From: Neil Harrington on

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote in message
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

>> We used .45 browning pistols, the BMG .50 cartridge (API) and the
>> standard
>> 7.62 (.30) NATO caliber. 5.56 is a smaller calliber (I think .20)
>> which is supposed to be more humane to the target, thus the person
>> being shot.
> 5.56 is also known as .223 Remington (there is a very tiny dimensional
> difference in the case that might cause problems with a few firearms, but
> it

I'm not aware of any difference at all between the 5.56mm NATO and .223
Remington case dimensions, at least outside dimensions. The latter is
basically just a civilian version of the former, though I understand the
military stuff has thicker brass (it's loaded to higher pressures than would
be normal in sporting ammo).

> was originally a civilian cartridge)

Well, the genealogy is a little more complicated than that. The original
cartridge was the .222 Remington, probably the sweetest little 225-yard
varmint cartridge ever made. Remington then lengthened the case body
slightly and called the result the .222 Remington Magnum. This produced a
modest improvement in ballistics that made little if any difference to
varmint hunters, but Remington apparently had hopes of selling the new
cartridge to the military. They finally did, but after the military made
additional minor changes to the case; I believe this was mostly shortening
the neck. The result was the 5.56mm NATO, and subsequently Remington started
using (essentially) this case in sporting ammunition, designating it the
..223 Remington.

> and it is used not because it is "more humane to the target" [ . . . ]

In fact it may be much *less* "humane to the target." The original service
rifles for the 5.56 had rifling with something like a 20-inch twist, if I
recall correctly. This is quite a slow twist for a 55-grain .22 bullet.
Consider for example that a .222 Remington Magnum rifle, also normally
loaded with a 55-grain bullet, has a 12" rifling twist.

Why the slower twist in the service rifle? Never officially explained as far
as I know, but some have suggested that it resulted in an only *marginally*
stabilized bullet, one which would easily topple when it struck the target,
causing a great deal more tissue damage than a faster spinning bullet which
would tend to drill cleanly through the target.

Note that the same reason has been suggested for the fact that British .303
service rifle ammunition was made with bullets having an aluminum nose cone
under the jacket, making the bullet somewhat tail-end-heavy. Thus the
ammunition met the Geneva Conventions requirements for full jacketed
(theoretically "humane") bullets, but because it was somewhat likely to
topple passing through the target it could actually be more destructive than
if it had been soft-nosed.

I understand newer 5.56mm service rifles have a somewhat faster twist, but
still slower than would be normal for a sporting rifle firing a comparable

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-16 22:49:25 -0800, "Neil Harrington" <not(a)> said:

> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:TLSdnSSh4oDtqp_WnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)
>> I had a S & W 22 caliber revolver that would jam after firing about a
>> dozen rounds through it. The clearance between the rear of the cylinder
>> and the frame was too small, and I was never able to get it fixed......If
>> I cleaned it after a couple of cylinder full's, then it would work for
>> another two, but cleaning it that often was a PITA, so I never used it.
> That's interesting, but between the *rear* of the cylinder and the frame?
> Are you sure?
> I've seen revolvers that would develop that problem at the *front* of the
> cylinder, as leading built up between that part and the rear of the barrel.
> But I can't see what could cause interference at the rear of the cylinder,
> unless leading at the front of the chambers prevented new cartridges from
> being inserted fully.

Deleading the forcing cone. Standard clean-up.



From: Chris H on
In message <AJKdneSaSKhHIpzWnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>Now there you have a point. On the other hand, a term like "Greenwich time"
>can have different meanings too depending on where you are. To many it would
>mean GMT; to some it might mean the time in Greenwich, Connecticut for

Only to Americans. As you say it is context. To many Boston is in
Lincolnshire. However GMT or Greenwich Mean Time has only one meaning.
Greenwich time could have other connotations. I understand they march to
a different beat in Greenwich [Village]

>>> MM/DD/YY is our standard civilian form, but our military has
>>>used DD/MM/YY for many years.
>> It had to as the US military needed to talk to people other than US
>> civilians.
>There are other differences. The U.S. military uses the 24-hour clock, while
>civilians use a 12-hour clock just as I believe they still do in the UK,
>Canada and other English-speaking places. Why don't the Brits use a 24-hour
>clock, if consistency with what the rest of the world is doing is so

The UK DOES use a 24 hour clock. All time tables, trains ships, aricraft
etc and many signs for shops and offices are in 24hours. Most civilians
use 12 hour clocks but since the digital watches and mobile phones many
use the 24 hour clock.

