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

Forgotten Weapons
comments

Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

Previous
35
Next
...
All

@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 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 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 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 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 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
@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 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 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
@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, 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 You are stil not providing anything that datas you pulled out of your ass.
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
@DebatingWombat I said in the early '60. A that time, battle rifles were not on their way out. They had just been adopted. And the BM59 was no inferior to the FAL and the G3. It had some advantage actually. The use of the battle rifle as an occasional LMG is not due to the fact that you lack actual LMGs, but to the fact that the LMG gunner (or the SAW gunner) not always is in the best position to do its job, or can reach it. A battle rifle with a bipod and a muzzle brake / compensator can OCCASIONALLY replace it and spare some life. Knowing that you have such a possibility also gives to your squad more elasticity. The conversion job could have been done by Madsen. The pragmatic choice, if you don't have to fight a war, would be to not have an army, fact is that you don't know if you'll have to fight a war. Fact is that, until 1973, the Danish government run it's military on a VERY strict budget. That's why only then they started to look around for a new rifle.
1
@DebatingWombat Being a modification of existing rifles, the BM59 was the cheapest solution by far (in 1962 it costed $42 per rifle) and, if you didn't want even those limited money to exit from your country, it didn't require the domestic arms producer to retool to produce new rifles of whatever model.
1

Previous
35
Next
...
All