A BAR is 30/06 caliber. The 50 cal machine gun is an M2 but it's not a BAR.

--

Clif Holland, KA5IPF
www.avvid.com


"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:16:34 GMT, "Bernd" wrote:


I seen a bit on 60 Minutes on Sunday night here on the east coast that
Arnie wants to ban the purchase of the 50 Cal gun. Anybody else see this
segment? (Metal content - the rifle is made of metal)

Bernd

The California ban went into effect Jan 1 of this year. All current
.50s must be registered.

Typical bull**** feel-goodism. A criminal pays no attention to the
law, and it only effects those that have no intention of using one
unlawfully in the first place. Since there have been NO incidents
anywhere in the US that Im aware of with these firearms, the only need
to address them was that of the Left to once again make the public
think the Left was doing something For the public, rather than its
usual To the public.

Gunner

There was a close call in Beaverton, where a collector of WWII firearms
went around the bend (or a guy who was around the bend started
collecting). Based on some ranting comments that he had made to
acquaintances the cops waited until he was out of the house to raid --
they found a .50 caliber BAR on a tripod aimed out his living room window,
ready to mow down everyone on the street.

Not that they should be banned, IMHO.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Bernd wrote:

Typical bull**** feel-goodism. A criminal pays no attention to the
law, and it only effects those that have no intention of using one
unlawfully in the first place. Since there have been NO incidents
anywhere in the US that Im aware of with these firearms, the only need
to address them was that of the Left to once again make the public
think the Left was doing something For the public, rather than its
usual To the public.

Gunner


Gunner,

Are you saying Arnei is a Lefty? I thought he was Right.

The guy that manufactures them said the same thing that criminals pay no
attention to the law. The guy that opposes the ownership of the rifle
said something to the effect of terrorist getting hold of one of these
and shooting down planes. It was stated that the only time that would be
possible was during take off or landing. The guy that manufactures them
was very good in defending the right to own one of these. I was
impressed with the fire power that thing has. They showed firing it a
steal targets. Boy would it be fun to own one of them.

Yeah, but I hope you have lotsa money for "groceries" to feed it.... :-)

-jc-

Orrin Iseminger wrote:

On 10 Jan 2005 16:58:59 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


On 10 Jan 2005 08:57:21 -0800, wrote:

Yes, saw it. More of the same old stuff. Ban the legal ownership so
only the criminals will be able to own them.

Did they mention that no crimes have been committed with the Barrett?


It was mentioned.

Mostly, the 'fraidy-cats are worried about the terrorist potential,
i.e., they could knock out electrical equipment, hazardous materials
storage tanks, etc. from a considerable distance.

Let me see if I understand the "logic": If we ban John Smith down the block
from owning one, Osama bin Laden's minions will also be unable to obtain one? or
they will only be unable to shoot it at airplanes, power substations, fuel
storage tanks, etc.?

Who the hell elected these goddamn fools?

-jc-

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you

can't

commit a crime with it.


Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,
they'll come up with a method to execute their plan. No gun? How about a
fire bomb? No fire bomb? How about a syringe loaded with AIDS
contaminated blood? How about a screw driver? Hammer? Ball bat?
An automobile? The list is endless. Crime can't be controlled by
removing all the potential weapons. Hell, we'd all have to go around naked
if that were the case.

Rape?

-jc-

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:05:31 GMT, John Chase
wrote:

Orrin Iseminger wrote:

On 10 Jan 2005 16:58:59 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


On 10 Jan 2005 08:57:21 -0800, wrote:

Yes, saw it. More of the same old stuff. Ban the legal ownership so
only the criminals will be able to own them.

Did they mention that no crimes have been committed with the Barrett?


It was mentioned.

Mostly, the 'fraidy-cats are worried about the terrorist potential,
i.e., they could knock out electrical equipment, hazardous materials
storage tanks, etc. from a considerable distance.

Let me see if I understand the "logic": If we ban John Smith down the block
from owning one, Osama bin Laden's minions will also be unable to obtain one? or
they will only be unable to shoot it at airplanes, power substations, fuel
storage tanks, etc.?

Who the hell elected these goddamn fools?

-jc-
Same as up here in the Frozen North where, if we know who admits to
having long guns, we will eliminate all crime involving firearms. Who?
WE THE IDIOT VOTERS!

Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

"John Chase" wrote in message
om...
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
snip------


I'm not saying that guns cause crime - admittedly in some cases they
enable it - but the trivial point that if you don't have the gun, you

can't

commit a crime with it.


Chuckle! That's what's wrong. That's flawed thinking.

The crime and the weapon of choice typically have nothing to do with one
another. So long as a person is hell bent on doing the wrong thing,
they'll come up with a method to execute their plan. No gun? How
about a
fire bomb? No fire bomb? How about a syringe loaded with AIDS
contaminated blood? How about a screw driver? Hammer? Ball bat?
An automobile? The list is endless. Crime can't be controlled by
removing all the potential weapons. Hell, we'd all have to go around
naked
if that were the case.

Rape?

-jc-


I trust that's not an offer! g

Harold

In article ,
John Chase wrote:

Let me see if I understand the "logic": If we ban John Smith down the block
from owning one, Osama bin Laden's minions will also be unable to obtain one?
or
they will only be unable to shoot it at airplanes, power substations, fuel
storage tanks, etc.?

Who the hell elected these goddamn fools?

Foolish voters, which is why voters should be required to meet minimum
qualifications before being allowed to vote. See my web page for
details.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber rifle
in North America?
There is nothing there that hasn't been taken with a .303.
Maybe things have grown since I left.
Tom
wrote in message
...
On 12 Jan 2005 21:35:58 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:07:47 -0800, Bob wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

And if you're not a criminal, you're not going to commit a crime no
matter
how many guns you have.

So - if you are not a criminal, you cannot become one??

You're either a good person, or a bad person. The presence of a
firearm, or a dozen firearms, or a hundred firearms, is not
going to change you from one to the other.

I'd phrase it slightly differently. You're either prone to commit
violence or your're not. "Criminal" implies someone who has been
convicted of a crime. Many of these people have never been convicted
until they do something like kill someone.

But the principle is right on.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:37:34 +1100, Tom Miller wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber rifle
in North America?
There is nothing there that hasn't been taken with a .303.
Maybe things have grown since I left.

It's an excellent target rifle, but expensive to feed. I don't think it's
so much a "what would you need it for" question, as a "why would you have
a problem with someone owning something that's never been used in a crime"
kind of thing.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:37:34 +1100, "Tom Miller"
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber rifle
in North America?
There is nothing there that hasn't been taken with a .303.
Maybe things have grown since I left.
Tom

What do you shoot? Targets.

--RC

wrote in message
.. .
On 12 Jan 2005 21:35:58 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:07:47 -0800, Bob wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

And if you're not a criminal, you're not going to commit a crime no
matter
how many guns you have.

So - if you are not a criminal, you cannot become one??

You're either a good person, or a bad person. The presence of a
firearm, or a dozen firearms, or a hundred firearms, is not
going to change you from one to the other.

I'd phrase it slightly differently. You're either prone to commit
violence or your're not. "Criminal" implies someone who has been
convicted of a crime. Many of these people have never been convicted
until they do something like kill someone.

But the principle is right on.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "Tom Miller"
wrote back on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:37:34 +1100 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber rifle
in North America?

Well, there are the occasional feral oil barrel. Very dangerous, and a
mere 30 caliber rifle just doesn't do the trick.

And we mustn't forget the Chevy Short block. Yes, you can take them
down with a lesser caliber, but ... well, it lacks grace.

And there is nothing like making large rocks into gravel at a thousand
yards, or so I'm told.

There is nothing there that hasn't been taken with a .303.

True. But can you imagine the effect of even a near miss on a rabid
Honda Civic? Just flips them over.

Maybe things have grown since I left.

Mostly the deficit.

Tom

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show
wrote back on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:12:07 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:37:34 +1100, "Tom Miller"
wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber rifle
in North America?
There is nothing there that hasn't been taken with a .303.
Maybe things have grown since I left.
Tom

What do you shoot? Targets.

I hope you mean the paper sort, and not the store.

I mean, Target has made some bad decisions of late, but shooting the
stores is a bit over doing it, doncha think?


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

Tom Miller wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber rifle
in North America?

