RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

I thought everyone knew about the problems that our boys have had with the M16 and the lack of killing ability/knock-down power of the 5.56 round in Iraq. This reminds me of a math teacher I had in high school. He told me that a transmission in a vehicle was what "transmitted" the up and down motion of the piston to a spinning motion. "That's why its called a transmission", he said. I asked him what a crankshaft did and he looked at me like I was insane.

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

I was a crew chief in the AF back in the late 80's. Had a pilot come back in after flight and was giving us a big "thumbs down", letting us know he'd experienced some sort of problem in flight.As he climbed out of the jet he handed theaircraft forms to someone else who began reading the write up. I walked over and looked and could not believe what I was reading....this officer had writtenup the following, radio will not work in the "OFF" position.I then politely explained to him that the radio was not supposed to work in the "OFF"position. Needless to say he was a little embarrased, especially since there was a Lt. Colonel standing nextto him.

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

"sit down for this guys....his answer was about 1200fps!!!!"

(He must be talking about the Trapdoor Springfield in .45/70! How old is this guy? He's obviously been around for a LONG TIME!!)

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

He's pretty ignorant about firearms, that is for sure. It is not terribly uncommon among many military and LEO folks. They have no interest in the subject, hear something, and pass it along in a garbled version.

He probably heard the 7.62x39 and .308 fire a (approximatly) .30 caliber bullet. Therefore, they must be the same, in his mind.

I worked with a medically retired Marine captain, and former LEO from Georgia. We were disussing shotgun slugs, and he mentioned he didn't like hunting with them, because their muzzle velocity was only about 600 FPS. I looked at him like he had carrots growing out of his ears!

Your instructor also has read something of Europan military history. Back in the days before the cloth patch was accepted practice for shooting in rifles, anaked lead ball WAS driven down the bore with a steel RAMrod. It was a lengthy process, and the rifle wasn't considered a suitable military arm because of that. Give him partial credit for that one.

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

I recommend you direct this guy's attention to the Sharpe's series of movies about the war against Napoleon in Spain-he could learn something about both black powder muskets and ML rifles!!

The idea that prior to the development of the patched round ball for use in rifles that a pure lead ball had to be hammered down a barrel is a crock! A myth, actually. Anyone who has ever loaded an UNPATCHED soft lead ball into a ML barrel knows that without the patch, the ball goes down EASIER after it has been forced into the bore than a patched ball does!

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

Except for balls that are bore diameter, not bore minus patch clearance. I'm talking 1500s, here, well before the development of corned powder. Fouling was a tough problem for the very early riflemen. If this wasn't the case, why did so many inventors and gunmakers develop, or try to develop, a system that would allow rifles to be loaded almost as quickly a a smoothbore musket. One system was designed to have a ledge in the barrel at the breech, the ball was upset by smacking it with the loading rodto expand it an fill the windage.

I'll check some of my refernces when I get home, if I have time. I know WW Greener mentioned continental use of bare balls in rifles in that time period, and the loading difficulties.

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

Your teacher must be a dumb @$$ and will surely run for public office!!! Our local Tech School just hired a welding instructer who cant weld for crap, I don't know how these things happen but they do. He'll likely become mayor someday; ha ha.

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

the guys is probably in the 30-40yr old range....hes been in the service for 21yrs i think he said......i dont judge THE whole military by him.....but it shocks me at his total lack of knowledge when it comes to fire power....SOME of the militarys snipers use a 308 correct...id figure hed know a 308 isnt doing 1200FPS!!! he is teaching at a state college i attend.....but he says hes active duty.....and just got back from iraq not too long ago....im sure he knows his stuff about the military and seems like an alright guy except for passing along BS.....theres kids in there that will probably sell their SLOW 308s ect to buy a 223 to deer hunt with....because they were told its the fasts bullet with the most penetration and knockdown power out there.....i personally feel that they SHOULD carry something along the lines of a 308....for better knockdown power.....but its bigger....heavier.....and more recoil ..

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

The instructors should definitely get their facts straight.
A simple solution for them would be to use a chart in class that includes the cartridges to be discussed. That way, no one is trying to remember all of the details off the cuff.

I wonder if this "M-16/.223 is supperior" stuff is related to an observation I've made by talking with those who have carrei dthem as 'issue' weapons.
It seems that if the M-16 is the gun you get handed, and your instructor tells you it is THE bestsmall armon the battlefield, you might tend to believe it. This may be either because you do not know any better, or because you want to believe that those who are charged with your safety have chosen wisely, and that you are well protected while going into harms way.

RE: more garbage from the military teacher.....
 

good point bulzeye..goes along with my thinking...he might know his military stuff and what he was taught through the army...but other then that he dont know beans from tomatos..a chart would be a good idea for him....but thats not what the class is about.....its just to teachthe students a little about what the military is like and about ect...we learn a little basics of some of the stuff....so ballistics dont come up all to often..but when they do.....hes bound to be wrong...going to fire 10rds from the m-16 tomarrow.....should be interesting...i hope their sights are on on them "superior m-16s!!!" he said he dont expect anyone to hit the target at 25yds...think its a half body silloute from the way he been talking....but if them guns are on they will all be on the paper from me...speaking of sights....i have to look at more ballistics.....he said the m-16s sights are on at 25yds(maybe meters) and again at 300yds or meters...i never looked at 223s ballistics that closely....but i have a feeling that 300 is stretching the truth....does that make sense to anyone?? just wondering...like i said i never looked at the 223s ballistics to closely...cant wait for tomarrow! i wish i was a member of that range...id be shootin my toys before AND after class just to show off lol.....