Martin Baxter wrote:

Nav wrote:





I never fired a modified FN (i.e. with full auto) but the recoil was
quite large and seemed (to me) to make the semi-auto about as much as
one would want. Could you keep it anywhere near a target on auto? How
did you make it fire a 3 round burst -was it a further modification?


Here we used to use two versions of the FN, designated FNC1 and FNC2,
(FN Canada), C1 was semi auto with twenty round clips, the C2 was full
auto with a bipod, heavier barrel, modified barrel attachment to
facilitate rapid changes, and thirty round clips.

I have fired both weapons extensively, you are correct, on full auto the
C2 climbs up to the left something fierce, the idea is to squeeze of a
short burst of three rounds, it takes a bit of practice.

That being said the weapon is ridiculously expensive, complicated, heavy
and far too powerful to make a good assault rifle.


Yes, I agree the recoil is (was) not well enough controlled to make it a
great automatic weapon. It was also not that accurate I(MHO) as compared
to the .303 I shot in competition. However I often ended the day with a
sore shoulder from firing .303 in a shirt and never had such a problem
with the FN SLR. People still use .303 for hunting here -how about in
Canada?

I'm still not able to get out of Doug exactly what this FN FAL weapon
was that fired an (accurate?) automatic 3 round burst. From my
recollection of the firing meachnaism I don't see how it could be
accomplished without a major rework of the trigger and selector
mechanisms. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to do such a thing with
better automatic weapons around.

Cheers

Nav wrote:
Well I've not found a reference to the FN-FAL rifle you said you fired
in automatic 3 round bursts.

Did I say it was an FAL? I don't think so, because I don't think it was.
FN is a manufacturer & design group that makes many different weapons.

... I am well aware of how it can be simply
altered to be full automatic (if that is what one wants).

All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in one's
garage, is nonsense.

... Can you help
me find how it can be altered in the way you describe?

It wasn't altered, it was built that way. I believe that it has an
additional gas expansion chamber to operate the 3-round selected fire.

... Is it possible
you were firing some other weapon?

There were several 3-round capable weapons being handed around, one was
the well known H&K MP5.

The one I would really like a chance to try is the G-11
http://www.hkpro.com/g11.htm
Do you think this would make a good cruiser's gun?

DSK

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

Well I've not found a reference to the FN-FAL rifle you said you fired
in automatic 3 round bursts.


Did I say it was an FAL? I don't think so, because I don't think it was.
FN is a manufacturer & design group that makes many different weapons.

Well, I'll quote you:

"Once upon a time while roaming around at a shooting event on a military
base, I got a chance to try out a couple of select fire military arms
(including a Galil and an FN-FAL) with 3-round burst. It is a huge
advantage over timed fire. "


... I am well aware of how it can be simply altered to be full
automatic (if that is what one wants).


All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in one's
garage, is nonsense.

Well it's hard to file hardened steel, grinding is better ;) I've not
seen the modification but it was certainly talked about. What is the
difference between the semi-automatic sear and the automatic one?


... Can you help me find how it can be altered in the way you describe?


It wasn't altered, it was built that way. I believe that it has an
additional gas expansion chamber to operate the 3-round selected fire.


That sounds like a complicated modification. Did the rifle look like a
FN-FAL or was there an extra bulge in it for the extra gas expansion
chamber? Can you find a picture of it?


There were several 3-round capable weapons being handed around, one was
the well known H&K MP5.

The one I would really like a chance to try is the G-11
http://www.hkpro.com/g11.htm
Do you think this would make a good cruiser's gun?


It looks OTT. Complicated mechanism + caseless ammunition? How would it
take being drenched in salt water? I would think simple mechanisms are
better at sea -if you must have anything more dangerous than a flare gun...

I hear arguments both ways on the gun issue. I would guess that on a
small yacht you are not going to survive a fire fight with pirates so it
may be better not to start one. As far as I know, big ships relay on
trying to stop boarding rather than enter into a fire fight if boarded.

Cheers

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:38:46 -0400, DSK wrote
this crap:

All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in one's
garage, is nonsense.


No it's not, dumbass. You've just shown that you have no concept of
how an automatic weapon works.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Horvath" wrote
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:38:46 -0400, DSK wrote

All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in one's
garage, is nonsense.


