More on G3s

[Reese]

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