>> As I said it is only a problem where the US wants to talk to
>> the rest of the world. If having the worlds largest army does not help
>> then eventually you will have to change.... BTW that is why the US now
>> uses 9mm rather than .45 and NATO uses 556 rather than 7.62
>Not exactly. The U.S. adopted the 9mm Parabellum cartridge because it's half
>the weight of the .45 Auto, and therefore a soldier can carry twice as many
>rounds. The decision was to go to a lighter but still powerful cartridge,
>and the 9mm P was *there* and was commonplace among other militaries; there
>would have been no point in developing a new cartridge when a perfectly
>satisfactory one already existed and was in general use.

True. Also the US needed compatibility with the other militaries it
worked with. IT is the same reason why the UK went ot 556... lighter,
you can carry more and everyone else uses it. Much easier on logistics.

>>>It never has so far, that I know of. You are straining mightily to produce
>>>an argument for an insupportable position.
>> It is the reason why until very recently no one knew what had happened
>> to Glen Miller.
>No one really seems to know "what had happened to Glen (sic) Miller," though
>there are plenty of stories and theories, none of them having anything to do
>with metric as far as I'm aware.

They do know what happened. The problem was due to standards. The US
military used a different time to the rest of us (ie the UK which is
where he flew from) . There was a 1 hour difference. This was not
realised in the initial investigations.

His aircraft was seen just before it went into the sea but as it was not
on the route and an hour out it was discarded.

When the hour time difference was taken in to account and the position
checked it was realised that it was the only possible option. His
aircraft was spotted by a Canadian in an RAF bomber. The Canadian had
trained on the rather distinctive American aircraft Glenn miller was
flying in.

They had gone a little south from their route. The winds at the time and
in that area accounted for it. They flew into a bomb dump zone as some
aircraft were returning to the UK. They ditched their bombs as required.

As they did so the Canadian gunner saw the aircraft a long way below. It
was hit by a falling bomb.

Recently last 5 years they did find some wreckage for that type of
aircraft in the position indicated by the gunner. They did not find any
serial numbers or bodies.

However Glen millers aircraft was the only one if it's type flying over
the English Channel that day. The wreckage was found where the the
gunner said he saw it as his squadron ditched it's bombs. BTW it was a
clearly marked drop zone on the maps.

Whilst there is no 100% positive proof it is a very strong case and all
the pieces bar a positive ID fit.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <not(a)> wrote in message
> news:DbydnWauBrt3qZ_WnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)

>> My problem now will probably be finding a good place to shoot. I have
>> "lifetime" privileges (because I was one of those who helped finance it)
>> to the state association's pistol range, which is next to (and on land
>> leased from) a commercial range which is within 10 miles of me. The
>> problem there is that the lease has long expired, and the last time I was
>> out there the commercial range owner was already getting grumpy about
>> shooters using that range for free instead of paying to shoot at his
>> range. And the range was originally intended just for competition
>> shooters in registered matches and tournaments, which I have not been one
>> of since the '70s. And that range owner is already facing legal and
>> financial problems because of homeowners' complaints about bullets
>> arriving on their property, even though there's probably at least a mile
>> and a good-sized hill between the range and their homes. It's hard to
>> imagine anyone at the range shooting over the hill, but who knows. Since
>> I haven't been out there for a few years I don't know what the situation
>> is now, but my guess is my "lifetime" privileges have expired.
> If you want to continue shooting fine weapons at a very reasonable price,
> consider buying yourself an air pistol. They are extremely well made, the
> ammo is very cheap, and you can fire them in your living room and/or
> basement without disturbing the neighbors. They are also more accurate
> than firearms. Their initial expense is greater. (a good one will run you
> over a thousand dollars) but after that, the ammo is very cheap. (around a
> penny each round)

Yep. I've got a nice one, a Gamo Compact (dunno why they call it that --
it's not at all compact, except I suppose compared to some of the really
long European ones). It's well under a thousand dollars, usually under $250
in fact, and much less than that when I bought mine several years ago. It's
super accurate, has nice adjustable grips in the European style, nice sights
and a superb trigger.

