7.62 x 39 a medium between 5.56 and 7.62 Nato?

[Metapotent]

MTMilitiaman said:

I've shot a small muley buck with Winchester's M193 load and it didn't fragment either, so saying that the 5.56 is guaranteed to fragment is also incredulous at best.

I never said that the 5.56 is guaranteed to fragment. Besides, isn't it illegal to use .223/5.56 on deer, let alone mule deer?

But you are still missing the point. The attributes of the 5.56 are numerous. The killing power based on fragmentation is not what is emphasized when comparing the 5.56 to other cartridges. The all-around efficiency of the 5.56 round when used in large-scale wars is the biggest argument in its favor. Accuracy, volume of fire, range and logistical efficiency has been deemed to be more important in large-scale wars than killing power alone. That is why almost all professional militaries have adopted the 5.56 or similar rounds based on research and experience.

I have also experienced cases in which 5.56 military rounds have failed to fragment. I shot a coyote at about 100yds with an SS109 round through my 24-inch barreled Bushmaster predator that I had rechambered for .223 wylde. The round failed to kill the coyote efficiently and I found it 600yds away from where I shot it the next morning, the round deflected off its rib, failed to fragment and exited through its hind leg!. Does this cause me to lose my faith in the 5.56 round? No, especially considering my experience when I have used hollowpoint or soft point ammo in the past and dropped coyotes in their tracks, and once before when I used M193. I still would rather hump around 5.56 rounds over x39 rounds if I was in combat.

You are taking what I said and putting it out of perspective to manipulate my argument and gain favor with yours. For the purposes of the Kalashnikov in Russian military doctrine, CQB is all that matters. It is intended to provide automatic fire capability and Minute-O-Capitalist accuracy to the extent of typical engagement ranges. This is right around 300 meters. The Russians put a designated marksman in every squad to extend the effective range of the squad past 600 yards with a Dragunov SVD. None of the intermediate powered rounds, including your precious 5.56, are going to be able to compare with the effectiveness of the 7.62x54 round, nor will most be able to compete with the level of accuracy provided by a scoped precision rifle.

Maybe if you articulated your point more clearly I wouldn't have misinterpreted what you said. Now, I still don't believe that a Kalashikov in x39 is more effective than a NATO rifle in 5.56 from 50-300 meters with all things considered. But I do see why the Russians emphasize designated marksman. But the thing is, the services of the US military have hitherto seen little need for them considering other weapons that our military employs. Different tactics have been used by our forces to deal with longer range threats, and our superiority in air support, medium/heavy machine guns and snipers has been used to deal with it. But nowadays the situation has changed and our military has largely trained designated marksman per squad to deal with threats at extended ranges. I would rather be armed with m16/m4s complemented by m14/Mod 0's in a squad than be armed with inferior AK-47's complemented by Dragunovs.

The NATO obviously trumped both of the intermediate powered rounds, but the 7.62x39 also clearly dominated the 5.56mm when penetrating cinder blocks, brick, concrete, and wood. While a short burst from a Kalashnikov was able to easily penetrate the bricks and the cinder blocks and remaing lethal, it took several bursts from an M249 to chew through the same barriers with the 5.56. That is the penetration I am concerned about. My brother's DI in Fort Benning took 7 rounds to the trama plate at across-the-room distances and none of them penetrated. To insinuate that the 5.56 would have done any better is assinine.

It is true that the x39 is better at penetrating barriers like bricks and concrete, but it is a FACT that the SS109 5.56 is more efficient at penetrating body armor.

The real potential of the Kalashnikov as a weapon of war has yet to be realized by the US as anything other than a utilitarian weapon of mass production. In its most modern forms and in the hands of a professionally trained military force, I think Western forces would be shocked at what the AK is truely capable of.

You know, people choose to underestimate the enemies that the US has faced, while overestimating the enemies that the US might potentially face. The North Vietnamese Army that the US faced in the Vietnam War, no matter what people want to believe, was a high-trained, highly determined enemy who were very good at what they did. They were armed with the AK-47 and they themselves complained to their soviet supporters that they were vastly outgunned by US forces who were armed with the M16.

I don't doubt that the AK-47 is effective when used in the right hands, but it is far inferior to the 5.56 when you take into account all aspects and all dimensions of a battle and a war. Completely unbiased sources have found that a much smaller force armed with 5.56-chambered rifles can vastly out-gun a similarly-skilled opposing force armed with 7.62x39-chambered rifles in an infantry battle. You can't judge the effectiveness of these rounds based on just the killing power and the ability to penetrate cinder-block.

But I know that with mine, 300 yards doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Still, I am anxiously awaiting the moment I realize I have student loans and credit cards under enough control to order that FAL I want.
Sorry for the novel. Shoot straight and keep your powder dry.

Ok maybe you are a highly-skilled marksman, and maybe you can reliably hit a torso at 300yds (which i doubt based on my experience with the x39). But even a novice could pick up a 5.56-chambered rifle and hit a torso at that range. So wouldn't a skilled rifleman be even more effective with a 5.56 rifle than with a x39?

Rapid, highly accurate, well aimed shots with speedy and tiny bullets are more effective than a large cone of rapid, inaccurate, well aimed shots with slow yet harder-hitting bullets (which are rarely fired accurately anyhow). I'd rather hit an enemy with a .17 HMR than miss him with a .50 BMG, in fact, I’d rather hit an enemy with the pebble launched from a sling-shot than miss him with a 5000lb laser guided bomb.

With that said, if I hit an enemy with a 5.56 knowing that in that same situation I’d miss him with a x39...I’d be more than content to say the least.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

There are no caliber restrictions for hunting deer in MT. We had the rifle sighted in with some 55 gr Winchester SP but had a quantity of their M193 stuff on hand for practice. The bullet penetrated through the muley buck lengthwise from about 40 yards, entering near the right clavicle and exiting near the left hip. The entire wound tract was about the size of a nickle, and the deer acted absolutely indifferent to being shot. I feel that due to the small width of the permanent wound channel and the penetration achieved, it makes more sense to assume that FMJ got left in the magazine. It was my first hunting season and my dad loaded the magazine, put it in the rifle, and instructed me not to load the chamber until I needed to shoot something.

Attributes huh? Volume of fire? If you think a squad armed with M16s and a couple SAWs is going to provide a larger volume of fire than a similar sized squad of men armed with AKs and a pair of RPDs, you might be in for a surprise. Ten guys firing at 600 rpm is probably going to trump two SAWs firing at 800 rpm and some semi-automatic rifle fire. The accuracy of the M16 fire will probably be more accurate, granted, but in terms of pure volume of fire, that was the whole point of replacing the semi-automatic Simonov with the automatic fire capable Kalashnikov. And the increased effectiveness of the heavier rounds at eating away cover is going to make up for some of the lost accuracy. Logistical effeciency is just fine with the stubby Russian rounds, and effective range of the cartridges themselves, regardless of what you choose to believe, is pretty similar. The M16 is more accurate, but being able to hit something at 500 yards is only half the problem. What happens when it gets there is the other half. Consider that at 400 yards, neither round is going to fragment very effectively. There is still a good chance, however, that they might tumble--esp if the 7.62 is of the M67 Yugo pattern. Even if this doesn't happen, the Russian round is .311 caliber and has twice the mass. It has the mass and the energy of the .357 Magnum at the muzzle at that range.
This brings me to my next point--if the M16 and the 5.56 are so effective at such a long ways, then why is the US adopting the Russian designated marksmen concept? Maybe because even if it isn't a POS, the 5.56 isn't the wonder cartridge the other side of the spectrum makes it out to be? Hmmm.
Some of the NVA may have complained. Some of the Americans also complained that they were being outgunned by the AKs, and pointed out that the heavier Russian round was better at getting through the foliage. My brother fricken hates the M16 family. Can't stand it. He volunteered to pack a SAW that weighed twice as much so he didn't have to deal with it. A friend of mine in the Marines doesn't mind the M16 at all. Which am I to believe? Or could it be that there is no right answer, other than different strokes for different folks?

 

[Metapotent]

First off, no offense but you need to learn how to use paragraphs and organize your thoughts better.

Attributes huh? Volume of fire? If you think a squad armed with M16s and a couple SAWs is going to provide a larger volume of fire than a similar sized squad of men armed with AKs and a pair of RPDs, you might be in for a surprise. Ten guys firing at 600 rpm is probably going to trump two SAWs firing at 800 rpm and some semi-automatic rifle fire.

A squad with M16s complemented by SAWs is capable of a higher volume of fire over a longer period of time that is also more accurate, than a similar sqaud with AKs and RPKs, this is a fact. Both of these weapons fire 5.56 rounds that are more accurate, that create less recoil and help ensure rapid fire that is more accurate, and the ammo itself is lighter weight there for similiarly skilled troops can carry more than the opposing force. Also, SAWs have more standard belt/magazine capacity than RPKs therefore they can keep consistent supressive fire for longer, AND the ergonomics of the M16 allow more rapid magazine changes which may not seem that important but it certainly adds up in a battle.


Besides, there is no use of a high volume of fire with AKs and RPKs when more than half of the rounds are flying too high up in the air and far to the side due to muzzle climb, recoil, and inaccuracy. Plus, an opposing force with x39 ammo would run ou far more quickly.

High volume of fire isn't the whole concept, its high volume of ACCURATE fire. Highly accurate fire isn't necessary for supressive and assault techniques, however, highly inaccurate fire is useless for supressive and assault tactics as well. The 5.56 fills the niche all around considering all aspects. That is the bottom line, and that is why almost all modern, highly-trained, well resourced militaries ceased using the x39 because they have come to find this from examples, research, of from experience and have either adopted the 5.56 or the 5.45 if they have the money to do so.

And the increased effectiveness of the heavier rounds at eating away cover is going to make up for some of the lost accuracy.

That is highly doubtful and insignificant in a modern battle, especially when the opposing force armed with AK-47s couldnt even lift their heads to return fire without getting struck by a constant barage of ACCURATE supressive fire from 5.56-armed forces.

You are choosing to nit-pick certain things that you think will support your favor for the AK-47 but the fact is that almost all militaries have replaced x39weapons for 5.56/5.45 or similar rounds. China even developed the 5.8 round for their new rifles. If the x39 is more effective, why are all the well-to-do militaries dropping it? Why are only the sad, poor, 3rd-rate military forces of the world still using it as their main cartridge? Why does it seem that the only people defending the x39 as an standard infantry cartridge are civilians with a grudge?

Consider that at 400 yards, neither round is going to fragment very effectively. There is still a good chance, however, that they might tumble--esp if the 7.62 is of the M67 Yugo pattern. Even if this doesn't happen, the Russian round is .311 caliber and has twice the mass. It has the mass and the energy of the .357 Magnum at the muzzle at that range.

You're so wrong it's hilarious. The chance of either rounds fragmenting in soft tissue is almost nonexistent much past 200yds let alone 400...Also, you think that the 7.62x39 has the mass and the energy at 400yds that a .357 magnum has at the muzzle?

That is COMPLETELY untrue and laughable for you to even suggest. In fact, most .357 magnum loads have more energy at the muzzle than x39 military loads have at the muzzle!!!

A 7.62 123r military projectile in x39 loads only has about 500ft/lb of energy at 400yds, while the average .357 load with a 158gr projectile has a MUZZLE energy of around 1200ft/lbs, some go up to around 1800! Also the average projectile weight is higher in the .357 to begin with.

I don't know where you are getting your information but you need to do some research before you make claims like that again in the future.

But the fact is that either the 5.56 or the x39 is likely to put an enemy soldier out of commission at that range if it hits them in the torso. It may not kill him instantly, it may not even kill him at all. But wounding an enemy in most cases is just as good as killing him in a conventional war. But alteast the 5.56 has the capability to hit an enemy at extended ranges.

It may be different in our current situation in Iraq where our soldiers/marines have faced drugged-up religious zealots who have taken multiple rounds and kept fighting. But the fact is, these insurgents have also survived multiple 7.62x39 AND 7.62x51 NATO rounds and kept ticking. So reliable knock-down power isn't the key and is hardly relevant or essential in most situations other than sniping or in close-quarters (where some experts argue that the 5.56 is superior to the x39 anyhow).

I'd rather rather engage and hit an enemy at an extended range where he can't hit me with his "more powerful" bullet than be in the opposite scenario.

This brings me to my next point--if the M16 and the 5.56 are so effective at such a long ways, then why is the US adopting the Russian designated marksmen concept? Maybe because even if it isn't a POS, the 5.56 isn't the wonder cartridge the other side of the spectrum makes it out to be? Hmmm.

It's not that the 5.56 is incredibly effective at long,long ranges. Its that prior to the war on terror Iraq war, there were other methods at dealing with enemies at such ranges, air support, artillery, mortar fire, machine gun fire, and such were more closely and effectively orchestrated within units so that infantryman wouldnt need designated marksman because they would rarely be in a position where they wouldn't be able to exploit their technoligical superiority. This doctrine is based on a conventional war.

But once the insurgency in Iraq started up, it was soon realized that our conventional military doctrine that is highly effective against conventional militaries, needs to be changed to meet the needs on the ground in Iraq. Artillery, airstrikes, mortar fire, and vehicle-mounted heavy machine gun fire can't be used efficiently and is not worth it considering that most engagements are with small-unit insurgents who hide amongst the civilian population.

Therefore it was decided that squads needed longer-range rifle capability in the squad because they can no longer rely on previous methods to deal with longer-range engagements.

This has nothing to do with the "deficiency" of the 5.56 as an infantry combat round. It's just that things needed to be reorganized and methods needed to be changed to help the situation on the ground that is anything but a conventional war. The 5.56 is a conventional war infantry cartridge and it does that job VERY well. But we're not fighting a conventional war, our previous methods no longer can be used in this situation, so we adopted designated marksmen tactics to meet the needs on the ground. Such roles in a squad weren't needed in the invasion.

 

[GTSteve03]

It is true that the x39 is better at penetrating barriers like bricks and concrete, but it is a FACT that the SS109 5.56 is more efficient at penetrating body armor.

And of what benefit is this little FACT?

When was the last time the US military faced an enemy wearing body armour, and when is the next time we expect to do that in any large number?

I certainly don't see that happening in the Middle East anytime soon. I would certainly expect to be shooting at badguys hiding behind cinder block walls and wooden barriers.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Again, you are very much exagerating the relative inaccuracy of the Kalashnikov family of weapons. Most of the stamped receiver rifles are capable of 4 MOA with cheap, steel cased ammo. My brother and I each have el cheapo Romanian WASRs that can do 4 MOA for 5 rounds at 100 yards with Wolf ammo. My uncle's Chinese MAK can do slightly better. My friend's is the same way. Even from a relatively unstable field position, with a weapon not completely zeroed, and maintaining a steady 1 round per second fire rate, this "civilian with a grudge" can keep at least 2/3 of my rounds in a human torso target at 200 yards. This isn't sub-MOA but that is okay, it will still put rounds on target out to 300 yards, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

The M16 may be more accurate. I do not doubt this. I hope it is true because I will be issued one within a month or so. But with an average engagement distance of 60 feet, I really don't think the accuracy is as important as the ability to eat through cover.

Also, SAWs have more standard belt/magazine capacity than RPKs therefore they can keep consistent supressive fire for longer,

I said RPD. The RPD is fed from a 100 round belt. My brother, as mentioned before, has a SAW. He is 11B for the 101st Airborne and just got back to Fort Campbell from his first tour a couple days ago. His SAW is fed from a 100 round belt. Sounds pretty even to me.

That is the bottom line, and that is why almost all modern, highly-trained, well resourced militaries ceased using the x39 because they have come to find this from examples, research, of from experience and have either adopted the 5.56 or the 5.45 if they have the money to do so.

So what is popular is always right? Gotcha

The chance of either rounds fragmenting in soft tissue is almost nonexistent much past 200yds let alone 400...

What do you think I just said, dude? First you criticize my grammar, then display a blatant lack of basic reading comprehension. I already stated that neither round would fragment at 400 yards, but that you for repeating me.

Also, you think that the 7.62x39 has the mass and the energy at 400yds that a .357 magnum has at the muzzle?

Again, thank you for the echo.

That is COMPLETELY untrue and laughable for you to even suggest. In fact, most .357 magnum loads have more energy at the muzzle than x39 military loads have at the muzzle!!!

A 7.62 123r military projectile in x39 loads only has about 500ft/lb of energy at 400yds, while the average .357 load with a 158gr projectile has a MUZZLE energy of around 1200ft/lbs, some go up to around 1800! Also the average projectile weight is higher in the .357 to begin with.

The .357 Magnum earned its reputation with a 125 gr JHP, which just so happens to be pretty close to the 7.62x39's standard load of 122 to 125 grs. The Federal 125 gr Personal Defense has received high marks in government testing and on the street. It has a muzzle velocity of 1440 fps. But let's increase the barrel length from 4 to 6 inches and up the pressure a little so we can put a 125 gr JHP out at 1700 fps like Buffalo Bore. You are still at least 500 to 600 fps below the standard 7.62x39 load putting a 125ish gr bullet out in the ballpark of 2300. Federal lists their American Eagle load at 2300 fps from a 20 inch barrel. Wolf claims 2396 fps but doesn't list a barrel length. Let's call it 2200 fps, just to acknowledge that the velocity will be less from a 16 inch barreled Kalashnikov. You're still looking at almost 1300 fps for the Federal load at 400 yards, according to their charts. That happens to be fairly close to the muzzle energy figures for the Federal .357 Magnum load. Even if you take the Buffalo Bore load, the 7.62x39 matches it for energy at about 200 to 250 yards.

I, meanwhile, would like to know where you found a .357 Magnum load that can get 1800 foot pounds from a handgun. Because that is the point, after all, and in case you missed it. Comparing the 7.62x39 at 300 or 400 yards to the .357 Magnum at the muzzle is intended to give people a reference point, and most people don't think of a 16 inch barreled lever gun when they think of the .357 Magnum. They think of a 4 to 8 inch barreled Smith and Wesson. We could argue the long range ballistics of the cartridges when the .357 Mag is fired from a rifle, but that is an argument for another topic.

And finally, I understand the concept of the designated marksmen. But it isn't like the Russians never had artillery or air support. And in your raving you really do sound like you believe the Kalashnikov can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside the barn while the M16 is capable of shooting the wings off a knat from Earth's upper atmosphere. The M16 might have a slightly longer effective range than the Kalashnikov but the effective ranges for the M4 carbine and the Kalashnikov are really quite similar, esp when both are equipped with red dot sights. Then it really is a simple concept. Put dot on target, pull trigger, and repeat. With a 200 yard zero, anything out to 300 yards is probably in a world of hurt, and everything within 400 is more uncomfortable than a geek hanging in their locker by their underwear. Or did you really think all Kalashnikovs were your 1950s era wood stocked representatives?

 

[Metapotent]

edited-js

The .357 Magnum earned its reputation with a 125 gr JHP, which just so happens to be pretty close to the 7.62x39's standard load of 122 to 125 grs. The Federal 125 gr Personal Defense has received high marks in government testing and on the street. It has a muzzle velocity of 1440 fps. But let's increase the barrel length from 4 to 6 inches and up the pressure a little so we can put a 125 gr JHP out at 1700 fps like Buffalo Bore. You are still at least 500 to 600 fps below the standard 7.62x39 load putting a 125ish gr bullet out in the ballpark of 2300. Federal lists their American Eagle load at 2300 fps from a 20 inch barrel. Wolf claims 2396 fps but doesn't list a barrel length. Let's call it 2200 fps, just to acknowledge that the velocity will be less from a 16 inch barreled Kalashnikov. You're still looking at almost 1300 fps for the Federal load at 400 yards, according to their charts. That happens to be fairly close to the muzzle energy figures for the Federal .357 Magnum load. Even if you take the Buffalo Bore load, the 7.62x39 matches it for energy at about 200 to 250 yards.

You obviously don't understand the difference between MUZZLE VELOCITY and MUZZLE ENERGY.

Your original quote was this:

the Russian round is .311 caliber and has twice the mass. It has the mass and the energy of the .357 Magnum at the muzzle at that range.

Now you are talking about velocity to try and conceal the fact that you don't know *** you are talking about.

You were claiming that at 400 yds from the point of fire, a 7.62x39 round will have the same energy as a .357 does at the muzzle. Which is COMPLETELY untrue and actually the .357 even has more energy at the muzzle than the x39 HAS AT THE MUZZLE. Are you suggesting that somehow, after traveling 400yds that a 7.62x39 accumulates more energy than it does at the muzzle? Thats what it sounds like.

But the simple fact is that you were wrong. Dead wrong, and now you throw out velocity figures, which in case you didn't know...velocity is only part of the equation in judging energy, the other is weight.

Now you suggested that a 7.62x39 round has the same VELOCITY at 400yds as a .357 does at the muzzle which is also COMPLETELY FREAKING WRONG.

Go here and see for yourself:
http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/cgi-bin/jbmtraj.cgi

Edit: the ballistic computer doesn't support HTML for postscripts so go to their main portal and input the stats of the 7.62x39 for yourself. You can look this up for yourself as well, but the 123gr FMJ has a ballistic Coefficient of .289, is .311 diameter and the average velocity is 2300ft/sec, feel free to even put in a generous velocity, or the weight and BC of a hunting round, and the energy levels at 400yds will be a fraction of the energy that a .357 produces at the muzzle. Which completely disproves your wacky claim.

http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj_basic/traj_basic.html


Now, the computer only does it in Meters, so for 400yds that is about 375 meters so look at that range.

According to the chart: The stats for a 7.62x39 at 375m:

Velocity: 1306.3 ft/sec Energy: 466 ft/lbs.

Now are you going to make up some BS and suggest that the muzzle energy and muzzle velocity of a .357 is less than that?

I didn't think so...Therefore your claim that the AK has the same energy at 400yds that a .357 has at the muzzle has been meticulously disproved.

Have a nice day

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Okay, me pointing out the obvious for you is quickly becoming a habit. Any two objects with the same mass and velocity have the same kenetic energy. I already pointed out that for the purposes of comparrison, the .357 Magnum 125 gr load and the standard load for the 7.62x39 have essentially the same mass. The next component then becomes velocity, which as I pointed out, is within about 150 fps or so at 400 yards for the Federal 7.62x39 load as it is at the muzzle for the .357 Magnum load by the same manufacture. I thought you were smart enough to put 2 and 2 together. I was mistaken. Next time I will spell it out in crayon for you.

And once again, thanks for the echo. I already stated that the published figures for the standard street load on a .357 Magnum according to Federal is about 1400 fps with a 125 gr bullet. I also stated, as you have repeated, that the 7.62x39 reaches this velocity with a similar weight bullet somewhere around 300 yards or so. Therefore, unless you wish to argue that a 125 gr bullet at about 1400 fps, give or take 100 fps, is more powerful from a .357 Magnum than from a 7.62x39, you have done nothing but confirmed my assertions. Not that I needed you to--it is pretty simple math really--you just need to learn to put 2 and 2 together first.

O and uh, for your ammusement, less you forget that (2200x2200x125)/450437 is < (less than) (1440x1440x125)/450437, the highest muzzle energy figure for the .357 Magnum as provided by different ammunition manufactures:

Buffalo Bore- 802 foot pounds
Corbon- 587 foot pounds (consequently, their highest rated 7.62x39 at 1762 foot pounds is nearly 3x that)
Double Tap- 811 foot pounds
Federal- 575 foot pounds
Hornady- 624 foot pounds
Remington- 610 foot pounds
Winchester-583 foot pounds

Compared against a standard muzzle energy for the 7.62x39 with a 125 gr bullet at 2200 fps of 1343 foot pounds, you are in essence arguing that an average highest muzzle energy of 656 foot pounds (357 Magnum in a handgun from these manufactures) is higher than a standard muzzle energy of over twice that, and, well, you're going to have a hard time convincing me or anyone else with at least a junior high education that this is true.

You were claiming that at 400 yds from the point of fire, a 7.62x39 round will have the same energy as a .357 does at the muzzle. Which is COMPLETELY untrue and actually the .357 even has more energy at the muzzle than the x39 HAS AT THE MUZZLE.

O and I have to have this quoted and attributed to you, because it is just so silly. If you end up talking too much more, I'll have enough funny quotes from you to make a calander.

 

[s&w 24]

I would not say that 7.62x39 is realy not a middle ground cartrige. It is desiegned to be used in the same way as the 556 round it just uses a bigger bullet to do the job done. both 556 and 7.62X39 have the same effective range and are fired from weapons of the same basic type(16" to 20" carbines of 5 to 8 lbs wieght)
the new 6.5 ar rounds are more of a middle ground cartrige 6.8 is very similar in field use to 556 and 7.62x39.

 

[Gewehr98]

Metapotent, just a subtle hint...

Knock it off with calling other forum members stupid, ok?

Especially when one comes up with technical gems like this:

actually the .357 even has more energy at the muzzle than the x39 HAS AT THE MUZZLE.

 

[rbernie]

Knock it off with calling other forum members stupid, ok?

Especially true when you're barely of legal drinking age and have absolutely NO foundation in formal military training or first-hand knowledge of military doctrine (or basic math) from which to base said opinions.

 

[JShirley]

Megapotent,

1) Thanks for not addressing my questions. (Not that I expected you to be able to.)

2) The .357 has more energy...blah, blah, blah...in what universe?!

3) Well, G98 covered it.

4) I was actually reading today a Marine's experiences in Nam (The Names Not on the Wall), in which he describes the "AK-50" (popular nomenclature for what was apparently the Type 56) as being more accurate than the M-16- which he didn't dislike, by the way...

5) You really aren't familiar for the driver behind SOCOM's attempt to gain a heavier cartridge, huh?

6) Somehow I doubt anyone- even you- has taken into account "all aspects and all dimensions of a battle and a war". In fact, that has to be in the running for dumbest statement ever uttered here, along with about five other recent offerings.

7) I further challenge you to identify these "completely unbiased sources" (as a historian I can tell you "completely unbiased sources" do not exist), since you don't seem to want to respond to requests for documentation.

John

 

[Metapotent]

Especially true when you're barely of legal drinking age and have absolutely NO foundation in formal military training or first-hand knowledge of military doctrine (or basic math) from which to base said opinions.

Since when does the ability to legally drink determine anything? I don't drink, and I won't drink when I turn 21 anyhow due to my religious beliefs. And I may be only 19 years old, but I'm betting that I have more education than most people here. I graduated highschool before I turned 17 and I will graduate college in 07 when I will be only 20 years old. I have also had 2 complete years of Military Science at UW before I transfered to SU. So I may not have first-hand combat experience, but I have had actual education on the whole 5.56 vs. 7.62x39 issue. I didn't just pick the 5.56 to favor because thats what all my guns are chambered for, in fact I shoot an AKs just as much as I shoot my ARs.

The reason I had made some mistakes in calculation with the whole .357 vs. x39 is because there were certain variables that I didn't take into account when crunching in the numbers. For instance when I did the calculation for the .357 I hadn't changed the BC or velocity. Therefore I had an inflated muzzle energy conclusion. And having no experience with the .357, I had no point of reference. But I do apologize.

Megapotent,

1) Thanks for not addressing my questions. (Not that I expected you to be able to.)

I don't even remembering you asking me a question.

4) I was actually reading today a Marine's experiences in Nam (The Names Not on the Wall), in which he describes the "AK-50" (popular nomenclature for what was apparently the Type 56) as being more accurate than the M-16- which he didn't dislike, by the way...

First of all that was during Vietnam when M16 rifles had different rates rifling twist (1:14 back then) and the m193 55gr was the common ammo used. The m16 was less accurate back then after about 150 yds than the current m16a2/m4a1 is today because the new rifles have tighter twists (1:7) and shoot heavier rounds 62gr standard rounds which gives it better accuracy. But I still believe the VN-era m16 was more accurate.

But its funny you should mention that because my uncle was in Force Recon in the Marine Corps in Vietnam (my dad was a Marine but graduated from boot camp 6 months before US forces pulled out of Vietnam). My uncle said he used both the AK and the m16 in missions in Vietnam and Cambodia. He seems to think the m16 was more accurate, but he and his unit used AK-47s when they were deep in enemy lines for many reasons while accuracy certainly wasn't one of them.

Reliability issues plagued the M16 back then (most of which are resolved) so they used they AK47 (most of which were Chinese Type 56) for reliability. They also used it because they could use captured ammo from the enemy, because in their operations they were far away from resupply and were far behind enemy lines, AND they used it because the sound of the m16 would draw fire from enemy forces and if they were firing the AK the enemy wouldn't be able to pinpoint where their friendly forces were in relation to the attacking Marines. They used it for practical purposes in special operations, NOT for accuracy and for firepower in large-scale, high-intensity battles.

Now if you don't believe me about what my uncle said, I'm sure you can find an equal amount of accounts from soldiers and marines in which they prefer the M16 based on accuracy and other aspects. So it makes little difference what 1 marine happened to say, not matter what rifle he favored. You can only base it on facts and your own experience. I know the facts from what i've learned in school, but I've also experienced it because I own 4 AR-15 and I used to own both an SKS and an AK and I have shot many different AK-47s with many different loads and I shoot my friends AKs every weekend almost. My experience is that the 5.56 through an AR is much more accurate and I am capable of rapid and accurate fire at varying ranges, which I have learned (in school) is more important in modern war than knock-down power alone.

5) You really aren't familiar for the driver behind SOCOM's attempt to gain a heavier cartridge, huh?

I am familiar with it. I actually did a research paper on the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel as possible replacements for the 5.56 as well as the 7.62 in certain areas of the military. The conclusion was that both rounds are logstically unviable as well as unqualified for infantry warfare. The emphasis was on the logistical issue though because it would cost enormous amounts of money and take enormous amounts of effort to replace rifles (or upper receivers) and to procure and supply large amounts of new ammo and reorganize a military logistical system based on the 5.56 and related supplies and equipment.

But you're still missing the point. The 6.8SPC was designed to provide Special Operations units with more fire power based on better terminal ballistics of a heavier round. But that is Special forces, not infantry and conventional combat arms branches of the military. The 5.56 is a superior INFANTRY round based on fire, fix, flank, finish-doctrine taught by most modern militaries. The 6.8 has been found to be superior for close quarters combat, not as conventional standard round.

I do think that the 6.8 has a specific role and is superior to the 5.56 in some aspects, range, power, accuracy, but its definitely NEVER going to become the standard caliber for our military, no matter how fantastic it is according to certain advocates who choose to ignore the other attributes a round needs to be affective in the whole spectrum of modern war, not just in the single spectrum of killing power.

6) Somehow I doubt anyone- even you- has taken into account "all aspects and all dimensions of a battle and a war". In fact, that has to be in the running for dumbest statement ever uttered here, along with about five other recent offerings.

The military researchers and experts who decided on adopting the 5.56 - and have also decided to keep it inspite of the recent breakthroughs with the 6.8 and 6.5 - did so because they TRY to take into account "all aspects and all dimensions of battle and a war". I know its humanly impossible to be omnipotent in deciphering what needs to be done and how to perfect every aspect of a war. But people who try TO to the best of their ability have found that the 5.56 is superior to effecitively engage in a conventional war. It is superior based on scientific research; casualty comparisons in battles that have been researched, logstical viability, and the whole picture of what the effect the round has on an opposing force as a WHOLE, not just the terminal performance the round is capable of. If everything the military procures is only evaluated on killing performance and not everything else, then our military would fail to be predominant.

Take france for example, France actually has very high-tech, very powerful weapons systems in almost all areas of their military, some of their systems are are even superior to what the US has (believe it or not). But what makes the US more powerful is not only our numerical superiority, but the ability to logistically engage in war for long periods of time, the ability project power efficiently in all aspects of war from the theatre level down to squad level, anywhere in the globe in a short amount of time, and to maintain that force efficiently and to win, period, not just to kill the enemy quickly.

The 5.56 is based on that doctrine of full spectrum warfare, our military as a whole is based on that doctrine. That is why our military is virtually invincible in a conventional war. Now we are not currently engaged ina conventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore there is some merit in the opinion of some people that that the x39 or the 6.8SPC would be more effective these days. That may be the case, however it is not practical to adopt a new round, and might not even be worth it.

But lets say that by miraculous chance our military decides to adopt the 6.8, the 6.5 or even the x39 for all soldiers and marines on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. This may yield some advantages in the urban environments against insurgents. But if we were to go to war with Iran, Syria, or any other country with a significant military force, we would immediately re-adopt the 5.56 if it were possible because it is a superior cartridge in CONVENTIONAL war all around and would be much more practical and effective in a large-scale conventional war.

And thats the bottom line.

 

[AK103K]

soooo, does all this mean the AK is inaccurate and ineffective, or can I keep playing with it? The AK I mean?

 

[rbernie]

And thats the bottom line

Without getting into a point by point debate - what does any of your verbage regarding military logistics or (as you put it) 'full spectrum warfare' have ANYTHING to do with the original poster's questions?

The original post, in case you've lost track in your desire to type lots of words derived from other peoples' learnings, was:

So, I want to buy a rifle... for defense. I've got the WalMart Ruger Mini-14 in mind. Very cheap. Reliable. And did I mention cheap? However, most people prefer to go with .308 (7.62 Nato) I DEFINATELY don't want to get into the discussion of 5.56 Nato vs. 7.62 Nato- but I am wondering if the 7.62 x 39 is a compromise of both? If SHTF, I would like a reliable rifle that ammo is easy to obtain. I DON'T have $600 to spend on a rifle...

So what are the advantages/disadvantages of 7.62 x 39?

Metapotent - I'm still at a loss how anything you've contributed actually had any bearing vis-a-vis a limited-budget single actor in a SHTF situation.

Responding to the original post: the 7.62x39 is a reliable manstopper and can be/is used for both social work and legal hunting. It offers double the frontal area of a .224 bullet and, in controlled expansion form, demonstrates good wound channels in a variety of mediums. It's easy to get locally and generally among the cheapest ammo around. It's harder to carry a bunch of it around than, say, 5.56NATO since it weighs more, but for limited SHTF situations that shouldn't be an issue. I've put down bunches of critters with 7.62x39, including a 500lb boar at less than ten yards distance. I would rather rely upon a controlled-expansion 7.62x39 30-cal bullet for general purpose work than a maybe-it'll-fragment .224 FMJ bullet any day. If 5.56NATO rounds are a definite desire, the sticky at the top of the forum has links to articles demonstrating the bestest/most reliable terminal ballistics performers in 5.56NATO/223Win.

The best part about 7.62x39 (relative to the original post) is that it's commonly chambered in rifles that will suit the original poster's stated needs - a reliable and inexpensive SHTF rifle. For less than $400, you can buy a decent used Norinco SKS plus 1000+ rounds of 7.62x39 in sealed battle packs plus a bunch of boxed Wolf for practicing.

 

[Metapotent]

Metapotent - I'm still at a loss how anything you've contributed actually had any bearing vis-a-vis a limited-budget single actor in a SHTF situation

.

Why don't you ask all the other people who argued me "point by point" about the combat effectiveness of the x39?

I originally stated that the "full spectrum warfare" principles of the 5.56 meant little and had little relevance to the needs of the author of the thread. But then people started arguing what I said about the 5.56 being more accurate, the 7.62 being inaccurate. So that is what lead to the current debate that took place.

I urge you to read the whole thread before only accuse me of going off-topic.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I graduated highschool before I turned 17 ...

I have my own opinions about public education, but that is a debate for another time.

First of all that was during Vietnam when M16 rifles had different rates rifling twist (1:14 back then) and the m193 55gr was the common ammo used. The m16 was less accurate back then after about 150 yds than the current m16a2/m4a1 is today because the new rifles have tighter twists (1:7) and shoot heavier rounds 62gr standard rounds which gives it better accuracy.

[Emphasis added]

So you write this and I am kind of following you. After all, it makes sense that a weapons system, any weapons system, is going to get more accurate and reliable as it matures and develops.

Then you finish the paragraph with this line:

But I still believe the VN-era m16 was more accurate.

So which is it champ?

And for the record, there is little current about the M16A2 and almost nothing current about the M16A1. The Army has went with the M16A4. The Marines are going that direction. I think the Navy might still have some A3s, but overall, I believe the current trend for all branches is towards the A4.

At any rate, I gather and even agree with much of your assessment. The middle of a war, it can be agreed, is not a good time to switch your primary rifle or cartridge. But in the grand scheme of things, modern war still revolves around the grunt on the ground. On the most basic level, winning a war still depends on the effeciency and effectiveness of your infantry, and in this regard, it can not be denied that killing the enemy is a large part of victory. Going to a slightly larger round may slightly reduce the combat load of the individual soldier or marine, and may increase recoil slightly, but no loss of accuracy or overall effectiveness needs to be suffered.

The days of the 7.62x51 and other full power rifle cartridges are long gone in everything but long range precision rifles and medium machine guns. But in my opinion, we have strayed to the other end of the sprectrum. The 5.56 may be adequate, but we have to be able to come up with some middle ground that better balances killing power with fire rate and combat load, recoil, and accuracy.

Besides having many rifle cartridges between 6.5 and 7mm with solid war-fighting reputations, several studies have been conducted over the course of the last 100 years or so that indicate that this particular bore diameter may be the best compromise in this regard. The original Garand was chambered for the .276 Pederson, a 7mm cartridge ballistically similar to 6.5x52 Carcano. McArthur forced the rifle to be redesigned to accept the .30-06 because the United States, still in the Depression, couldn't afford the change, and he was somewhat of a fan of the .30 caliber cartridge himself. But after WWII, the British conducted studies to find the most effecient bore diameter for a new service round. They settled on an intermediate powered 7mm cartridge for their Enfield bullpup. The United States used its influence in NATO to force the adoption of the 7.62x51, and because of that, the Brits ended up with a foreign service rifle (FN FAL) for the first time in their history. I don't think it is any conincidence that when the 5th Special Operations Group started researching a round with better killing power than the 5.56, they landed on the 7mm bore diameter. Despite its 6.8mm nomenclature, the SPC really is a true 7mm. It is just my opinion, and I don't have a whole lot more experience than you at this point, but I think that keeping in mind historical trends, we eventually have to find a happy medium somewhere, and at some point in our future. We've had our foray into both 'excessively powerful' and 'adequate, but not impressive.' I personally think something in between is in order. In four years and a few months I'll be finishing my active duty commitment to the Marine Corp, and by then maybe my opinions will have changed.

 

[Metapotent]

Quote:
But I still believe the VN-era m16 was more accurate.


So which is it champ?

I was saying it was more accurate than the Type 56-style AK-47!!! Not more accurate than the current M16/m4 family!

Maybe you should read more carefully and take in the full context of what was said. I was responding to what someone said:

JShirley said:

4) I was actually reading today a Marine's experiences in Nam (The Names Not on the Wall), in which he describes the "AK-50" (popular nomenclature for what was apparently the Type 56) as being more accurate than the M-16- which he didn't dislike, by the way...

I said:

First of all that was during Vietnam when M16 rifles had different rates rifling twist (1:14 back then) and the m193 55gr was the common ammo used. The m16 was less accurate back then after about 150 yds than the current m16a2/m4a1 is today because the new rifles have tighter twists (1:7) and shoot heavier rounds 62gr standard rounds which gives it better accuracy. But I still believe the VN-era m16 was more accurate.

Now do you understand?

I have my own opinions about public education, but that is a debate for another time.

Were you picked on or something? Besides, I went to a "highschool" (actually a junior college/highschool by our standards) in Dusseldorf, Germany for my junior and senior year of highschool as an exchange student. Their public school system is alot better there than it is here in the US, thats for sure. I graduated with a 4.0 and had earned 12 college credits at the same time. This is something you can't do at "highschool". So I'm not a product of the American Public Educational System per se.

And for the record, there is little current about the M16A2 and almost nothing current about the M16A1. The Army has went with the M16A4. The Marines are going that direction. I think the Navy might still have some A3s, but overall, I believe the current trend for all branches is towards the A4.

Are you serious? You are choosing to emphasize all the wrong points and taking what I said out of context

I know that the current models are A4s (yet most models in use are still A2s). But the differences between the A2 and A4 is that the A4 has flat-top picatinny rail receiver, and a RAS rail system handgaurd (neither of which affect accuracy). The A2, A3. and A4 all share the same barrel twist and accuracy potentional. The A3 is simply a fully automatic version of the A2. The A4 is simply an A2 with a removable carrying handle, and picatinny rail system...

They all have the same accuracy potential when you take out any variables (that you might spout out) such as attachments of scopes or other accessories that might aid in accurate fire, or manufacturing variations in tolerances that might make one rifle more accurate due to production. Therefore your emphasis of my comparing the accuracy of the A2 to the A1 rather than the A4 to the A1 is completely ridiculous.

The original Garand was chambered for the .276 Pederson, a 7mm cartridge ballistically similar to 6.5x52 Carcano. McArthur forced the rifle to be redesigned to accept the .30-06 because the United States, still in the Depression, couldn't afford the change, and he was somewhat of a fan of the .30 caliber cartridge himself.

You emphasized the wrong idea once again. The main reason that the Garand was chambered for .30-06 was based on the idea that a rifle cartridge needs to be alteast .30 caliber to be battle effective. The price of a standard round change might have been an issue, but the main reason was that back then people believed that a .275 Peterson would have inadequate power. Also they wanted ammunition commonality with the M1919 .30 caliber (.30-06) Browing machine gun, therefore they kept the .30-06 as the standard round.

I don't think it is any conincidence that when the 5th Special Operations Group started researching a round with better killing power than the 5.56, they landed on the 7mm bore diameter. Despite its 6.8mm nomenclature, the SPC really is a true 7mm. It is just my opinion, and I don't have a whole lot more experience than you at this point, but I think that keeping in mind historical trends, we eventually have to find a happy medium somewhere, and at some point in our future. We've had our foray into both 'excessively powerful' and 'adequate, but not impressive.' I personally think something in between is in order. In four years and a few months I'll be finishing my active duty commitment to the Marine Corp, and by then maybe my opinions will have changed.

I believe that the 6.8 or even the 6.5 grendel potentionally have certain niches to fill in our military. But I believe the 5.56 should remain the standard round. If our military could develope a magical cartridge that weighed little, had no recoil, shot straight as a laser, and had the knock down power of a .50BMG then I would definitely be an advocate. But in the meantime this is an impossibility and I believe the 5.56 is a good example of the middle ground.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I was saying it was more accurate than the Type 56-style AK-47!!! Not more accurate than the current M16/m4 family!

Maybe you should read more carefully and take in the full context of what was said. I was responding to what someone said:

You sure do get defensive. Maybe you should utilize some of those smarts you claim to have in the form of better explanations. Because you have a habit of criticizing other people's grammar and writing style, when yours isn't perfect either. Nowhere in the paragraph in question did you mentioned the Type-56 rifle. Not once...anywhere. If you were making a comparrison between the accuracy of the Vietnam Era M16 and the Chinese Type 56 rifle, you'd think the Type 56 should be mentioned in there somewhere at least once.

I know that the current models are A4s (yet most models in use are still A2s). But the differences between the A2 and A4 is that the A4 has flat-top picatinny rail receiver, and a RAS rail system handgaurd (neither of which affect accuracy). The A2, A3. and A4 all share the same barrel twist and accuracy potentional. The A3 is simply a fully automatic version of the A2. The A4 is simply an A2 with a removable carrying handle, and picatinny rail system...

I merely wanted to point out the the A1 and A2 were not "current" as they were described. I never once insinuated even remotely that either was more accurate than the other. If you want to sound like the expert here, like the Military Science brat and end all comprehensive source for information on military tactics and doctrine, then you have to get your details right. For example:

The A3 is simply a fully automatic version of the A2.

The A3 is simply the fully automatic version of the A4, not the A2, and has the same removeable carry handle. Or rather, the A4 is the 3-round burst limited version of the A3. A pesky little detail of little or no significance? Yes. But you continue to try and impress us with your knowledge like you have something to prove, and it really isn't necessary. People do having opinions varying from your own, and will continue to do so. Some are more educated than others. I try to keep an open mind. But you getting all uppity and defensive is not what is going to change what is now an opinion based on the cummulative of my experiences and research. I already stated that you could have your opinion, and I could have mine, and furthermore stated that my opinion may likely change with more experience. I have basic training at MCRD San Diego to look forward to in early Oct and then four years in infantry in the Marines. I'd be disappointed if that didn't change some of my opinions. But for now, I think we can do better than the 5.56 and your ranting isn't going to change that--no matter what your GPA was or where you went to school.

Also they wanted ammunition commonality with the M1919 .30 caliber (.30-06) Browing machine gun, therefore they kept the .30-06 as the standard round.

Thus the reason it would be expensive to change cartridges. Doh! You should have thought before you spoke, or rather typed.

The main reason that the Garand was chambered for .30-06 was based on the idea that a rifle cartridge needs to be alteast .30 caliber to be battle effective. The price of a standard round change might have been an issue, but the main reason was that back then people believed that a .275 Peterson would have inadequate power.

And by people, it was mostly Gen Douglas McArthur. The Americans might have been fond of their .30-06, but not enough so to deny something else. Their experiences fighting the 7x57 Mauser would have still been fresh in their heads. And besides which, soldiers fight with what their superiors tell them to fight with. If McArthur had allowed the development, testing, and adoption of the .276 Pederson Garand to continue, and the American military had found funding the change to that cartridge as the general issue service cartridge, who knows what may have happened. It may have been an dismal failure. Or American's might have entered the 1950s still very fond of their Garands but much more open to the idea of an intermediate powered cartridge with just a little more oomph than the 5.56mm. We'll never know. But I still maintain the primary factor in sticking with the .30-06 was cost.

The bottom line is that you've dragged this conversation far too off topic for far too long. The original post wasn't even about the cartridges as military cartridges, but for personal defense. Here, the original poster will not have the luxury of automatic fire support, a flanking force, air support, 240Gs, M2s, 40 Mike Mikes, and all the fun stuff that comes with modern infantry fire and movement. Here, stopping power becomes far more critical than in a full blown urban firefight. Here, immediate secession of hostilities is the objective. Here, first, foremost, and finally, it must be admitted that yes, the 7.62x39 was intended for the same role as the 5.56 and the 5.45, but in terms of power, does fit slightly above the smaller caliber rounds and significantly below the full power 7.62mm NATO.

 

[Metapotent]

The A3 is simply the fully automatic version of the A4, not the A2, and has the same removeable carry handle.

You're wrong, you're just repeating what uninformed people always claim. The fact is that only civilian models of the M16 that are named "A3" have the rail system with removable carrying handle. In military classifications the A3 is 'simply' a fully automatic version of the A2, not the A4.

Click here for proof.

Scroll down and look under M16A3, but to make things easy, this is the quote:

Wikipedia says:

The M16A3 was a fully-automatic variant of the M16A2 adopted in small numbers around the time of the introduction of the M16A2, primarily by the U.S. Navy for use by the SEALs. It features a Safe-Semi-Auto (S-1-F) trigger group like that of the M16A1.

Some confusion continues to exist regarding the M16A3. It is often described as the fully-automatic version of the M16A4. Descriptions of the M16A3 that claim that it shares the M16A4's Picatinny rail are incorrect. This misunderstanding most likely stems from the usage of the A2 and A3 designations by civilian manufacturers to differentiate between A2-style fixed carry handles and Picatinny rail versions.

Well there you have it. But in case you don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, or if you think I personally authored that part of the page...go here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/c02.htm#fig2_24

You will notice that in the manual to install optics or other accessories on the A1/A2/A3 you must install carry handle-scope mounts, or a bracket systems for the handguard, due to the fact that there is no rail system. Hmmm...it seems I was right all along.

Now on to the rest...

Quote:
Also they wanted ammunition commonality with the M1919 .30 caliber (.30-06) Browing machine gun, therefore they kept the .30-06 as the standard round.



Thus the reason it would be expensive to change cartridges. Doh! You should have thought before you spoke, or rather typed.

You always chose to nit-pick what I said and take my words out of context. But the fact is that the .30 m1919 machine gun was never intended to be rechambered in .276 pederson. So there never was an objection based on the cost of it being rechambered to have commonility with the .276-chambered Garand. The role of the .30 machine gun was not only for personnell but for barrier targets, light-skinned vehicles, and even potentionally as anti-aircraft if necessary. I'm sure that even the people who wanted to adopt .276 pederson for use in the new Garand, had no intention of rechambering the m1919 in .276 knowing full well that the m1919 would lose some of its versatility if chambered for a smaller, lighter round.

So since they already had crew-served weapons in .30-06, it seemed fitting to keep the .30-06 for infantry rifles so that there could be ammuntion commonality. That issue was seperate from the objection to the high cost of adopting the .276.

I think it is you who needs to think before you speak.

The bottom line is that you've dragged this conversation far too off topic for far too long.

Isn't that a little hypocritical of you? You have participated in the off-topic argument as well.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Hmmm...it seems I was right all along.

About the M16A3. That's it. We've been arguing for a page and a half or so now and the one tiny little victory you can claim, the one time you can claim to have been right, is that the M16A3 doesn't have a removeable carry handle. Okay. My bad. So sue me. Now you are ready to thumb your nose at me and the rest of the world like this one little fact confirms everything else you've said. Treasure this moment. Hold on to it and keep it close. Because it really was an understandable error on my part, and not near as ludicrous as suggesting, for example, that a .357 Magnum handgun has more muzzle energy than the Kalashnikov. That was rich. I am still going to put the 365 most stupid things you've said on a calander so I can laugh at you every day. So have your little pyrrhic victory.

What you fail to understand is that I don't mind learning something new. I feel like a better person. That is fine with me. It is your know-it-all attitude that annoys me.

But the fact is that the .30 m1919 machine gun was never intended to be rechambered in .276 pederson. So there never was an objection based on the cost of it being rechambered to have commonility with the .276-chambered Garand.

Thus the reason it would be an expensive process. They can either adopt the .276 Pederson and the standard infantry cartridge and change all their infantry level weapon systems to it, which would be incredibly expensive, or they can deal with the added logistical burden of manufacturing and supplying .276 Pederson and .30-06 Springfield to the troops. Either way, it is incredibly expensive. The US was in the Depression, and it didn't seem worth it, to General McArthur esp, so they stuck with the .30-06. The .276 Pederson still failed because it would have been too expensive to switch to it, and the whole point of this exercise was to show that there has been a long trend by anyone who does their research towards an intermediate powered 7mm cartridge for general infantry use.

One thing you will learn when you work for the government, and study how it works, is that pretty much everything has to do with cost.

I think it is you who needs to think before you speak.

Isn't that a little hypocritical of you? You have participated in the off-topic argument as well.

Fair enough. I no longer care what you think. Wrong or right, your attitude annoys me. Have a nice little enlightened conversation with yourself. Then maybe you can claim to be right in something beyond the fact that the A3 doesn't have a removeable carry handle

 

[Metapotent]

I hope you plan on having the Marine Corps pay for some college tuition or something because I don't think you'll fair too well 4 years from now coming to back to civilian life with the lack of education you have now.

I'm not calling you stupid, just... I think you are in need of some education. And the last thing you want to do is come back after your service and mop floors or flip burgers.