No it's not, dumbass. You've just shown that you have no concept of
how an automatic weapon works.

Horvath is right. A fool I knew did indeed convert a semi-auto .22 rifle to
fire full auto by grinding on the sear. Trouble is it would not quit
shooting until it ran out of ammo! Undeterred, he tried a similar trick on
a 9mm pistol. That worked a whole lot better .... for about 20 rounds. Then
it broke its firing pin, requiring him to send it back to the factory for
bolt replacement. No, he was not stupid enough to send an illegally mod'd
gun back to a mfgr who was being closely watched by BATF so the $400 gun
never fired again. So you can make most any semi-auto into a full auto -
they just don't shoot for long. I suspose that's one reason an AR-16 costs
over 2X the price of an AR-15.

Did I say it was an FAL? I don't think so, because I don't think it
was. FN is a manufacturer & design group that makes many different
weapons.

Nav wrote:
Well, I'll quote you:

"Once upon a time while roaming around at a shooting event on a military
base, I got a chance to try out a couple of select fire military arms
(including a Galil and an FN-FAL) with 3-round burst. It is a huge
advantage over timed fire. "

Well, if that's an accurate quote, then it was my mistake. I meant FN.




All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in
one's garage, is nonsense.


Well it's hard to file hardened steel, grinding is better ;) I've not
seen the modification but it was certainly talked about.

Yep, by people who don't know any better, like Horvath. It's just
another old wives tale. Ask a gunsmith.

DSK

Vito wrote:

"Horvath" wrote

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:38:46 -0400, DSK wrote


All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in one's
garage, is nonsense.


No it's not, dumbass. You've just shown that you have no concept of
how an automatic weapon works.


Horvath is right. A fool I knew did indeed convert a semi-auto .22 rifle to
fire full auto by grinding on the sear. Trouble is it would not quit
shooting until it ran out of ammo! Undeterred, he tried a similar trick on
a 9mm pistol. That worked a whole lot better .... for about 20 rounds. Then
it broke its firing pin, requiring him to send it back to the factory for
bolt replacement. No, he was not stupid enough to send an illegally mod'd
gun back to a mfgr who was being closely watched by BATF so the $400 gun
never fired again. So you can make most any semi-auto into a full auto -
they just don't shoot for long. I suspose that's one reason an AR-16 costs
over 2X the price of an AR-15.


You must be wrong, Doug has fired all sorts of weapons and is an expert
mechanical engineer. He's always right. How dare you say he's wrong!

Cheers

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:52:28 +1300, Nav wrote
this crap:



You must be wrong, Doug has fired all sorts of weapons and is an expert
mechanical engineer. He's always right. How dare you say he's wrong!


Duh! You seem to forget that I was once one of the biggest arms
dealers in the world.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:52:28 +1300, Nav wrote
this crap:


You must be wrong, Doug has fired all sorts of weapons and is an expert
mechanical engineer. He's always right. How dare you say he's wrong!



Duh! You seem to forget that I was once one of the biggest arms
dealers in the world.


Was that a wet dream you once had?

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Did I say it was an FAL? I don't think so, because I don't think it
was. FN is a manufacturer & design group that makes many different
weapons.


Nav wrote:

Well, I'll quote you:

"Once upon a time while roaming around at a shooting event on a
military base, I got a chance to try out a couple of select fire
military arms (including a Galil and an FN-FAL) with 3-round burst. It
is a huge advantage over timed fire. "


Well, if that's an accurate quote, then it was my mistake. I meant FN.




All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in
one's garage, is nonsense.



Well it's hard to file hardened steel, grinding is better ;) I've not
seen the modification but it was certainly talked about.


Yep, by people who don't know any better, like Horvath. It's just
another old wives tale. Ask a gunsmith.


Can't some sears can be modified by grinding while other mechanisms need
a drilling jig or new plates?

Cheers

You can find them up his boyfriend's ass on a regular basis.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:49:19 -0400, Horvath
scribbled thusly:


Duh! You seem to forget that I was once one of the biggest arms
dealers in the world.

