|
Post by quincannon on Apr 13, 2013 14:53:15 GMT -6
Get bent. If that is why "abnormality of thought" I think your opinions are nonsense then you are wrong. I think they are nonsense because you can't or won't back up a thing you say, and are unwilling to listen to those that can.
The only Inqusisition associated with this is the torture involved in reading your posts , so I have stopped inflicting this pain upon myself. I would suggest you stop doing the same with mine, if you like neither tone, content, or tenor. It would not hurt my feeling one bit.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Apr 13, 2013 22:28:08 GMT -6
Get bent. If that is why "abnormality of thought" I think your opinions are nonsense then you are wrong. I think they are nonsense because you can't or won't back up a thing you say, and are unwilling to listen to those that can. The only Inqusisition associated with this is the torture involved in reading your posts , so I have stopped inflicting this pain upon myself. I would suggest you stop doing the same with mine, if you like neither tone, content, or tenor. It would not hurt my feeling one bit. Then I'm in good company, that to include you and your lofty opinions via personal invective. Following this paragraph are phrases of opinion offered by you and others without review by you of what you'd require them to back up such opinions, and they didn't and wont because its not necessary. Most people here don't back up their opinions except with other opinions. So your requirement of me to do the same is just another lame excuse to shower me with your opinionated insults and yet another lame attempt to get me to conform, or as you're likely to report, get bent to your DI opinions. It isn't me who's trying change the history of this battle into what they want others to believe. It isn't me who's trying to change the known geographical features of that battlefield into something that it could never have been. While you support such notions and try as you might to get others to conform and believe in a magical land called Honalei, you'd have had to have gone there to have known that it was and is an enchanting place that doesn't need someone to move its location to make others believe. And you're right, I won't listen to someone who try's to change historical fact into their historical fiction, and I'll do all I can to stop it regardless of anyone's DI tactics in tone, content or tenor, or for that matter whose feelings I tread upon in the process. I am a great believer, I think, While I think, but I believe many, I am not sure what others believed, I think your opinions, What I interpret, I simply cannot, I consider those, I always thought, I am also considerably more prone to believe, I find it rather hard to believe, So I can imagine....
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 14, 2013 2:25:37 GMT -6
It is the nature of the beast jag. He knows no other way.A life in the military does not equip one for discussion,the give and take of debate is a complete anathema to him. Called on an issue he responds in the only way he knows how; the slinging of the contents of his GI gazunder in all directions and in his case without even a hint of humour. If one has not got the right attitude then you had better be wearing your biological suit. A deferential attitude is de rigueur if engaging this man in debate. Some of our posters are fine with this.They post,he corrects,they apologise and make a solemn vow never to offend again.What is disappointing is that their silence gives tacit support to his villification of posters not prepared to bow the intellectual knee. It's your board guys;you want it looking like his gazunder the morning after stay silent.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 15, 2013 3:12:25 GMT -6
Good Morning Everyone.
Can any of you guy’s help me with a problem; I was trying to find the weight of the standard U.S. rounds used from the 1930s to 1950s (and later), these seem to be the four major ones, I have gathered some data on these cartridges but I don’t know how accurate it is.
I am looking for the total weight including ‘’the Bullet, the Casing and Grains of powder’’, so the weights I have posted below are for whole Cartridge (in Grams).
.45 APC (Auto Colt Pistol): 14.9g .30 Carbine (7.62x33mm): ? .30 M2 (7.62x63mm): 27.25g .50 M2 (12.7x99mm): 45.94g
As you can see I have not found the weight for the .30 Carbine round, and I don’t really know if the others are correct.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 15, 2013 10:02:04 GMT -6
Ian: The 30 Cal carbine bullet was 7.1 grams. Don't know what the entire cartridge weighed though.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Apr 15, 2013 11:38:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 15, 2013 12:32:40 GMT -6
Thanks you guy’s, I am struggling with cartridge weights, you can go on Wiki and find all sorts of stuff on nearly every cartridge known to man, but the total weight ‘’no’’ It’s like what Mike has posted above (thanks Mike), 196 grains, if we go to the actual Wiki site concerning the .30 Carbine round we get this; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_CarbineAgain we get the word grain, is this some type of terminology for weighing ammo. More from the link; Bullet weight: 110gr (7.1g) Full metal jacket (similar to Chuck en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACPCompare these two rounds (the .30 & .45) one is a pistol round the other a carbine round. .30 (Carbine) = 7.1g .45 (Pistol) = between 12.0g & 15g, so if this data is correct well the .45 could weigh twice as much as the .30. So can anyone tell me what is going on? I should have stayed with AFVs and Artillery, at least you know where you are. Hey Chuck, I know the Germans have made some strange guns, but look at this for an Assault Rifle; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11What’s next a gun that can fire around corners, whoops they have already done one. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Apr 15, 2013 19:49:49 GMT -6
.30 (Carbine) = 7.1g .45 (Pistol) = between 12.0g & 15g, so if this data is correct well the .45 could weigh twice as much as the .30.
