Re: IP, forwarded posts, and copyright infringement
I'm not sure if anyone has made a canonical list of what features define a crank, but one of them has just got to be a complete inability to admit a simple mistake. Go back through the archives and you'll see lots of examples where Choate makes an error. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on many of them and assume that he exaggerates to make a point. When someone calls him on it, rather than admitting that he overstated his case, he makes it worse. The quoted material at the bottom of this message is a good example of the start of one of these. If you read the archives, you'll find examples of pretty much every frequent poster to this list over the years posting a retraction or correction for some minor detail. You won't find any from Choate. In the past, I've plonked him, but I found that I missed the entertainment value. He's interesting, in the same way a car accident is: you have no real desire for the victims to be involved, but if it's going to happen right in front of you, you might as well observe it! At 11:36 AM 1/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
(Hint: U.S. copyright law does not make mere possession or archiving an offense. Try distribution, performance, etc.)
Hint: WRONG.
Simply possessing a paperback book that has had its cover removed as a sign of 'destroyed' status is in fact a crime. Used book stores that have them in stock can be charged accordingly.
The primary distinction USED TO BE whether there was intent to make money off the act. Now the simple desire to want to make copies and perhaps even share them is under review. It's not the copy of the book anymore but rather simple access to the ideas (which is what copyright isn't about).
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has made a canonical list of what features define a crank, but one of them has just got to be a complete inability to admit a simple mistake.
Example please.
Go back through the archives and you'll see lots of examples where Choate makes an error. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on many of them and assume that he exaggerates to make a point. When someone calls him on it, rather than admitting that he overstated his case, he makes it worse. The quoted material at the bottom of this message is a good example of the start of one of these.
Give me an example of overstating my case. The reality is that I've in good faith answered, or at least attempted, to the best of my ability. I've explained my thinking in detail. Where are your rebuttals? I wait with hesitant expectation of your enlightenment...
If you read the archives, you'll find examples of pretty much every frequent poster to this list over the years posting a retraction or correction for some minor detail. You won't find any from Choate.
Actually you will. Does the string 'G3' mean anything (and I turned out to be right even though I backed down so Tim May would get his way). There are others. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has made a canonical list of what features define a crank, but one of them has just got to be a complete inability to admit a simple mistake.
Example please.
No problem. A good example was thoughtfully provided by you quite readily:
Actually you will. Does the string 'G3' mean anything (and I turned out to be right even though I backed down so Tim May would get his way). There are others.
This is somewhat like feeding the trolls, so I'll be content to quit here. I didn't think Choate was dumb enough to step on his dick so quickly. I can see I overestimated him. He's not nearly the sport that David Sternlight was.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mike Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has made a canonical list of what features define a crank, but one of them has just got to be a complete inability to admit a simple mistake.
Example please.
No problem. A good example was thoughtfully provided by you quite readily:
Actually you will. Does the string 'G3' mean anything (and I turned out to be right even though I backed down so Tim May would get his way). There are others.
But it isn't an example of my mistake. A HK G3 (and the non HK G3 is also .308) IS a .308 and not .223. Now back to your point, your example please? ____________________________________________________________________ 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:
But it isn't an example of my mistake. A HK G3 (and the non HK G3 is also .308) IS a .308 and not .223.
I'm not attacking, just interested. I'm extremely familiar with the HK G3. What is the "non-HK G3"? I've seen a clone produced here in de mudderland (mutter?? Tom?), but didn't really consider that "non-HK". Want to clarify, Jim?
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
But it isn't an example of my mistake. A HK G3 (and the non HK G3 is also .308) IS a .308 and not .223.
I'm not attacking, just interested. I'm extremely familiar with the HK G3. What is the "non-HK G3"? I've seen a clone produced here in de mudderland (mutter?? Tom?), but didn't really consider that "non-HK". Want to clarify, Jim?
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). Honestly, I never could figure out exactly what was going on there. That's why I finally dropped it. I just did some searches on google and didn't find anything helpful. Hope that helps. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, god, that goes waaay back. That's right, the HK G3 is a clone of the CETME. Although I think, IIRC, that the CETME used the bolt from the German (WWII era) MG-38/42 series of light machine guns, so it's not that the Spanish really invented it. And, as a matter of fact, most of the CETME people were postwar Deutsch refugees protected by Franco anyway. Nice weapons, all of them. Did you ever see the CETME light-weight version of the MG-3 in .223? What a sweetie! Dual drums. Gotta' hand it to the krauts -- best damn weapons in the world. I could care less what Smith & Colt do, as long as HK, SIG, and Walther keep on doin' what they do! Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
But it isn't an example of my mistake. A HK G3 (and the non HK G3 is also .308) IS a .308 and not .223.
I'm not attacking, just interested. I'm extremely familiar with the HK G3. What is the "non-HK G3"? I've seen a clone produced here in de mudderland (mutter?? Tom?), but didn't really consider that "non-HK". Want to clarify, Jim?
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).
Honestly, I never could figure out exactly what was going on there. That's why I finally dropped it. I just did some searches on google and didn't find anything helpful.
Hope that helps.
____________________________________________________________________
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 Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Oh, god, that goes waaay back. That's right, the HK G3 is a clone of the CETME. Although I think, IIRC, that the CETME used the bolt from the German (WWII era) MG-38/42 series of light machine guns, so it's not that the Spanish really invented it. And, as a matter of fact, most of the CETME people were postwar Deutsch refugees protected by Franco anyway.
True enough. Most of the European weapons designed through the early 80's were either German or Russian based it seems to me. I've been looking at the FN P90 for a while.
Nice weapons, all of them. Did you ever see the CETME light-weight version of the MG-3 in .223? What a sweetie! Dual drums.
I don't know. I'm familiar with the dual drum setup.
Gotta' hand it to the krauts -- best damn weapons in the world. I could care less what Smith & Colt do, as long as HK, SIG, and Walther keep on doin' what they do!
I certainly like HK. Sig makes nice pistols. Haven't kept up with the latest Walther stuff. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 10:58 PM -0500 1/10/01, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Oh, god, that goes waaay back. That's right, the HK G3 is a clone of the CETME. Although I think, IIRC, that the CETME used the bolt from the German (WWII era) MG-38/42 series of light machine guns, so it's not that the Spanish really invented it. And, as a matter of fact, most of the CETME people were postwar Deutsch refugees protected by Franco anyway. Nice weapons, all of them. Did you ever see the CETME light-weight version of the MG-3 in .223? What a sweetie! Dual drums. Gotta' hand it to the krauts -- best damn weapons in the world. I could care less what Smith & Colt do, as long as HK, SIG, and Walther keep on doin' what they do!
I have no idea what the hell Choate is foaming about now. The HK (or H-K, or Heckler and Koch, since quibblers are amongst us) G3 was their entry into the NATO standardization effort in the early 50s. 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." Henceforth, I'll skip reporting the length. You can look it up if interested.) Heckler and Koch submitted a model. As you say, based on the Spanish CETME rifle, itself based on one of the late-war Sturmgewehr efforts (G-43 or somesuch though don't bother quoting or correcting me...it's in the books). It was introduced in 7.62 mm NATO, very, very close to .308 Winchester. (Some say there are headspace differences, though I have used 7.62 mm NATO in my Remington 700 VSSF, ostensibly chambered for .308 Winchester, and I have used .308 Winchester in my Federal Arms FA-91/G3, ostensibly chambered for 7.62 mm NATO. (By the way, the Brits had already done much work on a battle rifle to be used with a round somewhat smaller than the 7.62 mm. But the U.S. decided the 7.62 mm was to be the round, and what the U.S. wanted in those years was what happened. As it turns out, the U.S. decided only a decade or so later that the 7.62 mm was just too much of a round for most soldiers, and for intended uses, and so adopted the 5.56 mm in the form of the M-16. Some think it was too light. In hindsight, it's really too bad the British efforts were blocked by U.S. obstinacy. The 7 mm (roughly equivalent to the .270 Winchester in use today) would have made a good compromise.) The G3 is, of course, the usual fully-automatic-capable rifle. In the United States, and perhaps in other countries, the semi-automatic-only version of the G3 was called the HK-91. (I almost bought one in 1975, and now wish that I had. I could have bought one in California as late as 1987 or so, and I also wish I had. What once sold for $300 then sold for $600 and now is unobtainable in California, legally.) In addition, HK developed a variant of the G3 chambered for the 5.56 mm NATO (again, closely similar to the .223 Remington). They called this the HK-93 in the U.S. And HK took the same roller-delayed action of the G3/HK-91/HK-93 and used it for a 9mm version which comes in various forms, such as the MP-5. In the U.S. the semi-automatic version of the MP-5 basic model came in two flavors: the HK-94 carbine and the SP-89 pistol, sometimes referred to as an "assault pistol." (A travesty of a name, but there you go.) California made sales of the rifles and carbines impossible to civilian end-user buyers after the Stockton shootings of the late 80s. The SP-89 was purchasable up until the mid-90s. I acquired one in 1991. The Federal import bans of around 1994 made the prices of all of these skyrocket, to where a mint condition HK-91 is around $3500 and a mint condition SP-89 is around $2500-3000. Sales in California (and maybe New Jersey, Hawaii, and other such places) are not permitted to civilian end-users. However, the way the California laws and Federal import ban laws were written allowed certain rifles and handguns to be built with many foreign-made parts (up to 7 such parts) with the remainer U.S.-made parts. And thus the "clone" was born. (By the way, the post-Stockton ban in California only dealt with certain _named_ models. And thus a renamed Colt rifle could be sold as the "H-BAR" instead of the "AR-15." Likewise, Bushmasters and OlyArms and Armalites.) Anyway, one of the clones of the HK-91 is the Federal Arms FA-91. Another is the Hesse G3. Both use receivers (the main part that holds the bolt carrier and the trigger group) made in the U.S., but barrels and other such parts from disassembled surplus G3s from numerous foreign countries. The Federal Arms variant uses an aluminum receiver, a la the AR-15/M-16 rifle, and the Hesse uses a sheet metal receiver, a la the actual G3. I have one of the Federal Arms clones. Shoots very well, takes standard G3/HK-91 magazines (of which I have 20). The same applies to the FAL, the astounding rifle built originally by Fabrique Nationale in Belgium and adopted by even more countries than the G3 was adopted by. (My recollection from my copy of "The FAL Book" is that the design of the FAL was originally designated the "G1." Something else was designated the "G2." And the HK design based on the CETME was designated the "G3." This was for the NATO trials. After the G1 won the trials and was selected as NATO's main battle rifle, Fabrique Nationale resumed calling it the FAL and HK just called their rifle the G3. While the FAL was preferred, the G3 was also considered acceptable. And the U.S. threw a spanner into the works by deciding to ignore the trial results and to adopt its own Springfield model as the M-14. And less than 10 years later, further confusing matters by switching to the 5.56 mm M-16. FALs are being cloned as well, thus bypassing California's rules banning "the FAL." I have three of these, all based on Brazilian (or Argentinian, I forget which) receivers from IMBEL and enough U.S. made bits and pieces to make them legal. Fucking burrowcrats were tearing their hair out over all of these clones evading their bullshit laws. Oh, and I acquired 40 (yes, 40) magazines for my FAL clones. You see, we all knew that California had passed a ban on high-capacity mags, effective January 1, 2000. Gun dealers across the country were only too happy to help those who planned ahead. And since the FAL had been a main battle rifle in conflicts all around the world, from Zimbabwe to Viet Nam to Borneo, magazines were inexpensive. I paid $8 each for most of my magazines, mostly in "unused" condition. Which brings us to the present. All such rifles are now impossible for Californians to buy legally. We even have to register them. I dutifully registered mine. It's bullshit, and perhaps someday those who violated the Second Amendment with these laws will be tried and convicted, but that's the way it goes. As to what Choate was debating, only he and the other residents of Choate Prime (aka the Austin Halfway House for the Deeply Disturbed) know what is going on in his head. The HK-91 has been an accepted name for the semi-automatic version of the G3 for nearly 30 years, perhaps longer. The G3 is often used as shorthand for the class of rifles, even if they're the semi-auto variants. The HK93 is the accepted name for the 5.56mm/.223 variant. Sometimes some people call both the "G3," due to the basic family type of both weapons. --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
I got curious about Choate's latest mention of the "G3" issue, so I did some searching of the archives. Then it all came back, how Choate was claiming the "G3" was the same as the HK-93 rather than the HK-91, and how it is the preferred sniper weapon. (In fact, HK sells a version of the HK-91, or semi-auto-only G3, as the "PSG-1." Definitely a .308 Winchester (7.62x54 NATO), definitely NOT a .223 Remington.) Here's the original response I wrote. It covers much the same ground I just wrote about in my post on this topic just before this one. Of course, what Choate says may be true in Choate Prime, even if not true in _our_ universe. --begin post from archives-- To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer) * Subject: Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun (fwd) * From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> * Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:46:25 -0700 * In-Reply-To: <199712231551.JAA25031@einstein.ssz.com> * Sender: owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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...
Not much point in arguing with Jim Choate on this one. The G3 is the orginal name (Gewehr). The G3KA4 is one of the .308 models currentlt being sold. For the past couple of decades the naming system has also included "HK -9x" names, with this breakdown by caliber: HK-91, the .308 model, aka the G3-xx models. Also, the variants like the SAR-9 from Springfield, the Argentine and Greek versions, etc. HK-93, the .223 model, much less common than the HK-91. HK-94, 9mm model (which becomes the MP-5 and all of its variants and the SP-89 as changes are made to the barrel length, stock configuration, etc. (I know these things quite well, having almost bought an HK-91 back before they came under new restrictions, and then having bought an SP-89.) But if Jim doesn't believe me, consider this quote from the rec.guns FAQ: "The HK series of weapons commonly avaiable in the US consists of the HK-91 (7.62 Nato) HK-93 (5.56 Nato) and HK-94 (9mm Nato). All these rifles share common features, namely, the locking system consists of a roller locked inertial bolt, which operates as a delayed direct blow back action."
For sniper work, a bolt-action is by far the most popular piece.
Really? Watch a few more of those silly police shows on at night. Pay particular attention to the long-term hostage episodes. I generaly see the break-in team carrying MP-5 or shortie M-16's. I have yet to see the backup or sniper team using a bolt-action. Learning base tactics is about the only thing these shows are good for.
Getting one's knowledge from, as you say, silly police shows, is not such a good idea. For one thing, _entry teams_ are NOT snipers! Go to some actual sniping sources. Or try some of the Web pages, such as http://www.prostar.com/web/sniper/ or http://sniper-store.com/ for insights. Also, as I mentioned John Plaster's excellent 1993 book, "The Ultimate Sniper." He discusses semiautomatics and their disadvantages in price and simplicity compared to bolt-actions. Again, entry team work is limited to close range. Sniping is quite different, with ranges from a hundred yards on up to a thousand yards, sometimes even more. The average police sniper takes his shot at a hundred yards or less (less is always better). But he'll want the most accurate piece, not a semi-auto. Lon Horiuchi, the sniper at Ruby Ridge, used a bolt-action to take his shot.
Remember, we're counter-sniping at this point...
This'll be my last response to Jim on this issue. It appears he's talking about a completely different thing than what I am calling, and what is commonly called by others, sniping. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." --end post from archives-- -- 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
Another quibble. This is a safety issue, so READ it. One of our members wrote:
It was introduced in 7.62 mm NATO, very, very close to .308 Winchester. (Some say there are headspace differences, though I have used 7.62 mm NATO in my Remington 700 VSSF, ostensibly chambered for .308 Winchester, and I have used .308 Winchester in my Federal Arms FA-91/G3, ostensibly chambered for 7.62 mm NATO.
Here's a 7.62 NATO gun that blew up with .308 Win ammo not long ago: http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762d.html These two cartridges are NOT the same, more here: http://www.fulton-armory.com/308.htm Reese
Duh! Reese, you better learn to read. In the first place, the ammo was clearly German 7.62 NATO military surplus, not commercial .308 Winchester ammo. Secondly, as a handloader who has done some wild experiments with many calibres, rifle, pistol, and shotgun, over at least 35 years, there just ain't no way that a little headspace problem causes anything like that -- in fact, I've had a number of rifles with excess headspace and all that happens, even with hot loads, is you blow off the back of the case. I've had literally hundreds of case head separations -- they don't blow up the gun. In fact, there is almost nothing that could do that sort of damage except someone loading the shell with semtex or the like. And the article also makes that *very* clear. They theorize that possible that shell got loaded with .30 carbine powder which is a fast burning pistol powder, but I really doubt that would explain it either. Bullseye powder, possibly, but it had to be a deliberate thing. And it seems to me that I recall somewhere someone writing about that sort of sabotage being done at various times to make soldiers afraid to fire their weapons. Reese wrote:
Another quibble. This is a safety issue, so READ it.
One of our members wrote:
It was introduced in 7.62 mm NATO, very, very close to .308 Winchester. (Some say there are headspace differences, though I have used 7.62 mm NATO in my Remington 700 VSSF, ostensibly chambered for .308 Winchester, and I have used .308 Winchester in my Federal Arms FA-91/G3, ostensibly chambered for 7.62 mm NATO.
Here's a 7.62 NATO gun that blew up with .308 Win ammo not long ago: http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762d.html
These two cartridges are NOT the same, more here: http://www.fulton-armory.com/308.htm
Reese
At 07:09 PM 1/19/01 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Duh! Reese, you better learn to read.
Actually, I did read - the text at the top of the page, where it said .308 Win and 7.62 NATO owners. A quick look at the pictures, and I then hit the <send>. If anything, I'm guilty of haste. Sue me. I am not willing to place my life and extremities in the safety of your anecdotal experience. I'll take the lumps and remain steadfast; owners of arms chambered in 7.62 NATO should not be firing .308 Win ammo in them, unless the unit in question has been headspaced and pronounced "safe" for the comparatively flimsy-walled .308 Win ammo, per the .308 Win headspace specifications. It'll be interesting to see what comes of the investigation Clint McKee has offered to perform, and don't get me started on 7.62 CETME. Reese
In the first place, the ammo was clearly German 7.62 NATO military surplus, not commercial .308 Winchester ammo. Secondly, as a handloader who has done some wild experiments with many calibres, rifle, pistol, and shotgun, over at least 35 years, there just ain't no way that a little headspace problem causes anything like that -- in fact, I've had a number of rifles with excess headspace and all that happens, even with hot loads, is you blow off the back of the case. I've had literally hundreds of case head separations -- they don't blow up the gun. In fact, there is almost nothing that could do that sort of damage except someone loading the shell with semtex or the like. And the article also makes that *very* clear. They theorize that possible that shell got loaded with .30 carbine powder which is a fast burning pistol powder, but I really doubt that would explain it either. Bullseye powder, possibly, but it had to be a deliberate thing. And it seems to me that I recall somewhere someone writing about that sort of sabotage being done at various times to make soldiers afraid to fire their weapons.
Reese wrote:
Another quibble. This is a safety issue, so READ it.
One of our members wrote:
It was introduced in 7.62 mm NATO, very, very close to .308 Winchester. (Some say there are headspace differences, though I have used 7.62 mm NATO in my Remington 700 VSSF, ostensibly chambered for .308 Winchester, and I have used .308 Winchester in my Federal Arms FA-91/G3, ostensibly chambered for 7.62 mm NATO.
Here's a 7.62 NATO gun that blew up with .308 Win ammo not long ago: http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762d.html
These two cartridges are NOT the same, more here: http://www.fulton-armory.com/308.htm
Reese
I can see you aren't a handloader. I'd be willing to bet that the supposed amount of difference between 7.62 milspec and .308 Win commercial is not nearly as great as the variation of chamber dimension of either between various manufacturers. That is, if you went around taking chamber casts of military production 7.62 rifles throughout the world, the diff between min and max would be much greater than the supposed diff between 7.62 and .308. This whole thing is rather hysterical -- emenating from a bunch of nervous nellies with too much time on their hands. About the only reason to be concerned at all is if you were in a combat situation and excess headspace caused a case separation that jammed the gun (and, believe me, getting the rest of the case out can be a *real* hassle if you don't have a broken shell extractor tool) or if the headspace was so tight that it caused high enough pressures to blow the primer (that's why the military cases have crimped primers, right?) and that jammed the gun. I'd also bet that there is much greater variation between various manufactured milspec 7.62 brass than there is between "7,62 vs .308". Some brittle or thin or steel or thick necked or oversize bullet, or whatever. And, of course, if you are firing mil surplus like the guy in the article, what if you get a deliberately sabotaged round? All that happens normally if you've got a chamber that's a bit large and a case that's a bit small if that that brass streches to fit. This is called "fire-forming" by handloarders. The case then fits your gun and won't stretch any further. If the excess stretching is a lot, you won't get as many reloads before the case cracks. You look for a bright ring on the brass near the base -- and use a paper clip with a little hook on one end to probe the inside for thinness. Anyway, it's much ado about nothing. -- Glad you mentioned the 7.62 CETME round -- look at that, all those flutes in the case wall. hey, if you want fool around, take .45ACP ammo and fire it in your 7.62.... heh, heh, heh. It works, won't hurt the gun. Or fire a .45 Colt thru a .410 shotgun.
Heh. I'd been assuming the original "Does the string 'G3' mean anything..." question was going to be about Macintoshes or something :-) Meanwhile, the spam filters at pobox.com suddenly decided that almost everything posted to Cypherpunks or Cyberia-L this evening rates a [spam score 5.20/10.0 -pobox], so in standard Choatean fashion, I figure I ought to leave it in the mail headers like his CDR: internal-use fields. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
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 Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tom wrote:
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.
Thanks but don't put yourself out, it isn't the issue under question. The only question of interest is who produced the non-HK 'G3' that the Germany Army used for about a year back in the early 90's (say 90-92?). And it's completely pedantic at this point. Thanks for the offer. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 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
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:12:00PM +0100, Tom wrote:
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.
current weapon (after the G3) is the G36, obviously an advanced G3 version. I didn't have much time to chat about the subject today, so if anyone wants to know ammo types, more details, whatever - ask and I'll find out. -- -- http://www.lemuria.org -- http://www.Nexus-Project.net --
Thanks for the feedback. On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Tom wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:12:00PM +0100, Tom wrote:
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.
current weapon (after the G3) is the G36, obviously an advanced G3 version. I didn't have much time to chat about the subject today, so if anyone wants to know ammo types, more details, whatever - ask and I'll find out.
____________________________________________________________________ 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 12:26 AM +0100 1/12/01, Tom wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:12:00PM +0100, Tom wrote:
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.
current weapon (after the G3) is the G36, obviously an advanced G3 version. I didn't have much time to chat about the subject today, so if anyone wants to know ammo types, more details, whatever - ask and I'll find out.
Much information on the G36 is readily available on the Web. It is not actually very similar to the G3, except for the roller-delayed action used by HK in most of their semi-automatic rifles. The caliber is, as per current NATO expectations, 5.56 mm. I sent out a note entitle "More on the G3" this morning, but it has not yet, 8-9 hours later, appeared in my mailbox. Could be delays and glitches due to the storms hitting California today. If I don't see it in the next several hours, I'll send it out again. --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:
current weapon (after the G3) is the G36, obviously an advanced G3 version. I didn't have much time to chat about the subject today, so if anyone wants to know ammo types, more details, whatever - ask and I'll find out.
Much information on the G36 is readily available on the Web. It is not actually very similar to the G3, except for the roller-delayed action used by HK in most of their semi-automatic rifles.
The caliber is, as per current NATO expectations, 5.56 mm.
thanks for the update. I'm not much into weapons, so I only got the model number and from there concluded - obviously wrong - that it was based on the G3.
Harmon Seaver wrote:
But it isn't an example of my mistake. A HK G3 (and the non HK G3 is also .308) IS a .308 and not .223.
I'm not attacking, just interested. I'm extremely familiar with the HK G3. What is the "non-HK G3"? I've seen a clone produced here in de mudderland (mutter?? Tom?), but didn't really consider that "non-HK". Want to clarify, Jim?
"mutterland" would be the right german equivalent of "mother country", but I don't think anyone's ever used it. eh, maybe a few feminists. :) must correct that. I just put it on google to check, and the term does seem to be in use actually. weird, I've never heard it in conversation so far.
Allow me to summarize: 1) I claim you can't admit an error. 2) You disagree, and ask me for an example. 3) You provide an example yourself. 3a) Your example dates back nearly three years. 3b) In your example, you claim you were right all along, and Tim was wrong. Let's take it from there. Either a) You were right and Tim was wrong, in which case your example isn't an example of admitting an error, or b) You were wrong, and Tim was right, and right now, you're showing yourself incapable of admitting that. If you'd have left it at "Back in 1997, I admitted that Tim was right about the G3", you'd have had me. I claimed you never admit a single error, and you'd have found a counter example to an all-encompassing declaration. But you COULDN'T leave it at that. You were compelled to add "I turned out to be right"... And that pretty much confirms what I was claiming to begin with. If NOMAD here was any good at logic, we'd be beaming him out to the minimum safe distance right now. My old man was often heard to quip: "I made a mistake once.... I thought I was wrong, but I wasn't." That second sentence is the punch line, Choate. Just FYI. On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mike Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has made a canonical list of what features defin
e
a crank, but one of them has just got to be a complete inability to admit a simple mistake.
Example please.
No problem. A good example was thoughtfully provided by you quite readily:
Actually you will. Does the string 'G3' mean anything (and I turned out t
o
be right even though I backed down so Tim May would get his way). There are others.
But it isn't an example of my mistake. A HK G3 (and the non HK G3 is also .308) IS a .308 and not .223.
Now back to your point, your example please?
____________________________________________________________________
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, Mike Holmes wrote:
Allow me to summarize:
1) I claim you can't admit an error. 2) You disagree, and ask me for an example. 3) You provide an example yourself. 3a) Your example dates back nearly three years. 3b) In your example, you claim you were right all along, and Tim was wrong.
I'm under no compulsion to prove YOUR case. You claim that I'm wrong much of the time. Let's see one of my claimed failures. Demostrate why it is incorrect. This is your hypothesis, let's see your work. ____________________________________________________________________ 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, Jim Choate wrote:
I'm under no compulsion to prove YOUR case. You claim that I'm wrong much of the time. Let's see one of my claimed failures. Demostrate why it is incorrect.
This is your hypothesis, let's see your work.
I've explained it twice, now. You're just not getting it. You're not even understanding what I claimed in the first place.
participants (9)
-
Bill Stewart -
Harmon Seaver -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
Mike Holmes -
Reese -
Tim May -
Tom -
Tom