US Troops using AK-47s

"B2431" wrote in message
...
|
| Generally, just keep in mind the evolution of propellents so modern
cartridges
| can accomplish higher pressures in shorter cases. Competition shooters are
| doing amazing things with ammunition now.
|
| Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Only up to a degree. Military ammo may have to sit on the shelf for 30
years or more (I remember shooting 50 cal that was 35 yo), be fired with
newer or older batches on the front line and be compatable with the oldest
firearms that it's likely to encounter.


The major changes were (obviously) black powder to nitrocellulose based
propellants, which would be a major advance for gas operated weapons.


Since then, most ammo development, _within a calibre_, has been for shelf
life and stability, less residue and more consistent performance
round-to-round.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

Just in case you aren't confused yet, here's some more trivia. Cartridges
such as 44/40 and 45/70 come from the old black powder days. The second
part after the slash denotes how much powder was inside the casing and that
gives you the size of the casing. It sometimes helps to know the history of
the round.



Evan Williams



"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter
rounds
out
there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 = 7.62 X 63. The
Russian
equivilent to the 30-06 X 54R

Thanks to all for the answer. I'm assuming the larger x number, the longer
the
case and the longer the case the greater the load of powder?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

From: "Evan Williams"
Date: 7/21/2004 2:53 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: et


Just in case you aren't confused yet, here's some more trivia. Cartridges
such as 44/40 and 45/70 come from the old black powder days. The second
part after the slash denotes how much powder was inside the casing and that
gives you the size of the casing. It sometimes helps to know the history of
the round.



Evan Williams

If you really want to confuse things bring up calibers of artillery over the
years. The 40 mm bofors and 40 mm DIVAD rounds have the same diameter, but the
lengths vary. The largest round in my collection is 105 mm in both the howitzer
(AC-130) and cannon (tank and artillery) shell lengths.

If memory serves (and it doesn't always) the 50 caliber naval round is 5 inch
diameter.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article et, "Evan
Williams" wrote:

Just in case you aren't confused yet, here's some more trivia. Cartridges
such as 44/40 and 45/70 come from the old black powder days. The second
part after the slash denotes how much powder was inside the casing and that
gives you the size of the casing. It sometimes helps to know the history of
the round.

If you aren't confused yet, and want even more...
the "44/40" (sic) is actually the .44-40 also originally called the .44 WCF ,
for Winchester Center Fire, but when other companies started chambering
weapons for the .44WCF they didn't want to use Winchester's name, so they
called it the .44-40 for the 40 grains of FFFg black powder in the case.
And even more confusing, the old cases were thin and had "balloon" heads,
newer cases developed in IIRC the '20s or '30s had thicker walls and a solid
head and will accept maybe 35 grains of powder, so it's not even a .44-40
anymore.

Similar story with the .45-70. First released in 1873 for the trapdoor
Springfield, was called the .45 US Gov't, then popularly renamed the .45-70.
There were 2 loads for the rifle, one used a 405 grain bullet, the other a
500 grain bullet. Then there was a load for the carbine that the cavalry
carried that used the 405 grain bullet but a reduced load of powder with
only 60 grains, but still called the .45-70.

Not to mention the .38 WCF also called the .38-40 which is the .44-40
necked down, not to .38, but to .40. So it really ought to be called the
..40 WCF or .40-40, but I guess Winchester had some Marketing issue
with the name of that one, so despite the fact that it's a 40 caliber they
called it a .38

1860 through 1930 was a fascinating and fast moving time in the arms
industry.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Thanks to all for the answer. I'm assuming the larger x number, the longer the
case and the longer the case the greater the load of powder?

True to a good first-order approximation: case capacity matters a
great deal, and certainly gives you a decent expectation of the
performance class to expect.

In a broad view, the full-power thirtysomethings (.303 British,
7.62x54 Russian, 8mm Mauser, and .30-06 and its shorter, somewhat
differently shaped successor 7.62x51) did about the same thing in
about the same way; and that is rather more (at a penalty in weight
and volume and recoil) than the lighter cartridges that have been the
postwar trend, and far more than you would get from a reasonable
sidearm-type pistol; and they look as though this ought to be the
case (no pun intended and not much of one achieved).

Of course, God is in the details and so is the devil. Length doesn't
tell the whole story; the shape/diameter of the case, the technical
limits and conventions restricting the pressure of the cartridge, and
the choice of powder type and bullet weight can all be substantial
variables. The result of all this is not only differences between one
cartridge and another, but a range -- sometimes big -- of performance
potential for each cartridge.

Usually the military chooses one or a few points in this parameter
space and sticks to 'em. They are not necessarily maximal -- the
way that bolt-gun-only hunting loads for .30-06 can bend certain parts
of the M1 Garand is a case in point.

Shape is interesting. Makers of civilian rifles and ammo have been
exploring the power and accuracy potential of shorter, fatter
cartridges. Of course, their customers' priorities are much
different than the army's, including many factors that bear upon the
number of rounds in the magazine; and there is more variety in what
they need. Individual hunters and target shooters also have a lot
of freedom to chase the latest trend in search of better performance
(and/or treat themselves to a new bit of sporting goods) -- polar
opposite to the military's motivation to buy, maintain, and train upon
huge quantities of a few standard items.

So one hardly expects, say, .243 Winchester Super-Short Magnum to be
the next military cartridge; my guess is that, role by role, the
continued resurgence of 7.62x51 amid the existing assortment is more
likely, at least until something entirely different comes along.
But it goes to show how complicated the parameter space is, and how
much innovation (some of which, admittedly, will always lead up blind
alleys) is still occurring in what one might have imagined to be a
very mature field.

Cheers,
--Joe

(B2431) writes:
The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter
rounds out there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 =
7.62 X 63. The Russian equivilent to the 30-06 X 54R.

To confuse matters more, even the metric designations aren't
always based on the actual exact dimensions, and the same round
may have several designations. Eg, 7.62x53R and 7.62x54R are the
same round, the rimmed-cartidge (that's what the "R" stands
for) full-sized rifle found.

(B2431) writes:
The X number refers to case length. There are several 7.62 diameter
rounds out there varying length. 30 carbine = 7.62 X 33, 30-06 =
7.62 X 63.

To confuse matters more, even the metric designations aren't
always based on the actual exact dimensions, and the same round
may have several designations. Eg, 7.62x53R and 7.62x54R are the
same round, the rimmed-cartidge (that's what the "R" stands
for) full-sized rifle found.

The Japanese did this better than anyone. They had at least three 7.7 mm rifle
rounds. To be fair one was for a machine gun. The type 99 rifle used another
7.7 mm.

It's a wonder more Japanese didn't get killed or maimed by their own weapons.
The nambu sidearm was an abortion. The type 99 rifle I own was unsafe to shoot
straight from the factory; it has no noticable erosion so I slugged the barrel.
The bore is a couple thousandths too big.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:18:23 +0000, B2431 wrote:

[snip]

The Japanese did this better than anyone. They had at least three 7.7 mm rifle
rounds. To be fair one was for a machine gun. The type 99 rifle used another
7.7 mm.

To quote Ian Hogg, the lot of a Japanese Logistics offcier was not a
happy one.

It's a wonder more Japanese didn't get killed or maimed by their own weapons.
The nambu sidearm was an abortion. The type 99 rifle I own was unsafe to shoot
straight from the factory; it has no noticable erosion so I slugged the barrel.
The bore is a couple thousandths too big.

Late war production weapons were like that.
Prewar or early war production are OK or so I understand
I gather the Arisaka/Type 99 was a popular conversion for hunting
rifles here after the war. Why, I cannot imagine.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

UHHH... Robert, BUFFDRVR, everyone...

Firstly, this is a interesting subject, but should be noted off-topic. I
might be lengthy, but I hope that is worth of reading. This is a view of a
first-time AK user, plus some comments and observations.


The friend of mine, former US Army-I don't know which branch, the one that
is jumping from Hercules with oxygen bottles and parafoil-back in the 80's
he was in Afghanistan equipping Mujahedins with donkey-mounted howitzers
(yeah, I know what you are thinking. I didn't believe it either until I've
seen the pictures of such all-terain self-propelled howitzers and had a good
belly laugh). A subdued comment on the personal weapons issue in
Afghanistan-was "When you are in Rome...".

M-16 vs AK-47 (and subversions): M-16 is more complicated and more prone to
jamming. Nevertheless, it provides beter accuracy. As for the calibre, the
7.62 puts more energy onto the target than 5.56, but if you want somebody
dead, 5.56 is better. 7.62 is a "human" round-it goes straight through the
flesh, smashing bones on its way. 5.56, due to its low weight and energy
dissipation, tumbles and "wonders around" (I don't want to go into gruelsome
details) even at zero distance. I remember two cases; one attempted suicide
in the chest with M-70 resulted, basically, in two holes-in&out (a wanabee
dead got out without any damage to major organs). OTOH, a 5.56 round fired
from a M-16 derivative acidentally fired in the back of a fellow comrade
resulted in fatal injuries; the bullet never left the body but smashed
everything inside. But the best example is a Soviet "TT" pistol that is a
copy of the famous Colt 45 chambered for 7.62 mm bullet. Well, that 7.62
bullet is FMJ and the round looks more like a mongrel between pistol and
rilfe bullet! TT puts more energy in Joules on a target than any
mass-produced pistol/revolver in service or use (including famous 44
magnum!), but its real effect is much lower because the reasons above-its
cumulative effect is low. But if you load it with 7.63 Mauser that perfectly
fits TT (hollow point, lower velocity) you make a havoc.

As for replacing M-16 with AK-47 in Iraq (or anywhere), Robert, you would
soon become a permanent resident in Ft. Leavenworth. If you try to make a
point, make it from user's view. If I were given an option to have the AK-47
beside "my" M-16, the answer is simple-I don't have to fiddle much about it,
I would keep my primary gun clean and tidy while I can treat an AK-47 as a
"whore".

Or, if you want to believe in conspiracy theories, nobody is counting your
rounds nor the AK can be traced back to you if you whack someone by
accident... or purpose. You might note that Israelis have a sort of AK-47
copy (5.56mm Galil) but they are not grabbing AK-47s. Basically, it is a
legally-obtained ILLEGAL weapon.

And Stg 44 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with AK-47 but the basic layout
and that is gas-operated. It was one of the German "wunderweapons" that
could fail if there was a slightest difference in the round shape or powder
load; its loading system is completely different; trigger and auto/semiauto
assembly is completely different; its ejection system is completely
different. Actually, you could find more similarities between Smeisherr and
British Mark Sten.

I have handled and been trained to Yugoslav version of AK-47 called M-70 as
well as for "improved maintenace" of it. Generally, you disassemble 3 (or
so) more parts then usual and learn some peculiarities. I had a wooden-stock
earlier version (it was A1, A2, AB1, AB2 or something like that, it was 16
years ago, and since I did not participate in the war I do not remember, but
I remember some details that are uncommon). No maintenace difference,
everything interchangeable between versions, barrel fatigue factor 7 (i.e.
good, I -think- it was on the 10-5 scale). It was 1989, the rifle was over
ten years old.

Yu-version is improved with over-calibre grenade sight (you lift it, it
closes the gas chamber thus disabling the gas-operation- manually work the
bolt to load a chamber from a magazine, aim it like RPG) and accompanying
bolt-on-barrel launcher/ "special" rounds. Like AKM-47 (a more modern,
simplified version of AK-47 with forged instead machined frame), it goes
with bolt-on-muzzle compensator that comes as a standard equipment that
needs to be unscrewed before mounting of the launcher barrel protrusion.
Fold and wooden stock versions available. Foldable luminiscent nightsights.
We were thought that M-70 is the finest from the AK-47 family.

It also comes in machinegun version called M-72 with longer barrel, mouth
compensator and grenade sight deleted and with optional 50 round drum
magazine (rarely used). All parts Interchangeable with M-70.

My "impressions" from live round training-prone position, semiauto/auto.

- Recoil is low to medium. It is quite comfortable, really. Other guys with
folding stock versions were slightly less comfortable. Recoil goes straight
up and is controlable, thanks to the compensator. M-72 guys expirienced some
yaw recoil, but
they were not allowed to use semi-auto on their guns (go figure!).
- For me, it was possible to put all rounds (five of them) in 35 cm circle
after my second try, semiauto (100m, I think). The sights were unadjusted
(it went low/right) but we were not allowed to tamper with them, so I aimed
left/higher. I got two bullseyes.

- In full auto, we were supposed to hit chest targets with three-four round
bursts. I found it quite easy to control it after a second burst. Just a
quick squirt and three are on their way. My third burst got it down. Since
in Yu army you were supposed to get all targets down (you would get "Not all
targets are down!" yell and you knew what to do), we went spraying. Well,
then you discover that you are not going anywhere if you keep it longer then
four rounds burst and that is a waste of ammo.

As for my markmanship, I had some experience with pellet and bolt-action 22
LR. While in high-school, I have also fired 7.9mm M-48 bolt-action rifle
(that's the very same bullet the Bf-109E machineguns had, and we called a
rifle a "donkey" since it was punching on both sides!). Anyway, I was
mediocre at best.

-Maintenace. Well, to tell you the truth, an idiot can take care of it. You
clean the muzzle, gas chamber, bolt piston, receiver (?) and that's about
it. We had a gunsmith on the field and we picked a trick how to clean the
piston (that had some residues on it); stick in the ground, rotate, oil,
wipe. He also told us that M-70/AK-47 "likes" a just a drop of fine gun oil
in the barrel prior to firing/storing. Yes, we asked him about dust and sand
but he said not to worry, that it keeps the barrel from fatigue on a limited
"live" firing since you fire quite a lot black-powder filled practice rounds
on the tactical excercise and it is not bad for storing, although officers
hate to see it-but it is better to get verbally bashed over oily barrel than
be reprimanded for reducing the barrel condition. Since he was making and
modifying weapons at home, we trusted him.

Overall, the M-70 has a very steep learning curve and it is "timid". Simple
and literally jam-free. If you need a automatic rifle, and you need it NOW,
I cannot imagine anything better then AK.

Yet another Yu-version was developed-a sniper rifle-7.9mm semiautomatic but
I don't know the particulars. And hunting version, too. And machinegun
version. And close-combat version.

Where to get an M-70? )) Well, before the Yu-war, Yugoslavia was covertly
exporting M-70s to Iraq among other weapons. If you try to get it at the
source, it cannot be "demilitarized" in any country of former Yugoslavia as
it is exclusively a combat weapon.

Yu-war experience:

From what I've heard from the both sides, Romanian version is awful, no
precission or accuracy. Poor steel, heats a lot so it was causing burns.
Note that former M70 users, all sides, were used to a longer left-hand
underbarrel grip thanks to launcher sight so one coud adjust it more
comfortably-Romanian version has a -pistol- left-hand grip but a habit is a
habit. Anyway, it was considered to be a piece of garbage and was only good
for overhead spraying from the trench. It was generally discarded if better
AK or M-70 was captured.

During the war, many AKs came from Hungary, but I am not sure if they were
Hungarian (if there was a Hungarian production) or Russian production. They
were reportedly considered allright and from what I see it still makes a
bulk in Croatian Army. Serbia and Montenegro exclusively use M-70 subtypes
since the production is there.

You can put two 30 round magazines together (over/under) with a
duct tape, stab the one with rounds down in the dirt, rotate it to reload
and it would work every time!

Some M-16 derivatives were used by Croatian Army in the first stages of war
(as the weapons were procured through various sources) but was not widely
adopted even when CA was able to purchase it (late in the war).


Sorry for being overly long-I had nothing else to do!

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA


Regnirps wrote in message ...
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I think pretty much *everyone* says a 7.62 has better "knockdown" power
than
5.56.

Certainly true for M14s. I'll take 180 grains at 2800 fps over 55 at 3200
any
day. (unless you want to eat the rabbit).

-- Charlie Springer

In message , Nele VII
writes

snip


The friend of mine, former US Army-I don't know which branch, the one that
is jumping from Hercules with oxygen bottles and parafoil-back in the 80's
he was in Afghanistan equipping Mujahedins with donkey-mounted howitzers
(yeah, I know what you are thinking. I didn't believe it either until I've
seen the pictures of such all-terain self-propelled howitzers and had a good
belly laugh).

Google for 'screw-guns' and 'British Army in India' preWW I

Mike
--
M.J.Powell