Yes, the weights of the normal military, full metal jacketed bullets for the .45 ACP and the .30 Carbine are 230 grain (15 gram) and 110 grain (7 gram), respectively.
I don't know the exact origin of grain weight. I believe it is English. It is commonly used in the US for measuring bullet and powder charge weights and has been I would guess since pre-Revolutionary days.
Consider that the .45 ACP pistol cartridge is of 50% greater diameter than the .30 Carbine bullet (sorry, I have a fine eye for the obvious) and the difference in weight may then seem more sensible. For comparison to a .30 caliber pistol cartridge, look at the 7.63 Mauser. The FMJ bullet for that cartridge weighs 86 grains (5.6 grams), so you can see the .30 Carbine bullet is a little longer and heavier than a pistol bullet of the same caliber, but considerably lighter than the .45 ACP.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 16, 2013 0:05:41 GMT -6
There are 7000 grains in a pound of powder and/or lead as both are weighed the same.
bc
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 16, 2013 3:55:24 GMT -6
I came across this site, the weights/mass quoted are totally different to the ones I have; www.texasarmoring.com/armoring_levels.html#ballisticsIt has the .30 (7.62x63mm) as 14g I have it as 27.25g. I got my info from this site; www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_inf_weapons_adv.php?op=getinf_weapons&inf_weaponsX=81Wiki also states that the .30 (round nose) round is 14g So who is correct? When see cartridge weights for rifles being below around 20 grams, I always get suspicious, I remember a American guy on a military site, he gave me the weights of a couple of Italian bullets, he said the info came from the Carcano gun manual, and the weight for the 6.5x52mm round was 22.4g, now when I compare this to the .30 (7.62x63mm) at 14g it seems too light, so you can see the problem I have. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Apr 16, 2013 6:36:41 GMT -6
Ian, Slow down, young man. The 7.62x63, or as we would call it here .30-'06 (.30 caliber US Army cartridge adopted in 1906) as quoted in www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_inf_weapons_adv.php?op=getinf_weapons&inf_weaponsX=81has a total weight of the cartridge (bullet, powder, primer and shell casing) or "round" of 27.25 grams, when loaded with a 10.5 gram bullet. The 10.5 gram (162 grain)bullet is what we here would call the A/P M2, a flat based (as opposed to boat tail), steel cored, armor piercing, standard military bullet. This can be confusing as the M2 bullet also comes in a full metal jacket form weighing 9.8 grams (152 grain). So you can have .30-'06 A/P M2 or .30-'06 ball M2. The .30-'06 cartridge case has always been versatile in terms of bullet weights it could be loaded with, commonly ranging from the light 110 grain suitable for small game, up to 220 grain that can be used on any North American big-game (though many would argue it lacks power for the largest bears). This article covers the .30-'06 in all its loadings fairly well, at least from an introductory view: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_SpringfieldSo one just needs to take it slowly and precisely when talking about .30 or 7.62 cartridges. They come in a variety of case sizes and bullet weights (and bullet weights within a given case size) and all they have in common is the nominal .30 inch diameter of the bullet. Have fun, it's a fascinating subject.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 16, 2013 8:01:15 GMT -6
Hi Mike, you are right I must slow down; otherwise this will drive me crazy. I started years ago with AFVs, I have the full data for any AFV you care to mention, I then went on to Artillery with the same results (I have complete data (well almost) for any Infantry, Mountain, Field, Anti-Tank, Anti-Aircraft Gun/Howitzer ever used from 1900 to 1950, it turned into a passion, but when I started on Small Arms thing went well at first, I got all the data I need from all over the world, but as soon I turned my attention to Ammunition things went out of control, all I wanted was the standard round used in the field by a certain weapon by a certain Army, and things went pear shaped. Just now I wanted to find the weight of the Norwegian 6.5mm Krag round and Wiki gave me five different ones to choose from, ranging from 6g to 10g; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9755mmAll I wanted was the standard round used by the Norwegian Army in 1939, I had a vision of a Norwegian Soldier asking his Quarter Master for some ammo for his Rifle whilst the Germans were dropping Paratroop’s around his camp, and the Quarter Master saying ‘’which one would you like Lars we have five don’t you know’’. But thanks for your help, but I really need to lie down in a darkened room for a while. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 16, 2013 14:46:37 GMT -6
Hi Ian I have the full data for any AFV you care to mention How about the Leyland Armoured Car circa 1939. Regards
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Apr 16, 2013 18:25:04 GMT -6
And among your anti-tank info, any scoop on the 20 mm Solothurn or the 20 mm Lahti? Hope those spellings are good.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 16, 2013 19:54:01 GMT -6
Last night one of the movie channels had the movie about the brand new Springfield trapdoor rifles saving the day and Col. Carrington from Red Cloud outside Fort Laramie. Jim Bridger got the new trapdoors in time to save the troops under attack who only had muzzle loading rifles. There was no mention of spencers or henrys.
bc
|
|