More on G3s

[Tim May]

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 at 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