J. D. Slocomb on Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:48:28
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:40:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:29:29 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
says...
On 11 Oct 2010 23:30:03 GMT, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2010-10-11, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:40:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
[ ... ]

However I do wonder what qualifies the Garand as less of a "battle
rifle" and more of a "target rifle" than the Lee-Enfield.

Because the Lee Enfield can be buried in mud, used to pry out a Bren
carrier and then used as a tent pole, and when needed, it will fire

The Garand...unfortunately...wont fire when treated that way. Least not
more than once.

Not seeing the quoted post, so responding here.

Do us a favor. Get a Lee Enfield. Fill the bore up with mud and bend
the barrel. Now shoot it. Get back to us when you get out of the
hospital.

Get a Garand. Repeat the test. Have your widow notify the group.

This means what exactly? Or are you desperately seeking something to be
right about?

Plus it holds 3 rounds less than the LE

So how fast can each get 30 rounds downrange?

Isnt Aimed Fire the key to winning a battle? Or am I mistaken?

Probably not now and never has been.

Actually it has been. (Accurate Aimed Fire). That it often wasn't
used, and that it is often difficult to get soldiers to aim at another
human being, are a drawback. I recall reading of a test the Imperial
Austrian Army performed, where it had a battalion line up and fire at
a large canvas with human sized targets on it, to represent an enemy
unit. Sixty percent hits. But later, that same unit got over run
because it couldn't hit the enemy soldiers. Targets are not the same
as people.
With the development of firearms, and more importantly the
magazine, battle rifles became also a big noise maker. A way of
saying "I'm here, I'm bad, don't mess with me." while still keeping a
round available if something should show up.


The battle of Aquincourt, for example, where victory was attributed to
the English long bow, was primarily a matter of volley fire by massed
archers at long range.
During American Civil War (I believe the first example of rifled arms
used as primary weapons) at the Battle of First Bull Run it has been
estimated that between 8,000 and 10,000 rounds were fired for every
soldier killed or wounded.
In more modern times the Australians reporting on the Battle of
Longtan stated that the entire battle took place in an area
approximately the size of two football fields, an estimated 400,000
rounds of small arms ammunition (combined both sides) was expanded as
well as 3,500 rounds of artillery. The artillery fired nearly
continuously for 5 hours, equal to approximately 30 bullets per sq.
yd. and one shell per 4 sq. yd. over the entire battle field.
Total estimated casualties, killed and wounded, (Total both sides) was
1830. A minimum of 218 rounds of small arms ammunition expended per
casualty, assuming some causalities due to artillery fire.

If memory serves, the US Army in Vietnam expended around fifty
thousand rounds for every confirmed kill. Considering the number of
machine guns, mini guns, "mad minutes", and "covering fire" - I'm not
surprised. "Recon by fire" makes the shooter feel better, but doesn't
necessarily hurt the enemy. OTOH, it isn't the one with your name on
it - but the one addressed "Occupant" or "To Whom It May Concern" that
you need to worry about.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!