Salt!!!!!

One small nit in an otherwise accurate summary:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:42:53 GMT, "Ron Magen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>By the time Viet Nam started 'warming up', the long range
>{1,000 yards +}, accurate shooting 30-06 - and later adoption &
>re-designation of the slightly shorter & 'softer shooting' .308 Winchester
>to 7.62mm, was found un-necessary in the close-quarter jungle fire fights.

The development of the .308 was a step on the way to the .223. The
goal of the .308 was to duplicate 30-06 ballistics in a smaller case,
enabling a soldier to carry more rounds and making a shorter action in
the firearm, which would allow for more reliable fully automatic fire.
Due to the quirks of interior ballistics a .308 firing the same bullet
at the same velocity as a 30-06 has *higher* felt recoil thanks to
greater chamber pressure.

Most of the old military rifles had hardwood stocks, some actually had
quite nice wood until the armory and the troops soaked them with
cosmoline and gun oil. Gun oil, even if purchased from Denmark,
doesn't really give a Danish oil type finish.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Norm Crow writes:

>Don't know where the notion of it having water in it got started. I'm not
>positive, but seems to me that I heard WD40 was developed by Uncle Sam to
>keep the %^#$%!@#()*& M-16 functioning in actual field conditions.

Probably not. It's 50 years old and the M16 isn't. Should have stuck with the
M1, but evidently it's easier to teach troops to use a hose than to aim and
shoot.

Charlie Self
I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html

Silvan wrote:
> I miss my 1911. (No, I wasn't in the military. I bought a civilian version
> as my first handgun, when I turned 21...) That thing was fun as hell to
> shoot, and used to scare everyone at the range half to death to boot.
> Nothing like walking up with my .45 while everybody else is plinking with
> nines and 22s. Ping, poot, bang, KA-BLAM! Heads turn... "What the hell
> was THAT?"

I like my .45, but for a serious weapon I think the AR-10 beats
the M-16 hollow.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Ron Magen wrote:
> I thank you, Thomas.
>
> While I don't know everything, I can make a few valid comments . . . all
> though sufficient ones have probably already been made.
>
> The 'best battle implement' M-1 {per Gen. G.S, Patton} uses the same 30-06
> round as the venerable '03. Typically, .30 caliber Military 'Ball
> Ammunition' has a 180 grain bullet with an MV {muzzle velocity} of 2700fps
> and a ME {muzzle energy} of 2910 ft/lbs.

Should read "150 grain bullet".

-Bruce

>
>
SNIP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

CW wrote:
> There's not a lot that isn't better than an M-16.

M-16s aren't a bad weapon, I just think that an AR-10 gives you
more bang for the buck. It's an M-16 in a .308 version. A bit
heavier to handle the larger shell, but accurate for a lot further
and still good up close. If you haven't try one. They are
terrific for pig or deer.

Just my .02
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

Tom Watson wrote:

> I'm still a little pissed of that they gave up on the 1911 sidearm.

> That .45 was a heavy hitter and, if you weren't all that accurate with
> it, the sumbitch was heavy enough to club the enemy to death.

I think the big incentive came from the fact that 9mm ammo is cheaper, and
you can get more of it into the magazine. 15 rounds vs. seven, plus all
the pussy Europeans were using it, so we had to follow suit.

I miss my 1911. (No, I wasn't in the military. I bought a civilian version
as my first handgun, when I turned 21...) That thing was fun as hell to
shoot, and used to scare everyone at the range half to death to boot.
Nothing like walking up with my .45 while everybody else is plinking with
nines and 22s. Ping, poot, bang, KA-BLAM! Heads turn... "What the hell
was THAT?"

Ah, the days when I could afford to piss away 40 cents every time I pulled
the trigger.

Those things just aren't economical unless you reload, and I never got into
reloading. I wound up selling it. I wish I hadn't. :(

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:56:55 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

>
> I like a 1903-A3, myself but it calls for a more leisurely approach to
> things.
>
> I'm still a little pissed of that they gave up on the 1911 sidearm.
>
> That .45 was a heavy hitter and, if you weren't all that accurate with
> it, the sumbitch was heavy enough to club the enemy to death.

