Favorite caliber BS stories.

[idleprocess]

1. "Beware the .357 Maximum in a revolver. The cartridge can cut the topstrap in two like an acetelyene torch and fragment the forcing cone like a grenade. That's why Ruger discontinued the Maximum Super Blackhawk."
(Fact: The Maximum Blackhawk was discontinued because it was too expensive for Ruger to produce a custom frame revolver that wasn't competitive in the sport the Maximum was designed for.)

Flame cutting of the topstrap was pretty common with .357 Maximum, but I gather that it was largely a cosmetic issue.

4. "The .30-30 is marginal for deer-size game."
(Fact: This cartridge has probably taken more game animals in North America than any other.)

I hear this all the time too. The 30-30 might not be good for 900 yard across-the-valley shots at mule deer or bighorn, but that's never been its purpose. It's always been a close-range brush gun, best for quick shots at 100 yards or so. I always cringe whenever I see a scope on a 30-30 since it's no long-distance round even with the new spire-point LeveRevolution cartridges.

Funny thing is that the people knocking 30-30 will then switch to talking about the deadliness of the almost (ballistically) identical 7.62x39 round...

 

[robocop10mm]

Nah, the Dum Dum was gone by the time the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The .303 is nasty because the British realized the benefits of leaving a void in the nose of the bullet between the jacket and the core. I think they actually would fill this with wood (sterilized, of course...) - I know they did in at least one version. A base-heavy bullet fired from a high power rifle. Yikes. Not only will it cut through body armor like paper, but it's going to yaw as soon as it meets flesh. IIRC, a nose-light bullet is also more accurate for some strange reason (look at the HPBT match ammo a lot of long range shooters use).

Scary effective round.

As far as Lee-Enfield accuracy, you have to remember that the Soviets were armed with AKs for the most part... so by comparison, the Lee-Enfield is the telephone company.

Moving the center of gravity back helps with a bullet's stability. The HP rifle ammo is made specifically to address this issue.
.303 goes through Soviet body armor because the armor (like our Kevlar PASGT armor) is made for slow moving projectiles (handguns) and low mass projectiles (Grenade fragments). 7.62 NATO and 5.56 ammo will also go through the scale like Russian armor.

 

[robocop10mm]

I love the BS about how the VC/NVA could use our ammo in their weapons but we could not use theirs in ours. Had a Nam recliner Ranger tell me all about how the AK could shoot our 7.62 ammo because their bullets were slightly larger than ours. He could not get over the math of putting a 51mm long case into a 39mm chamber no matter what the diameter was.

I think this legend comes from the fact that the standard Com-bloc mortar round is 82mm and ours is 81. Theoretically they could use the 1mm smaller rounds in their tubes.

 

[idleprocess]

I love the BS about how the VC/NVA could use our ammo in their weapons but we could not use theirs in ours. Had a Nam recliner Ranger tell me all about how the AK could shoot our 7.62 ammo because their bullets were slightly larger than ours. He could not get over the math of putting a 51mm long case into a 39mm chamber no matter what the diameter was.

Uhm ... maybe you could use 7.62x51 in a Mosin chambering 7.62x54R with some serious work (some sort of "sleeve" at chamber neck?) ... but I doubt it would be worth the effort nor would it be too terribly reliable.

 

[M. Sage]

The Mosin doesn't seal that well, I wouldn't even think about trying it. Also, it's designed for a rimmed cartridge. Pretty unlikely that you'd be able to get a firing pin strike... And you'd better hope you don't!

 

[onac255]

Whoa...Whoa...Whoa...you mean 10mm CAN'T cut a man in half at 500 yards?!?!?!?!?!

 

[M. Sage]

Oh, let's not forget the antis and their caliber BS. .50 cal rifles are capable of bagging airliners from a mile+ away as they're taking off and landing.

5.8mm is capable of defeating police vests, despite the fact that the only ammo available on the US market can't even make the 12" minimum penetration in ballistic gelatin.

And 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm are "high-powered", despite the fact that they actually split the difference between an actual high power rifle and a handgun.

Not nearly as bad as the CA DOJ's firearms division head declaring that pistol grips allow you to spray-fire from the hip without reloading, though. 1: it's damn uncomfortable to shoot a pistol-gripped rifle or shotgun from the hip, the grip angle forces your arm down below the firearm and 2: I have yet to go to the range and not have to reload at some point, and I've got two pistol grips on my AK!!!

