Instructors: is no combat better?

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:13:36 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote:


Actually there was an error between regular rounds and tracer rounds as well.
On a strafing mission you could aim the tracers and see the ground kick up well
behind the tracers. Big difference in ballistic coefficient between the two Aim
the tracers and you would shoot over the target unil you corrected..


Arthur Kramer

Ok...what calibre rounds was that Art?. Your observations
certainly wasn't true for the .303 calibre Browning machine gun.

I've fired likely 20,000 rounds from them in ASW B&G flights and
I cannot see any difference between the trajectory of FMJ ball
ammo and FMJ tracer rounds. Our belts were set up with every
fifth round being a tracer and shooting at a smoke marker on the
sea surface it's very easy to see where the rounds are hitting,
likely much more visible than on land but I haven't done that
mind you.

I found it more effective to use the results of the water hits
rather than to use the gunsight actually. Get them shooting close
to where you needed to with the sight then watch were they were
hitting and correct slightly before firing the next burst and so
on.


Now I admit to being only 23... far too young to have been spraying
bullets around in WW2...

But I hunt wild goats and deer with a '40 Ishapore armoury .303 SMLE
Mk1 III* with the stock cut down... a damn fine hunting rifle that
with a 4x scope will down a beer can at 200 metres..

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...

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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.

But you are not talking about different guns of different calibers. You are
talking about a single gun of a single caliber firing what reportedly was
ammunition with matching trajectories.

As to your word, who in his right mind is NOT doubting it given your
performance over the last couple of weeks?

Brooks

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

On 11 Mar 2004 19:30:34 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

No blast. Doubt my word all you like. But tnone of these three people ever
fired a 50 caliber did they?

Wrong.

I have in fact fired a .5in Browning M2, and I have been part of a
group on the receiving end of similar rounds coming the other way from
a Barett Light Fifty sniping rifle.

You really need to get a hold on your prejudicial assumptions.

Gavin Bailey

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Presidente Alcazar
Date: 3/13/04 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 11 Mar 2004 19:30:34 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

No blast. Doubt my word all you like. But tnone of these three people ever
fired a 50 caliber did they?

Wrong.

I have in fact fired a .5in Browning M2, and I have been part of a
group on the receiving end of similar rounds coming the other way from
a Barett Light Fifty sniping rifle.

You really need to get a hold on your prejudicial assumptions.

Gavin Bailey



You were not one of the three. You really must pull yourself together.


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

(ArtKramr) wrote:

You really need to get a hold on your prejudicial assumptions.

Gavin Bailey



You were not one of the three. You really must pull yourself together.


Arthur Kramer

Yes indeed he was Art. I can copy and paste his post if you
insist...
--

-Gord.