Gramps (Coast Artillery Corps & duty in the Philippines during the Morrow
uprising said the Army changed to the .45 cause the dudes would wrap
themselves in ripped up bed sheets and keep coming at you with their
swords, and the .38 wouldn't do much to stop 'em, but the .45 would knock
them on their arse, sheets and all.

--
-Doug

There's not a lot that isn't better than an M-16.

"dave in fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I like my .45, but for a serious weapon I think the AR-10 beats
> the M-16 hollow.

Charlie Self wrote:

> Norm Crow writes:
>
>> Don't know where the notion of it having water in it got
>> started. I'm not positive, but seems to me that I heard WD40
>> was developed by Uncle Sam to keep the %^#$%!@#()*& M-16
>> functioning in actual field conditions.
>
> Probably not. It's 50 years old and the M16 isn't. Should have
> stuck with the M1, but evidently it's easier to teach troops
> to use a hose than to aim and shoot.

The M1 was a good rifle (provided that your thumb maintained a
friendly relationship with the bolt :-) but was heavy (11.6
pounds with ling and bayonet, IIRC). The M-16 is a lot lighter,
packs more of a whollop, and as you noted has a selector switch.
Seems to me that the .223 ammo is considerably lighter, too -
although I'm not sure.

When the M16 came out, I traded in a .45 "grease gun". Talk about
a no-aim hose...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

No, they aren't bad. They're lousy.

"dave in fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
> > There's not a lot that isn't better than an M-16.
>
> M-16s aren't a bad weapon,

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Wood Butcher" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>And a tiny nit in your nit.
>The chamber pressure is an indirect cause. The shorter barrel
>length results in a shorter bullet acceleration time and a higher &
>narrower energy impulse delivered to the gun, which gives the
>higher felt recoil. If the gun is also lighter than the 30-06 (I
>don't know) this will also contribute to a higher recoil.
>
>Art
>
>
>"Tim Douglass" wrote in message ...
>> One small nit in an otherwise accurate summary:
>[snip]
>> Due to the quirks of interior ballistics a .308 firing the same bullet
>> at the same velocity as a 30-06 has *higher* felt recoil thanks to
>> greater chamber pressure.
>>

You are quite right that either a shorter barrel or lighter rifle will
increase felt recoil (in fact a lighter rifle increases the real free
recoil energy), but, bearing in mind that I'm not a ballistician (nor
did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), what I understand is
the thing between the .308 and 30-06 is that for exactly the same
bullet weight, barrel length and muzzle velocity the .308 will
generate a faster rise in the pressure curve which causes the recoil
to *feel* greater. The total free recoil energy (area under the curve)
is identical but the shape of the curve is quite different. You can
create the same difference in felt recoil by using faster or slower
burning powder as well. In loading for an older friend of mine I use
as slow a powder as I can get away with because it flattens the
pressure curve and takes some of the edge off the recoil.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:36:18 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:


>The M1 was a good rifle (provided that your thumb maintained a
>friendly relationship with the bolt :-) but was heavy (11.6
>pounds with ling and bayonet, IIRC). The M-16 is a lot lighter,
>packs more of a whollop,

I'm not up on this stuff much, anymore. Ron Magen prolly knows the
straight dope.

I'm thinking, without looking it up, that the M-1 had more foot pounds
per round than the M-16.

The M-16 could throw more lead, faster.

I like a 1903-A3, myself but it calls for a more leisurely approach to
things.

I'm still a little pissed of that they gave up on the 1911 sidearm.

That .45 was a heavy hitter and, if you weren't all that accurate with
it, the sumbitch was heavy enough to club the enemy to death.


Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

And a tiny nit in your nit.
The chamber pressure is an indirect cause. The shorter barrel
length results in a shorter bullet acceleration time and a higher &
narrower energy impulse delivered to the gun, which gives the
higher felt recoil. If the gun is also lighter than the 30-06 (I
don't know) this will also contribute to a higher recoil.

Art


"Tim Douglass" wrote in message ...
> One small nit in an otherwise accurate summary:
[snip]
> Due to the quirks of interior ballistics a .308 firing the same bullet
> at the same velocity as a 30-06 has *higher* felt recoil thanks to
> greater chamber pressure.
>

I thank you, Thomas.

While I don't know everything, I can make a few valid comments . . . all
though sufficient ones have probably already been made.

The 'best battle implement' M-1 {per Gen. G.S, Patton} uses the same 30-06
round as the venerable '03. Typically, .30 caliber Military 'Ball
Ammunition' has a 180 grain bullet with an MV {muzzle velocity} of 2700fps
and a ME {muzzle energy} of 2910 ft/lbs.

The .223 cartridge - present metric military designation is 5.56mm - is much
lighter at 56 grains, with a MV of 3250fps and a ME of 1320ft/lbs.

That says it in a nutshell - along with the simple equation Energy equals
Mass times Velocity which will give the energy at range {discounting factors
such as bullet drop, sectional density, etc.}

For background - read the following, or stop here.

A 'direct comparison of {Military} effectiveness' is not really valid - each
was developed for different times, and different functions. The 30 caliber,
30-06 round was developed from the 30-40 Krag cartridge and the 1903 rifle
was 'developed' from the stronger German Mauser action. This was a period
where Accuracy of shooting was of primary concern and the 'Generals'
believed that rapid fire would 'waste ammunition'. {It is also an old saying
that 'Generals/Armies always prepare to fight the last war' }The development
of the machine gun in WWI punctured that balloon !! However, at the
beginning of WWII the 1903-A3 was 'on the line' along with the M-1 {The
Marines were probably the last to be changed over - rent the B&W movie
'Guadalcanal Diary', and read 'From Here to Eternity' }. All services still
adhered to the doctrine of identifying the target and AIMING.

The M-16 was developed from the Stoner ARMALITE civilian rifle. The Army
actually turned Stoner down, which is why it was first offered to the
'commercial' marketplace. It was actually an Air Force General {SAC ?}who
purchased some for airbase protection that started the military
'investment'. By the time Viet Nam started 'warming up', the long range
{1,000 yards +}, accurate shooting 30-06 - and later adoption &
re-designation of the slightly shorter & 'softer shooting' .308 Winchester
to 7.62mm, was found un-necessary in the close-quarter jungle fire fights.
Also Doctrine had changed. Other than for Snipers {.308 Remington Mod 700
action based rifles}the ability to lay down 'massed area fire' has replaced
selecting individual targets. Therefore, the ability to CARRY a LOT of
ammunition, with an 'effective range' of less than 300 meters {maybe 100
meters?}, and a lighter & 'handier' weapon, now has primary importance.

Just as a 'by-the-by' a Military round is NOT designed to KILL - but to
'incapacitate'. It takes much more personnel to save, move, and care for an
injured man, then to simply 'remove' him. Of course, in this time of 'Martyr
Brigades' and 'Suicide Bomber's ' I wonder how much 'care' is given . . .
other than when the cameras are rolling.

Regards,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:36:18 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >The M1 was a good rifle (provided that your thumb maintained a
> >friendly relationship with the bolt :-) but was heavy (11.6
> >pounds with ling and bayonet, IIRC). The M-16 is a lot lighter,
> >packs more of a whollop,
>
> I'm not up on this stuff much, anymore. Ron Magen prolly knows the
> straight dope.
SNIP

Ed Pawlowski responds:

>Don Mackie wrote:
>> The salt grinder stopped working so I took it apart and found it was
>> all choked up with caked salt. I got that out with a chisel (not a
>> good one) and used the Dremel to clean and buff the metal parts
>
>
>Salt grinders have non-metallic grinders. I have no idea who sells them,
>but they do exist.
>

Chef's Catalog. Just saw one tonight, ceramic grinders.
I think it's www.chefscatalog.com

Charlie Self
I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html