General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Forgotten Weapons
comments

Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The American FAL: Harrington & Richardson T48 (w/ Larry Vickers)" video.

They first screwed the Europeans, by forcing them to adopt the wrong cartridge, then screwed themself, by adopting the wrong rifle.
10
@Steve Johnson The 5.56 has issues. Not serious enough to really embark in the logistic nightmare of replacing it, but the Army is looking in new cartridges, to eliminate the 5.56mm - 7.62mm dualism, since its introduction. Had they introduced a cartridge in the 6.5mm range from the start, probably the 5.56mm would have never seen the light as a service round.
7
@The Entangled Trap The FAL held its own against the AK47 countless times. Besides, as it's explained in the video, the FAL didn't born in a full blown caliber. Having already adopted the FAL, even had they later recognized the 7.62 NATO to be such a issue, they would have probably simply adopted a FAL in an intermediate caliber rather than a completely different design.
3
The AR-10 had been tested for adoption by various armies along with the FAL several times, and usually the FAL won.
2
Had the rifle the US troops were using in Vietnam been "good enough", the US would have probably never adopted the M16. Maybe they would have adopted an intermediate cartridge rifle much later, but it would have been a different rifle.
2
@drewberg1361 The 5.56 was taken into consideration only after the failure of the 7.62 became evident. The issue in the early '50s was that the US wanted the 30-06 in a smaller package and were not willing to hear any reason about that round not being usable for automatic fire in rifle-sized weapons, despite the fact being clear for anyone else since the '20s.
2
@drewberg1361 The FAL was conceived as an assault rifle firing an intermediate cartridge. It was subsequently scaled up to fire the 7.62X51 when it was clear that the US would have heard no reasons. Same for the CETME.
2
@drewberg1361 Maybe you didn't read, or understood, "rifle sized". Full blown cartridges being controllable in 10kg MGs is not exactly a wonder. Those are in active military service because, surprise, the ballistic marvel you described, the .223 Rem, is not that great of a cartridge in the MG role so, once adopted it, the 7.62 was still needed for MGs, demonstrating that all the need of the infantry rifle cartridge to be supersonic at ranges were no infantry rifle were used for was not that important in the end. Lessons that other learned before pretending to issue select-fire rifles in .308 win. But the US didn't listen. A demonstration is not a trial. The Winchester prototype was was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15, the Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september of the same year. The AR15 was praised for reliability and the Winchester rifle for accuracy, but both were deemed to be inferior to the M14 anyway. Wound ballistic was not even taken into account. Your opinion. Surely the Soviet didn't rush, in replacing the 7.62X39 since its still in service. But the .223 Rem was introduced as an answer to the 7.62x39 and the 5.45X39 as an answer to the .223 Rem. Had the US troops in Nam already had an intermediate cartridge when they encountred the 7.62X39,, they would have introduced the .223 Rem in response to... what exactly? Because of 2/3 the recoil of a .308 Win (or less in the early iterations) while at the same time exceeding all the ballistic nonsense you are obsessed with. The .280 Brit is controllable in full auto, the .308 Win is not. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer, but you are reasoning like Colonel Studler did " THE .308 HAS MORE POWAH! YEAH! GO WITH MORE POWAH!", with the result of adopting the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history. You are not even taking the weight of the rifle into acount.
2
@drewberg1361 "enter a competitor better"? The M16 was not adopted following any competition. it was simply purchased as it was due to emergency needs after the failure of the M14 became evident.
2
@drewberg1361 The 7.92X33 Kurz unable to mantain supersonic speed at 500 feet? And you want to pass ars an armorer? LOL! The 7.92X33mm kurz was supersonic up to 400m (not feet). The 7.92X41mm CETME, a direct derivate, was supersonic all the way to 1000m thus being controllable in full auto. The Brits were interested only in performances up to 600m, since infantry rifles were practically never used past 500m on the field, and even the early milder recoil versions were comfortably supersonic at that distance. Even in its more powerful iteration, the .280/30, the .280 provided 2/3 of the recoil of the .308 Win while at the same time being supersonic at 800m. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer, but you are reasoning like Colonel Studler did "IT HAS MORE POWAH! YEAH! WHO CARES ABOUT RECOIL? WE NEED MORE POWA!", with the result of adopting the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history. You (a supposed armorer, LOL!) are not even taking the weight of the weapon into account. They were nowere to be seen, because there had been no request like the one you are babbling about.
2
@drewberg1361 Almost any rifle in 7.62 NATO can be acuratised to serve as a marksman/sniper rifle (and you pretend ot pass as an armorer? LOL!) . It had been done with the FAL and the G3 as well. The M14 are not particularly accurate, reliable or lightweitght. They are used for the limited use of battle rifles in today's US military only because they are already in the inventory.
2
@drewberg1361 The US, not the allies, determined the intermediate rounds availabe were "inadequate", because they wanted a full blown cartridge despite everyone else knew full blown cartridges, even the existing 6.5 ones, couldn't fire controllable bursts in rifle-sized weapons. They knew it since the '20s and already developed their AR accordingly. Once determined that nonsense, the US imposed the decision to the NATO allies, even triking FN, to which they offered the adoption of the FAL by US in exchange of supporting the 7.62 NATO. You said: "the US were the ones primarily testing it in actual combat rather than theory". That's false. The AVT 40 (full blown cartridge) was used operationally and the Soviets determined it was not viable WAY before the US used the M14 operationally. The STG44 (intermediate cartridge) was used massively, with almost half a million samples built, and it was impressive enough that the Soviets built the AK47 after it. If the US decided to ignore other's FIELD experiences, it's only their fault. Anyone can invent a ballistic goal an intermediate cartridge can't reach and estabilish it as a "minimum requirement". That's what the US did. The .223 Remington has nothing special, it was not adopted following ANY competition but only due to war needs. Actually ballistically is a quite inefficent round, with a poor sectional density that makes it loose speed faster than other intermediate rounds. "Supersonic at 500 feet"? Are we talking of a pistol round? It's a goal so low to be ridicolous other than being completely arbitrary. The .280 British was already consistently supersonic at 500m (not feet) even if fired by a short barrel, and faster than the .223 from 400m on. so it exceeded those "ballistic goals" before someone invented them.
2
@drewberg1361 The AR15 was adopted following a demonstration of that weapon alone and without any competition. At that time it didn't even met the Army construction standards and had to be modified later. The only comparable rifle it was tested with during its development and before its adoption was the wooden stocked Winchester LMR, that fired an almost identical round, in the late '50s. Those were NOT open tests, they were limited specifically to those two weapons and the M14 and there were NOT contracts involved. Those tests determined that BOTH the intermediate caliber rifles were not apt for infantry use and that the M14 had to be favoured, but that, among the two intermediate caliber rifles, the AR15 was slightly better than the LMR.
2
@drewberg1361 The M14 tested better than the FAL only in US weapons tests. Later, Eugene Stoner had a taste of how those tests were performed. Even a turd, if favoured by the high brasses (and the M14 was) would have tested better than anything else. Canadians are still laughing at the M14 faring better than the FAL in arctic conditions. The M14 is still in service just because it's already there and, for the limited use of fifles in 7.62 is GOOD ENOUGH. The M14 is not particularly reliable, not particularly accurate, not particularly lightweight, and its burst is FAR less controllable than that of the FAL. It's only merit is to be already in the US inventory.
2
@drewberg1361 A mistake? You are pretty confused. In 1958 the US Ordnance Board was pushing the M14. They didn't believe it was a mistake. All the tests were done with the goal to demonstrate it was the right choice. You must go some year forward to find the "mistake". And still they didn't want to admit it, preferring to sabotage the M16 on the field. What you believe someone would have acted is inconsequential, sorry. In 1958 there had not been any open competition. "intermediate round" was not a priority and the chances of it being adopted appeared so small that Winchester preferred to give up, while Armalite believed so much in the adoption of the rifle that sold all the rights to Colt.
2
@drewberg1361 You really shouldn't talk about things you don't know. In Europe the FAL had never been so widespread. Among the major European armies only the Brits (that would have gladly used their bullpup rifle in .280 instead) used it. BTW European economy was thriving in the '50s. Oh, a self-proclaimed expert on the net, how precious. LOL! Someone ever buyed it?
2
@drewberg1361 The M14 EBR are refurbished M14 in the inventory, that's why they are used. They are not particularly accurate, reliable or lightweitght. The Argentines made the same thing with the FAMTD. You are not made yourself any favour blabbering about economic problems you don't know or understand. The FAL had been tested by many countries along the AR10 and M14. The FAL usually prevailed, the AR10 won sometimes, the M14 was adopted only when it was provided for free as US military aid.
2
@drewberg1361 The .280 provided 2/3 of the recoil of the .308 Win while at the same time exceeding all those non existing "NATO ballistics requirements" you are fabling about. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer. The "NATO ballistics requirements" you knows nothing about were only the ability to pierce a US WWII helmet ("NATO" ballistic requirement, LOL!) at a distance (expressed in yards, because they were "NATO" ballistic requirements, LOL!) that had been progressively and arbitrarily increased because the US Ordnance board only wanted the .308 Win. You are really asking why countries develop rounds? Everyone knew rifle-sized select-fire weapons required intermediate cartridges since the '20s. That's why the STG-44 used one. Was it the best possible? No, like the 7.62X39 or the .280 British, or .223 Win are not the best possible. Only the US believed full blown cartridges could be used instead. The only country in the NATO that could hope to impose a new round other than the US was GB, and they tried, along with the Belgians of FN. The others had to work with what was already available hoping it was adopted instead of the 7.62 folly (and yet the Spanish tried to propose the 7.92X41mm CETME). The Italians developed the Beretta Model 57 and the Franchi LF-58 in .30 Carbine.
2
@drewberg1361 No, sorry. It was a test where only Armalite and Winchester were invited to show the toys they were developing starting from the .222 Rem. None other could have entered. The Winchester prototype was ready and had been tested, but Winchester declined to develop it further due to the clear favour the US Ordnance Bureau had for the M14.
2
@drewberg1361 So now the Winchester prototype was was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15, the Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september? Is quite hilarious to see you backpedaling with your tail between your legs while barking at the same time.
1
@drewberg1361 You are stil not providing anything that datas you pulled out of your ass.
1
@drewberg1361 The Winchester prototype was ready and tested. It was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15. Around the same time the Infantry board requested for the respective cartridges, both obtained from the .222 Rem., thus not identical, to be interchangeable for further testing. The Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958. The report of the tests was released in september. the Winchester rifle was determined to be slightly inferior to the AR15, Winchester declined to develop its rifle further, so only limited tests with the AR15 went on in the subsequent years. The tests were not open. Only Armalite and Winchester were invited. You are only trying to make up a story of your like.
1
@drewberg1361 The FN CAL was developed years after the AR15 for the sole reason that the adoption of the AR15 came as a surprise and without any competition, so any other rifle in 5.56 NATO was developed after the AR15. Is like saying that any pistol in 9mm luger had been developed years after the luger. In 1958 there had been nothing like your precious "open testing", sorry.
1
@drewberg1361 It was so the Winchester .243 the parent case that, as strange it may seem, despite starting from bigger a round in all dimensions, they CASUALLY ended up with a round that had all the dimensions of a .223 Rem, apart for being shorter, just like a .222 Rem. LOL!
1
@drewberg1361 When FN saw there was a market for 5.56 rifles, it evolved the FAL design into the FN CAL and FN FNC.
1
@drewberg1361 It had been the US that imposed the "big heavy rifles" to the NATO partners when any other had pretty much estabished that intermediate cartridges were needed for select fire weapons since the '20s (see the Terni M1921 rifle for example). Germans came out with the STG-44, and the Soviets, after having tested the AVT-40 in actual combat (there had been some actual combat on the Russian Front), came out with the AK-47.
1
@drewberg1361 Who is talking of "this era"? "Had the rifle the US troops were using in Vietnam been "good enough", the US would have probably never adopted the M16. Maybe they would have adopted an intermediate cartridge rifle much later, but it would have been a different rifle."
1
@drewberg1361 Your words: "the AR-15 was tested at Aberdeen (US Army weapons testing grounds) in direct response to the US Army offering an open contract for an intermediate rifle chambered in .22 caliber. There were several entrants..." FALSE, there was not an open contract and there were not "several" entrants. The only comparable rifle the AR15 was tested with during its development and before its adoption was the wooden stocked Winchester LMR, that fired an almost identical round, in the late '50s. Those were NOT open tests, they were limited specifically to those two weapons and the M14 and there were NOT contracts involved. then: "funny considering the Winchester prototype wasn't even delivered as it wasn't completed in time for the test. The AR-15 ended up testing alone against a control group of M14 rifles" FALSE (where had the "several entrants" gone BTW?) Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september of the same year. The AR15 was praised for reliability and the Winchester rifle for accuracy, but both were deemed to be inferior to the M14 anyway. Winchester declined to develop its rifle further, so only limited tests with the AR15 went on in the subsequent years. From what you write and forget to have wrote, it doesn't seem that you have 2 working braincells.
1
@drewberg1361 Oh, the one that finds the other "hilarious" feels insulted, poor fella. I feel for you (of what intelligence are you talking of BTW?) He even became a grammar nazi of nonstandard terms, the last resource of the losers. It seems that you forgot what your argument was another time. You said that the FAL had been adopted because Europe was poor (oh, sorry, "economically destitute", in the '50s LOL!) after the conflict. In the '50s the reconstruction had amply ended (everyone with a grasp of economic history knows that and, BTW, public debt of European countries in the '50s was generally low, it increased only in the '70s) and in Europe the FAL had never been so widespread. Among the major European armies only the Brits (that would have gladly used their bullpup rifle in .280 instead) used it, so of what are you talking about? You only came out with an idiocy to support your point.
1
@drewberg1361 Probably you didn't know who he was when you blabbered about "several entrants" and "open contracts".
1
@drewberg1361 So you know absolutely nothing about ballistic too. Why I'm not surprised? The 7.92 mm kurz at 200m travels at 1650 fps. It becames subsonic only past 400m, That's because the Germans were absolutely not interested in what would have happened past 300m, since 99% of rifles exchanges in WWII happened below that distance (and 90% below 100m for that matter). It's quite hilarious how, having learned (you prefer learnt my little grammar nazi? LOL!) a new word (this time is "Gen. Wyman") you try to use it as a spell capable of clear all the nonsense you said before.
1
@drewberg1361 The G3 is a direct derivate of the CETME that former Mauser (and later H&K) engineers designed in Spain. It was adopted for that, and for the fact that it could be licence produced in Germany, while FN wasn't disposed to grant the production licence to the Germans. Why should I list more accurate rifles than the M14 now? Another one of your made-up necessities? You talked of the M14 as the epitome of battle rifles and having stellar accuracy. It's not and it doesn't have it. "Almost any rifle in 7.62 NATO can be acuratised to serve as a marksman/sniper rifle. It had been done with the FAL and the G3 as well. The M14 are not particularly accurate, reliable or lightweitght. They are used for the limited use of battle rifles in today's US military only because they are already in the inventory.
1
@drewberg1361 So what happened to the .243 Winchester being the parent case now? They started from identical studies, but they were still not called .222 Remington, or better, Stoner called them .222 Remington, but Winchester called them another way, so they didn't start form the .222 Remington, even if it had exactly the same dimensions? LOL!
1
@drewberg1361 Your words: "the AR-15 was tested at Aberdeen (US Army weapons testing grounds) in direct response to the US Army offering an open contract for an intermediate rifle chambered in .22 caliber. There were several entrants..." FALSE, there was not an open contract and there were not "several" entrants. The only comparable rifle the AR15 was tested with during its development and before its adoption was the wooden stocked Winchester LMR, that fired an almost identical round, in the late '50s. Those were NOT open tests, they were limited specifically to those two weapons and the M14 and there were NOT contracts involved. then: "funny considering the Winchester prototype wasn't even delivered as it wasn't completed in time for the test. The AR-15 ended up testing alone against a control group of M14 rifles" FALSE (where had the "several entrants" gone BTW?) Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september of the same year. The AR15 was praised for reliability and the Winchester rifle for accuracy, but both were deemed to be inferior to the M14 anyway. Winchester declined to develop its rifle further, so only limited tests with the AR15 went on in the subsequent years. But if you want to keep on embarassing yourself, go ahead, I've no objections.
1
@drewberg1361 So you know absolutely nothing about recoil too. Why I'm not surprised? Recoil is proportional to momentum (mass for speed), not energy. To the momentum generated by a 147gr bullet leaving the barrel at 2700fps (7.62x51 M80) vs. a 140gr bullet leaving the barrel at 2595 fps (late .280/30) you must add the momentum of 46gr powder leaving the barrel at 4700fps (7.62x51 M80) vs 32gr of powder leaving the barrel at 4000fps (late .280/30). Someone able to multiply and add the results (so not you) will find at this point that the late .280/30 will have 37.33% less recoil than the 7.62X51 M80, or that the 7.62X51 M80 will have 54.73% more recoil than the late .280/30, that's indipendent form the unit of measure. You should pay for the lessons you are taking, but I'm pretty sure they are flying over you, so...
1
@GeorgiaBoy1961 The 7.62X51 CETME was a ballistic marvel, unfortunately developed in the wrong country. At the time none would have considered for widespread adoption something out of Spain (since it took no part in WWII). The problem for a scaled down FAL, after the return to intermediate cartridges in the '60s, was the AR18. The AR18 (and all the derivatives, copies and clones) was functional and much cheaper than what a scaled down FAL would have ever been, so it would have put a scaled-down FAL out of the market that the original FAL had. Infact FN simplified the action the most that was possible to create first the FN CAL and then the FN FNC.
1
Mind that the AR10 entered in several adoption trials along the FAL, and the FAL generally won. The AR10 was sligtly lighter (not even that much after the modification suggested by field use had been implemented), but the FAL was more easily mass producible (stamped steel), robust, and could mount a folding stock. Both had a stock in line with the barrel. It's difficult to believe that, in a trial for the adoption of an intermediate cartridge rifle, an AR15 could have shown so much advantages over an enlightened FAL to justify its adoption.
1
The AR10 entered in several adoption trials along the FAL, and the FAL generally won. The AR10 was sligtly lighter (not even that much after the modification suggested by field use had been implemented), but the FAL was more easily mass producible (stamped steel), robust, and could use a folding stock. Both used an inline stock, so recoil management was even.
1
@drewberg1361 Oh, another time the last resource of the losers.
1
@drewberg1361 A demonstration is not a test. Tests made by the developer during development don't count. Everyone makes them. The Winchester prototype was was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15, the Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958, were tested, and the report of the tests was released in september of the same year. The AR15 was praised for reliability and the Winchester rifle for accuracy, but both were deemed to be inferior to the M14 anyway. Winchester declined to develop its rifle further, so only limited tests with the AR15 went on in the subsequent years. I never called you "stupid", but, since you are evidently unable to understand simple concepts, maybe you have found the right definition fo ryourself (for how incredible it may seem).
1
@drewberg1361 You need to read what you write. Your argument was that the FAL had been adopted because Europe was poor (oh, sorry, "economically destitute", in the '50s LOL!) after the conflict and couldn't afford the M14. apart the fact that in the '50s the reconstruction had amply ended (everyone with a grasp of economic history knows that and, BTW, public debt of European countries in the '50s was generally low, it increased only in the '70s), FACT is that in Europe the FAL had never been so widespread. Among the major European armies only the Brits (that would have gladly used their bullpup rifle in .280 instead) adopted it. Now you are saying that they didn't adopt the FAL because they were poor? And you don't want to be called "stupid"? (not that I did before, you find the definition for yourself).
1
@drewberg1361 Sorry dude, but if you are able to believe that, starting from a case that's bigger in every dimensions, they casually ended up with a cartridge that had exactly the same dimensions of a .222 Rem, then you are able to believe in fairies and unicorns too.
1
@drewberg1361 Even later .280/30 have 40% less recoil than 7.62X51. What was better for a rIfle-sized automatic weapon was a no-brainer, but the US, like you, were obsessed with "MORE POWAH!".
1
@drewberg1361 You actually didn't provide any formulas, only blabbered about muzzle energy, making pretty clear to anyone that you know nothing about recoil. The .308 Win producing 10.2 ft-lbs of recoil in a EM-2 when it produces 15 ft-lbs in a M14? LOL!
1
@drewberg1361 Sorry, but to believe that two indipendent design, having only a certain range of energy, weight and caliber as a goal, will end up with two cartridges so similar that they could chamber and cycle the same weapon, you should really believe in fairies and unicorns.
1
@drewberg1361 Err... no. Anyone with a grasp on the matter knows that only to have compatible extractor grooves would be a miracle, not talking about base diameter, taper, neck lenght or shoulder angle. The AR15 could chamber and cycle the .224 Winchester. The contrary was not possible, since the .224 Winchester was slightly shorter than the .223 Rem, like the .222 Rem was. That's becasue the .222 Rem WAS INTRODUCED IN 1950 FOR THE MODEL 722 RIFLE. It was a commercially available and well known ammo way before the studies for the two rifles started, and way before the 7.62X51 NATO was adopted, for that matter. And that COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE round was the parent case of both the .223 Rem and the .224 Win. The 5.56X46 can cause serious damages to .223 Remington chambers because it requires an European style chamber, and will develop excessive pressure in an American style chamber. It's like trying to fire a 9mm +p+ in a pistol not apt to fire +p.
1
@drewberg1361 Sorry, but it's YOUR lack of formulas, or any understanding of the matter (bullpups would reduce recoil impulse? LOL!). I've no doubt you will stick with the datas you invented. The FAL has less muzzle rise than the M14, so it's more controllable, for the simple reason it has an inline barrel.
1
@drewberg1361 Kinda like you are keeping on pulling datas out of your ass?
1
@drewberg1361 another demonstration that you know nothing about the matter. Tons of slightly underdimensioned rounds had been fired by any kind of firearm. So you passed from being a supposed armorer to be someone that supposedly talked to an armorer. Sorry, but having seen a picture of the cartridge counts for nothing, and the extractor groove in the .243 Win is much larger than that of the .224 Win and .223 Rem, No wonder that a manufacturer crimped the ammos like it was used to do even if the parent case was that of another manufacturer.
1
@drewberg1361 Oh sorry, since we were interloking answers, I lost three of yours, so: Sorry, but posting something you don't understand or know how to use counts for nothing. So the use of an older kind of powder with the same bullet dimensions, weight and muzzle speed, will change the speed of the bullet at mid course in the air? LOL! Oh, my god. It had been one of your supposed armorer friends that told you that? That explains many things. You must be their laughing stock. Infantry (United States Army Infantry School, 1968 Issue, p22) 7.92mm Kurz, muzzle speed 2250 fps; at 300 yds 1500 fps; at 800 yds 960 fps. You (well not you, someone that knows math) can do the interpolation.
1
@drewberg1361 Your the statement, your the burden of the proof. Until then , those are datas you pulled out of your ass.
1
@drewberg1361 I said controllability in full auto. If you are able to point where I stated that the FAL has less recoil impulse than the M14 do it, otherwise that's another thing you pulled out of your ass. Like the others you are pulling in the same post.
1
@drewberg1361 Your is the statment that bullpups (no weight distribution, design of the rifle,function of the gas impingement. BULLPUP AND NOTHING ELSE) have less recoil. Your the statement, your the burden of the proof. Otherwise in another wild statement that you pulled out of your ass.
1
@drewberg1361 Dimensions that you evidently don' t know.
1
@drewberg1361 Even the late .280/30 had 40% less recoil than the 7.62X51. The .223 Rem was introduced as an answer to the 7.62x39. Had the US troops in Nam already had an intermediate cartridge and lighter rifles when they encountred the 7.62X39, they would have introduced the .223 Rem in response to... what exactly?
1
@drewberg1361 Oh my god you really believe it! You think cases are filled with powder to the brim, ad modern, more powerful powders make the bullet go faster! LOL! Rounds have maximum specified pressures, and is pressure that push the bullet. Infantry (United States Army Infantry School, 1968 Issue, p22) 7.92mm Kurz, muzzle speed 2250 fps; at 300 yds 1500 fps; at 800 yds 960 fps. You (well not you, someone that knows math) can do the interpolation.
1
@drewberg1361 And that's another thing that you pulled out of your ass. To lie is not doing you any favour.
1
@drewberg1361 If I could still take you for serious I could have told you that different ballistic tables could provide slightly different results and, for a bullet with a 2250fps muzzle speed, 1650 fps at 200m and 1500fps at 300yds are compatible results, while the bullet being subsonic at 200m isn't. I could have told you that many rounds made for black powder had been converted for smokeless powder, mantaining the same performances (obviously using less powder) because those were the performances (max allowed pressure) they were designed for, but I really can't take you for serious any more You are a joke.
1
@drewberg1361 Your the statemet, your the burden of proof. Otherwise those are only things you have pulled out of your ass.
1
@drewberg1361 So you are unable to understand what you read. Exactly the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem... by pure chance. Exactly the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem... by pure chance. Exactly the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem...... by pure chance. Exactly the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem...... by pure chance. Exactly the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem...... by pure chance. exactly the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem. by pure chance. Exactly the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. by pure chance. Exactly the same taper, of the .223 Rem. by pure chance. And for you the 224 Winchester is evidently derived from a cartridge that is different in all this dimensions. Really, you are a joke.
1
@drewberg1361 Sorry, after you posted the datas demonstrating exactly why those two cartridges were interchangeable, I can't take you for serious any more. You are a joke.
1
@drewberg1361 The .224 Win has exactly the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. That means that the The .224 Win has exactly the same dimensions of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The .224 Win has exactly the same taper of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. The two cartridges are identical in every dimension and angle from the base to the neck, and different from the .243 Win in every single dimension and angle. It's evident to ANYONE that they are enlongated .222 Rem, but for you the .243 Win is the parent case. It's quite evident that you are not able to understand the same datas you post. Sorry, but you are a joke.
1
@drewberg1361 Sorry, to believe that the performances of cartridges that had been created later affects the performances of cartridges that had been created before without changing the specifications is beyond ridicolous. To believe that a cartrige, that was in standard production in the '50s, to be used in those same STG-44 manufactured during the war, misteriously had more than double the supersonic range of the ones used during the war (just for the fun of fucking the sights of the rifle), using a bullet of the same weight and dimensions, means not only to not have a grasp of the matter you are talking about but not even wanting to understand it. To have STATED that the 8.92X33 mm kurz was subsonic at 200m, arbitrarily halving all the datas avaliable means to be in bad faith too.
1
@drewberg1361 You evidently don't know how calibers work if you believe all those dimensions could be exactly the same by chance (not similar EXACTLY THE SAME. the .223 Rem and .224 Win HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMENSIONS FROM THE BASE TO THE NECK). Or you are in bad faith, like it's becoming quite evident.
1
@drewberg1361 Yeah, they changed the specifications, incredibly managing to increase the muzzle speed of the bullet so much that his supersonic range more than doubled without blowing up the weapon (you should have "a clear grasp of ballistics" LOL!), just for the joy to make the sights of the only weapon the cartridges were intended for, useless. And, starting from this folly, you arbitrarily more than halved the range the bullet is supersonic in respect to all the known ballistic charts. Please, stop embarassing yourself.
1
@drewberg1361 You are embarassing yourself. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. That means that the The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimensions of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same taper of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The two cartridges are IDENTICAL in every dimension and angle from the base to the neck, and different from the .243 Win. For EVERYONE that can read and understand what he's reading. So not for you. EVERYONE with at least a working braincell would have long realized that both the .223 Rem and the .224 Win are enlogated .222 Rem. So not you.
1
@drewberg1361 Surely you don't know how rounds are tested, if you can believe that they changed the specifications of the 7.92X33 kurz, incredibly managing to increase the muzzle speed of the bullet so much that his supersonic range more than doubled without blowing up the weapon (and you want to give lessons, LOL!), just for the joy to make the sights of the only weapon the cartridges were intended for, useless. But no, now, in your world of fairies and unicorns, are the super duper special equipment used for testing, different for the equipment used to test every other cartridge, that gave super duper special result for the 7.92X33 kurz, different from the result they gave for every other cartrige. What a joke you are...
1
@drewberg1361 And now is the moment you embarass yourself by giving some completely useless datas to show you can type. Have I ever said the .224 win is identical to the .222 rem? Obviously not because, like the .223 rem, it DESCENDED from the .222 rem, it's not the same cartridge.You didn't give any sample on how the .224 win should have descended from the .243 win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same base dimension of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same thickness of the rim of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimension of the extractor groove land of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same angle of the shoulder of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. That means that the The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same dimensions of the extractor groove of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same shoulder angle of of the .223 Rem and .222 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same lenght between the base and the shoulder of the .223 Rem and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same diameter at the shoulder, of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The .224 Win has EXACTLY the same taper of the .223 Rem. and different than that of the .243 Win. The two cartridges are IDENTICAL in every dimension and angle from the base to the neck, and different from the .243 Win. For EVERYONE that can read and understand what he's reading. So not for you. EVERYONE with at least a working braincell would have long realized that both the .223 Rem and the .224 Win are enlogated .222 Rem (that not means to take a .222 rem and stretch it, but that obviously will fly over you). . So not you. "curious didn't you say earlier that is nearly impossible?" It was written that it would be almost a miracle starting form different parent cartridges, while in this caseTHEY DIDN'T START FROM DIFFERENT PARENT CARTRIDGES. but obviously you didn't understand. "because while they share some commonalities in sizes the .224 E2 was designed by different engineers and based off a different round and made to work in .22 caliber. Crazy right?" No. Because the .224 win was designed by different engineers STARTING FROM THE SAME PARENT CASE. EVERYONE with at least a working braincell would have long realized that it's impossible to have all those dimensions EXACTLY identical starting from two parent cases that have COMPLETELY different dimensions. And that excludes you. You even came to te point of telling they used different bullets! LMAOF! You don't even know that different bullets can be used even on the same cartrige! But really, where did you come from? Because you are not of this world. The next one will be that their brasses were of slightly different colour.
1
@drewberg1361 It seems that you are legitimately special needs (not that it comes as a surprise at that point). Because, (unfortunately i'm sure you'll not understand however simply i can explain it) if the same equipment is used for every cartridge, it will have the same effect on every cartridge. It's not like, if that equipment says that the 7.92x33 mm Kurz is supersonic at 400m, and another cartridge is supersonic at 500m, that other cartridge is effectively supersonic at 500m, but the 7.92x33mm kurz became subsonic at 200m because the fairies that live in your world stop it. Your halving the range the 7.92x33 kurz is supersonic was just A LIE you came up with to "prove" (LOL!) your point.
1
@drewberg1361 You can tell yourself the story you like more. The .280 Brit was developed to be controllable in full auto. It's at the high end of intermediate cartridges, but it's an intermediate cartridge. Even in its more powerful iteration, the .280/30, the .280 provided 2/3 of the recoil of the .308 Win while at the same time exceeding all those non existing "NATO ballistics requirements" you are fabling about. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer. The Winchester prototype was ready and tested. It was publicly demonstrated in oct 1957, only five months after the first demonstration of the AR15. Around the same time the Infantry board requested for the respective cartridges, both obtained from the .222 Rem., thus not identical, to be interchangeable for further testing. The Winchester prototypes with the modifications required arrived at Fort Benning in July 1958. The report of the tests was released in september. the Winchester rifle was determined to be slightly inferior to the AR15, Winchester declined to develop its rifle further. That's the story. The Winchester cartridge was not a Remington ammo, but was obtained from the .222 Remington as a parent cartridge, like the .223 Remington was. In tests, the AR15 could shoot the .224 Wincester ammo, but not the contrary, because the .224 Wincester was slightly shorter. It's not a power contest. The .280 Brit is controllable in full auto, the .308 Win is not. What round was better for a select-fire weapon was a no-brainer, but you are reasoning like Colonel Studler did "IT HAS MORE POWAH! YEAH!", with the result of adopting the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history. Unfortunately the history did not agree with you on the importance of volume of fire in infantry battles, and the M14 had consequently been the shortest lived infantry rifle in US history.
1