Had they been cut off or blown off?
Did you discount if fingers were missing?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:46:08 +1300, Nav wrote
this crap:

Duh! You seem to forget that I was once one of the biggest arms
dealers in the world.


Was that a wet dream you once had?

No. At a weapons depot run by the military.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Nav wrote:





All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in
one's garage, is nonsense.


Well it's hard to file hardened steel, grinding is better ;) I've not
seen the modification but it was certainly talked about. What is the
difference between the semi-automatic sear and the automatic one?

Nav and Doug, I may be a little late getting in here but I've beeen out sailing;
The Canadian version of the FN-FAL was also semi-auto only, the emphasis being on
marksmenship rather than volume. Our FNs could be modified to full auto by the simply placing a strip of
thick paper made by folding a paper match book cover under one end of a leaf spring located under
the breach block, (and yes Nav, a court-martial offence in the Canadian armmy).

Cheers
Marty

Nav wrote:

That being said the weapon is ridiculously expensive, complicated,
heavy and far too powerful to make a good assault rifle.


Yes, I agree the recoil is (was) not well enough controlled to make it a
great automatic weapon. It was also not that accurate I(MHO) as compared
to the .303 I shot in competition. However I often ended the day with a
sore shoulder from firing .303 in a shirt and never had such a problem
with the FN SLR. People still use .303 for hunting here -how about in
Canada?

Indeed the gas operation takes up a lot of the recoil, and for a lot of people this
makes the FN, or any other gas operated semi-auto more accurate for that person, (less afraid of
a sore shoulder), even though the weapon is in fact inherenltly less accurate. Yes we still use .303, quite a few
"sporterized" Lee Enfields out there.



I'm still not able to get out of Doug exactly what this FN FAL weapon
was that fired an (accurate?) automatic 3 round burst. From my
recollection of the firing meachnaism I don't see how it could be
accomplished without a major rework of the trigger and selector
mechanisms.

Indeed, I think it was slip on Dougs' part, I can't recall seeing any version of the FAL in Janes
that has selective 3 round burst, he must have been thinking of another weapon.

Cheers
Marty
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to do such a thing with
better automatic weapons around.

Cheers

Horvath" wrote

Duh! You seem to forget that I was once one of the biggest arms
dealers in the world.

Wow! You must be the guy Ron Reagan hired to steal weapons earmarked for
Israel and illegally divert them to Iran so that the Ayatollah would keep
our hostages imprisoned long enough to embarass Carter. How did they get you
to illegally divert some of your profits to the Contras? How'd they get
that poor dumb Marine to take the fall?

Martin Baxter wrote:

Nav wrote:


That being said the weapon is ridiculously expensive, complicated,
heavy and far too powerful to make a good assault rifle.


Yes, I agree the recoil is (was) not well enough controlled to make it
a great automatic weapon. It was also not that accurate I(MHO) as
compared to the .303 I shot in competition. However I often ended the
day with a sore shoulder from firing .303 in a shirt and never had
such a problem with the FN SLR. People still use .303 for hunting here
-how about in Canada?


Indeed the gas operation takes up a lot of the recoil, and for a lot of
people this
makes the FN, or any other gas operated semi-auto more accurate for that
person, (less afraid of
a sore shoulder), even though the weapon is in fact inherenltly less
accurate. Yes we still use .303, quite a few
"sporterized" Lee Enfields out there.



I'm still not able to get out of Doug exactly what this FN FAL weapon
was that fired an (accurate?) automatic 3 round burst. From my
recollection of the firing meachnaism I don't see how it could be
accomplished without a major rework of the trigger and selector
mechanisms.


Indeed, I think it was slip on Dougs' part, I can't recall seeing any
version of the FAL in Janes
that has selective 3 round burst, he must have been thinking of another
weapon.


Yes, I thought Doug was wrong too -from my limited recollection of the
mechanism (although I used to be able to strip and reassenble the FN SLR
blindfold a long time ago!). That aside, I can't imagine why he would
want to claim to have fired an accurate group from the shoulder in a 3
round burst. Even with a bipod (which was not an option on the FN-SLR's
I used either) it's hard to be accurate during automatic weapons fire
-although I once managed to saw a target in half with a GPMG (that
barrel got damn hot before I switched barrels) and afterward I was
worried an RSM would give me hell for it!

Cheers

Nav wrote:

Even with a bipod (which was not an option on the FN-SLR's
I used either) it's hard to be accurate during automatic weapons fire
-although I once managed to saw a target in half with a GPMG (that
barrel got damn hot before I switched barrels) and afterward I was
worried an RSM would give me hell for it!


Indeed, did the saw in half thing once with a SMG (Patchet, 9mm), only it was from about
two metres! RSM was a tad red but kept mum.

Cheers
Marty

Nav wrote:
Yes, I thought Doug was wrong too

Yep, you always do.

... -from my limited recollection of the
mechanism (although I used to be able to strip and reassenble the FN SLR
blindfold a long time ago!).

Navvie, an "SLR" is a self loading rifle. How many different types do
you think the FN group has produced over the years?


...That aside, I can't imagine why he would
want to claim to have fired an accurate group from the shoulder in a 3
round burst.

Been taking speed-reading lessons from Jaxxie again?

... Even with a bipod (which was not an option on the FN-SLR's
I used either) it's hard to be accurate during automatic weapons fire
-although I once managed to saw a target in half with a GPMG (that
barrel got damn hot before I switched barrels) and afterward I was
worried an RSM would give me hell for it!

And you would have deserved it, wasting the taxpayers money like that.

DSK

Martin Baxter wrote:
Nav and Doug, I may be a little late getting in here but I've beeen out
sailing;

Good! I have spent most of the past week traveling the interstates.


The Canadian version of the FN-FAL was also semi-auto only, the emphasis
being on
marksmenship rather than volume. Our FNs could be modified to full auto
by the simply placing a strip of
thick paper made by folding a paper match book cover under one end of a
leaf spring located under
the breach block, (and yes Nav, a court-martial offence in the Canadian
armmy).

Hmmm... how long would this work? Does this mean that you could "file
(or grind) a little off the sear" and make it full auto? It sounds like
it would be fun but a bit less functional, possibly damage the weapon.
It also sounds a far cry from converting a semi-auto to a selectable
full or semi-auto.

Here's an example of synchronicity for those who believe in it... I had
a close parallel of this same conversation... "can you make a full auto
weapon out of a semi-auto SLR with a very simple modification" just the
other day.

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which
requires filing or grinding away part of both the sear *and* the feed
lever, then adding a new easily fabricated part and a different
spring... and a recoil operated .22 (Arm-A-Lite's wonderful AR-7) that
required fabricating a slightly different sear and changing the hammer
springs... I used to have a book that detailed this and gave part
numbers for the spring and machine specs for the "improved" sear.

However my favorite home-brew machine gun was a kit that mounted two
Ruger Mini-14s on a tripod with a spade handle and small crank to work
both triggers. I assume the same kit was (may still be) available for
other military style SLRs. Should I tell Joe about this? It'd be perfect
for discouraging those 3rd-world (ie texas) pirates!

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which requires
filing or grinding away snip

Don't do it Doug... I speak from experience. It turns the AK into a self
firing auto that requires no input from the bearer to activate.

The FN FAL I owned was an excellent weapon. It can fire so fast that
automatic is not really required. Really... you only have a standard 20
round clip or modified 40 round.

BTW - FN made a wide variety of weapons Doug. It's a Belgian Company.

Wind is howling here at 80 miles an hour outside. Great day to watch the
ocean from the safety of shore. I saw a big wooden picnic table fly off into
the woods a half hour ago... what a sight that was.

CM

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

Yes, I thought Doug was wrong too


Yep, you always do.

... -from my limited recollection of the mechanism (although I used to
be able to strip and reassenble the FN SLR blindfold a long time ago!).


Navvie, an "SLR" is a self loading rifle. How many different types do
you think the FN group has produced over the years?


You tell me. How many SLRs fire 3 round bursts?

...That aside, I can't imagine why he would want to claim to have
fired an accurate group from the shoulder in a 3 round burst.


Been taking speed-reading lessons from Jaxxie again?

That's what you said. I'll quote you:

"It's one of the settings for select fire. Pull the trigger, it squirts
out 3. Usually a pretty tight group even from the shoulder, too. "

Cheers


And you would have deserved it, wasting the taxpayers money like that.



Maybe but I was young and enjoying the power offered by the fire ower of
the GPMG. Fortunately I have grown up and no longer need weapons to make
me sure I'm a real man.

Cheers

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which requires
filing or grinding away snip


Capt. Mooron wrote:
Don't do it Doug... I speak from experience. It turns the AK into a self
firing auto that requires no input from the bearer to activate.

Oh, *I* wasn't about to do anything of the kind. For one, I can afford
better than a cheapo Chinese copy AK-47, for another, I was debunking
Navvie's claim that any SLR can be made fully auto "by grinding away a
little bit off the sear" (an old wives tale).


The FN FAL I owned was an excellent weapon.

Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful, too
heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's among
the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.


... It can fire so fast that
automatic is not really required.

Not really a plus for an SLR IMHO.


BTW - FN made a wide variety of weapons Doug. It's a Belgian Company.

Yep, I was trying to point that out to Navvie a couple of posts ago.


Wind is howling here at 80 miles an hour outside. Great day to watch the
ocean from the safety of shore. I saw a big wooden picnic table fly off into
the woods a half hour ago... what a sight that was.

Blowing the dogs off their chains? Man you need to get a Laser or
something similar and get out there!

Actually, 80 is a bit too much. And isn't H. Nicole on her way to you? I
really hope the hurricane season is over.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:



Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful, too
heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's among
the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.

Don't get me wrong, the weapon is a dream to shoot, but the average grunt just doesn't shoot well enough to know the difference, nor does he need a
weapon that costs over a grand. Better to give him something light, cheap to manufacture, and lots of ammo, accuracy won't matter. Further having a
round capable of going right through a 350 Chevy block is rather unnecessary for an infantry man, instead give him a weapon that the rifling wears
out rapidly in and hope the tumbling lower powered round will produce much nastier wounds. As for the AK-47 I wasn't aware that you could get one in
7.62mm, if you did the power of the NATO round might do some serious damage to both the weapon and the rifleman, that said you are correct, they're
pigs to shoot, however I've seen films of Pakistanis making them out of scrap metal and rebar with foot powered lathes.

Cheers
Marty

DSK wrote:

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which
requires filing or grinding away snip



Capt. Mooron wrote:

Don't do it Doug... I speak from experience. It turns the AK into a
self firing auto that requires no input from the bearer to activate.


Oh, *I* wasn't about to do anything of the kind. For one, I can afford
better than a cheapo Chinese copy AK-47, for another, I was debunking
Navvie's claim that any SLR can be made fully auto "by grinding away a
little bit off the sear" (an old wives tale).


So now you claim that an FN-FAL can't be sear modified to full auto? You
have first hand knowlege of the selector mechanism? Was that the same
selector that allowed a 3 round burst? Bwhahhahahaha. You are such a loser.

Cheers

DSK wrote:



BTW - FN made a wide variety of weapons Doug. It's a Belgian Company.


Yep, I was trying to point that out to Navvie a couple of posts ago.


Duh. Like I never knew that! But you are right that I never knew that an
FN-FAL fires a 3 round burst Doug!

Bwhahahahahha

Cheers

DSK wrote:



Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful, too
heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's among
the smoothest

Doug the weapons expert speaks! It must be true! Can it fire a 3 round
burst too -that what we all want to know!

Cheers

My FN-FAL was an Australian Model, nice gun, semi-auto. One pull of the
trigger for each round fired. Mind you if you crank up the valve..... the
kick back might make you squeeze off a couple more inadvertently! ;-)

CM

"Nav" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:



Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful, too
heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's among
the smoothest

Doug the weapons expert speaks! It must be true! Can it fire a 3 round
burst too -that what we all want to know!

Cheers

Capt. Mooron wrote:

My FN-FAL was an Australian Model, nice gun, semi-auto. One pull of the
trigger for each round fired. Mind you if you crank up the valve..... the
kick back might make you squeeze off a couple more inadvertently! ;-)


That was/is one of the selling points of the weapon, by cranking the valve even the most slovenly soldier who allows his weapon to rust and fill with
sand could still get the auto-load to work, along with a real sore shoulder!

