On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:41:26 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
> > > >
> > > > In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
> > > OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
> > Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
> You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
>
> The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds..
>
> Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
>
> No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
>
> No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
>
> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)

Tim, I'm not confused about anything. I owned three high powered rifles an over and under 20 gauge shotgun, a .22 LR plinker for crows and a .38 and two .357 revolvers that I hand loaded the ammunition for. I also owned and then sold off a 1911 .45 because it hurt my hand to fire. And it only carried 7 shots. Hell a modern 8 shot .38 is over-the-counter. I still have about 100 rounds of .357 in a large gun ammo box in the closet. My younger brother who is also afraid of guns made me get ride of them when I was suffering the effects of the concussion. So I only have a couple of guns left and a closet full of tools boxes full of ammunition.

Maybe you've been misled by that Slocomb claiming to know guns. After most of his statements you should know better than that.

What would make you think that I would say M1A1 without knowing what it is, And what makes you think that they are less effective under 100 yards than a long distance gun like an M1 Garand.

You just watched that stupid ass Slocomb unable to tell the difference between a draw and shoot and an long distance aim and pull the trigger. Maybe you should ask ANY cop the difference because John couldn't tell you. The local range here is mostly cops making their yearly qualifications. But the smart ones come down at least once a month.

And by the way. We weren't ISSUED a rifle, but they were available for every person on the base, where the hell would would we keep one? We were required to qualify on them each year. And your idea of a NATO round being more dangerous than a .45 tells me that you've never shot one or talked to a person that used them during a war. EVERY officer was issued with one.

As for your idea that an AK47 round is not powerful - IT IS A .308 for crying out loud!! That is a short case version of a 30-06 with the SAME LOAD.

Any round like a .223 that can fire 300 yards (the target is 5 feet or so in diameter) is NOT "tumbling" which idiot GI's used to say caused damage. A .22 centerfire is STILL a .22 They do not kill most of the time. In Iraq, American soldiers were killed vs wounded about 70% of the time while the statistics were almost exactly reversed with the
M4.

As for your ideas about the Taliban - they are about as Muslim as Louis Farrakhan. They didn't even HAVE field hospitals. Islam also has EXTREMELY strict rules against killing the civilians and young and old people. Maybe you should talk to Afghan escapees sometime. Not people who cooperated with the Americans, but people who were true believers in Islam which despite propaganda to the contrary really is a religion of peace that accepts Jews and Christians as believers.

The problems with the West Bank and Israel isn't about religion but the perception of property theft. And that goes back to the entrance of the Jews into the holy land 2,500 years ago.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:41:26 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
> > > > >
> > > > > In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
> > > > OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
> > > Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
> > You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
> >
> > The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308.. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds.
> >
> > Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
> >
> > No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
> >
> > No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
> >
> > No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more.. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
> Tim, I'm not confused about anything. I owned three high powered rifles an over and under 20 gauge shotgun, a .22 LR plinker for crows and a .38 and two .357 revolvers that I hand loaded the ammunition for. I also owned and then sold off a 1911 .45 because it hurt my hand to fire. And it only carried 7 shots. Hell a modern 8 shot .38 is over-the-counter. I still have about 100 rounds of .357 in a large gun ammo box in the closet. My younger brother who is also afraid of guns made me get ride of them when I was suffering the effects of the concussion. So I only have a couple of guns left and a closet full of tools boxes full of ammunition.
>
> Maybe you've been misled by that Slocomb claiming to know guns. After most of his statements you should know better than that.
>
> What would make you think that I would say M1A1 without knowing what it is, And what makes you think that they are less effective under 100 yards than a long distance gun like an M1 Garand.
>
> You just watched that stupid ass Slocomb unable to tell the difference between a draw and shoot and an long distance aim and pull the trigger. Maybe you should ask ANY cop the difference because John couldn't tell you. The local range here is mostly cops making their yearly qualifications. But the smart ones come down at least once a month.
>
> And by the way. We weren't ISSUED a rifle, but they were available for every person on the base, where the hell would would we keep one? We were required to qualify on them each year. And your idea of a NATO round being more dangerous than a .45 tells me that you've never shot one or talked to a person that used them during a war. EVERY officer was issued with one.
>
> As for your idea that an AK47 round is not powerful - IT IS A .308 for crying out loud!! That is a short case version of a 30-06 with the SAME LOAD.
>
> Any round like a .223 that can fire 300 yards (the target is 5 feet or so in diameter) is NOT "tumbling" which idiot GI's used to say caused damage. A .22 centerfire is STILL a .22 They do not kill most of the time. In Iraq, American soldiers were killed vs wounded about 70% of the time while the statistics were almost exactly reversed with the
> M4.
>
> As for your ideas about the Taliban - they are about as Muslim as Louis Farrakhan. They didn't even HAVE field hospitals. Islam also has EXTREMELY strict rules against killing the civilians and young and old people. Maybe you should talk to Afghan escapees sometime. Not people who cooperated with the Americans, but people who were true believers in Islam which despite propaganda to the contrary really is a religion of peace that accepts Jews and Christians as believers.
>
> The problems with the West Bank and Israel isn't about religion but the perception of property theft. And that goes back to the entrance of the Jews into the holy land 2,500 years ago.

M1A1's were issued to all officers along with a 1911 .45 in WW II. Do you suppose that they did that because they bounced off of heavy clothing?

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:42:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/14/2023 3:41 PM, Tim R wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
>>>> OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
>>> Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
>>
>> You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
>>
>> The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds.
>>
>> Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
>>
>> No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
>>
>> No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
>>
>> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
>>
>
>Thank you.
>
>Someone has to report on the world as it actually is now and
>again.

But.... some parts of it do seem rather strange. I read in the news
that in California, "the following are just some of the
recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked
with a thorny question"...

Payments of $5 million to every eligible Black adult, the elimination
of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at
least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a
family.
https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-black-reparations-5-million-36899f7974c751950a8ce0e444f86189

This in a state who's constitution, ratified on November 13, 1849,
prior to California's admittance into the Union in 1850, specifically
banned slavery.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:37:30 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:35:48?AM UTC-4, Tim R wrote:
>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48?PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >
>> > M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
>> >
>> > In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
>> OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
>
>Wait 'til you get him started on covid 19.....

Covid 19? There was no such thing... it was a plot by the Democrats to
deny the yellow hair comb over one his rights to a second term.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/14/2023 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:42:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2023 3:41 PM, Tim R wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
>>>>> OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
>>>> Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
>>>
>>> You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
>>>
>>> The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds.
>>>
>>> Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
>>>
>>> No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
>>>
>>> No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
>>>
>>> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
>>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Someone has to report on the world as it actually is now and
>> again.
>
> But.... some parts of it do seem rather strange. I read in the news
> that in California, "the following are just some of the
> recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked
> with a thorny question"...
>
> Payments of $5 million to every eligible Black adult, the elimination
> of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at
> least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a
> family.
> https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-black-reparations-5-million-36899f7974c751950a8ce0e444f86189
>
> This in a state who's constitution, ratified on November 13, 1849,
> prior to California's admittance into the Union in 1850, specifically
> banned slavery.
>

I want reparations for being repeatedly blamed for things
which happened 50 years before my people came here by people
who were not alive then.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:59:15 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> As for your idea that an AK47 round is not powerful - IT IS A .308 for crying out loud!! That is a short case version of a 30-06 with the SAME LOAD.
>

Just when you think he's attempting coherency.................................sigh.

In my uneducated opinion - I have shot them but not in a couple decades - there is a difference between the .30 calibers.

The AK47 is 7.62x39. The first number is the caliber and the second is the length of the case.

The M1 is .30/06 in US language or 7.62x54. The M14 is .308 or 7.62x51. Shortened case, basically the same load. And FAR more powerful than the AK. Also rimless to work in full auto.

I know you don't believe me, and I'm not actually an authority. I guess you could look the numbers up in a ballistic table. But to save you the trouble, try this memory experiment. Think about news videos of insurgents firing AKs (actually AKMs most of the time) full auto. Holding them lightly, spraying and praying, hitting very little, but.................try that with .308! Can't be done with a light rifle, and wasn't very successful with the 16 pound BAR.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 18:20:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/14/2023 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:42:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/14/2023 3:41 PM, Tim R wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
>>>>>> OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
>>>>> Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
>>>>
>>>> You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
>>>>
>>>> The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds.
>>>>
>>>> Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
>>>>
>>>> No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
>>>>
>>>> No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
>>>>
>>>> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Someone has to report on the world as it actually is now and
>>> again.
>>
>> But.... some parts of it do seem rather strange. I read in the news
>> that in California, "the following are just some of the
>> recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked
>> with a thorny question"...
>>
>> Payments of $5 million to every eligible Black adult, the elimination
>> of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at
>> least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a
>> family.
>> https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-black-reparations-5-million-36899f7974c751950a8ce0e444f86189
>>
>> This in a state who's constitution, ratified on November 13, 1849,
>> prior to California's admittance into the Union in 1850, specifically
>> banned slavery.
>>
>
>I want reparations for being repeatedly blamed for things
>which happened 50 years before my people came here by people
>who were not alive then.

On my mother's side of the family "we"arrived in the "New World" in
the 1600's and have never drawn any government dole. No Unemployment,
no Aid to Unwed Mothers, no Medicare/cal, no collage loans, not a
single penny. Certainly we are due more then some Johnny-Come-Lately
in California.

But, I suppose that we must have been lacking in some manner. After
all we never rioted, burned down buildings, harassed Korean shop
keepers, and so on....

Ah... if we had only known....
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/14/2023 6:37 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:42:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2023 3:41 PM, Tim R wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
>>>>> OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
>>>> Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
>>>
>>> You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
>>>
>>> The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds.
>>>
>>> Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
>>>
>>> No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
>>>
>>> No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
>>>
>>> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
>>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Someone has to report on the world as it actually is now and
>> again.
>
> But.... some parts of it do seem rather strange. I read in the news
> that in California, "the following are just some of the
> recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked
> with a thorny question"...

This post reminds me of another poster who is very prone to throwing a
90 degree off-topic turn into a thread.

Please, John, stop emulating Tom.

Please!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 22:07:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/14/2023 6:37 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:42:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/14/2023 3:41 PM, Tim R wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
>>>>>> OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
>>>>> Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
>>>>
>>>> You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
>>>>
>>>> The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds.
>>>>
>>>> Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
>>>>
>>>> No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
>>>>
>>>> No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
>>>>
>>>> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Someone has to report on the world as it actually is now and
>>> again.
>>
>> But.... some parts of it do seem rather strange. I read in the news
>> that in California, "the following are just some of the
>> recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked
>> with a thorny question"...
>
>This post reminds me of another poster who is very prone to throwing a
>90 degree off-topic turn into a thread.
>
>Please, John, stop emulating Tom.
>
>Please!

Oh! Andrew states "Someone has to report on the world as it actually
is now and again." And I post "But.... some parts of it do seem rather
strange."

This is 90 degrees? You didn't understand? You are deliberately being
obnoxious?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:06:33 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:59:15 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > As for your idea that an AK47 round is not powerful - IT IS A .308 for crying out loud!! That is a short case version of a 30-06 with the SAME LOAD.
> >
> Just when you think he's attempting coherency.................................sigh.
>
> In my uneducated opinion - I have shot them but not in a couple decades - there is a difference between the .30 calibers.
>
> The AK47 is 7.62x39. The first number is the caliber and the second is the length of the case.
>
> The M1 is .30/06 in US language or 7.62x54. The M14 is .308 or 7.62x51. Shortened case, basically the same load. And FAR more powerful than the AK. Also rimless to work in full auto.
>
> I know you don't believe me, and I'm not actually an authority. I guess you could look the numbers up in a ballistic table. But to save you the trouble, try this memory experiment. Think about news videos of insurgents firing AKs (actually AKMs most of the time) full auto. Holding them lightly, spraying and praying, hitting very little, but.................try that with ..308! Can't be done with a light rifle, and wasn't very successful with the 16 pound BAR.

I still have no idea where you're coming from. AK47's and .308;s are both 300 yard weapons. You CAN shoot them further but missing everything? A man is 24" across at the very best. at 200 yards that is 12 minutes of angle or 12/60ths of a degree. At 200 yards the wind or even a twig in the way of a bullet or the motion of a man in any way means a complete miss BAR;s used the same 30-06 ammo as a Garand but suffered the SAME problem of physics. Since the AK47 round is almost identical in size to the .308 any differences in velocity or trajectory is entirely due to the bullet and the powder type.. There are fast burning powders and slow burning powders so the limits aren't the casings of the bullets (there are 44-40's that have a higher velocity than cheaper loads for the 7.62).

I could hit the center of a target at 1,000 yards with my .280 and with open sights the front sight would totally cover the entire 3 foot target. So you HAD to have a telescopic sight to shoot 1,000 yard targets. At that distance a 5 mph wind would move the bullet entirely off of the target and over onto the target next to it.

It required some 2,200 rounds of ammunition to achieve ONE hit so please don't talk about people spraying bullets around because that was just as likely to achieve a hit as the common shooter carefully aiming at 300 yards.

On 3/14/2023 11:24 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 22:07:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2023 6:37 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:42:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/14/2023 3:41 PM, Tim R wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:57:52 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:35:48 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> M4's which is the actual militarized version of the AR-15 was not designed to kill people. It was designed to injure them with the theory that one man injured took 3 out of action with 2 to carry them to the back lines, A .223 isn't a 1911 pistol which can tear your leg off - it misses vital parts as commonly as it hits them. A 1911 .45 can tear an arm completely off of a victim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Afghanistan we discovered that the Taliban left wounded people on the battlefield to die. That made the M4 a toy and the military is returning to the .30 caliber so that you don't have a wounded man with a gun in the way. There was a reason that the AK47 was .30 caliber.
>>>>>>> OMG. I don't know why you argue either firearms or war when you know so little about either. There are zero facts in either paragraph above. I know the anti-gun people get a lot of things wrong but the pro-gun people seem just as bad.
>>>>>> Tim, what military service were you in and what actions did you see? I only dropped 1,500 lb bombs on people but the Air Force didn't use M4's BECAISE they so seldom killed people. We were issued M1A1's should the necessity arise and we had to qualify every year. That was only an hour for me but most people to my surprise couldn't shoot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You were issued M1A1s? That didn't seem likely so I looked it up and I think I see a small part of why you are confused.
>>>>>
>>>>> The M1A1 is a .30 caliber but it is the underpowered carbine round, not the high powered rifle round of the M1 Garand in .30/06 or the M14 in .308. The M1 was never issued to air force; they used the .30 carbine until they moved to M16 in the 60s. So it does seem possible you actually did shoot one. It is the .30 carbine that got all the criticism for not penetrating winter clothing in Korea, though that may be mostly mythical. The .223 is vastly more powerful than the .30 carbine though they are both mid power rounds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to recap what others have said: the various assault rifle rounds are midway between pistol and rifle rounds. The advantage is low recoil, ability to carry lots of ammo, controllable in full auto. The disadvantage is or can be range and penetration. Range doesn't matter as much as there are very few places in the world where you need to shoot more than 300 yards. The M16 family in .223/5.56 and the AK74 in 5.45 are those midpower rounds, as is the older AK family in 7.62x39. Yeah that's a .30 round but it's a short low powered round, nowhere near the .30 of the M1/M14 family, which IIRC are 7.62x54. The .30 carbine you fired, if you actually did, would have been similar to the AK and considerably less powerful than the .223, and I guess should be considered an assault rifle caliber.
>>>>>
>>>>> No the Taliban did not leave their wounded. Nor their dead, Islam has strict rules about burial.
>>>>>
>>>>> No no round has ever been designed to wound rather than kill. How would you even do that? Then it wouldn't work if you needed to kill. Sheesh. Military doctrine is to put lots of projectiles down range. US police doctrine is to shoot center mass until the threat ends. In some other countries police shoot the legs but they have more civilized criminals I guess. Corrections officers have birdshot to bounce off the concrete floors into the shins, but 00 buck for serious encounters. (I was one for a while.)
>>>>>
>>>>> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Someone has to report on the world as it actually is now and
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> But.... some parts of it do seem rather strange. I read in the news
>>> that in California, "the following are just some of the
>>> recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked
>>> with a thorny question"...
>>
>> This post reminds me of another poster who is very prone to throwing a
>> 90 degree off-topic turn into a thread.
>>
>> Please, John, stop emulating Tom.
>>
>> Please!
>
> Oh! Andrew states "Someone has to report on the world as it actually
> is now and again." And I post "But.... some parts of it do seem rather
> strange."
>
> This is 90 degrees? You didn't understand?

You started a total change of topic, from a detailed discussion of
firearm rounds, ballistics and impact, to the divisive political topic
of reparations.

It's the kind of move that Tom Kunich makes all the time, especially
when he's just been proven wrong yet again.

And of course, when called on such a move, Tom claims what he did was
perfectly justified.

Stop emulating Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:24:25 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:06:33 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:59:15 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > As for your idea that an AK47 round is not powerful - IT IS A .308 for crying out loud!! That is a short case version of a 30-06 with the SAME LOAD.
> > >
> > Just when you think he's attempting coherency.................................sigh.
> >
> > In my uneducated opinion - I have shot them but not in a couple decades - there is a difference between the .30 calibers.
> >
> > The AK47 is 7.62x39. The first number is the caliber and the second is the length of the case.
> >
> > The M1 is .30/06 in US language or 7.62x54. The M14 is .308 or 7.62x51. Shortened case, basically the same load. And FAR more powerful than the AK.. Also rimless to work in full auto.
> >
> > I know you don't believe me, and I'm not actually an authority. I guess you could look the numbers up in a ballistic table. But to save you the trouble, try this memory experiment. Think about news videos of insurgents firing AKs (actually AKMs most of the time) full auto. Holding them lightly, spraying and praying, hitting very little, but.................try that with .308! Can't be done with a light rifle, and wasn't very successful with the 16 pound BAR.
> I still have no idea where you're coming from. AK47's and .308;s are both 300 yard weapons. You CAN shoot them further but missing everything? A man is 24" across at the very best. at 200 yards that is 12 minutes of angle or 12/60ths of a degree. At 200 yards the wind or even a twig in the way of a bullet or the motion of a man in any way means a complete miss BAR;s used the same 30-06 ammo as a Garand but suffered the SAME problem of physics. Since the AK47 round is almost identical in size to the .308 any differences in velocity or trajectory is entirely due to the bullet and the powder type. There are fast burning powders and slow burning powders so the limits aren't the casings of the bullets (there are 44-40's that have a higher velocity than cheaper loads for the 7.62).
>
> I could hit the center of a target at 1,000 yards with my .280 and with open sights the front sight would totally cover the entire 3 foot target. So you HAD to have a telescopic sight to shoot 1,000 yard targets. At that distance a 5 mph wind would move the bullet entirely off of the target and over onto the target next to it.
>
> It required some 2,200 rounds of ammunition to achieve ONE hit so please don't talk about people spraying bullets around because that was just as likely to achieve a hit as the common shooter carefully aiming at 300 yards.