Lots of us just like to poke holes in paper targets from obscene distances. :-)

-jc-

Dangerous stuff, that paper.


"John Chase" wrote in message
.. .
Tom Miller wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber
rifle
in North America?

Lots of us just like to poke holes in paper targets from obscene
distances. :-)

-jc-

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:10:08 +1100, "Tom Miller"
wrote:

Dangerous stuff, that paper.


"John Chase" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Miller wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what the hell do you shoot with a .50 caliber
rifle
in North America?

Lots of us just like to poke holes in paper targets from obscene
distances. :-)

-jc-



Of what use are Hummel figurines, old carnival glass, and any motor
vehicle that can exceed the speed limit?

Of what good are machine tools for hobbyists?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Tom Miller" wrote in
:

Dangerous stuff, that paper.
snip
Especially if it is made up of ink marks pertaining to a binding contract
or execution order. ;0)

In article 42,
granpaw wrote:

"Tom Miller" wrote in
:

Dangerous stuff, that paper.
snip
Especially if it is made up of ink marks pertaining to a binding contract
or execution order. ;0)

Or says "elect Feinstein" with photo

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Could use some simple plans to build a small type of plasma cutter - have old
welding transformers and such for parts if usefull... either 110 volt or 220....
if anyone possibly has such available.

Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

BAR - Browning Automatic Rifle - doesn't sound like a bolt action to me.

Bob,
The B.A.R. is not a .50 caliber it is a .30 caliber. More like the old 30/06
than the .308 used after WW2.
DL

On 01 Feb 2005 05:19:43 GMT, Gunluvver2 wrote:
Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

BAR - Browning Automatic Rifle - doesn't sound like a bolt action to me.

Bob,
The B.A.R. is not a .50 caliber it is a .30 caliber. More like the old 30/06

Exactly like a .30-06, actually, that being the caliber.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 01 Feb 2005 05:19:43 GMT, Gunluvver2 wrote:
Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

BAR - Browning Automatic Rifle - doesn't sound like a bolt action to me.

Bob,
The B.A.R. is not a .50 caliber it is a .30 caliber. More like the old
30/06

Exactly like a .30-06, actually, that being the caliber.

Well, that's .30/06, the '06 referring to the year it was first put into
use. .30/40 and .30/30 refer to the caliber and then to the
grains-equivalent (of black powder, although they were generally loaded with
smokeless) they were loaded with. .22-250 refers first to the caliber, and
then to the designation of the .25-caliber cartridge it was derived from.
..25/06 refers first to the caliber, and then to the latter part of the
designation of the cartridge it was derived from (.30/06). The .25/06 was
*not* introduced in 1906.

The numbers can mean a variety of things. To two-digit accuracy, .30/06 is
still a .30-caliber.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:38:06 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Exactly like a .30-06, actually, that being the caliber.

Well, that's .30/06, the '06 referring to the year it was first put into
use.

I believe you'll find it's .30-06, not .30/06. Google confirms
this.

.30/40 and .30/30 refer to the caliber and then to the
grains-equivalent (of black powder, although they were generally loaded with
smokeless) they were loaded with.

Right, which is why /06 would be a meaningless thing to have on the end
of a load which uses considerably more powder (smokeless _or_ equivalent).

The numbers can mean a variety of things. To two-digit accuracy, .30/06 is
still a .30-caliber.

Agreed, but it's spelled .30-06, and not .30/06. That's my point.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 01 Feb 2005 05:19:43 GMT, Gunluvver2 wrote:
Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

BAR - Browning Automatic Rifle - doesn't sound like a bolt action to
me.

Bob,
The B.A.R. is not a .50 caliber it is a .30 caliber. More like the old
30/06

Exactly like a .30-06, actually, that being the caliber.

Well, that's .30/06, the '06 referring to the year it was first put into
use. .30/40 and .30/30 refer to the caliber and then to the
grains-equivalent (of black powder, although they were generally loaded
with
smokeless) they were loaded with. .22-250 refers first to the caliber, and
then to the designation of the .25-caliber cartridge it was derived from.
.25/06 refers first to the caliber, and then to the latter part of the
designation of the cartridge it was derived from (.30/06). The .25/06 was
*not* introduced in 1906.

