American joke on the Brits

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

US forces shot 30-06's, pretty much the same caliber as the .303.

.303 is actually a .311 bullet
.30 caliber is actually a .308 bullet
so it doesn't make sense from that perspective


C'mon Harry, you can do a better comparison between these two
rounds than that. Hell, that's like comparing the cartridge
primers.

The 30-06 is twice the round that the .303 is isn't it now?. I've
fired thousands of each and there's no comparison at all.
--

-Gord.

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

US forces shot 30-06's, pretty much the same caliber as the .303.

.303 is actually a .311 bullet
.30 caliber is actually a .308 bullet
so it doesn't make sense from that perspective


C'mon Harry, you can do a better comparison between these two
rounds than that. Hell, that's like comparing the cartridge
primers.

The 30-06 is twice the round that the .303 is isn't it now?. I've
fired thousands of each and there's no comparison at all.

I've got almost the full collection of Enfields. (Rifle, SMLE No. 1 Mk
III, Pattern 14, M1917, and Rifle, SMLE, Mk IV), in both .30-06
(M1917), and .303, (The other lot). The biggest problem I have with
the .303 is those danged rims. A Royal (Arms Factory) pain in the
butt. How they made machine guns work with that cartridge has to be
an amazing example of dogged determination.

Odd that you'd mention primers, though. I picked up a case of
ex-Yugoslav .303 (Back before we blew it all up) and they had the
_worst_ primers you'd ever encountered. Pukk the trigger, hear the
click, think "Oh, ****!", and start counting before touching the
bolt (And doing it "One Hippopotamus, Twho Hippopotamus...is a good
idea.) The round would go off somwhere between "One and "otamus". It
wasn't weak primer strikes, either. Wierd, thouh, like firing a
bolt-action flintlock.

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

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

US forces shot 30-06's, pretty much the same caliber as the .303.

.303 is actually a .311 bullet
.30 caliber is actually a .308 bullet
so it doesn't make sense from that perspective


C'mon Harry, you can do a better comparison between these two
rounds than that. Hell, that's like comparing the cartridge
primers.

The 30-06 is twice the round that the .303 is isn't it now?. I've
fired thousands of each and there's no comparison at all.

I've got almost the full collection of Enfields. (Rifle, SMLE No. 1 Mk
III, Pattern 14, M1917, and Rifle, SMLE, Mk IV), in both .30-06
(M1917), and .303, (The other lot). The biggest problem I have with
the .303 is those danged rims. A Royal (Arms Factory) pain in the
butt. How they made machine guns work with that cartridge has to be
an amazing example of dogged determination.

Odd that you'd mention primers, though. I picked up a case of
ex-Yugoslav .303 (Back before we blew it all up) and they had the
_worst_ primers you'd ever encountered. Pukk the trigger, hear the
click, think "Oh, ****!", and start counting before touching the
bolt (And doing it "One Hippopotamus, Twho Hippopotamus...is a good
idea.) The round would go off somwhere between "One and "otamus". It
wasn't weak primer strikes, either. Wierd, thouh, like firing a
bolt-action flintlock.

Worse. None of my flintlocks ever hungfire that long, unless the priming
charge was wet.

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
I remember during the war in England there was a joke that went around. The
best time and place to tell it was in an English pub with lots of RAF around.
The joke went like this:

Eveything in England is smaller.
The cars are smaller.
The trains are smaller.
The rooms are smaller
The houses are smaller.
And they shoot .303's.



Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

The people are smaller, too.

Subject: American joke on the Brits
From: (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
Date: 7/30/03 4:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
Peter Twydell wrote:
In article , Peter Kemp
writes
On 30 Jul 2003 18:50:10 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: American joke on the Brits
From: (bendel boy)

The people are smaller, too.

They were back then. But with more protein in their diet and cleaner air,
they
are now growing a lot bigger.

Spot on. My Dad's generation (b. 1944 - average about 5'8") average
about 3" shorter than mine (b.1975 - average a hair under 5'11"),

My Dad (b.1904) was a mere 6'2", and 3 of his 4 brothers were over 6'. I
managed to get to 6'6", so genetics has an effect too.
SWMBO and I have noticed on our visits to NL that the Dutch have got a
lot taller in the last 30 years or so.

The place I've noticed this most is Finland - when I first went there
in (IIRC) 1991 it was quite startling - people of mid-40s and older were
5'-5'6", people in their early 30s and 20s were well over 6'. But of
course Finland had gone from scorched earth and famine in the 1940s to
probably the highest standard of living in the world by the 60s, 70s and
80s (and then got stuffed again by the collapse of the neighbour, and
then put themselves back together again to the extent that they
effectively own the mobile communications industry - I have a lot of time
for the Finns)..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group


What was interesting was that if we saw a bunch of guys in Brit uniforms we
could tell at a distance who was English and who were Aussies, New Zealanders
and Canadians, They were tall and strong. The little guys were English..

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: American joke on the Brits
From: av8r
Date: 7/30/03 8:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Hi Art

The 'little' ones fit nicely into the turrets. So, they must of all be
air gunners. LOL

Cheers...Chris


They were little guys, but tough as nails.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 31 Jul 2003 03:35:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

[snip]
They were little guys, but tough as nails.

Description of hobbits!

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/index.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

In message . uk,
Kulvinder Singh Matharu writes
On 31 Jul 2003 03:35:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
[snip]
They were little guys, but tough as nails.

Description of hobbits!

Or Paras. Or Gurkhas.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:07:00 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message . uk,
Kulvinder Singh Matharu writes
On 31 Jul 2003 03:35:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
[snip]
They were little guys, but tough as nails.

Description of hobbits!

Or Paras. Or Gurkhas.

Met a few Gurkhas in London and Hong Kong. Very friendly too!

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/index.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

In message . uk,
Kulvinder Singh Matharu writes
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:07:00 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
Or Paras. Or Gurkhas.

Met a few Gurkhas in London and Hong Kong. Very friendly too!

They're generally nice guys. Until you give them reason _not_ to be
nice...

Being Really Tall(TM) doesn't seem to be a battlefield asset any more,
is the main point. Being Really Fit(TM) matters more.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam