Sturgeon

Looks like I may have been wrong, the XM8's receiver architecture may have solved this problem (suggesting that H&K has known about this for at least eleven years):

Not a terribly convincing argument if you're talking to one in favor of a military dictatorship, though, is it?

I don't think he'll mind too much if I out him as not that Steve Jackson, and no, not that other Steve Jackson either.

We had tossed about some ideas on an RP system above; I think we'd love your feedback.

Hahah, yes, "aid us in this endeavor". I asked him what he thought of the thread. In all seriousness, great to have you here; I'm sure you could show us a thing or two about how to make a successful RP system. I don't think anybody brought up publishing yet; but maybe some of us were thinking about it down the line.

This is my current favorite thing:

Ah, I see the disconnect. I can't speak for Bele, but I was referring to separate political entities. The United States military as a political entity is fully capable of winning wars and engaging in conquest (though I should note that the US military also has its own political and ideological limitations in this regard). It is however engaged and restrained by other separate but connected political bodies that try to (and largely succeed in) influence, control, and change it. The State Department is a good example of one of the other bodies, but it's hardly the only one. Does that make more sense?

This line of argument is obnoxious and equivocating. Identifying the weak point of American effectiveness in warfare as being political limitations is not the same thing as whining that you lost "only because". You can post better than this.

Begin placing your bets on what the next German service rifle will be, because it won't be long now.

That is the final word on the M1 Garand rifle, and closely related topics.

Yes, for those sweet short carrier takeoffs. (I did know this already, trust me really, even though I can't prove it!)

I think what Belesarius means is that the US possesses a military force of the highest order - for which there probably is no equal anywhere else in the world. US troops are motivated, well-organized, experienced, and disciplined. US equipment is generally top of the line and new (there are exceptions, of course). US officers are generally very well-trained and capable of great independent thought and action. US NCOs are priceless. However, totally external to this is the US political concern, which is a mashup of disparate forces yanking against each other as part of the game, the vast majority of whom already could be considered heirs to both the Puritan and Communist traditions. That is to say, not the ideal setup for conquest.

It does explain the potato digger; I have seen one of the later prototypes of the gas-operation principle in person.

You're correct. As soon as the 1956 Hungarian Uprising shows the AK to the West, the stage is set for the subsequent failure of the M14 program in the late fifties and early sixties to cause a bit of "Kalashnikov panic". US Army Ordnance dismissed the Kalashnikov as little more than a submachine gun, but this was the same organization that was still firmly wedded to the full-power .30 caliber round into the 1960s. Eventually, the US thoroughly leapfrogged the Soviets with the AR-15, a minor but still significant gap the Soviets never closed, but may this year or next with the AK-12.

There are actually reports of whole NVA units using captured M14s. Until the '70s, as you mention, the Vietnamese were using a true motley of weapons. As you mention, it was Chinese rifle production that really was the most significant, not Russian.

We win wars, but lose at conquest.

Broad historical trends that he made up, or...? Maybe in the 19th Century the Noble Savage idea was taken more seriously or something?

Depends what you mean. I think we agree.

Whatever your opinions of his social theories, Marx's view of history is pants on head retarded:

That looks like an RDF (LT).

I've got the 20th Century covered OK, you seem to know a thing or two about the (Not-So) Dark Ages, we should get together and compare notes. Get on the TeamSpeak sometime, maybe?

Virdea, you have so much to teach me, I think. I prostrate myself before your medieval mojo.

Concealed all the way, but others (notably Ulric on this forum) disagree.

.35 Remington too weak? Yeah, sure, 180gr at 2,200 ft/s is just pissant stuff. I would only use that for varminting. I hate to say it, but Americans - generally speaking - don't understand terminal ballistics and have a giant collective confirmation bias in favor of larger calibers. I get criticized a lot for recommending calibers that are "too weak" for the job. Using .223 Remington (actually, 5.56x45, the distinction being actually pretty important performance-wise) from a 16" carbine-length AR-15 for whitetail usually comes with cries of "that's inhumane!" or "I hope you can shoot". Here are the freakin' facts, Jack: 1. Velocity is number one for shock effect. If you want the animal to "quit", the ideal round will have more than 2,000 ft/s velocity. The reason for this is, I will admit, beyond my expertise, but it seems to be very true from an empirical standpoint. 2. Energy takes a backseat to shot placement. Even cutting the energy in half doesn't reduce the temporary cavity by very much from a dimensional perspective, so even stepping down from a .308 to a 5.56 incurs a much smaller penalty that you'd expect based on their energy levels: .308 Winchester soft point producing 3,420 J: .223 Remington copper expanding bullet producing 1,525 J: .40 S&W JHP producing 660 J: Note how, even though energy is more than halved each time, the width of the cavity does not halve. So even cartridges with wildly different energy levels will produce cavities that are not that different from one another. Therefore, I wouldn't worry too much about the energy level a given round is producing; more important is velocity and... 3. Sectional density and bullet toughness are critical for affecting thicker targets. This is where the .22 caliber got its reputation as being inadequate for deer. We'll go back to the 1930s, just as the .220 Swift was being introduced and the .22-250 was just being developed, what .224" caliber centerfire rounds were available at the time? .22 Hornet. That was the most powerful round commonly available at the time in that caliber; a round that from a 24" barrel will produce about 2,700 ft/s with 50gr bullets. Suddenly, the .22-250 and .220 Swift are introduced, and they are loaded with the same bullets - which were designed for the < 2,700 ft/s velocity range - but pushing them to over 4,000 ft/s. Hunters achieve spectacular results from these loads at first, but quickly find that they're unreliable. Without a clean profile shot, the round disintegrates too quickly and may leave the animal maimed. Laws are quickly passed by Sensible People banning the use of .22 caliber rounds for hunting medium game, and the caliber has been stamped with a label of Inadequacy ever since. Meanwhile, hunters 'round the world happily took deer with even more impotent .32-40 and later .357 Magnum rifles. So what's The Deal? Well, the 50gr bullets were pushed far beyond their design parameters, and lacked both sectional density and toughness. However, .30, .32, and .357 caliber bullets had plenty of sectional density, and were heavy enough that pushing them as fast was difficult. Now, today, this problem does not exist. A multitude of excellent, tough bullets exist for the .22 caliber bore that offer enough sectional density and integrity to humanely take medium game. Bullets in the 62-77gr range fired from 5.56mm rifles allow reliable harvesting of whitetail all day long. The results I have gotten from ammunition like Mk. 318 against whiletail speak to this. Here's another guy who is quite happy with the performance of the modern .22 caliber: It is of course important to make sure that the animal is in profile to you, to minimize the amount of tissue the round has to go through, and to shoot straight. All of this is true, regardless of caliber. The result of people in America thinking that caliber can compensate for these two factors has resulted in deer wounded by even such ridiculous calibers as .300 Winchester Magnum.

Imbel IA2 5.56mm carbine.