[Sent this morning, 1/11, to algebra.com address. Not received as of 11 hours later. So am sending out to cyberpass.net address.] At 1:12 PM +0100 1/11/01, Tom wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
Up until then I thought I did too...I"m not so sure any more.
It's not a clone of the HK G3 as it was explained to me, it was apparently used as an interim weapon when the German Army dropped the HK G3 as a standard issue weapon a few years ago (ala G11). Maybe FAL, they're selling a 'G1' rifle that uses caseless ammo? Though I can't find a reference to any such rifle. Maybe it was CETME you do see their gun pushed as the 'G3' (the HK is a 'clone' or derived weapon from the Spanish gun).
a friend of mine was an officer in the german army until very recently (he decided to get a real job :) ) - give me 24 hours and I'll tell you exactly what the past and current standard issue weapons are and what kind of ammo they fire.
On Choate's point above, it is not FAL (a rifle, but I assume Choate must mean the maker of the FAL, Fabrique Nationale, now owned by another company, IIRC) who are making a caseless ammo rifle. Rather, it is in fact H-K. The G11 has been in development for close to 30 years now. (H-K are _also_ owned by another company. Last I heard, a British company bought H-K, though the factories and design groups remain in Germany.) Most NATO countries have now adopted some variant of the 5.56 mm cartridge, in either M-16-type variants or in bullpup designs like the excellent Steyr AUG or the newer HK G36 (with a civilian model, the SL8). Neither the caseless ammo of the H-K G11 not the flechette-firing prototypes are getting wide acceptance. And as relates to Choate's "I was right" point, repeated again recently, the G3 in use by the German army was most definitely a 7.62 mm, i.e., a .308 Winchester. It was _not_ the 5.56 mm variant, at least not for wide use. (I say this because quibblers like Choate like to find examples where _someone_ used a 5.56 mm and then say "See, I was RIGHT!") --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Tim May wrote:
And as relates to Choate's "I was right" point, repeated again recently, the G3 in use by the German army was most definitely a 7.62 mm, i.e., a .308 Winchester. It was _not_ the 5.56 mm variant, at least not for wide use. (I say this because quibblers like Choate like to find examples where _someone_ used a 5.56 mm and then say "See, I was RIGHT!")
should be no problem getting an authoritative answer on that. I'll call my friend again this evening. he's been using that weapon for a couple of years, he should definitely know which rounds go with it. :)
Not to be contrary but the crypto relationship is just too much.... What makes 'your friend' an authority? Why should we take your word for it? How do we know that you're not Tim via an alternate account or a friend in collusion? How do we authenticate your friend (ie pk management)? On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tom wrote:
should be no problem getting an authoritative answer on that. I'll call my friend again this evening. he's been using that weapon for a couple of years, he should definitely know which rounds go with it. :)
____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
Not to be contrary but the crypto relationship is just too much....
ok, so let's play the game and assume you're not just trolling:
What makes 'your friend' an authority?
he had the weapon in question in hand pretty much every day for several years. he trained new recruits on it. I bet he can disassemble, clean and reassemble it blindfolded. is that enough authority to answer a simple question on ammunition?
Why should we take your word for it?
because I have nothing to gain by stating anything false, while I do have reputation capital to gain by making truthful statements based on actual research.
How do we know that you're not Tim via an alternate account or a friend in collusion?
you are free to come over to germany and verify my existence in person. in addition, I've been too long on this list to be a prank for this unimportant issue. third, you can make a call to my company and ask to be connected to me. ricardo.de happens to be a little too large for tim to buy up just to create a fake account.
How do we authenticate your friend (ie pk management)?
web-of-trust. I will authenticate my friend by having a face-to-face meeting. you can authenticate my words via PGP if you want to, I can sign the mail. which leaves only me as a possible instance of introducing false facts, and that point has been answered above. now as to how to authenticate whether or not my friend is what I claim he is - well, I'm sure he has the appropriate documents that could be checked for forgery, etc. if you insist (and pay the costs) that could surely be arranged.
At 7:55 AM -0600 1/12/01, Jim Choate wrote:
Not to be contrary but the crypto relationship is just too much....
What makes 'your friend' an authority? Why should we take your word for it? How do we know that you're not Tim via an alternate account or a friend in collusion?
So, Jim Choate has evolved to the "Tom is a tentacle of Tim" stage of dementia. Hilarious. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tim May wrote:
At 7:55 AM -0600 1/12/01, Jim Choate wrote:
Not to be contrary but the crypto relationship is just too much....
What makes 'your friend' an authority? Why should we take your word for it? How do we know that you're not Tim via an alternate account or a friend in collusion?
So, Jim Choate has evolved to the "Tom is a tentacle of Tim" stage of dementia.
No, simply pointing out that you've admitted to use this anonymously. No reason to suspect you couldn't be this person either. No claim for actuality, just an observation of potentiality. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Tim May attempt at changing history. "No, it wasn't ME that made that claim, it was Choate!, yeah, that's it. Blaim it on Choate." It's as lame as his 'Choate claimed Gauss' Law didn't apply' when in fact it was Tim who made the claim. Don't answer the question, complain about the quoting practice, or that it has an attachment, anything but participating as an EQUAL in a dialectic. Go back to the archives and you will find Tim May claiming that ANY HK rifle with *3 (eg 93 or G3) is a .223 whereas the *1's (eg 91) are .308. When in fact the '3 means .223' applied ONLY to the '90' (ie 91 or 93) class weapons. The reality (which Tim never admited either) is that a G3 IS in fact a 91, or the other way around if you prefer historical lineage. The G3 was the mil-spec and the 91 was the civilian clone. But hey, since when was Tim interested in FACTS? Never. He went on and on about the '3 means .223' and that this applied to ALL HK weapons. Check the archives. At one point I forwared a HK hompage asking him to explain the page. He never responded. Though he did continue the ad hominim. The rest of the points, who didn't make the 'other G3' or who happens to own HK today are his typical strawman argument techniques. Don't answer the question, it might be unfomfortable. As to people trying to paint life with broad strokes and ignoring the distinctions is another typicall May'ism. He's always making comparisons that are flawed because of some 'minor' point that Tim 'overlooked'. It's 'minor' because it usually blows a hole the size of a grayhound bus in whatever crank anarchist idea he's had today (crack induced is a supposition at best). Tim's general approach (Declan's as well) is "if they disagree with me they must be stupid". What you'll find is Tim making argument after argument but he never defends them. When questioned he simply attacks the questioner and hopes nobody notices he slipped the real point in the dialectic. He's always claiming how easy it would be to destroy this argument or that, but when it comes down to it Timmy always comes up short. He NEVER participates. He's quick to lay the challenge down but he's never delivered. A perfect example of intellectus interruptus. Look at the free market/economic equilibrium debate. He's quick to refer to Hayek, though never by particular quote that is verifiable. And when he is faced with Hayek quotes to the contrary he attacks the messenger. He's quick to suggest this or that book but when questioned he never has a responce. Sometimes I doubt he actually reads them. Just puts them on the shelf so he can be somebody. His backstroke isn't any better today than yesterday. Tim believe he should be able to dictate from on high and that he has zero responsiblity to other people with respect to treating them with respect or consideration, let alone responding to questions about his claims. Come on Tim, show us the email wher I (not you) claim Gauss's Law doesn't apply? Show us the email where I (not you) claim the G3 is not .308. Or that ESS's are real, or how the economic equilibrium is achieved in the bullshit anarchic free market. Etc., etc., etc. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tim May wrote:
On Choate's point above, it is not FAL (a rifle, but I assume Choate must mean the maker of the FAL, Fabrique Nationale, now owned by another company, IIRC) who are making a caseless ammo rifle. Rather, it is in fact H-K. The G11 has been in development for close to 30 years now.
(H-K are _also_ owned by another company. Last I heard, a British company bought H-K, though the factories and design groups remain in Germany.)
Most NATO countries have now adopted some variant of the 5.56 mm cartridge, in either M-16-type variants or in bullpup designs like the excellent Steyr AUG or the newer HK G36 (with a civilian model, the SL8). Neither the caseless ammo of the H-K G11 not the flechette-firing prototypes are getting wide acceptance.
And as relates to Choate's "I was right" point, repeated again recently, the G3 in use by the German army was most definitely a 7.62 mm, i.e., a .308 Winchester. It was _not_ the 5.56 mm variant, at least not for wide use. (I say this because quibblers like Choate like to find examples where _someone_ used a 5.56 mm and then say "See, I was RIGHT!")
____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:45 AM -0600 1/12/01, Jim Choate wrote:
Go back to the archives and you will find Tim May claiming that ANY HK rifle with *3 (eg 93 or G3) is a .223 whereas the *1's (eg 91) are .308. When in fact the '3 means .223' applied ONLY to the '90' (ie 91 or 93) class weapons. The reality (which Tim never admited either) is that a G3 IS in fact a 91, or the other way around if you prefer historical lineage. The G3 was the mil-spec and the 91 was the civilian clone. But hey, since when was Tim interested in FACTS? Never.
Nonsense. I have known what a 91 and a 93 (and a 94) were for many years. Almost bought a 91 in 1975, _did_ buy a clone. You still haven't responded to what I sent out after my own search of the archives: At 8:51 AM -0700 12/23/97, Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:08:04 -0700 From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> Subject: Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun (fwd)
I can't agree that the HK 91 (the .308 version) is a popular sniper weapon.
Military and police snipers the world over differ strongly with you... Beside, it's the 93/G3 not the 91 (thought they do share a lot of commen base pieces) that is the sniper rifle. I believe you will also find that the .308 is the base caliber for all versions. Your wording above would indicate the 91 was .308 while the 93 was a different caliber, this is incorrect. Visit the H&K home page...
This speaks for itself, especially: "Your wording above would indicate the 91 was .308 while the 93 was a different caliber, this is incorrect" In fact, the 91 *is* a .308 and the 93 *is* a different caliber. Do you still dispute this?
He went on and on about the '3 means .223' and that this applied to ALL HK weapons.
I said no such thing. Please produce the message.
Tim's general approach (Declan's as well) is "if they disagree with me they must be stupid". What you'll find is Tim making argument after argument but he never defends them.
Actually, many of us have wasted far more time on your crankish ideas than they deserve.
Come on Tim, show us the email wher I (not you) claim Gauss's Law doesn't apply? Show us the email where I (not you) claim the G3 is not .308.
For example, your claim: "Beside, it's the 93/G3 not the 91 (thought they do share a lot of commen base pieces) that is the sniper rifle." The 93 is a .223, not a .308, and it is _not_ the sniper rifle. Further, your phrase "G3 not the 91" shows your basic confusion. The G3 is the military version of the 91, not of the 93. Trivial points, in some sense, but deeply illustrative of your mania for stating something that is incorrect and then never admitting your mistake, even years later. Which is why even your co-workers acknowledge your crankishness. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 09:29 AM 1/12/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
At 7:45 AM -0600 1/12/01, Jim Choate wrote:
Go back to the archives and you will find Tim May claiming that ANY HK rifle with *3 (eg 93 or G3) is a .223 whereas the *1's (eg 91) are .308. When in fact the '3 means .223' applied ONLY to the '90' (ie 91 or 93) class weapons. The reality (which Tim never admited either) is that a G3 IS in fact a 91, or the other way around if you prefer historical lineage. The G3 was the mil-spec and the 91 was the civilian clone. But hey, since when was Tim interested in FACTS? Never.
Nonsense. I have known what a 91 and a 93 (and a 94) were for many years. Almost bought a 91 in 1975, _did_ buy a clone.
You still haven't responded to what I sent out after my own search of the archives:
More important (to me) than quibbles about model numbers, and I've not yet seen it addressed in this forum; At 12:06 AM 1/11/01 -0500, Tim May wrote:
NATO was planning to standardize on the 7.62 mm NATO round for its main battle rifle. (The length was 54 mm, hence "7.62 x 54 NATO."
7.62 x 54? 54? You wrote it twice, so don't claim it was a typo,,, Reese
At 7:39 PM -1000 1/12/01, Reese wrote:
At 09:29 AM 1/12/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
At 7:45 AM -0600 1/12/01, Jim Choate wrote:
Go back to the archives and you will find Tim May claiming that ANY HK rifle with *3 (eg 93 or G3) is a .223 whereas the *1's (eg 91) are .308. When in fact the '3 means .223' applied ONLY to the '90' (ie 91 or 93) class weapons. The reality (which Tim never admited either) is that a G3 IS in fact a 91, or the other way around if you prefer historical lineage. The G3 was the mil-spec and the 91 was the civilian clone. But hey, since when was Tim interested in FACTS? Never.
Nonsense. I have known what a 91 and a 93 (and a 94) were for many years. Almost bought a 91 in 1975, _did_ buy a clone.
You still haven't responded to what I sent out after my own search of the archives:
More important (to me) than quibbles about model numbers, and I've not yet seen it addressed in this forum;
At 12:06 AM 1/11/01 -0500, Tim May wrote:
NATO was planning to standardize on the 7.62 mm NATO round for its main battle rifle. (The length was 54 mm, hence "7.62 x 54 NATO."
7.62 x 54?
54?
51. I acknowledge my mistake. Doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
Reese -
Tim May -
Tom