Praetorian you explanation about why we had split cases would explain a lot. The ammo had been left lying around in the open for some time. It was stored in cardboard boxes, some of which had stuck to the rounds. The boxes came in plastic bags of 200 in wooden boxes of 1000. The screws used to seal the boxes were rusty and the only way to open them was a to drop them from about 2m onto the corner. We also a split case tool in the MG parts bag, an I like most other instructors had a split case made by the armour to show how to use it, but until that day I had never seen one for real and did not again.
This would also explain my comment on US ammo. If we start with the assumption that armies do not like to throw things away. I noted in one post that the US used 303 rifles but changed back to 3006 after WW1. I would imagine that a large quantity of 303 was left in stoke in the US after the war. Along comes a buyer who desperately needs 303 (sellers market) and will gratefully take anything you have. So we are looking at old ammo, which could have already done a round trip to Europe being sold. This also may be the answer to the original question on the Aussy brens.
Bluffcove thank for that you did a better job than i. I keep forgetting that some may not have a lot of mil knowledge. I so much loved lesson 4A.
Again thanks Ake.
Ironman it has taken me 8 hours to cool down from reading your post this morning I will leave it with what Bluffcove and Ale have written as ripping you head off and defecating down your neck would, I am sure, be against forum rules.
IRONMAN, a very small point you are welcome to ignore, but, You claim the M1 Carbine was an assault rifle, by referencing it’s use in the defence of the Chosin Reservoir,
It was used in the defence of the position, correct? technically then the Assault rifle in that battle was used by the Chinese and any other rifle was a self defene weapon. Just because a weapon was used for a role doesnt grant it that title. View entrenching tools earlier in this thread.
Praetorian wrote :
Oh, man why you kidding me… really bullets do not travel in curves ? Sure ? You sayd - trajectory is straight ?
Praetorian, I think the important part of Bluffcove’s post in this respect was “from muzzle to target” ie, throughout their flight, rather that at first they travel striaght, then fall as velocity diminishes.
Bullets do not travel in curves from muzzle to target! After leaving the muzzle, the trajectory is straight - in continuation of the barrel, followed by a point where they lose momentum and gravity pulls them earthward again.
I suspect it’s more a nuance of language than a disagreement of the facts.
Its also worth mentioning, that improvements in machining techniques between WWI and WWII, and between Britain/NATO and Argentina, might have resulted in ammunition/rifles that were not neccessarily machined to the same number of decimal places. Given the tight tolerances in firearms this could be a cause of problems too.
I am also lead to believe by some reloaders of my acquiantance that split cases can be a result of re-using the cases too often. I presume that armed forces do indeed do this (it would be a ridiculous lack of economy not to! And there must be a reason to spend days picking up all that brass!), in which case the argentinian brass may simply have been over-reused.
Lower quality and thinner brass can also be a problem, and every manufacturer makes their case walls different thicknesses within the same external dimensions. Witness for example, the notoriously thick Lapua brass, which lasts for many re-firings, but has a noticeably lower powder capacity.
“who is the slimy little communist shirt twinkle toed sock cooker down here that just signed his own death warrant?, Pile, Im going to give you 3 seconds exactly 3 'King seconds or I will gouge out your eyeballs and Skull(harm) you. 1 2 3!”
Just incase any of the assembled are in any doubt as to the level or aggresion alluded to in 2nd of foots post. I believe he is this angry
Pile, you had best un(copulate) yourself or I shall unscrew your head and shirt down your neck
being the complete quote.
due to Pile being a poor student the Drill Seargeant has some words for him too. If only everyone were so easy to educate!
“You will not laugh you will not cry, you will learn by the numbers. I will teach you, now listen up, get on your feet”
Or as a certain PTI I know is famed to say.
“Up 'king stand, or I will PT you all until you 'king die”
FMJ :lol: not strictly WWII but legendary nevertheless, shame the film all went down hill after they went to war…or was that the point? 8)
I never said extraordinary shots were never made, but then, there is a huge difference between 300-350 yards and 600m, and between an assult rifle at 600m and a sniper rifle. The difference is tremendous.
