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