Cheers
Marty

Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful,
too heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's
among the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the weapon is a dream to shoot, but the average
grunt just doesn't shoot well enough to know the difference, nor does he
need a weapon that costs over a grand.

Probably true, but then next to training costs the weapon itself isn't
that big a deal.

... Better to give him something
light, cheap to manufacture, and lots of ammo, accuracy won't matter.

Reliability & ease of maintenance are big issues too. It does no good to
outfit infantrymen with magnificent battle rifles if they get jammed or
broken under field conditions.

Further having a round capable of going right through a 350 Chevy block
is rather unnecessary for an infantry man

I think that somewhat depends on how you expect them to fight. Power =
range, too. But shooting through an engine block is hyperbole. If one
were to shoot up an old Chevy with a NATO battle rifle, one could
probably knock some chunks off it but not punch through the engine
block. For that, one needs at least a 30-06. Ask me how I know ;)

... instead give him a weapon
that the rifling wears out rapidly in and hope the tumbling lower
powered round will produce much nastier wounds.

And dip the bullets in salt so they hurt more...


... As for the AK-47 I
wasn't aware that you could get one in 7.62mm

AFAIK you can get those cheapo Chinese copies in any of several
chamberings including .308 (which I've always thought of as the same as
7mm NATO)

... if you did the power of
the NATO round might do some serious damage to both the weapon and the
rifleman, that said you are correct, they're pigs to shoot, however I've
seen films of Pakistanis making them out of scrap metal and rebar with
foot powered lathes.

Yep, they are very resourceful. I understand that they use old bicycle
frames, too. But the key point here is not that this is a great weapon,
but that a bunch of guys with scrap-heap AKs rule the roost when nobody
else around the countryside has any weaponry or training.

All this makes me want to go and punch some expensive holes in paper.
When I get home I'm going to root around up in the attic and see what's
there...

Regards
Doug King

DSK wrote in message et...
Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful,
too heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's
among the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the weapon is a dream to shoot, but the average
grunt just doesn't shoot well enough to know the difference, nor does he
need a weapon that costs over a grand.

Probably true, but then next to training costs the weapon itself isn't
that big a deal.

... Better to give him something
light, cheap to manufacture, and lots of ammo, accuracy won't matter.

Reliability & ease of maintenance are big issues too. It does no good to
outfit infantrymen with magnificent battle rifles if they get jammed or
broken under field conditions.

Further having a round capable of going right through a 350 Chevy block
is rather unnecessary for an infantry man

I think that somewhat depends on how you expect them to fight. Power =
range, too. But shooting through an engine block is hyperbole. If one
were to shoot up an old Chevy with a NATO battle rifle, one could
probably knock some chunks off it but not punch through the engine
block. For that, one needs at least a 30-06. Ask me how I know ;)

... instead give him a weapon
that the rifling wears out rapidly in and hope the tumbling lower
powered round will produce much nastier wounds.

And dip the bullets in salt so they hurt more...


... As for the AK-47 I
wasn't aware that you could get one in 7.62mm

AFAIK you can get those cheapo Chinese copies in any of several
chamberings including .308 (which I've always thought of as the same as
7mm NATO)

7.62 NATO is what I expect you meant. And you'd be correct.

PDW

AFAIK you can get those cheapo Chinese copies in any of several
chamberings including .308 (which I've always thought of as the same as
7mm NATO)

Peter Wiley wrote:
7.62 NATO is what I expect you meant.

Well there's a whole lot of 7mm cartridges, including a couple of
magnums. Saying "7mm NATO" sounds like there should also be a "7mm
Warsaw Pact" (which there may be).

... And you'd be correct.

Can't be. Navvie disagrees!

DSK

DSK wrote:

AFAIK you can get those cheapo Chinese copies in any of several
chamberings including .308 (which I've always thought of as the same
as 7mm NATO)


Peter Wiley wrote:

7.62 NATO is what I expect you meant.


Well there's a whole lot of 7mm cartridges, including a couple of
magnums. Saying "7mm NATO" sounds like there should also be a "7mm
Warsaw Pact" (which there may be).

... And you'd be correct.


Can't be. Navvie disagrees!


No. I keep saying you are always right. Although you don't seem to
understand why 7.62mm was adopted by the British.

Cheers