Virdea

In the basement of H and K, dozens of military scientists are yelling.  Finally the VP for operations broke it all up.  "Shut up, just let us know what our options are.  There won't be anymore Belgium guns arming German soldiers."
 
"Well, we have some ideas, how about this?"  The scientist held a rifle up.  It has bunny ears on it.  
 
"That is just a G3"
 
"But it has advanced modification."
 
No, I do not think we can pass that one.  What else do we have."
 
Another rifle came out.  It was pink.
 
"That is an AK?"
 
"Us, we call it a KA."
 
"Its pink!"
 
"Urban camo."
 
"No lets see what else."
 
Out came a little rifle from a box that said, Boondoogle, 1991.
 
"How about this."
 
"Needs some modifications."
 
"We can paste some stuff on it."
 
"Good - I think the G11 is ready to come back."

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.

I have been reading a  lot of articles about the AK-47 in Vietnam, and how poor American soldiers armed with M14 and later unreliable M16s faced hordes of AK-47 armed soldiers.
 
Most of the AARs from units prior to 1970 show that Americans were not for the most part fighting AKs.  The Russians had only successfully finished equipping its own armies with AKs in 1965, flooding its allies with SKS and Mosin rifles that the AKs replaced.  Many Eastern European allies adopted other weapons that AKs in the 1960s because the limited supply of these weapons.  May of 1970 was when the PAVN decreed that they would only issue AK type rifles - made possible by weapons manufactured in China reaching them in big numbers.
 
The Americans were mostly fighting SKS rifles and submachine guns through 1969.  
 
It just struck me as interesting because so many historians describe the ill-armed US soldiers when the AK did not really dominate until the 1970s, and even then French soldiers facing AK-47s in African were able to, using a semi-automatic rifle, completely destroy opposite of soldiers that really did have an AK heavy infrastructure.
 

I have been reading a  lot of articles about the AK-47 in Vietnam, and how poor American soldiers armed with M14 and later unreliable M16s faced hordes of AK-47 armed soldiers.
 
Most of the AARs from units prior to 1970 show that Americans were not for the most part fighting AKs.  The Russians had only successfully finished equipping its own armies with AKs in 1965, flooding its allies with SKS and Mosin rifles that the AKs replaced.  Many Eastern European allies adopted other weapons that AKs in the 1960s because the limited supply of these weapons.  May of 1970 was when the PAVN decreed that they would only issue AK type rifles - made possible by weapons manufactured in China reaching them in big numbers.
 
The Americans were mostly fighting SKS rifles and submachine guns through 1969.  
 
It just struck me as interesting because so many historians describe the ill-armed US soldiers when the AK did not really dominate until the 1970s, and even then French soldiers facing AK-47s in African were able to, using a semi-automatic rifle, completely destroy opposite of soldiers that really did have an AK heavy infrastructure.
 

I have two model 8s now, and I might trade when my current ban from exchanging weapons is up.  My cousin has one - from my uncle, and it is more valuable because it uses a removable magazine.  Certainly the 1895 Win is the same price range as my second Model 8.
 
However, I would instead start hunting through pawn shops.  The pawn shop I went to in Yakima sold almost exclusively to gang members, K13 or N12, so all they stocked was AK47s.  I found a Vietnam bring-back MAS36/LG48 and one of my Model 8s there for under $100.
 
Once my wife imposed ban is up though maybe.  The 1895 was one of the only lever actions that had a strong enough breach lock to handle front-line military use.  The Model 99 may have been the second but it never had a chance for front-line use.  My Russian scholar friend has an 1895 3-line and the think just reeks of history.  I fixed up one for a museum in St Petersburg and they ended up trading it for a Krag because the curator did not understand that the 1895 was carried by some soldiers in Cuba.  I kick myself over that bit of idiocy to this day.

4- digita serial number (3xxx) 80% blue, bore is 90%.  I keep this one in honor of my uncle and have named it Walter.

I would love to.  Not tomorrow, I am fighting two deadlines right now, but soon.
 
It is interesting that your own theories on bullet effectiveness track closely those of the effectiveness of medieval weapons.  

I would love to.  Not tomorrow, I am fighting two deadlines right now, but soon.
 
It is interesting that your own theories on bullet effectiveness track closely those of the effectiveness of medieval weapons.  

I would love to.  Not tomorrow, I am fighting two deadlines right now, but soon.
 
It is interesting that your own theories on bullet effectiveness track closely those of the effectiveness of medieval weapons.  

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

Straight Copper 29 does not melt until 1000C but it becomes brittle at 750.  My bet is that any bullet traveling 24 inches down a barrel at 4000fps has enough friction thrown at it to reach 750.  Without testing it I bet a copper jacket failure is the result with allows available in the 1920.  
 
When studying the effectiveness of medieval weapons I kept needing non-linear formulas to explain how deadly weapons were.  Modern autopsies show that all four of the major mechanical wound groups can cause a human to die, but some are better than others in different situations.  Chopping weapons are ineffective unless they are swung with a significant amount of force.  Bludgeoning weapons are ineffective unless they hit a few places in the body.  Slashing weapons require precise movement along exposed flesh to cut deep enough to be effective.  Piercing weapons are the best in terms of weight, but have to be long enough and strong enough to penetrate the chest cavity.
 
Looking at the bodies of 400 medieval soldiers from Turkey shows they were mostly hacked apart and took one or two dozen wounds to cause death.  Very few were cleanly killed in melee.  
 
However I am reminded of the parable of South Carolina trooper Mark Coates.

I wish it still existed because it was a classic case of circular arguments.  One group advocated the lawman of the 1920s arming themselves with Tommy guns as you say, but my uncle purchased his own model 8 for 25 bucks - a Tommy gun costs something like 300 with magazines back then (which spawned a new argument about it being idiotic to count pennies when it is your life.)  There was a large group that advocated a cut-down, short barreled Colt Monitor because 30-06 is the "baseline cartridge" a term I have never heard of before or since.  There was a lot of talk of bolt action versus semi-auto, and I think most of the fan base wanted larger rounds.
 
I thought back to my own days in blue and I had a carbine in my car, and once in a while I would throw a personal rifle in when I was doing a stint in the back country.  I was never scared that the carbine was a bad choice since I did not have one (a choice), and the main reason it was issued was for active shooter in schools (later most people got M16A1s).  
 
My service weapon was a Glock 23 - the department only issued 15 round mags so I carried two 15 round mags plus a 13 in the gun.  I also carried a titanium 38 revolver made by Taurus.  On forums when I revealed what I carried it would always cause a lot of posting - lots of digital ink on my choice of a Glock 23 exists because apparently those last two rounds are life or death.  Two mags backup?  That discussion lit off a lot of discussions on how many pistol rounds do you need and the pundits wanted hundreds.  Heck, even when I grabbed my vest and my carbine at most I would have 114 rounds on my body by people who never leave the house without a hundred rounds in their pocket.  I figure I am just lazy.
 
The point is I do not think the Remington 8 generated that much antipathy, it was the fact I posted a memory that allowed the arm chair quarterbacks to jump into the game.  A couple were long, drawn out, and interesting posts that I read with interest. 

.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.

I wish it still existed because it was a classic case of circular arguments.  One group advocated the lawman of the 1920s arming themselves with Tommy guns as you say, but my uncle purchased his own model 8 for 25 bucks - a Tommy gun costs something like 300 with magazines back then (which spawned a new argument about it being idiotic to count pennies when it is your life.)  There was a large group that advocated a cut-down, short barreled Colt Monitor because 30-06 is the "baseline cartridge" a term I have never heard of before or since.  There was a lot of talk of bolt action versus semi-auto, and I think most of the fan base wanted larger rounds.
 
I thought back to my own days in blue and I had a carbine in my car, and once in a while I would throw a personal rifle in when I was doing a stint in the back country.  I was never scared that the carbine was a bad choice since I did not have one (a choice), and the main reason it was issued was for active shooter in schools (later most people got M16A1s).  
 
My service weapon was a Glock 23 - the department only issued 15 round mags so I carried two 15 round mags plus a 13 in the gun.  I also carried a titanium 38 revolver made by Taurus.  On forums when I revealed what I carried it would always cause a lot of posting - lots of digital ink on my choice of a Glock 23 exists because apparently those last two rounds are life or death.  Two mags backup?  That discussion lit off a lot of discussions on how many pistol rounds do you need and the pundits wanted hundreds.  Heck, even when I grabbed my vest and my carbine at most I would have 114 rounds on my body by people who never leave the house without a hundred rounds in their pocket.  I figure I am just lazy.
 
The point is I do not think the Remington 8 generated that much antipathy, it was the fact I posted a memory that allowed the arm chair quarterbacks to jump into the game.  A couple were long, drawn out, and interesting posts that I read with interest. 

Some people must think that one scene from "A Fist Full of Dollars" was a documentary.

I have been drilling down on posts and I found this one because it is so true.  My great uncle carried a Model 8 Remington Rifle as a deputy.  He also had a pistol but he rarely used it - he claimed when the world went sideways only an idiots stood around with a pistol in their hands.  
 
I made the mistake of posting a picture of Uncle Walter with his model 8 on a forum about five years ago and triggered a firestorm of criticism.  The pundits told me that the 35 Remington was a toy rifle, it didn't have the stopping power to use for law enforcement, it had too little ammunition in it (my Uncle had a 10 round magazine but only loaded 8 rounds in it) and that the only LEO who had one would be a dead LEO.  The thread ended up with like 10,000 posts, only my 49/56 post did more furor.  
 
The only reason I ever posted that was that for 1923 my Uncle made an educated choice of weapons that served him for two decades.  The hundreds of posts that analyzed how bad the 35 Remington is/was failed to recognize the issue was about rejecting pistols for most work when a rifle is available.

Just a greetings to the forum.  After receiving an invitation by Nathaniel I was happy to have found this den.  I run a French rifles website (http://www.virdea.net/french) and a site on the Great War, an am always hunting for new information.  In real life I am a film director, I teach college, and was a deputy sheriff.  My hobby is the more intellectual side of gun collecting and appreciation.
 
 
Steve

Just a greetings to the forum.  After receiving an invitation by Nathaniel I was happy to have found this den.  I run a French rifles website (http://www.virdea.net/french) and a site on the Great War, an am always hunting for new information.  In real life I am a film director, I teach college, and was a deputy sheriff.  My hobby is the more intellectual side of gun collecting and appreciation.
 
 
Steve