Affirmative Sir! Point taken. I will endeavor to be less defensive.
OK. I didn’t get that from what you posted. Perhaps it was you wording. I understand what you mean now. But I must say, that assult weapons are not used at ranges of 600m, so you won’t find a situation where several soldiers are shooting 600m down range together with carbines in the wild hopes of hiting a man. It would be a complete waste of ammo.
Let me put this in terms easier to understand, if you are a gamer. Ever played the game Call of Duty? If so, do you know the map called Kursk? If the big hill was not in the middle of the map, if the map were flat, the distance from the farthest ponts on the map is like the distance you are talking about. You might as well be shooting into the sky without a fine rifle and a powerful scope. And a man at that distance would appear as a dot to the unaided human eye, if you could see him at all. And if he were wearing como military fatuiges, well, I think you see my point.
I cannot imagine anyone who has ever fired a rifle at targets 200-300m away with open sights would never consider shooting a semi-auto or fully-auto (assult rifle) carbine at a target 600m away. It would be utterly pointless to do so. The bullet drop alone at that range for such a weapon would be horrendous, and the pattern would be large.
However, if the center point of the spread of 8 rounds were on the target with such a weapon, what would it matter if the spread was perhaps 5-15 meters at 600m range? A short barreled rifle is horribly innacurate at such a distance. Now take into account windage, temperature, ammo variations (mass produced ammo can vary by as much as 5 to 30 mps or more from shot to shot, even the best), your body movement, the beating of your heart, the force of squeezing the trigger, and you can see how wasteful it would be to fire a carbine AR at anything at 600m.
A close up example of this can be seen with typical semi-auto pistols. At only 25m the bullet pattern may be as wide as the length of your hand! Now I realize that such pistols have terrible accuracy, but I am only trying to make a point.
These are reasons why sniper rifles are designed as they are: The barrel is long, the ammo is select quality, the scope is powerful, it may have an adjustable trigger (perhaps even two-stage adjustable, like a rifle that I own), the sight adjustments are in very fine incriments, etc. Even the vibration of the barrel while the gases are expanding immediately after the proprllant explodes will effect accuracy - this is why match rifles are made so that the stock of the weapon does not touch the barrel.
Preatorian kindly explained that one.
Yes, I misunderstood him. My foot is does not taste good!
[i]I did say the bullet will rise, and that is correct - it will,[/i] as Peatorian kindly explained. However, it is not because your line of sight is not level. It is because the sights of the weapon are set for a particular distance, which is not accurate at distances that are closer or farther than to what the sights are set! It is not related to your line of sight. Your eye points directly to wherever you look. It is the sights of the weapon which give you trouble.
Shooters do not hold the barrel level when firing at distant targets. Instead they either adjust their sights or raise the barrel to estimate bullet drop and compensate.
I learned this many years ago as a boy with my 1st rifle while hunting squirrels. Here’s an example: at 25m you will miss completely if you aim at the upper torso - the bullet will go completely over the target. At 75m the bullet will miss completely - the bullet will hit the tree limb the squirrel is standing on. At somewhere in-between - that is where you will hit him. This assumes that your sights are set to a medium range…
…unless you compensate by adjusting your sights or raising the barrel. The same effect is seen in a 30.06, .270, .243, 7mm, or any high velocity rifle! The difference is distance and the trajectory is flatter. This is because the sights are accurate for a narrow range of distance. Shooting at closer or greater distance requires some type of compensation.
I understand what you meant now. I misunderstood and was too defensive. Sorry for that my friend.
I agree, and I have already explained that. Please re-read my post and you will see that, and perhaps better understand my thoughts about assult rifles.
Good point. That could be a problem. I have heard that too.
So i see - i need help.
In russian we have concept - “ballistic curve” In all sense is it curve, never straight line.
Trajectory in russian - only way, line (curved or not) alog wich something moving…
When bullet leaving muzzle - and barrel’s channel no more support bullet - bullet experience few forces - inertia of movemet (moving forward), gravitation (moving bullet in direction to ground), air resistence (vectored against movement) and rotatory inertia (stabilising direction of flight). There a bit more forces, but most important forces is it this first three.
According this forces bullet way from muzzle to target can’t be descripted as straight line between two points in shortest way, as well as part of bullet way between muzzle and target.
Or Bluffcove meand somethin else than straight line between two points ?
These bullets trajectories is correct ? I can’t see there any straight lines in trajectories, even in no one parts of trajectories (in my menton of straight word - laser beam is straight, ruler’s edge is straight, right ?)
Mybe i can’t uderstand that idea by nuances of language ? I will be really thankfull for any corrections.
But I must say, that assult weapons are not used at ranges of 600m, so you won’t find a situation where several soldiers are shooting 600m down range together with carbines in the wild hopes of hiting a man. It would be a complete waste of ammo.
whether or not it would be used, Is a differnet matter for a differnet htread the fact is that - effective section fire for can occur at 600 metres. though this is the upper limit, just as 300 is the maximum effective for individual fire.
I was writing to establish that assault rifles can be effective at that range, negating your claim they could not be. This is a basic infantry principle not related to the rifle, discussions over ballistics are better left to Ale i think.
regards: call of Duty. Whilst i havent played the game and I dont wish to attack you for entering a game into your list of referrences, I am aware that a computer screen, is very differnet to the real world, frame rate etc and pixellation is nothing like the human eye for percieving movement.
forget
“I have must telescopic eyes”
I have human eyes, and the eyes on which you are establishing your claims arent looking at the real world they are looking at a computer screen.
Their is a difference to staring at screen in 2d and picking out a small target, and focusing on a distant object. one is magnification of a nearby object the other is “telescopic” for want of a medical better suited word
looking at a computer screen and focusing 18 inches infront of your face is entirely different to looking point several hundred feet away, being able to see that far is nothing spectacular, and in section fire it is impressive but no impossible to take a target at that range - though this is the maximum effective range.
maybe not if anyone else wants to critique that view Ill accept it.
I am in agreement with Pretorian, just less well able to express it
[quote]Bluffcove wrote:
It was used in the defence of the position, correct? technically then the Assault rifle in that battle was used by the Chinese and any other rifle was a self defene weapon. Just because a weapon was used for a role doesnt grant it that title. View entrenching tools earlier in this thread.
I agree, and I have already explained that. Please re-read my post and you will see that, and perhaps better understand my thoughts about assult rifles. [/quote]
Did IRONMAN mean he agrees it is not an assault rifle, it wasnt being used as one at the reservoir and you appear to concede it is not used for assault at this time, thus…
What case are you trying to prove with reference to the reservoir assault.
Not sure if i understand you correctly but i can assure you that a bullet starts to fall earthward as soon as it leaves the barrel. In a simple Physics class im sure youve seen the contraption that drops one ball and shoots the other and they both hit the ground at the same time.
I have a degree in Physics btw. But has been sometime since ive done work in it. But I have not problems cracking open the old books to research some pointed questions that you might have.
I suspect what’s being confused here is the initial upward velocity of the bullet if the barrel is anything but horizontal and the downward acceleration due to gravity. Unless you’re shooting downhill both will initially apply.
Oh, and I’m still trying to keep a straight face after TinWalt tried using games like CoD to try and explain infantry tactics to someone who has probably spent time on a two-way range. Why am I not quite convinced?
I did say the bullet will rise, and that is correct - it will, as Peatorian kindly explained. However, it is not because your line of sight is not level. It is because the sights of the weapon are set for a particular distance, which is not accurate at distances that are closer or farther than to what the sights are set! It is not related to your line of sight. Your eye points directly to wherever you look. It is the sights of the weapon which give you trouble.
Shooters do not hold the barrel level when firing at distant targets. Instead they either adjust their sights or raise the barrel to estimate bullet drop and compensate.
I learned this many years ago as a boy with my 1st rifle while hunting squirrels. Here’s an example: at 25m you will miss completely if you aim at the upper torso - the bullet will go completely over the target. At 75m the bullet will miss completely - the bullet will hit the tree limb the squirrel is standing on. At somewhere in-between - that is where you will hit him. This assumes that your sights are set to a medium range…
…unless you compensate by adjusting your sights or raising the barrel. The same effect is seen in a 30.06, .270, .243, 7mm, or any high velocity rifle! The difference is distance and the trajectory is flatter. This is because the sights are accurate for a narrow range of distance. Shooting at closer or greater distance requires some type of compensation.
TBH, I have am still trying to decide what your trying to say:…I’ll try and explain what I mean.
The classic way in which the trajectory of a bullet is pictured is as an arc (the bullet path) with a horizontal line of site. This gives the impression that the bullet will leave the (horizontal) barrel, and follow a parabola similar to a thrown ball.
This is not the case, as Gen Sandworm said, a bullet will start to fall as soon as it leaves the (horizontal) barrel. Firing from a horizontal barrel, the line of sight (that is, the line looking through the sights) will be downwards, so that it intersects the trajectory of the bullet. Think about it, the scope is above the barrel and unless the bullet climbs above an imaginary straight line coming out of the muzzle, it will never reach the line of sight, will it? Compared to an extended line coming of the barrel, the bullet will never rise. Look at the two charts that Praetorian posted; in the first one, the bullet does not rise above the horizontal line of the barrel it starts to fall almost immediately. In the second one, it does not rise above the line of the barrel either, although as the barrel is pointing upwards it does rise above the ground, yes.
I appreciate what you are saying about the barrel rarely being horizontal to the ground (unless benchrest shooting, presumably, and not to mention the curvature of the earth! :lol: ), my understanding of your original post was that you were saying that the bullet rises above the line of the barrel after firing, which is a common misconception in shooting. From a horizontal barrel, the bullet only ‘rises’ in relation to the line of sight, which is slanted downward at a greater gradient than the bullets initial drop.
I also appreciate what you are saying about compensating for distance, I never said you didn’t have to; your weren’t the only one to grow up with a gun in your hand! Not to mention the $1200 (£600) worth of ammo I just discovered I have burnt through in the last 6 months! :shock:
Read the Chuck Hawks article if you still misunderstand me, the man knows what he is talking about, and he puts it better than me, especially me without a chalkboard and rifle to demonstrate with!
I cannot imagine anyone who has ever fired a rifle at targets 200-300m away with open sights would never consider shooting a semi-auto or fully-auto (assult rifle) carbine at a target 600m away.
In the world of civvy shooting, probably not, but I know loads of soldiers who do it regularly as a section (squad.). Also, FWIW, British infantry are issued with a 4x magnification scope on their AR’s.
It would be utterly pointless to do so. The bullet drop alone at that range for such a weapon would be horrendous, and the pattern would be large.
Yes, BUT we are talking about trying to shoot at a clump of bushes, for example, in which we know the enemy are, in order to restrict enemy movement and hopefully score a few hits, not trying to pick of a gnats left testicle. Essentially, you are a group of men shooting at a group of men, so your target is larger than one man. (And no, I am not implying they are all standing shoulder to shoulder either.)
However, if the center point of the spread of 8 rounds were on the target with such a weapon, what would it matter if the spread was perhaps 5-15 meters at 600m range?
In this instance, not a lot. The point is to have rounds cracking around the enemies head that are carrying enough power to kill if they get a hit. It keeps the enemies head down, causes casualties, and thus helps you to win.
A short barreled rifle is horribly innacurate at such a distance. Now take into account windage, temperature, ammo variations (mass produced ammo can vary by as much as 5 to 30 mps or more from shot to shot, even the best), your body movement, the beating of your heart, the force of squeezing the trigger, and you can see how wasteful it would be to fire a carbine AR at anything at 600m.
Yes, I suppose if one were paying for the ammo out of your own pocket, it would be. Nonetheless, it does achieve a useful effect on the battlefield and it is done, by British forces at least. Mil-surp .223 ammo runs at about 40cents(equivalent) a round here in the UK, at that price, section fire at 600m is better value than an air strike!
Did some digging around regarding the Korean war.
Used my Old university library, and found this
Quote:
The heavy casualties the Chinese suffered from ground and air action were compounded by the cold. The terrible cold was at once our own worst enemy and our greatest ally. Chinese combat power was greatly weakened by the awful losses the poorly clothed Chinese suffered from frostbite and exposure. And, compounding the weakening of the Chinese forces by combat and cold was the failure of their logistic system. In two or three days of fighting most Chinese units had used up the meager allotment of ammunition they had carried when they crossed the river, and were beginning to suffer shortages of food.
If we couple that to the earlier comments by Ale, about Carbines dropping approaching, unarmed Chinese soldiers, compared to not penetrating running retreating terrorists.
The high death toll can be ascribed to a number of alternative factors, not the highest of which would be the will to fight, courage and tenacity dissappear quickly when its cold anyway, when your Loggies cant get you ammunition and (by your own volition) you are attacking without a personal weapon merely a sack of grenades, I can imagine the scenario whereby a non fatal bullet encourages you to lie down and die in the cold rather than “Rambo” into the embedded USMC position.
The high death toll need not solely by the result of the Carbine, It was not the most significant factor in the battle at Chosin
If you want to question it, ask this man.
Quote:
By: Patrick C. Roe, Major, USMC (Ret) Chairman, Chosin Few Historical Committee
NOTE:
Quote:
The following article is from the talk given at the Chosin Few Reunion in Portland in August.(1996) Information contained in the article is based on translations of some of the Chinese histories published in the past ten years and on information on the Chinese operations complied by intelligence sources during the Korean War and which have been recently declassified.
The weapon of the defender did not play the larger part in this battle - It would seem and I didnt say it Quote:
Patrick Roe USMC
did.
It pretty shows what worth one sharpsooter in battlefields. Usual rifle, iron sights… but weapon name is “Simo Hayaha”, not Mosin-Nagant or something else…
Probably your post better seen in “Best Sniper rifle” topic than there… but that post seems well in any topics about war and weapon, especially about “best of…”.
Good fighter can kill with nothing, but bad fighter can’t kill somebody with bestest rifle…
To help people back on LMG track i quote myself from 2nd page of this topic:
"Okay, they had Suome as sub-mashine gun, but LMG was LS 26 Lahti-Soloranta, recoil-operated, 7.62x54R (Mosin-Nagant), great LMG, it was very accurate, so finnish snipers sometimes used it with scope as sniper rifle.
Nice charts Preatorian. They make my point for me as well. Without compensating for the drop with your sights or scope clicks, a carbine is not very useful at ranges of over 300m. Shooting at something 600m away with a carbine is pointless.
Yes, but not with assult rifles, not with carbines at 600m. Perhaps an MG or sniper rifle. Using an AR at 600m is worthless my friend. If you examine Preatorians charts, you will see that bulltet drop is bad at 300m much less 600m. At 600m, the shooter cannot stop the bullet from a carbine length rifle from dropping the height of 2 men! How are you going to poke-and-hope with a bullet so wildly place? Don’t forget also that the bullet will move to a lesser degree to one side as well. With a graden hose you can control the trajectory of the water and where it lands, with a carbine at 600m you cannot sensible control the trajectory of the bullet because if it lands just slightly too low, the bullet hits the ground perhaps as much as 10-20m in front of the man you are shooting at. Or it could land several meters behind him. See what I mean? So, shooting an assult rifle at a man 600m away is senceless. It’s a waste of ammo. Preatorian has pointed that out to you.
