tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post7234195899111013548..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Infantry firearms calibres - a long historyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-78205602547325328422014-03-01T04:53:10.018+01:002014-03-01T04:53:10.018+01:00I did see that you referred me, and subsequently b...I did see that you referred me, and subsequently bookmarked your blog. I also saw your article on full power rifles in 1915: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/12/18/full-power-service-rifles-unnecessary-1915/Nathaniel Fitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15011387972300996469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-6503824965909167352014-03-01T04:22:29.750+01:002014-03-01T04:22:29.750+01:00That's nothing special.
http://defense-and-fre...That's nothing special.<br />http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2012/04/crazy-gun-related-stuff.html<br />You don't seem to have paid attention to whom Steve thanked for the tip to your blog text in the first place. :)S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-66745359864687147832014-03-01T04:13:17.401+01:002014-03-01T04:13:17.401+01:00I am glad we have cleared up that disagreement. I ...I am glad we have cleared up that disagreement. I think your post served its "hidden" purpose as an educational tool very well. I see it's made the front page of TFB, as well!Nathaniel Fitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15011387972300996469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-67362031042718047182014-03-01T04:07:54.699+01:002014-03-01T04:07:54.699+01:00I think enough as written about this disagreement....I think enough as written about this disagreement.<br /><br />I rarely write non-"[Fun]" posts for but one reason. There's often a hidden one as well.<br />This time I coupled a popular topic with the messages that looking at military history can help understand parts of our world and I wanted to demonstrate how the integration of tactical and technical details can further the understanding of what the tools of war mean. <br />Rifles and cartridges are not mere chunks of metal, or some object of fascination for hobbyists. They were shaped by evolving circumstances, serve a purpose within their context - and a successful solution can be outdated and outright wrong soon thereafter.<br /><br />The French became victims of this several times; they pioneered 'smokeless powders' and quick fire cannons and ended up stuck with the pioneering 1st generation hardware even as late as half a century later, though superior solutions were found within years.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-2829237264179889162014-03-01T03:39:28.064+01:002014-03-01T03:39:28.064+01:00Being the person with whom Sven had the original d...Being the person with whom Sven had the original disagreement that prompted this post, I think our difference of opinion is largely academic. He seemed to take issue with my usage of the term "500 year trend" which is just the somewhat messy wording I used in the few minutes I spared for that blog comment. I don't think I would use that wording again since it is rather misleading, so in that, at least, I don't think we disagree.<br /><br />Sven and I both agree on the basic timeline of small arms development. Neither of us disagree on the caliber or velocity of various firearms, and both of us account for the drop in velocity that occurred sometime in the late 17th century when the last vestiges of personal armor vanished from the European battlefield. It seems, then, that we only disagree as to whether this constitutes a "trend" or not.<br /><br />I argue that it does, at least over the period from the early 19th century until now. This runs contrary to arguments made on American internet gun forums to the effect that .224" caliber rifles are anomalous, and a mistake that bucked a longstanding tradition, which I argue does not account for .45, .57, and .69 caliber small arms from the 19th century.<br /><br />In this, I think Sven has misinterpreted me as seeing some sort of overarching destiny of small arms to become small caliber high velocity. There is none. Small caliber firearms with a high muzzle velocity offer considerable advantages over those larger in caliber and lower in velocity (lighter weight and flatter trajectory being chief among them), but in the past, paradigms have existed that made high velocity and small caliber undesirable, such as in the period from the 18th century to the early 19th before the introduction of the Minie Ball. It's conceivable that another paradigm favoring larger caliber, lower velocity small arms could exist in the future (for an example, see the OICW concept). However, that does not mean that 5.56mm weapons buck an existing trend, nor does it provide evidence that the SCHV concept as it exists today is critically flawed.<br /><br />If Sven would like to respond, he is more than welcome to.Nathaniel Fitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15011387972300996469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-34329577041979554362014-02-20T14:12:24.155+01:002014-02-20T14:12:24.155+01:00The Article (Small Arms as a Last Resort) by Phil ...The Article (Small Arms as a Last Resort) by Phil D. Harrison, at the following URL, may be of interest:<br /><br />http://www.future-artillery.com/Media/7935/8685.pdf <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-70584588471853002022014-02-19T15:04:33.957+01:002014-02-19T15:04:33.957+01:00Oops. This kind of nonsense happens when I edit to...Oops. This kind of nonsense happens when I edit too much.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-1003417367514701642014-02-19T14:48:54.827+01:002014-02-19T14:48:54.827+01:00"5.45x39 mm (NATO): typical bullet about 3.5 ..."5.45x39 mm (NATO): typical bullet about 3.5 g<br />5.56x45 mm (Warsaw Pact): typical bullet about 4.1 g"<br /><br />These are reversed. The NATO round is the 5.56x45mm.<br /><br />ECS<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-91936819253768413512014-02-17T22:48:28.963+01:002014-02-17T22:48:28.963+01:00Wikipedia offers "spire point bullet" as...Wikipedia offers "spire point bullet" as alternative, but I only remember "spitzer bullet" from literature.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-11030714274091586702014-02-17T22:30:56.775+01:002014-02-17T22:30:56.775+01:00With better field artillery, pointing the way towa...With better field artillery, pointing the way towards the FA as the King of 20th Century mechanized battle...<br /><br />Nice article. I tend to agree with you that the reduction in the calibre of the round was the result of a sort of cascade of technical and mechanical changes to firearms rather than some sort of conscious effort on the part of the weapons/ammunition designers.<br /><br />Only one minor thing; I'd argue that the closest English translation of <i>"SpitzgeschoĆ"</i> would be "pointy bullet". It's true that the spire point bullet was called a "spitzer bullet" in English-speaking countries, but the direct translation of the original term is really a better description of what makes the round so effective, the pointed (as opposed to the older, round-nosed) business end.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-68354409287469686092014-02-17T15:05:30.544+01:002014-02-17T15:05:30.544+01:00Whatever it is, it's not going to come from a ...Whatever it is, it's not going to come from a Pentagon effort. They've demonstrated their utter incompetence in two generations worth of attempts to develop a better rifle.<br /> <br />In the end, small arms aren't decisive in modern conventional wars any more. The age of rifles was from the 1840's to 1890's only and even in the midst of it did the German armies overcome the French ones at Sedan, defeating the better (Chassepot) rifle.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-58981240514389477342014-02-17T11:35:37.836+01:002014-02-17T11:35:37.836+01:00Sven, what do you think the next step forward in s...Sven, what do you think the next step forward in small arms ammunition is going to be? There has been much work on layered propellants based on thermo plastic elastomer (TPE) compounds. They give extra velocity, less noise, less smoke, and less heat (which would make them a natural companion to aluminum casings).<br /><br />Theres also talk of ceramic bullets that somehow manage to be just as destructive against body armor as they are against flesh. Upon impact, they shatter into a cloud of debris that grinds away at the target on a microscopic level.kesler12https://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-28686952691054532792014-02-17T11:19:41.039+01:002014-02-17T11:19:41.039+01:005.56mm does best in the carbine and light machine ...5.56mm does best in the carbine and light machine gun role. The only time you really an LMG, though, is if your out on patrol. Encounters take place at shorter ranges than usual, so you can get away with the smaller caliber and bipod (whereas in most firefights, you would desperately need the tripod and 7.62mm round).kesler12https://www.blogger.com/profile/06730943788519488679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-14268386873773616062014-02-14T23:15:29.371+01:002014-02-14T23:15:29.371+01:00This is the wrong topic. I wrote about that in 201...This is the wrong topic. I wrote about that in 2010/09/06 and 2009/01/30.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-41643651690696190142014-02-14T21:09:08.732+01:002014-02-14T21:09:08.732+01:00What is your opinion of the caliber split at the s...What is your opinion of the caliber split at the squad level for rifles/carabines and SAW/LMG (5.56mm) and a heavier caliber for machine gun teams (typically platoon or company level)?<br /><br />And how does the 40mm, light mortar, RPG, and other direct fire HE projectors fight into the caliber discussion?<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com