Caliber Bullet Type Bullet Weight Velocity (Muzzle) Energy (Muzzle) 100 Yards (Velocity/Energy) 200 Yards (Velocity/Energy) 300 Yards (Velocity/Energy)
7.62×39 FMJ 124gr 2,350 FPS 1,520 FT LBS 2,078 FPS/1,189 FT LBS 1,824 FPS/916 FT LBS 1,595 FPS/701 FT LBS
..308 Win FMJ 150gr 2,820 FPS 2,648 FT LBS 2,597 FPS/2,246 FT LBS 2,385 FPS/1,894 FT LBS 2,183 FPS/1,586 FT LBS

As you can see, the .308 has more energy and about the same velocity at 300 yards as the AK does at the muzzle, even with a projectile 20% heavier.

The .308 is a high powered rifle, while the AK is an intermediate powered rifle. I don't see how you can continue to argue this. Google is your friend. There are literally thousands of reference that refute your idea.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:41:26 PM UTC-4, Tim R wrote:
>
> No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)

Hmmm, imagine that....

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:12:41 PM UTC-4, Tim R wrote:
>
> I don't see how you can continue to argue this. Google is your friend. There are literally thousands of reference that refute your idea.

Tommy says google only delivers liberal lies.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:12:41 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:24:25 AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:06:33 PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:59:15 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > > As for your idea that an AK47 round is not powerful - IT IS A .308 for crying out loud!! That is a short case version of a 30-06 with the SAME LOAD.
> > > >
> > > Just when you think he's attempting coherency.................................sigh.
> > >
> > > In my uneducated opinion - I have shot them but not in a couple decades - there is a difference between the .30 calibers.
> > >
> > > The AK47 is 7.62x39. The first number is the caliber and the second is the length of the case.
> > >
> > > The M1 is .30/06 in US language or 7.62x54. The M14 is .308 or 7.62x51. Shortened case, basically the same load. And FAR more powerful than the AK. Also rimless to work in full auto.
> > >
> > > I know you don't believe me, and I'm not actually an authority. I guess you could look the numbers up in a ballistic table. But to save you the trouble, try this memory experiment. Think about news videos of insurgents firing AKs (actually AKMs most of the time) full auto. Holding them lightly, spraying and praying, hitting very little, but.................try that with .308! Can't be done with a light rifle, and wasn't very successful with the 16 pound BAR.
> > I still have no idea where you're coming from. AK47's and .308;s are both 300 yard weapons. You CAN shoot them further but missing everything? A man is 24" across at the very best. at 200 yards that is 12 minutes of angle or 12/60ths of a degree. At 200 yards the wind or even a twig in the way of a bullet or the motion of a man in any way means a complete miss BAR;s used the same 30-06 ammo as a Garand but suffered the SAME problem of physics.. Since the AK47 round is almost identical in size to the .308 any differences in velocity or trajectory is entirely due to the bullet and the powder type. There are fast burning powders and slow burning powders so the limits aren't the casings of the bullets (there are 44-40's that have a higher velocity than cheaper loads for the 7.62).
> >
> > I could hit the center of a target at 1,000 yards with my .280 and with open sights the front sight would totally cover the entire 3 foot target. So you HAD to have a telescopic sight to shoot 1,000 yard targets. At that distance a 5 mph wind would move the bullet entirely off of the target and over onto the target next to it.
> >
> > It required some 2,200 rounds of ammunition to achieve ONE hit so please don't talk about people spraying bullets around because that was just as likely to achieve a hit as the common shooter carefully aiming at 300 yards..
> Caliber Bullet Type Bullet Weight Velocity (Muzzle) Energy (Muzzle) 100 Yards (Velocity/Energy) 200 Yards (Velocity/Energy) 300 Yards (Velocity/Energy)
> 7.62×39 FMJ 124gr 2,350 FPS 1,520 FT LBS 2,078 FPS/1,189 FT LBS 1,824 FPS/916 FT LBS 1,595 FPS/701 FT LBS
> .308 Win FMJ 150gr 2,820 FPS 2,648 FT LBS 2,597 FPS/2,246 FT LBS 2,385 FPS/1,894 FT LBS 2,183 FPS/1,586 FT LBS
>
> As you can see, the .308 has more energy and about the same velocity at 300 yards as the AK does at the muzzle, even with a projectile 20% heavier.
>
> The .308 is a high powered rifle, while the AK is an intermediate powered rifle. I don't see how you can continue to argue this. Google is your friend. There are literally thousands of reference that refute your idea.

Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE margin made in every third world country you don't pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and injure or kill its user. This is NOT a reflection on the bullet but on the average quality of the guns they are used in. What's more, tell me what you think the average distance of engagement is.

In Afghanistan, a largely desert and/or mountainous terrain with nearly infinite visibility it was only about 90 yards. In the jungles of Vietnam it was more like 25 yards especially in the thick jungle in South Vietnam. Can you suggest why range would be a problem for a rifle of any sort?

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:12:41?AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:24:25?AM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:06:33?PM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:59:15?PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > > > As for your idea that an AK47 round is not powerful - IT IS A .308 for crying out loud!! That is a short case version of a 30-06 with the SAME LOAD.
>> > > >
>> > > Just when you think he's attempting coherency................................sigh.
>> > >
>> > > In my uneducated opinion - I have shot them but not in a couple decades - there is a difference between the .30 calibers.
>> > >
>> > > The AK47 is 7.62x39. The first number is the caliber and the second is the length of the case.
>> > >
>> > > The M1 is .30/06 in US language or 7.62x54. The M14 is .308 or 7.62x51. Shortened case, basically the same load. And FAR more powerful than the AK. Also rimless to work in full auto.
>> > >
>> > > I know you don't believe me, and I'm not actually an authority. I guess you could look the numbers up in a ballistic table. But to save you the trouble, try this memory experiment. Think about news videos of insurgents firing AKs (actually AKMs most of the time) full auto. Holding them lightly, spraying and praying, hitting very little, but.................try that with .308! Can't be done with a light rifle, and wasn't very successful with the 16 pound BAR.
>> > I still have no idea where you're coming from. AK47's and .308;s are both 300 yard weapons. You CAN shoot them further but missing everything? A man is 24" across at the very best. at 200 yards that is 12 minutes of angle or 12/60ths of a degree. At 200 yards the wind or even a twig in the way of a bullet or the motion of a man in any way means a complete miss BAR;s used the same 30-06 ammo as a Garand but suffered the SAME problem of physics. Since the AK47 round is almost identical in size to the .308 any differences in velocity or trajectory is entirely due to the bullet and the powder type. There are fast burning powders and slow burning powders so the limits aren't the casings of the bullets (there are 44-40's that have a higher velocity than cheaper loads for the 7.62).
>> >
>> > I could hit the center of a target at 1,000 yards with my .280 and with open sights the front sight would totally cover the entire 3 foot target. So you HAD to have a telescopic sight to shoot 1,000 yard targets. At that distance a 5 mph wind would move the bullet entirely off of the target and over onto the target next to it.
>> >
>> > It required some 2,200 rounds of ammunition to achieve ONE hit so please don't talk about people spraying bullets around because that was just as likely to achieve a hit as the common shooter carefully aiming at 300 yards.
>> Caliber Bullet Type Bullet Weight Velocity (Muzzle) Energy (Muzzle) 100 Yards (Velocity/Energy) 200 Yards (Velocity/Energy) 300 Yards (Velocity/Energy)
>> 7.62×39 FMJ 124gr 2,350 FPS 1,520 FT LBS 2,078 FPS/1,189 FT LBS 1,824 FPS/916 FT LBS 1,595 FPS/701 FT LBS
>> .308 Win FMJ 150gr 2,820 FPS 2,648 FT LBS 2,597 FPS/2,246 FT LBS 2,385 FPS/1,894 FT LBS 2,183 FPS/1,586 FT LBS
>>
>> As you can see, the .308 has more energy and about the same velocity at 300 yards as the AK does at the muzzle, even with a projectile 20% heavier.
>>
>> The .308 is a high powered rifle, while the AK is an intermediate powered rifle. I don't see how you can continue to argue this. Google is your friend. There are literally thousands of reference that refute your idea.
>
>Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE margin made in every third world country you don't pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and injure or kill its user. This is NOT a reflection on the bullet but on the average quality of the guns they are used in. What's more, tell me what you think the average distance of engagement is.
>
>
>In Afghanistan, a largely desert and/or mountainous terrain with nearly infinite visibility it was only about 90 yards. In the jungles of Vietnam it was more like 25 yards especially in the thick jungle in South Vietnam. Can you suggest why range would be a problem for a rifle of any sort?

You are incredibly stupid.

When you design a firearm, and I have in my small way, designed some,
you start with the cartridge and design the gun to safely fire that
cartridge.

Or to put it another way, you don't design a gun and the go scrabbling
around to find a cartridge that won't blow it up.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:35:50 PM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:41:26 PM UTC-4, Tim R wrote:
> >
> > No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more.. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
> Hmmm, imagine that....

It's not really apples to apples.
With soft pointed hunting rounds made to expand, power does more. A deer rifle can make a bigger hole all the way through than an intermediate round like .223 or AK.

Military rounds are full metal jacket. In any fluid including air they are more stable base forward, but it depends on the spin. The early versions of the M16 were something like 1 turn in 14 inches . In water (and the body is mostly water) they would turn sideways in about 5 inches and break at the cannelure and fragment. The M1/M14 would do that too but it took 14 inches which is already outside the body for most impacts. Now that the M4 is 1 in 7 inches I guess that doesn't happen, I haven't really kept up. Aimed fire is relatively rare in combat. In Vietnam you shot at sounds and muzzle flashes, the enemy wasn't stupid enough to stand up with no cover and give you a nice target.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:49:08 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE margin made in every third world country you don't pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and injure or kill its user.

You have missed the entire point of the switching from the full power rifle round to an intermediate round that gave you more ammo, less recoil, full auto controllability. It gives you greater firepower in the sense of putting more rounds downrange. The Germans invented it during WWII with the 7.92 Kurz, a shortened machine gun bullet, and the US sort of did the same thing with the .30 carbine. The AK perfected it, then the US made the Cadillac version in the M16.

Please. Read this and stop the embarassment. https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge

On 3/16/2023 11:05 AM, Tim R wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:49:08 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE margin made in every third world country you don't pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and injure or kill its user.
>
> You have missed the entire point of the switching from the full power rifle round to an intermediate round that gave you more ammo, less recoil, full auto controllability. It gives you greater firepower in the sense of putting more rounds downrange. The Germans invented it during WWII with the 7.92 Kurz, a shortened machine gun bullet, and the US sort of did the same thing with the .30 carbine. The AK perfected it, then the US made the Cadillac version in the M16.
>
> Please. Read this and stop the embarassment. https://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge

From that entry: "This allowed for the development of the assault
rifle, a type of versatile selective fire small arms that is lighter and
more compact than traditional battle rifles that fire full-power
cartridges."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/16/2023 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/16/2023 11:05 AM, Tim R wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:49:08 PM UTC-4, Tom
>> Kunich wrote:
>>> Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this
>>> - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE
>>> margin made in every third world country you don't
>>> pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads
>>> commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make
>>> lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and
>>> injure or kill its user.
>>
>> You have missed the entire point of the switching from the
>> full power rifle round to an intermediate round that gave
>> you more ammo, less recoil, full auto controllability. It
>> gives you greater firepower in the sense of putting more
>> rounds downrange. The Germans invented it during WWII
>> with the 7.92 Kurz, a shortened machine gun bullet, and
>> the US sort of did the same thing with the .30 carbine.
>> The AK perfected it, then the US made the Cadillac version
>> in the M16.
>>
>> Please. Read this and stop the embarassment. https://
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge
>
> From that entry: "This allowed for the development of the
> assault rifle, a type of versatile selective fire small arms
> that is lighter and more compact than traditional battle
> rifles that fire full-power cartridges."
>

We finally agree.

Sturmgewehr distinctively have a selector.
Civilian semi ARs do not.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 10:58:24 AM UTC-4, Tim R wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:35:50 PM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:41:26 PM UTC-4, Tim R wrote:
> > >
> > > No the .223 doesn't do less damage than the .45, it does more. WAY more. Also more than the AK47 did and the M14 did. (with some variation depending on the rifling twist and the exact choice of bullet)
> > Hmmm, imagine that....
> It's not really apples to apples.
> With soft pointed hunting rounds made to expand, power does more. A deer rifle can make a bigger hole all the way through than an intermediate round like .223 or AK.
>
> Military rounds are full metal jacket. In any fluid including air they are more stable base forward, but it depends on the spin. The early versions of the M16 were something like 1 turn in 14 inches . In water (and the body is mostly water) they would turn sideways in about 5 inches and break at the cannelure and fragment. The M1/M14 would do that too but it took 14 inches which is already outside the body for most impacts. Now that the M4 is 1 in 7 inches I guess that doesn't happen, I haven't really kept up. Aimed fire is relatively rare in combat. In Vietnam you shot at sounds and muzzle flashes, the enemy wasn't stupid enough to stand up with no cover and give you a nice target.

Yes, these issue have been covered ad nauseam here. There was even a recently linked DARPA report here ( yes, https://www.darpa.mil/) which discussed the lethality of small caliber rounds specific to the development of the AR-15, as well as links to various wound ballistics studies comparing the lethality of large caliber to small-caliber rounds. The naysayers here still insist those reports are politically biased (even the DARPA report) and the small-caliber rounds are far less lethal that large caliber. You're a bright guy, shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out who they are.

On 3/16/2023 12:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/16/2023 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/16/2023 11:05 AM, Tim R wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:49:08 PM UTC-4, Tom
>>> Kunich wrote:
>>>> Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this
>>>> - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE
>>>> margin made in every third world country you don't
>>>> pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads
>>>> commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make
>>>> lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and
>>>> injure or kill its user.
>>>
>>> You have missed the entire point of the switching from the
>>> full power rifle round to an intermediate round that gave
>>> you more ammo, less recoil, full auto controllability.  It
>>> gives you greater firepower in the sense of putting more
>>> rounds downrange.  The Germans invented it during WWII
>>> with the 7.92 Kurz, a shortened machine gun bullet, and
>>> the US sort of did the same thing with the .30 carbine.
>>> The AK perfected it, then the US made the Cadillac version
>>> in the M16.
>>>
>>> Please.  Read this and stop the embarassment.  https://
>>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge
>>
>>  From that entry: "This allowed for the development of the
>> assault rifle, a type of versatile selective fire small arms
>> that is lighter and more compact than traditional battle
>> rifles that fire full-power cartridges."
>>
>
> We finally agree.
>
> Sturmgewehr distinctively have a selector.
> Civilian semi ARs do not.

And that made very little difference to the victims at Uvalde, Sandy
Hook, Pittsburgh and all the rest.

But apparently those lives are not as important as the "fun" people have
shooting ARs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:21 AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:49:08 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE margin made in every third world country you don't pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and injure or kill its user.
> You have missed the entire point of the switching from the full power rifle round to an intermediate round that gave you more ammo, less recoil, full auto controllability. It gives you greater firepower in the sense of putting more rounds downrange. The Germans invented it during WWII with the 7.92 Kurz, a shortened machine gun bullet, and the US sort of did the same thing with the .30 carbine. The AK perfected it, then the US made the Cadillac version in the M16.
>
> Please. Read this and stop the embarassment. https://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge

Well, as I said before the actual range of engagement is less than 100 yards so talking about power of a bullet at more than that is sort of pointless isn't it? And the ballistics of a .308 put it in the category of much more deadly than a .223 with a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps and 500 yards at 1100 fps. This is identical to the 30-06.

I will agree with you that a .30 caliber isn't a very good sniper rifle but how many sniper's are used at 87 yards? And since I have shot at extreme distances with my .280 and 8 power scope I can tell you just how difficult it is to hit anything at long range, On a hot day even the heat rising off of the ground makes it almost impossible to hit a 1000 yard target.

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 12:45:39 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > From that entry: "This allowed for the development of the
> > assault rifle, a type of versatile selective fire small arms
> > that is lighter and more compact than traditional battle
> > rifles that fire full-power cartridges."
> >
> We finally agree.
>
> Sturmgewehr distinctively have a selector.
> Civilian semi ARs do not.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I am pretty sure that one of the early assault rifle variants was not select fire, but full auto only. With a fairly slow rate of fire, a skilled person could get single shots out of it. But I can't remember which one that was. I had thought it was the Schmeisser but wiki doesn't think so.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 11:45:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/16/2023 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/16/2023 11:05 AM, Tim R wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:49:08 PM UTC-4, Tom
>>> Kunich wrote:
>>>> Tim, I can see that there's no talking to you about this
>>>> - if you have the world's most popular rifle by a LARGE
>>>> margin made in every third world country you don't
>>>> pretend that they are made sturdily enough to take loads
>>>> commonly used by more expensive weapons. So you make
>>>> lighter loads that are less likely to explode the gun and
>>>> injure or kill its user.
>>>
>>> You have missed the entire point of the switching from the
>>> full power rifle round to an intermediate round that gave
>>> you more ammo, less recoil, full auto controllability. It
>>> gives you greater firepower in the sense of putting more
>>> rounds downrange. The Germans invented it during WWII
>>> with the 7.92 Kurz, a shortened machine gun bullet, and
>>> the US sort of did the same thing with the .30 carbine.
>>> The AK perfected it, then the US made the Cadillac version
>>> in the M16.
>>>
>>> Please. Read this and stop the embarassment. https://
>>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge
>>
>> From that entry: "This allowed for the development of the
>> assault rifle, a type of versatile selective fire small arms
>> that is lighter and more compact than traditional battle
>> rifles that fire full-power cartridges."
>>
>
>We finally agree.
>
>Sturmgewehr distinctively have a selector.
>Civilian semi ARs do not.

A couple of points.

The M1 Carbine was designed to replace the 1911 Colt as an Officer's
and non-combat troops' sidearm due largely to the difficulties of
shooting accurately with the pistol.
The cartridge was roughly 2 times as powerful as the .45. Muzzle
velocity - .30 carbine 1990 Ft/Sec, , .45 - 950 ft/sec, Muzzle energy
- .30 Carbine 967 ft/lbs. .45 - 471 ft.lbs.

The 7.92×33mm Kurz was designed specifically for the StG 44 and from
base and neck measurements appears to have been a shortened version of
the standard German rifle cartridge of the time - the 7.92×57mm
Mauser.
(Surprisingly the German word "kurz" can be tanslated as short :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.