I can imagine hitting a man with a carbine and at up to 300 yards by compensating with holding the barrel up - perhaps aiming at the height of his head a to hit him in the chest, or a carbine with a scope at 400 yards and doing the same. But even with a scope at 550-600m a carbine does not have the range to be effective, even with several men firing at once. If you fired at a man standing in front of a 20m square wall, the wall would have bullet holes spread all over it.
But the point that you and others were first trying to make was that a carbine could not be effective at 200-250 yards right? Well Preatorian’s charts show us that a carbine is effective at up to 250 yards. A man with an open sight carbine can hit a man in the chest at 250 yards by compensating, such as aiming head height. At 200 yards, 3 inches is not a challenge to overcome for an experienced shooter, such as a soldier or a hunter. Just aim a little high an fire! So you can see how a carbine could be a very effective weapon for fast firing close range combat, such as at Chosin Reservoir when hundreds of men are coming at you from 200-250 yards away. It would be the ideal kind of rifle for such a situation. And that is why the faster reloading, larger capacity M1 Carbine performed so well for the USMC at Chosin. Weapons are often chosen for combat because they meet the role. In a close quarters heavy firefight, you would be better off with an M1 Carbine than a slower loading, lower capacity M1 Garand. If the enemy is 200 to 400\500 yards away, you will surely want the M1 Garand. That is why M1 Carbines were passed out freely at Chosin - because you are in a insanely furious battle at 200-250 yards with hundreds of men running in your direction. You had better shoot like a madman who has drunk a pot of coffee if you want to live. In such a situation, a 30 round semi-automatic or selcetive fire carbine is the perfect weapon. When the enemy gets 40 yards and less away, you would be a war machine if you could magically switch your carbine to a Thompson!
Imagine also that your platoon is pressing into a city. You must fight from building to building, often going inside them to clear them, often encountering a man or three. You are also in firefights down city streets at ranges form 5-100m. You are going to want a large capacity magazine and a light, short weapon. Again, the carbine or AR is the preferred choice, and that is why today special police forces use bullpup assult rifles.
Naturally, the M1 Garande was the most used weapon for all kinds of combat by US troops in WWII. However, there were times, especially in city fighting, where soldiers requested the M1 Carbine. In the Pacific Theatre, the M1 Carbine was used more than in Europe. It was used quite a bit to clear hardened Japanese poitions once the Marines had killed most of the enemy and was approaching their bunkers and machinegun nests.
It seems safe to say that it is clear, as that preatorian has show us, that an assult rifle is pretty worthless at 600m and soldiers are not going to shoot together at men 600m away with them. It is also easy to see why an M1 Carbine is a very effective weapon for short ranges.[/quote]
I understand that the example of Chosin that I gave was one in which the M1 Carbine was used as a defensive weapon. But in situations such as open fields and in cities, you can also see that an M1 Carbine makes a fine assult weapon because it has a large capacity, is fater to reload, is light and short, and is accurate at those ranges. Assult situations with rifles take place at 0-100\200 yards, but not not at 600m. This does not mean the M1 Carbine was ever classified as an assult weapon, but what is an assult weapon? It is a short, large capacity, fast reloading, fast firing weapon. Because one rifle is not auto and another is, or because one weapon was not deigned to be and is not called an “assult rifle” another weapon is auto and called an assult rifle, is neither here nor there to me. If the weapon fits the characteristics of an assult rifle because it is effective in that role, it can be effectively as an “assult rifle” when it IS used in that role. And the M1 Carbine fits that role. It’s my opinion than when soldiers used an M1 Carbine as support personel and are carrying the plate for a mortar, the M1 Carbine is a defensive rifle. But when it is used in city fighting at 0-200 yards to kill the enemy in the streets it is an assult rifle.
Not to mention the $1200 (£600) worth of ammo I just discovered I have burnt through in the last 6 months! :shock: