US Troops using AK-47s

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

I think you are confused by the method of measuring barrel length in
calibers,

Thus a 5 inch, 50 caliber gun has a barrel 5 x 50 = 250 inches long.

I think that the US Navy had a 5in 50 caliber gun in WW1.


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

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:32:20 -0700, (Harry Andreas)
wrote:


There were 2 loads for the rifle, one used a 405 grain bullet, the other a
500 grain bullet.

With a bullet that size, ideal for felling locomotives on the hoof.
--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht

"Nele VII" wrote in message ...
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

.... which qualifies you as what exactly?


plus some comments and observations.

.... which is what most of your post is.




M-16 vs AK-47 (and subversions)... you mean "subvariants?"

We are talking M4 vs AK-47, so your broad generalization right off the
top tells us how unfamiliar you are with small arms.


- snipped irrelevent basic info


As for replacing M-16 with AK-47 in Iraq (or anywhere), Robert, you would
soon become a permanent resident in Ft. Leavenworth.

I already stated in the other thread that I never said they got rid of
or turned in their M4s for the AKs... just preferred using the
captured stock for very good fighting environment reasons plus
dissatisfication over the M4 performance in the theater.




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".

You aren't a combat "user" in the field and even opened up your post
by saying you are a first-time AK user. What you are giving is your
opinion. In any case the "whore" in question is arguably the world's
best assault rifle and you can find it anywhere in the world.

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.

The Galil uses the best operating systems and architecture from both
the AK-47 and Western 5.56mm assault rifles and it is not an AK
copy... it is a LEGALLY made IMI weapon.

And Stg 44 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with AK-47 but the basic layout
and that is gas-operated.

Go back and read the original thread, my 7/18 post that refutes that
with plenty of reference materials.

-snipped tons of irrelevent information.

Please note also that all of this pointless since the US troops in
Iraq have been grabbing AK-47s and using them for months. I wrote
about it, Dan disputed it and then the US Govt. issues a phoney press
statement about "permitting" US soldiers to use them. It is
embarassing for our image where everything US has got to be the best
and then have our own troops grabbing AKs for street fighting.

Rob

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

From: (robert arndt)


I already stated in the other thread that I never said they got rid of
or turned in their M4s for the AKs... just preferred using the
captured stock for very good fighting environment reasons plus
dissatisfication over the M4 performance in the theater.

You lie. I guess I shouldn't expect different from a child who has confessed in
this NG to felonies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

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

Well, the Navy has to do it differently, if at all possible.

The 5"/50 caliber designation means a 5" diameter shell fired from a
(naval) gun that is 50x its bore diameter in bore length. IIRC. IMBW.

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:32:20 -0700, (Harry Andreas)
wrote:


There were 2 loads for the rifle, one used a 405 grain bullet, the other a
500 grain bullet.

With a bullet that size, ideal for felling locomotives on the hoof.

Well, it *was* hard on bison. Although some hunters went for bigger
rounds, like a .45/110 or .50/140.

Should serve to keep rhinos out of your lettuce bed.

From: "Bill Phillips"
Date: 7/21/2004 2:48 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

I think you are confused by the method of measuring barrel length in
calibers,

Thus a 5 inch, 50 caliber gun has a barrel 5 x 50 = 250 inches long.

I think that the US Navy had a 5in 50 caliber gun in WW1.


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

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hey, I was close g or does that only count in horse shoes and thermonuclear
devices?

Someone tried to auction a 380 mm German coastal artillery shell on e-bay
recently. I'd love to have it, but his starting bid was 5 kilodollars.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "ian maclure"


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.

Simple, there were a lot of them, the good ones are hard to destroy, the 6.5 mm
Jap was a tidy small hunting round and they were cheap.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired