footnote in small arms history, and yet you seem to have an obsession for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
"Configurations were rifle, carbine and musket."

all three have rifled barrels.
In this case, as with the Krag "musket" refers to a full length wooden stock.

LOL. So a full-length forend makes a rifle a musket. Interesting. Compare these two weapons:


"The Mauser at the top is a rifle. The Mannlicher at the bottom is a musket."

Well, isn't it? Isn't that Mannlicher a musket? It has a rifled bore, but that never stopped you before from calling a rifle a musket. It's got a full-length wooden stock, doesn't it? It fits perfectly into your definition of a musket, doesn't it? It's a small-bore firing a jacketed long/thin bullet of high sectional density spun by its rifled bore and driven at high velocity, but then again so is the Krag "Musket" and that was a Musket too.

I always thought the Mannlicher was a rifle, but now I know that it's a musket.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
now on to your arguments about my understanding of assault rifle development and the mp40 having reached it's pinnacle in 9mm. I stand by what I have said. The StG44 is no way shape or form a submachinegun. The shortcomings of the MP40 were not addressed by cramming a larger round into a sub. The wermacht did not develop 7.92 Kurz for the MP40 platform. Instead they chose to develop an entirely different firearm which they utilized on the battlefield alongside the MP40. No cartridge change was going to make the MP40 any better than it already was so the only answer was something completely different.

That's an interesting way to frame it. So the 9mm machne pistol wasn't found wanting in effectiveness? So the Wehrmacht just decided for some odd reason to develop a new weapon and add yet another cartridge into the supply line?

No. The 9mm machine pistol was found severely wanting not in rate of fire, but in range and power and something else was needed. That's why the Wehrmacht developed the 7.92 kurz round.

You say the Wehrmacht did not cram a larger round into the machine pistol's platform and that the sturmgewehr was an entirely different firearm. This is also an interesting way to frame it. Here are two pics, one of the StG44 and one of the MP40:


Do those two weapons look demonstrably different to you? Sure, there are differences but the basic layout is identical for both. The primary difference between the StG44 and the MP40 is not in weapon design or layout, but in method of operation. The StG44 fires from a locked breech and is gas operated. The StG44 fires from the closed-bolt position. The MP40 operates on the simple blowback principle and fires from the open-bolt position. The two different methods of operation are suitable for the different power levels of the two cartridges. However, the two weapons are otherwise basically identical in layout and design.

When one studies German small arms development (and I'm not talking about watching the History Channel), one easily sees the evolution of the German small arms designs, why they came about, what means were used to execute these designs, and so on. The StG44 came about because the various MP's were found lacking. The StG44 is nothing more than a carbine based upon the machine pistol platform. The method of operation is obviously changed to chamber the more powerful carbine round, but the general layout and weapon design remain unchanged from the machine pistol to the machine carbine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
All you've managed to prove to me is that your ideas about the StG44 and it's descendants not being rifles are nothing more discernable than a general opinion. I cannot gleam from all the text you've written any hard and fast theory or litmus test which defines unequivocaly how to classify these various small arms. You seem incapable of offering any evaluation that isn't fraught with exceptions or which changes with context.

LOL. Just the fact that you think weapons classification is a black and white area tells me how little you know about weapons. The reason I give general indicia of what constitutes a rifle instead of a black-letter rule is because there is no black-letter rule.

OK, let's do this if you're inclined. You know more about shotguns then you know about pistols and rifles. So let's work within your strongest area of firearms knowledge. Define a shotgun for me. Be specific. I want a black-letter rule here and not something that is so generalized as to be meaningless. Define a shotgun for me and I'll show you numerous weapons that fit within your black-letter definition of what a shotgun is but are not really shotguns, or I'll show you numerous weapons that don't fit within your black-letter definition but are shotguns.

You say defining a rifle is easy and defining a carbine is easy, so let's play your game. Please tell me what a shotgun is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Most dissappointingly these ideas aren't even your own. You've simply adopted another trendy Jeff Cooperism and now your forced to scrape together an argument for someone else's statement.

When did I say all of my ideas were my own? If I had to think up everything I believe I wouldn't believe anything at all. Are all of your ideas your own, aren't they?

Yes, I enjoy reading the works of many firearms authorities, including Jeff Cooper. I consider him to be a very high firearms authority.

No, I don't read Ian Hogg.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old March 30th, 2005, 05:21 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
The stacking is much more pronounced on the 226's DA pull. The wide trigger is also unsuited for DA use.

That hasn't been my experience with the SIG Sauer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Another problem with the 226's trigger action is that DA pulls are best delivered with the first crease of the trigger finger while SA pulls are best delivered with the first pad, and the 226 basically requires the shooter to shoot the first DA shot with the first pad of his trigger finger. This is why the trigger reach in DA is too long and the reach in SA is too short. If the 226 operated in DA for every shot or SA for every shot, this would not be a problem since the shooter could naturally change his grip to accommodate the weapon's dimensions. But hammers and controlled pairs are delivered with such a speed that shifting the hand position between the first and second shots is impossible. Thus, the shooter is forced to manipulate the DA pull with the first pad of his trigger finger. Not a huge deal. This technique can certainly be mastered. But it's not the best way to shoot the DA trigger action.

I have no prob pulling from DA or SA with the trigger on the first joint of my index finger throughout movement. There is also a short trigger available for those with small hands. I purchased one a long time ago but never felt the need for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
But those were not my criticisms of the 226's SA pull. I said previously that what's wrong with the 226's SA trigger action is that the take-up is too long and that there is too much overtravel.

Take up is too long IMO but I have never had probs with overtravel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
I agree that most people think of "rifle" in that sense. However, that does not mean it is correct. Most people think of the metallic cartridge as a "bullet", but that is not correct. Most people think of "shrapnel" as a general term for shell splinters, when this is incorrect (shrapnel is composed of round balls). Most people refer to a magazine as a "clip", but knowledgeable people know that a clip and a magazine are two distinctly different forms of cartridge retention. Jack seems to think that a rifle with a full-length stock is a "musket", but this incorrect as well because a musket is a smooth-bore weapon. The list goes on and on. Just because most people think something does not make it correct.

I understand your logic but who is the authority as to what is "correct"? Ian Hogg? LOL Correct or not, what most people believe is what is the "norm" accepted by society.

Anyway, a quick google came up with a "firearms definition" list by Bill Dietrick:

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Dietri...ition_list.htm

As you note, he places "M1 carbine" in the "rifle" column with the M1 Garand and "assault rifles" separately. Is he wrong? I don't think it's that cut and dried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
However, that is not to say "that the 7.62x39 was ballistically similiar to the .308".

I'm surprised at your restraint in flaming here.

I admit ignorance in the 7.62x39 ballistics. Intuitively I would agree with your comment on face value alone but thought differently due to my recent conversation with the marine vet. I have only shot this round a couple time with a cheap Norinco and a decent Hungarian AK and both times at less than 100 yds. After looking at a ballistics table at the 7.62x39 and the 7.62x51 there IS a big difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnlee
Sorry I didn't answer this one previously. I thought it was a rhetorical question. The M4 is a carbine. The CAR15 is a carbine. Neither is a machine pistol, because neither fires a pistol cartridge.

Naah, not a rhetorical question. Just a smartass one...
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old March 30th, 2005, 05:29 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSQ
Not if my battle carbines have anything to say about it.

LOL-So are we going to see an M4 on a sling carried around camp? I think Panamint Resort is in DVNP so you may be talking with a Federal prosecutor this time around. I wonder if the judge will buy the "I was wearing it for display purposes only not for defense" argument this time around?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old March 30th, 2005, 07:02 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
I understand your logic but who is the authority as to what is "correct"? Ian Hogg? LOL


No, it certainly isn't Ian Hogg. I think Jack might think so. He obviously thought Ian Hogg was an authority when he was name-dropping. Too funny.

Picking the highest authority on something is very difficult. After all, any authority, no matter the extent of his knowledge and experience, is not going to know it all. All authorities are also human, so they are subject to human mistakes.

I don't know who the highest firearms authority is, but two I really like are Jeff Cooper and Peter Kokalis. I really like Cooper as a general shooting authority and Kokalis for things about military weapons and their history and design. Edward Ezell is another good writer on military weapons. All three have made errors. Lots of them. But they are very high in my book.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greghirst
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Dietri...ition_list.htm
As you note, he places "M1 carbine" in the "rifle" column with the M1 Garand and "assault rifles" separately. Is he wrong? I don't think it's that cut and dried.

Agreed. It's not cut and dried. I was saying to Jack that weapons classification is a full of exceptions and inconsistencies, which is why I think his approach to rifle power (minimum bore size and velocity) is basically a joke.

It's pretty much impossible to define exactly what a rifle is or a carbine is. For almost every rule or system of classification, no matter how intricately crafted, there are exceptions. Trying to come up with a perfect definition of a rifle, or trying to come with a minimum bore diameter and velocity for a "rifle cartridge" are basically a joke. Just thinking this is possible is a joke.

That's why judgment is required. People like black-and-white rules because then they don't have to exercise their judgment. That, or they don't have any judgment. But I think the better approach is to examine a weapon carefully and exercise judgment as to where that weapon should be classified. Some weapons like the .30-30 lever action or M16 or M1 carbine will fit easily into the classic defnition of a carbine. Other weapons will not and judgment will be required to classify them.

I read that guy's definitions and they're not horribly bad or anything, but they're not even close to authoritative. For example, let's take a look at his definition of an "infantry rifle":

"Infantry rifle: Long gun, medium to high-power cartridge, either bolt-action or semi-automatic, multiple-shot, Fed by either internal magazines loaded by stripper clips, or inserted exterior magazines. Primarily used by infantry troops."

This definition is workable. It's not horrible. But look how he omits the part about a rifled bore. This is a glaring oversight and shows this guy to be a total rookie. A sine qua non of a rifle is a rifled bore. To show how much importance this omission has, let's use the HK CAWS shotgun here as an example and show how it fits every element of this guy's definition of an infantry rifle.


Long gun: The CAWS is a long gun. It is fired from the shoulder using two hands.

Medium- to high-power cartridge: The CAWS fires a 12-gauge. I think the 12-gauge classifies as a high-power cartridge and it's undoubtedly a medium-power cartridge. Note that this definition is not limited to weapons projecting a single missile with each discharge and concerns only the power level of the chambered cartridge. Also, his omission of a rifled bore requirement makes firing shot through the bore perfectly reasonable and not anomalous.

Bolt-action or semi-automatic: The CAWS is a self-loader. There are both self-loading and select-fire versions of the CAWS in existence. But let's look at the self-loading version here. This version is semi-auto only and not capable of full-auto fire.

Multiple-shot: The CAWS is a repeater.

Fed by internal magazine loaded with clips or by detachable magazine: The CAWS is fed via detachable magazines.

Primarily used by infantry troops: The CAWS is designed for military use and used primarily by infantry troops.

Every one of this guy's elements for what constitutes a battle rifle is satisfied here, but what we have is clearly not a rifle. It's clearly a shotgun. The CAWS has a smooth bore. It fires multiple missiles with every discharge. It's clearly a shotgun and not a rifle.

Why is it that the CAWS fits into his definition of a battle rifle? Because this guy left out the essential element of a rifled bore. Again, a rifled bore is the sine qua non of a rifle. It's what separates the rifle from the musket, not the full-length forend as Jack believes.

Another thing wrong with his definition is that he limits the action types to "either bolt-action or semi-automatic". LOL. Note that he doesn't say "generally bolt-action or semi-automatic". He uses "either", meaning one or the other. I have never believed a rifle had to be a bolt-action or semi-automatic to a battle rifle. For example, check out this Russian-contract 1895 Winchester:


This guy could be talking about post-WW2 weapons. That's cool if he wants to do that. But then he includes the Springfield and Enfield in his definition of a battle rifle. If he wants to include the Springfield and Enfield, that's great. But then by definition he leaves out the Russian-contract 1895 because his definition is limited either to bolts or semi-autos. Is there any practical difference among the Springfield, Enfield, Mauser G98, and Russian 1895 in rifle performance or utility or rate of fire or whatever? No.

Also left out of his definition of a battle rifle is the G3, since the G3 is a select-fire weapon while his definition is limited only to bolts and semi-autos. All select-fire battle rifles like the G3, StG57, FG42, and AR10 are thereby eliminated from his definition of a battle rifle. Surely, these phase III battle rifles do not fit into this guy's definition of "assault rifle" because they are all full-power weapons and do not fire what he terms "medium-power" cartridges. And they don't fit into his definition of an "infantry rifle" either because they are select fire. Where do they go then into his system of classification? They don't go anywhere.

So I think it's odd that he even mentions action type when the action type does not make or break the definition of a battle rifle, and then he omits the rifled bore, when the rifled bore is an essential characteristic of any rifle, let alone a battle rifle.

I also crack up his classifying the SKS as a rifle but the AK47 as an assault rifle. Is there any practical difference between these two weapons? Sure, the AK47 is fed via a detachable magazine. But that's about it. The two weapons are identical in power, have the same range, and fit the same tactical niche. I can't help but think he's ignorant of this, and he classifies the SKS as a battle rifle because it happens to "look" like a rifle. Note that every example he lists has a traditional rifle buttstock configuration instead of a pistol grip and a stock composed of wood instead of a synthetic. I don't think this is a coincidence. If I were to ask him to fit the G3 into his system of classification, I can't help but think he would pull a Jack and put the G3 into the "assault rifle" category even though it doesn't fit his own definition of an "assault rifle".

He also includes the M1 carbine into his definition of a battle rifle, right beside the Garand and the M14, which is basically a joke. The glaring difference in power and range make classifying these three weapons together in a single category ridiculous. Note that he classifies the M2 carbine as a submachinegun, which is equally hilarious.

I can't help but think he was fooled by the similar appearances of the M1 carbine, Garand, and M14, so he classified all three as "infantry rifles". Or, he may have put the M1 carbine into the "rifle" category because it didn't his "assault rifle" category, because the M1 carbine is not generally a select-fire weapon. Who knows with this guy. Anything is possible with him.

I agree that weapons classification is a difficult thing, but this guy isn't even close.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old August 19th, 2005, 03:50 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
I read in this month's American Rifleman that Collector Grade Publications has released a new book on the development of the StG44:


Here's the description:

Sturmgewehr!-From Firepower to Striking Power
by Hans-Dieter Handrich
$79.95

Deluxe First Edition, 2004
600 pages, 392 illustrations


The author, a prizewinning German military historian, has spent years researching original documentation held in the military archives of Germany and elsewhere to produce the entire technical and tactical history of the design, development and fielding of the world's first mass-produced assault rifle and the revolutionary 7.92x33mm kurz cartridge.

It has been said that Adolf Hitler was the greatest general the Allies had during World War II, and several examples of his fatefully bungled tactical decisions are discussed. None was perhaps more significant than his refusal - on three separate occasions during 1942 and 1943 - to sanction the adoption of the intermediate-calibre assault rifle as the general-purpose infantry weapon. Its acceptance and fielding thus proved to be a long, tortuous and never-fully-completed process, and, as a measure of the complexity of the story, in all of German small arms history, no weapon was renamed so often within such a short period of time.

Its ultimate name, Sturmgewehr 44, was belatedly bestowed in October 1944 by Hitler himself after his early failures to appreciate the advantages of the assault rifle had delayed the programme for a full year, and by the time he changed his mind, a general rearming was out of the question. Nevertheless, the Sturmgewehr was by far the most important and influential small arm and cartridge of World War II.

Every book I've read from CGP has been superb in almost every way, from technical details, to photograph quality, and historical accuracy, so this one should be good. These are not Ian Hogg coffee table books or Jane's Infantry Weapons type of books. The next time I see this one at a gun show, I'll probably pick it up. I really do want to read about the real story behind the StG44's development.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old August 19th, 2005, 08:59 PM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
I couldn't wait to get my copy of Sturmgewehr and was Googling for some stuff. I found this interesting page:




According to that page, the MKb42(H) fired from an open bolt. I had no idea, but that certainly makes sense as the MKb42(H) arose out of a machine pistolish type of design.

A very interesting part of that page states:

With a good number of positive evaluations on hand, Hitler did a complete about face with respect to his opinions of the MP43. On April 6, 1944, Hitler issued the following decree:

"a) The former MG42 is to retain the same designation
b) The former self-loading rifle, known as the Gewehr 43, shall receive the designation Karabiner 43 (K43).
c) The former new MP, known as the MP43, shall receive the designation MP44.

By mid to late 1944, it was clear that the tide of the war had turned against Germany. As a result, official efforts to exploit the propaganda value of new weapons resulted in another change in model designation. In December 1944, the official nomenclature of the MP44 was changed to Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44) - "Assault Rifle 44." While no different, other than markings, from the MP44 or MP43 (with the exception of a degraded finish common to all late war German weapons), the idea was to lead the public into believing that this was one of many decisive secret weapons that would lead to ultimate victory.
So this is yet another story on how the name "Sturmgewehr" came about. Some say "Sturmgewehr" was a ploy to try to get Hitler to accept the new weapon by giving it a very impressive name and make him believe it was a true rifle and not an attenuated rifle. Others say Hitler himself coined the name when he realized how effective the weapon was on the battlefield. Now this page says "Sturmgewehr" was a ploy to raise public morale.

I don't know who's correct, but I do know that "gewehr" is used for artifice in all three stories and not because of technical accuracy. But the name certainly stuck.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old August 19th, 2005, 09:05 PM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Thanks for posting. I'm getting it. I think it actually would look very nice on our coffee table. (wife may not agree)
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old August 20th, 2005, 06:21 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
Greg, I was thinking about Sturmgewehr before hitting the sack last night, and it's ridiculous of me to wait until the next gun show. I don't hit gun shows with the frequency I used so, so the book may go out of print before I get it if I wait until my next gun show.

I was going to order one online. If you want me to order one for you, just let me know.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old August 20th, 2005, 07:16 AM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
Thanks but I'm ordering online and adding a couple more books to the order as well. I have 2 CGP books already and didn't realize their full line was available online till you posted.

Which gun show do you go to? Since Pomona closed I kinda stopped going as they all seem to be 99.99% crap. Pomona had alot of vendors and some pretty rare and interesting stuff (yes, it had alot of crap too).

The last show I attended a few years ago (Costa Mesa) I was looking for an Anschutz Woodchucker .22 for my daughter. There were very few vendors. And, almost every vendor I talked to didn't know what it was but offered to saw off the butt off an old Ruger 10/22 to "make it fit great".
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old August 20th, 2005, 07:56 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
I didn't know CGP was available online either until yesterday. I had always purchased my stuff at the gun shows. You can tell I was stuck in my old ways, as I was planning to pick up Sturmgewehr at the next show, which is ridiculous.

Another title I always wanted to buy was Death From Above, a book about the FG42. I would always look for that at shows but never saw it. Now it appears Death From Above is out of print.

With Sturmgewehr, I'll be picking up:


Those are books I've thumbed through and wanted, but never got for one reason or another. I want to get them before they go out of print.

The old Pomona show was just awesome. I used to go to that religiously when it was still open. Now the only show I hit is the Costa Mesa show. It sucks compared to Pomona, but there's usually enough interesting tables there to merit a visit. There's usually an HK dealer with spare parts, and I usually pick up a few spares to build up my spare parts kits for my HK rifles. And there's usually one CGP dealer there, so I get to thumb through some of the books before I buy. And I'll usually pick up some ammo. So while the Costa Mesa show generally sucks, it's usually worth it for me to visit.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old August 20th, 2005, 08:46 AM
greghirst greghirst is offline
Greg Hirst
KI6CQL
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,287
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/Book...24&PID=1188329

A quick fetchbooks search found it. Got $220.00?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old August 20th, 2005, 09:09 AM
johnlee johnlee is offline
John Lee
K6YJ
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 16,070
Too beaucoup. No boom-boom with soul brudda.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omega Speedmaster hanchung General 3503 September 12th, 2017 12:16 PM
First Hand Gun willroeder General 3 April 25th, 2007 06:47 PM
FN fiveseven USG ddavis General 8 April 2nd, 2007 06:36 PM
Weapons Choice ronward General 9 June 17th, 2004 07:34 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:52 AM.




Copyright 2001-2012 Expedition Exchange Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.