I also have a Webley Nemesis, very nice pistol also but a bear to charge.
Both these pistols are single-stroke pneumatics, i.e. one long swing of the
top end compresses the air. Undoubtedly that's a lot easier for a younger
man than it is for me. I can manage the Gamo for a while but I don't do much
shooting with the Webley.

I'd never be able to use any of those humungously long air pistols. I'm not
anywhere near steady enough to handle that much sight radius.

From: Chris H on
In message <DeSdncqV8PpBTZzWnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>> In message <rs2dncQadslz9ZzWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>>"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>>>> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>>>> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>>>>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>>> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>>>>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>> Well! - Sorrrrrry. I used to have a colt auto chambered in 9 mm. It
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> the most reliable auto I ever had.
>>>>>You can't beat the good old 9mm, but you'll never convince .45 fanciers
>>>>>that. They all have an abiding faith in those pumpkin rollers and are
>>>>>impervious to reason. ;-)
>>>> Having used both the answer is "it depends" on why you are carrying and
>>>> pistol and the conditions. In the 70's when I used a pistol the .45 was
>>>> a better choice for operational reasons for urban work. For battle field
>>>> work a 9mm.
>>>If you mean because of stopping power vs. firepower, I think the
>>>much-vaunted stopping power of the .45 is largely a myth.
>> Sort of. In the 1970's body armour was not common. Certainly the
>> terrorists we were up against did not have any. However there were a lot
>> of civilians in the urban setting.
>> A .45 would hit the target but not usually go through and hit anything
>> else. The faster narrower 9mm tended to go through and come out the
>> other side thus causing collateral damage.
>This of course depends on the load used. In the case of a "Geneva
>Convention-approved" full metal jacket bullet, of course that would be true.
>In the case of a jacketed hollow point, I doubt it.

We were using FMJ Though if JHP were used for 9mm we would also have
used them for the .45. BTW the Geneva convention did not apply. IT
only applies to use against military forces.

The Met used some rather nice jacketed Hollow points.

>> So if we used a .45 it would stop the target without causing collateral
>> (civilian ) damage. It also did have a lot of stopping power. We also
>> only needed a few rounds. So 8 was usually plenty and in any even I
>> carried 2 more magazines.
>I'm a little confused here by your use of "we." What organization were you
>with at that time? I'm not aware of any British units, military or civilian,
>having used the .45 auto.

Really? The secret(a) is not aware :-) there is much you do
not know I think. Many unusual weapons were used at many times that
were not standard issue to all troops. We used to use Beretta .32's a
lot too.

>>>Several years ago,
>>>two police officers wrote a book on the subject of stopping power (sorry I
>>>can't recall either their names or the book's title), based on their
>>>extensive study of actual shooting cases. What they went by, and graded
>>>their results by, was the percentage of "one-shot stops" for every caliber
>>>and load for which they could obtain data. Their conclusion as I recall it
>>>was that stopping power was much more dependent on the specific load than
>>>the caliber, and the best one turned out to be a 115-grain JHP in 9mm,
>>>a roughly comparable .45 load close behind. Full-jacket loads in either
>>>caliber fell far behind, not surprisingly.
>> That would be an interesting book. See if you can remember what it was.
>> (I am not doubting you or the book I just want to read it :-
>I'd never have remembered it, but I just now found it via Google. The book
>is "Hnadgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study," by Evan Marshall and
>Edwin J. Sanow. From the description I know it to be the same book.


>Checking Amazon I see it's still available new in paperback (1992 ed.) -- I
>don't know when the original handcover edition was published. The same
>authors have two newer books on the subject, the latest (2001) being
>"Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition."
>There are a few reader reviews for all these on Amazon.

I will see it I can get one for Christmas.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/