The numbers can mean a variety of things. To two-digit accuracy, .30/06 is
still a .30-caliber.

I should correct that. Some nit-pickers are going to show up for sure. g I
believe that's actually a .308" diameter bullet. And the '06 may actually
have been implemented in '03, I don't recall.

A better example migh be the .218 Bee, .219 Zipper, .220 Swift, .221
Fireball, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .224 Weatherby Magnum, .225
Winchester series. Those may or may not refer to the bullet diameter; there
are several .22-cal bullet diameters, but the designations of the cartridges
are a mixed bag.

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:38:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Exactly like a .30-06, actually, that being the caliber.

Well, that's .30/06, the '06 referring to the year it was first put into
use.

I believe you'll find it's .30-06, not .30/06. Google confirms
this.

.30/40 and .30/30 refer to the caliber and then to the
grains-equivalent (of black powder, although they were generally loaded
with
smokeless) they were loaded with.

Right, which is why /06 would be a meaningless thing to have on the end
of a load which uses considerably more powder (smokeless _or_ equivalent).

The numbers can mean a variety of things. To two-digit accuracy, .30/06
is
still a .30-caliber.

Agreed, but it's spelled .30-06, and not .30/06. That's my point.

I think you'll find that it's been .30/06 for most of the past 100 years.
The hyphen is something that I first saw in the '60s and it struck me that
someone had made a mistake.

My Lyman Reloading Handbook (46th Ed.) says .30/06. So do several of my
pre-1950 gunsmithing books, of which I have around 30 or 40. I have a book
here written by one of the researchers for US armories; I'll have to see
what he says, but it's in my storage stack.

So, it depends on whether you're an old curmudgeon, like me g, or whether
you rely on Google to decide what is correct.

BTW, most sources also show .22-250 as ".22/250," so I slipped into a
debased bit of designation there, myself. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...

I should correct that. Some nit-pickers are going to show up for sure.
g I
believe that's actually a .308" diameter bullet. And the '06 may actually
have been implemented in '03, I don't recall.

The '06 was implemented in 1906. Referred to some changes centered
around a boat tail bullet.

Thanks, RC. I knew someone here would have it nailed down.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:58:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 01 Feb 2005 05:19:43 GMT, Gunluvver2 wrote:
Last time I looked, the 50s were bolt action. Not likely to mow
down.

BAR - Browning Automatic Rifle - doesn't sound like a bolt action to
me.

Bob,
The B.A.R. is not a .50 caliber it is a .30 caliber. More like the old
30/06

Exactly like a .30-06, actually, that being the caliber.

Well, that's .30/06, the '06 referring to the year it was first put into
use. .30/40 and .30/30 refer to the caliber and then to the
grains-equivalent (of black powder, although they were generally loaded
with
smokeless) they were loaded with. .22-250 refers first to the caliber, and
then to the designation of the .25-caliber cartridge it was derived from.
.25/06 refers first to the caliber, and then to the latter part of the
designation of the cartridge it was derived from (.30/06). The .25/06 was
*not* introduced in 1906.

The numbers can mean a variety of things. To two-digit accuracy, .30/06 is
still a .30-caliber.

I should correct that. Some nit-pickers are going to show up for sure. g I
believe that's actually a .308" diameter bullet. And the '06 may actually
have been implemented in '03, I don't recall.

The '06 was implemented in 1906. Referred to some changes centered
around a boat tail bullet.

See for example:

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/1903A3.htm

--RC



"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:58:25 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

I should correct that. Some nit-pickers are going to show up for sure. g I
believe that's actually a .308" diameter bullet. And the '06 may actually
have been implemented in '03, I don't recall.

The cartridge was implemented in 1903 as the .30-03, with a round nose
bullet. When it changed to a spitzer point, the round was re-named the
..30-06. I believe the chamber is somewhat different, as I recall
reading that some of the early 1903 Springfields had to be retrofitted.

A better example migh be the .218 Bee, .219 Zipper, .220 Swift, .221
Fireball, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .224 Weatherby Magnum, .225
Winchester series. Those may or may not refer to the bullet diameter; there
are several .22-cal bullet diameters, but the designations of the cartridges
are a mixed bag.

Calibers are named in a random and haphazard way. The .303 British
has a projectile of .310 or .311 (the .303 is the groove diameter,
not the land diameter). So, a .303 bullet is actually bigger than
a .308 bullet. 38 special is actually .357, and on and on and on.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:10:38 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Agreed, but it's spelled .30-06, and not .30/06. That's my point.

I think you'll find that it's been .30/06 for most of the past 100 years.
The hyphen is something that I first saw in the '60s and it struck me that
someone had made a mistake.

Could be. I'll check Hatcher's Notebook tonight & see what he says.

So, it depends on whether you're an old curmudgeon, like me g, or whether
you rely on Google to decide what is correct.

I like to think of myself as a young-ish curmudgeon, thankyouverymuch.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:58:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

I should correct that. Some nit-pickers are going to show up for sure.
g I
believe that's actually a .308" diameter bullet. And the '06 may
actually
have been implemented in '03, I don't recall.

The cartridge was implemented in 1903 as the .30-03, with a round nose
bullet. When it changed to a spitzer point, the round was re-named the
.30-06. I believe the chamber is somewhat different, as I recall
reading that some of the early 1903 Springfields had to be retrofitted.

A better example migh be the .218 Bee, .219 Zipper, .220 Swift, .221
Fireball, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .224 Weatherby Magnum, .225
Winchester series. Those may or may not refer to the bullet diameter;
there
are several .22-cal bullet diameters, but the designations of the
cartridges
are a mixed bag.

Calibers are named in a random and haphazard way. The .303 British
has a projectile of .310 or .311 (the .303 is the groove diameter,
not the land diameter).

Ah, Dave, if you shoot a .310-diameter jacketed bullet in a barrel with a
..303 groove diameter, you're in for some trouble. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:44:33 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Calibers are named in a random and haphazard way. The .303 British
has a projectile of .310 or .311 (the .303 is the groove diameter,
not the land diameter).

Ah, Dave, if you shoot a .310-diameter jacketed bullet in a barrel with a
.303 groove diameter, you're in for some trouble. g

Like I said, "land diameter". Dammit. Except that it's 5 lands so it's
a bitch to measure.

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:49:42 -0800, Tom wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:10:38 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Agreed, but it's spelled .30-06, and not .30/06. That's my point.

I think you'll find that it's been .30/06 for most of the past 100 years.
The hyphen is something that I first saw in the '60s and it struck me that
someone had made a mistake.

Could be. I'll check Hatcher's Notebook tonight & see what he says.

So, it depends on whether you're an old curmudgeon, like me g, or whether
you rely on Google to decide what is correct.

I like to think of myself as a young-ish curmudgeon, thankyouverymuch.

Actually Hatcher refers to it as the .30-'06 :-)

Thanks, you saved me some time. Then again, I'm due for a reread of
that book anyway.

Dave

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:10:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Agreed, but it's spelled .30-06, and not .30/06. That's my point.

I think you'll find that it's been .30/06 for most of the past 100
years.
The hyphen is something that I first saw in the '60s and it struck me
that
someone had made a mistake.

Could be. I'll check Hatcher's Notebook tonight & see what he says.

So, it depends on whether you're an old curmudgeon, like me g, or
whether
you rely on Google to decide what is correct.

I like to think of myself as a young-ish curmudgeon, thankyouverymuch.

Actually Hatcher refers to it as the .30-'06 :-)

Well, among the majors, C.S. Landis (1947) says .30/06. L.R. Wallack (1983)
says .30/06. Lyman's says .30/06. I think Gunner has O'Conner, although I
may, too, in storage.

My James Virgil Howe is in storage. He was doing small-arms research for the
Army before Hatcher, so we'll see what he says, if I get the time to dig it
out.

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:44:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Calibers are named in a random and haphazard way. The .303 British
has a projectile of .310 or .311 (the .303 is the groove diameter,
not the land diameter).

Ah, Dave, if you shoot a .310-diameter jacketed bullet in a barrel with
a
.303 groove diameter, you're in for some trouble. g

Like I said, "land diameter". Dammit. Except that it's 5 lands so it's
a bitch to measure.

I'm not following you. The .303 is indeed land diameter. You measure it with
a plug gage. Is that what you meant?

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:10:38 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Agreed, but it's spelled .30-06, and not .30/06. That's my
point.

I think you'll find that it's been .30/06 for most of the past 100
years.
The hyphen is something that I first saw in the '60s and it struck
me
that
someone had made a mistake.

Could be. I'll check Hatcher's Notebook tonight & see what he says.

So, it depends on whether you're an old curmudgeon, like me g,
or
whether
you rely on Google to decide what is correct.

I like to think of myself as a young-ish curmudgeon,
thankyouverymuch.

Actually Hatcher refers to it as the .30-'06 :-)

Well, among the majors, C.S. Landis (1947) says .30/06. L.R. Wallack
(1983)
says .30/06. Lyman's says .30/06. I think Gunner has O'Conner, although
I
may, too, in storage.

My James Virgil Howe is in storage. He was doing small-arms research for
the
Army before Hatcher, so we'll see what he says, if I get the time to dig
it
out.

--
Ed Huntress

I think a Major General outranks majors.:-)

.30-'06 according to Rifles, Vol 2 NRA Book of Small Arms 1948
Walter H B Smith,

Tom

Well, it appears that there is no such official designation at all. A
history of it, written by Dave Petzal for Field & Stream, says: "Not to be
outdone, the U.S. Army modified the '03 to take a 150-grain bullet that
could reach out to where the Huns were and renamed it "U.S. Cartridge, Model
of 1906." Because that was a mouthful, people have called it the .30/06."

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Well, it appears that there is no such official designation at all. A
history of it, written by Dave Petzal for Field & Stream, says: "Not to
be
outdone, the U.S. Army modified the '03 to take a 150-grain bullet that
could reach out to where the Huns were and renamed it "U.S. Cartridge,
Model
of 1906." Because that was a mouthful, people have called it the
..30/06."

--
Ed Huntress

Hardly credible quote.
Rather slovenly research by Petzal, I didn't think the US were at war
with
Germany in 1906?

You can check it out for yourself, Tom. See what the original, offical US
Army designation was, and see what you can make of the shortened versions.

It had nothing to do with war with Germany. It had to do with Mauser's
developments at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Well, it appears that there is no such official designation at all.
A
history of it, written by Dave Petzal for Field & Stream, says: "Not
to
be
outdone, the U.S. Army modified the '03 to take a 150-grain bullet
that
could reach out to where the Huns were and renamed it "U.S.
Cartridge,
Model
of 1906." Because that was a mouthful, people have called it the
.30/06."

--
Ed Huntress

Hardly credible quote.
Rather slovenly research by Petzal, I didn't think the US were at war
with
Germany in 1906?

You can check it out for yourself, Tom. See what the original, offical
US
Army designation was, and see what you can make of the shortened
versions.

It had nothing to do with war with Germany. It had to do with Mauser's
developments at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

"the U.S. Army modified the '03 to take a 150-grain bullet that
could reach out to where the Huns were...."

What was that all about?

Keeping up with Mauser, as Germany was considered to be one of the potential
military threats.

The Mauser 98 stimulated most of the other western nations to upgrade their
service rifles (that's where the Springfield '03 came from), and they
watched Mauser's cartridge developments closely, too.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Well, it appears that there is no such official designation at all.
A
history of it, written by Dave Petzal for Field & Stream, says: "Not
to
be
outdone, the U.S. Army modified the '03 to take a 150-grain bullet
that
could reach out to where the Huns were and renamed it "U.S.
Cartridge,
Model
of 1906." Because that was a mouthful, people have called it the
.30/06."

--
Ed Huntress

Hardly credible quote.
Rather slovenly research by Petzal, I didn't think the US were at war
with
Germany in 1906?

You can check it out for yourself, Tom. See what the original, offical
US
Army designation was, and see what you can make of the shortened
versions.

It had nothing to do with war with Germany. It had to do with Mauser's
developments at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

As regards the 1903 Springfield, it came about as a result
of US forces encountering Mausers in the Spanish_American War.
The superiority of the Mausers to the US arms caused Chief
of Ordnance to order a new arm be developed...

Exactly. That's what I just said in a previous message. Although Spain
became less of a threat, Germany was still there.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Well, it appears that there is no such official designation at
all.
A
history of it, written by Dave Petzal for Field & Stream, says:
"Not
to
be
outdone, the U.S. Army modified the '03 to take a 150-grain
bullet
that
could reach out to where the Huns were and renamed it "U.S.
Cartridge,
Model
of 1906." Because that was a mouthful, people have called it the
.30/06."

--
Ed Huntress

Hardly credible quote.
Rather slovenly research by Petzal, I didn't think the US were at
war
with
Germany in 1906?

You can check it out for yourself, Tom. See what the original,
offical
US
Army designation was, and see what you can make of the shortened
versions.

It had nothing to do with war with Germany. It had to do with
Mauser's
developments at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

As regards the 1903 Springfield, it came about as a result
of US forces encountering Mausers in the Spanish_American War.
The superiority of the Mausers to the US arms caused Chief
of Ordnance to order a new arm be developed...

Exactly. That's what I just said in a previous message. Although Spain
became less of a threat, Germany was still there.

--
Ed Huntress

Rubbish. The fact that Mauser supplied the long arms to virtually
every South American country in that era would have been the incentive.

I see. Well, professor, we'll look forward to reading your book.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Well, it appears that there is no such official designation
at
all.
A
history of it, written by Dave Petzal for Field & Stream,
says:
"Not
to
be
outdone, the U.S. Army modified the '03 to take a 150-grain
bullet
that
could reach out to where the Huns were and renamed it "U.S.
Cartridge,
Model
of 1906." Because that was a mouthful, people have called it
the
.30/06."

--
Ed Huntress

Hardly credible quote.
Rather slovenly research by Petzal, I didn't think the US were
at
war
with
Germany in 1906?

You can check it out for yourself, Tom. See what the original,
offical
US
Army designation was, and see what you can make of the shortened
versions.

It had nothing to do with war with Germany. It had to do with
Mauser's
developments at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

As regards the 1903 Springfield, it came about as a result
of US forces encountering Mausers in the Spanish_American War.
The superiority of the Mausers to the US arms caused Chief
of Ordnance to order a new arm be developed...

Exactly. That's what I just said in a previous message. Although
Spain
became less of a threat, Germany was still there.

--
Ed Huntress

Rubbish. The fact that Mauser supplied the long arms to virtually
every South American country in that era would have been the
incentive.

I see. Well, professor, we'll look forward to reading your book.

--
Ed Huntress

Perhaps if you stooped to read Hatcher on the subject, you might
become more enlightened.

I read Hatcher 40 years ago, Tom. I haven't had enough interest to do so
again.

Further reading would uncover that the
US paid Mauser (the enemy) in the 1890s, royalties for Springfield
Armory to build an American Mauser.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. The Springfield was based on the Mauser design,
and replaced the Krag-Jorgenson, and example of which I also once owned.
I've owned 3 Springfield '03s, including an A4, studied the three phases of
heat-treatment/metallurgy that they used over the years, learned to do
spot-annealing a a case-hardened '03 receiver, and helped my uncle do an
Arisaka-type recessed-head conversion to an '03, over 30 years ago, on the
lathe I now own.

If you were a young rifle shooter in the US, in the late '50s and early
'60s, the '03 was one of the primary, basic rifles you were exposed to, and
you likely knew their history pretty well. My dad had one at Guadalcanal.
Half of the wildcat conversions in those days were made on '03 actions. It
was like being a car buff and knowing the history of the small-clock Chevy.

Hatcher's book is a very important reference in the field. Howe's series (I
have the original 3-volume set, which later became a 2-volume set) was
considered the most authoritative series of books of gunsmithing
information, particularly on military rifles, ever published in the US. It's
the standard for anyone interested in sophisticated custom work on US
military rifles of the period.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:22:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

I should correct that. Some nit-pickers are going to show up for sure.
g I
believe that's actually a .308" diameter bullet. And the '06 may actually
have been implemented in '03, I don't recall.

The '06 was implemented in 1906. Referred to some changes centered
around a boat tail bullet.

Thanks, RC. I knew someone here would have it nailed down.

Actually, the neck and the shoulder angle was changed in the 06
version. While similar, they may not be fired in the same chamber. It
also shot a lighter bullet. the 03 shot a 220 gr round nose.

Here is a fun link
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/...ics/cases.html

Gunner


It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)