Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (78061)	10/7/2001 1:25:49 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116753

Girding loins department. A Brazilian floating barrel .303 Enfield will produce bench patterns at 200 yards that group under a silver dollar. .303 was always the most accurate mil rifle after the mark III production. Fast action, way easier than the KAR 98. Part of the accuracy was its extremely light kick, flash and report. Low flinch factor and low kick makes for high functional accuracy. I once fired a Globe Firearms CDN .303. It was semi-auto and carried ten rounds. A tad heavy but it was ulta reliable. Was never acquired by military who were afraid of the British rim in a semi. But it did not jam. The rim actually helps keep gas down and eases extraction. The 30-06 needs a heavier rifle if you want less kick. Even with a ten pound rifle a 30-06 outkicks a seven pound cutdown .303 two to one. But I can accurately shoot ten 1000 yard shots per minute into a garbage pail lid from rest with the 30-06 180 grain and a twelve power BDC scope. Piece of cake. Spread maybe pie plate size. When you shoot a hominid with a .303 or 30-06 they fall right down. They don't get up. Shoot the same dude with a .223 from 1000 yards and they will run 50 yards or return fire. If you can hit him at all. Fire on full auto or 3 burst and I guarantee you miss. With a flack jacket they laugh at you. With a M14 or Springfield you can punch a hole in 1/4 inch mild steel at 100 yards with standard FMJ - non AP. You shoot at me behind a car from 200 yards with a .223 (5.62 mm M16) all day long and I will read a book. Mil thinking is to do jumpy fire, spread the rounds around. Get the metal in thereabouts and spray it fast. Bloody waste. Firepower is very unnerving but if it equally applied it is obvious that more fundamentally accurate wins. If the soldier is most successful at 400 yards and with random fire, it does not mean that should be the limitation of the weapon. Wrong thinking. Because accidents happen you do not plan to have accidents as mode of success. What you want is about 20 rounds in an area that is equal in area to your total wounding target area (25 square feet) within 1.5 seconds. And the centroid of that target to be spot on. So at 100 to 1500 yards you want equal spread at 900 RPM at 2500 feet per second arrival, of total 240 grams of lead. Tall order. If the military pays me 5 million dollars I will tell them how to do that with optical sights, a ten pound weapon and you will never miss. Then you have to ask, do you want to fire 20 bullets to kill one soldier? Interesting question. Obviously it should not be the main infantry weapon. 50 "shots" would weigh 32 pounds. EC<:-}

To: long-gone who wrote (78061)	10/7/2001 4:16:45 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116753

I used to shoot a lot and I handloaded my own ammo according to the Hornady Vol II book. Of the 25 rifles I used to have in various calibres ranging from Remington 700 BDL in 270 to Winchester 22 about 20 years ago, I now have only 3 guns left, having sold most of them over the years at a profit. The current gun law in Canada makes gun ownership rather tiresome and inconvenient. Even for plinking in the forest, a shooter will have to get a permit and another to buy ammo. Sick! Isn't it? But that's our law here. I used to be able to shoot 1" groups at 100 yds using my 270 cal Remington BDL 700. With my 7 x 57 Interarms Mark IV, I got the same accuracy. On several occasions, I managed to print 2 holes with 3 shots, with one of the two holes slighter larger than the other one. I haven't tried target shooting for quite a long time. The 270 Remington 700 BDL is effective for bringing down moose, caribou and blackbear up to 250 yds away. The Winchester 30-30 is equally effective up to 100 yds. Eric mentioned accurate rifles that seem to me rather too heavy for a soldier to lug around. I wonder how many fighting men will still have enough left in them to shoot straight after lugging those heavies around for most of the day. No wonder the modern military weapon designers go for lighter rifles and emphasize spraying bullets over an area rather than aim for pin-point accuracy. Have you seen the firefight scene in the jungle (in Predator starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) when they were shooting at an invisible enemy?

To: long-gone who wrote (78061)	10/9/2001 1:21:47 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

The Sharpes rifle would hit brass buttons on an officer's coat at 600 yards. (that is where the term Sharp(es) shooters came from) They did a demo of that for President Lincoln. That would be tight grouping as brass buttons were only about one inch diam. You had to handload it for that. Annie Oakely also handloaded her own ammo BP as she found that factory ammo was inferior. The plus factors that contribute to accuracy are long barrel, heavy barrel, free vibrating barrel (one that is only fixed at the base, and does not touch the stock along the length), twist of rifling, design of bullet, evenness of bullet weights, precision of powder charge, tightness of action (gas leakage is bad), and even-burningness of powder. Then for free shooting there is the balance of the rifle, weight and trigger pull. Too light a weapon and the kick will affect accuracy. The right balance will allow the rifle to be aimed with little drift. (the M1 carbine was great for this) A smooth release of trigger pull will let the rifle stay on target. With some changes in trigger design, suppression of flash and noise, recoil aborption, and barrel suspension, the accuracy of rifles for the average shooter could be improved greatly. (when most people squeeze with their grip the muscle tensing makes the rifle shake. This is a mistake. Triggers should be pulled softly. In other words index finger trigger pulling is probably a wrong muscle contraction considering the same muscles are being used to steady the rifle. A soldier is frequently scared, breathing hard and woozy, then you ask him to do a delicate task of balancing and holding the rifle oh so lightly on target when the damn thing weighs eleven pounds. It's hard to do accurate shooting being rested, kneeling, and not being charged or dodging bullets. Even then the sight wanders all over the target. And you pull and the sight jumps. 3 shots go off and the rifle climbs 8 inches. Add to that you cannot focus on two things at different depths at the same time (iron sights. Peep sights are better optically but you get parallax if you don't align right. No wonder the soldier misses under battlefield conditions. It's a wonder he can hit the broad side of a barn door. We need to try something else. Further improvements in scope ranging could be done that are easy to do, could make good shooters out of many. The BDC scope of Bausch and Lomb was a real pig. I could have done way better. Shooting at moving targets could even be implemented with some minor technology that would be reliable and quick under all conditions. Most rifle technology is 100 years old. We could make great strides here. You cannot tell me that accuracy is not a good thing to implement. What it seems mil thinkers want is to make the soldier miss creatively! Soldiers in Afghanistan frequently start shooting at 3/4 's of a mile. It's all desert plain and broad mountain passes. All mountain troops like the Swiss and Austrians emnphasize long shooting accuracy. The Swiss demand 600 yard target shooting open sight at tiny targets. The Austrian army rifle was a mauser with a 30 inch 8 pound fat barrel. With the exception of marine marksmen our guys are not equipped to return fire with anything but a fixed machine gun like the M60. Any you ain't gonna lug that and 5000 rounds in the mountains. If you sent me into Afghanistan I would throw away the m16 and even the M14 and take a long barrel 1907 Springfield, carbon fibre stock. and fit it with a fast 3 to 16 bino zoom scope and a laser/passive rangefinder that operated with a thumb wheel and compensated for direct hold automatically with rangefinding. Up down hills is a big problemo in Afghi country, I would take a sunto inclinometer and put it in plane with my scope. I would then have it read out in scale divisions per range/degree. Its easy to make a scale that for each degree has a side scale for one hundred to 2000 ranges. Sunnto could even make it auto ranging with the scope controls i.e it selects viewers for different ranges. For close in work, I would use a M1 carbine with a muzzle brake, a spring on the barrel and stock, and rechamber it to take 30-06 light loads to say produce 2600 FPS with a 150 grain bullet. It would not be the end of the world if you mixed ammo. Finally I would gold plate the front sight of the iron sights and pay the soldier one ducat in gold for each ten Taliban terrorist he kills. EC<:-}