![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
|
![]() |
|||
|
Quote:
Not the 5.56mm rounds of today which I believe is the NATO M109(?). The reason being body armor. Also the tubbling effect of the 5.56mm round has been way overstated. The 5.56mm has a high MV than the older 7.62mm rounds. This causes a massive shock wave in the body as it passes through causing massive damage around the area it passes through. I have some drawings and photos in a file showing the effect when fired into geliten (sp?) blocks. It is something to be seen with X ray photography that slows it up. Jack E. Hammond |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Topic: Re: Canadian ROSS and the US Reising and the worst the ChaucQuote:
Reising guns weren't bad until you put them in the Jungle enviroment. Most of them were reissued to guards at war plants after the Raiders and Para Marines got rid of them and after that they were given to Police Agencies. We still have 3 Reisings in our Armory Room. Fun to shoot and accurate. Just not a field weapon. |
![]() |
|||
|
Topic: Re: Canadian ROSS and the US Reising and the worst the ChaucQuote:
I can not remember where I read it, but Ian Hogg (a British small arms expert) stated that the problem with the Reising was that after they used they disassembled them and put them in cleaner bath and then reassembled them. The bolt of the Reising has some machining ramp on it of some sort that if you switch bolts from one gun to another after its been fired a number of times it will cause problem if the same bolt is not used in the reassembly. Finally, for the record I have just joined the forum. I would like to explain my background before I am asked. I was for almost ten years either the AstSysop or Sysop of Compuserves MILITARY FORUM which from 1990 to 1991 was the largest military forum (AOL took it over and basically killed it). I was given the job because before that from about 1981 to 1992 I wrote and consulted on Military and Defense articles. I got picked for the job, because every time they tried to use a military person (ie retired most common) there would be a cat fight because that Sysop would favor his service. I was the neutral party. Last the information I post was from my sources when I wrote articles and discussion with military and civilian defense contractors which in that time period many belong to Compuserve (ie at that time the internet was not the big and Compuserve was the only one that had a world wide computer forums hook up by telephone). I always tried to be fair. The article I did in 1982 on the Abrams I sent a list of questions that was big in the news on the subject. I got the list back with the answers and a short note stating that it would not make the article (ie at that time the news media would not report postitive or balanced articles). It did and I was surprised after that at the co-operation including sending me an exposed but undeveloped roll of film of the new Abrams on exercises -- ie that meant I had the copyright to the pictures. All the US military wanted was both sides of the story to be presented. I have a huge amount of photos, etc in file cabinest of weapons, etc that was sent to me from about 1980 to 1995 I hope to share with the members on this forum. I am totally retired now from both jobs and have plenty of time. And also, I am hoping to learn information etc I am unaware of. But today, compared with ten years back, military information is so massive that it is nothing compared to back then. Thank your everyone for taking a second to let me explain Respectfully Jack E. Hammond |
![]() |
|
|
Folks,
Here is an interesting question to this topic: Today, which major army has the worst assault rifle that is mass issued to its troops? And this is not opinion. This armies own government inquire has stated it. Its about in the catagory that that the US Army's Trapdoor Springfield was in the late 1800s of reputation. Jack E. Hammond |
![]() |