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Oh, let's not forget the antis and their caliber BS. .50 cal rifles are capable of bagging airliners from a mile+ away as they're taking off and landing.

Clearly people that failed high school physics. There is something I always point out whenever I hear ridiculous comments about a single randomly placed .50bmg round causing an airliner to fall out of the sky. There are tons of documented accounts of planes back since the WWI era and up to the present day of fighter jets, bombers, and other combat aircraft managing to survive up to hundreds of hits from small arms fire up to stuff over .50bmg like 14.5mm and some of those aircraft even managed to land back at base. Hell, there was an account of an American fighter jet, of which I can't remember the exact type (I'm thinking an A-10 for some reason) that had most of one of it's wings BLOWN OFF and the pilot still managed to limp the thing back to base with practically just 1 wing!

 

[wllmwallace]

[url]http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm[/URL]

 

[M. Sage]

Clearly people that failed high school physics. There is something I always point out whenever I hear ridiculous comments about a single randomly placed .50bmg round causing an airliner to fall out of the sky. There are tons of documented accounts of planes back since the WWI era and up to the present day of fighter jets, bombers, and other combat aircraft managing to survive up to hundreds of hits from small arms fire up to stuff over .50bmg like 14.5mm and some of those aircraft even managed to land back at base. Hell, there was an account of an American fighter jet, of which I can't remember the exact type (I'm thinking an A-10 for some reason) that had most of one of it's wings BLOWN OFF and the pilot still managed to limp the thing back to base with practically just 1 wing!

A-10 can and has done it (it's designed to lose half a wing). An Israeli F-15 was involved in a mid-air and lost an entire wing and the pilot brought it in. When the McDonnell Douglas reps saw the plane, they thought it had been a ground incident and initially racked up the mid-air collision story they got to linguistic difficulties.

The B17 was legendary for taking insane damage and still flying home.

Modern airliners can take a lot of punishment, too with all the redundant systems, etc. Any of them are capable of flying and landing on one engine.

 

[idleprocess]

The Israeli F-15 that survived a mid-air collision that basically removed the starboard wing:
Spluch: F-15 Lands Miraculously With an Entire Wing Missing

A real testament to the pilot's skill and the flight computer's ability to compensate for damage to the control surfaces.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

The Israeli F-15 that survived a mid-air collision that basically removed the starboard wing:
Spluch: F-15 Lands Miraculously With an Entire Wing Missing

A real testament to the pilot's skill and the flight computer's ability to compensate for damage to the control surfaces.

Guess that's the one I was thinking of.

 

[wrtanker]

"One of my faves is Last Man Standing with Bruce Willis, especially when he's sitting there with a case of ammo and beaucoup mags, just loading up one after another. Thats one of the few movies that I've seen that there was actually reloading in it... Theres a few times where he goes over the round count, but at least he reloads..."

I LOVE this movie! Of course, Bruce needs all that ammo because he sprays with two guns all over the place! The movie is a remake of "For a Fistful of Dollars" with Clint Eastwood. Great guy movies.

As for racking the slide or pumping the pump etc after a dramatic pause, I've always had a problem with the professional person (LEO, spec ops, etc) who is about to go into a fight. He draws his weapon and checks to see if it is loaded. Has he really been carrying it all this time without being sure?

 

[M. Sage]

If you have time for a press check or status check, it's worth doing IMO. You don't rely on your memory to insure a gun is unloaded, do you? So why do the opposite?

 

[Texas1911]

Speaking of reloading, the start of Punisher: Warzone (I think that's the name) has actual reloading. He makes his own .500 S&W ammo.

 

[Texas42]

Speaking of reloading, the start of Punisher: Warzone (I think that's the name) has actual reloading. He makes his own .500 S&W ammo.

I was expecting so much more from that movie. The first one was pretty good.

 

[wrtanker]

"If you have time for a press check or status check, it's worth doing IMO. You don't rely on your memory to insure a gun is unloaded, do you? So why do the opposite?"

If I'm carrying my weapon, especially if I'm expecting to use it, it's in condition 1. That's the status quo. Always. (I'm a 1911 man.) Checking to ensure unloaded is a safety issue. If it's in my holster and I'm out and about then it's loaded and ready to go. Anything else would be negligent. That's just me, of course.

 

[TexasRedneck]

That's fine and good - but if I'm going into a Severe Social Situation and have the convenience/luxury of confirming C-1 - I AM gonna do it. "Oops" is WAY too late.

 

[wrtanker]

Understood. Not an argument against it. We each have to do our own TTPs.