Instructors: is no combat better?

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:37:20 +1300, rnf2
wrote:

Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
theres no noticable difference in point of impact...

It would be more than a bit stupid to introduce a tracer round
designed to assist spotting and accuracy with the ball ammunition,
which actually had divergent ballistics.

Gavin Bailey

Presidente Alcazar
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:37:20 +1300, rnf2
wrote:

Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
theres no noticable difference in point of impact...

It would be more than a bit stupid to introduce a tracer round
designed to assist spotting and accuracy with the ball ammunition,
which actually had divergent ballistics.

Gavin Bailey

Of course...that's why I questioned him. It sounds odd certainly
why the 50 cal round would do that when the .303 doesn't.
Certainly does sound strange what the purpose could be.

Is it possible that you 'mis-remembered' Art?.

I'd appreciate a calm answer here Art rather than a 'blast for
doubting your word'. You have three people (at least) who find
your story strange.
--

-Gord.

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 3/11/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Presidente Alcazar
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:37:20 +1300, rnf2
wrote:

Here in NZ there is occasionally WW2 army surplus tracer rounds for
the .303 available, and firing those and normal army surplus ball
theres no noticable difference in point of impact...

It would be more than a bit stupid to introduce a tracer round
designed to assist spotting and accuracy with the ball ammunition,
which actually had divergent ballistics.

Gavin Bailey

Of course...that's why I questioned him. It sounds odd certainly
why the 50 cal round would do that when the .303 doesn't.
Certainly does sound strange what the purpose could be.

Is it possible that you 'mis-remembered' Art?.

I'd appreciate a calm answer here Art rather than a 'blast for
doubting your word'. You have three people (at least) who find
your story strange.
--

-Gord.


No blast. Doubt my word all you like. But tnone of these three people ever
fired a 50 caliber did they? Different guns of different calibers shoot
differently. I own 10 shotguns of different gauges and no two shoot exactly in
the same place in the same way.. To assume because you shot a 303 every gun in
the world shoots exactly in same way is not a reasonable conclusion. And note
that this reply is far more well mannered than the flames you have been
throwing at me in every post the last few months.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
"Jeff Crowell" writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:
And then, there was Operation Pinball, the ultimate simulator. Real
bombers with real turrets, but the .50 cals have been replaced with
.30 cals firing frangible (break up on impact) bullets. The targets
are specially armored P-63s that make passes on the student gunner's
airplane. There are acoustic sensors in the P-63s that can hear the
impact of the bullets on the skin for measuring the number of hits.

Wooden bullets, if I recall correctly. An old family friend,
now passed on, experienced some of this.

Lead dust in a Bakelite matrix, actually. There were .30 caliber
rounds with wooden bullets, though. They were used with some models
of Rifle Grenade Dischargers. Later models of Grenade Dischargers
used blank cartridges to propel teh grenade. (That's one of the
reasons that the M1903 Springfield was retained in the Infantry Squad
until late 1944/early 1945. It was real easy to fire grenade from
it. Garands required a whole lot of fiddling (You had to add & remove
parts from the gas system - not something you want to do in combat)
and you didn't get any better rate of fire, since the blank rounds had
to be manually loaded into the rifle.

He said the ballistics of the frangible bullets were so far off
from Real Life (tm) that the usefulness was limited.

Yes, the ballistics were different. But if you're not mixing
ammunition types in the same belt, that's really not all that
important. (And I'm sure that the RP-63 pilots would be a lot happier
if that didn't happen) The sights, and the cams & springs in the
lead-computing sights used at the time Late 1944 on) would be
recalibrated to provide the same sight picture that you'd get with
service ammunition in a .50 cal.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster