Military Guns and Ammunition
Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
- 3419
MEMBERS - 197006
MESSAGES - 30
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
For Your Amusement General Army topics
From: DavidPawley
15/9/21
Nice video of the det.
Horrific UXO safety procedures though. A spotting scope and a riflescope on the Barrett would have been useful equipment.
From: schnuersi
6/8/22
Its a great video.
Its just great how he undermines everyones expectations by taking the question by its wording to define the requirements that need to be met. Which leads to a result I am pretty sure nobody expected. Makes me see the cartidge he picked in a new light.
From: EmericD
6/8/22
schnuersi said:Its just great how he undermines everyones expectations by taking the question by its wording to define the requirements that need to be met. Which leads to a result I am pretty sure nobody expected. Makes me see the cartidge he picked in a new light.
That also highlight the benefits of the .276 Pedersen, which was 25% lighter (with less recoil) than the .30-06 M2, while delivering the same amount of energy at medium & long range... a truly missed opportunity.
From: autogun
6/8/22
EmericD said:That also highlight the benefits of the .276 Pedersen, which was 25% lighter (with less recoil) than the .30-06 M2, while delivering the same amount of energy at medium & long range... a truly missed opportunity.
Yes indeed - that will be featuring in the second version of my alt WW2 history The Foresight War, when I get around to writing it...
The British were very interested in the Pedersen round, and as I recall they manufactured more of the ammo in the UK than was made in the USA.
Apart from more conventional weapons, the much lighter recoil compared with the 7.92 x 57 might have made something like the FG 42 more successful. The idea of equipping every paratrooper with the maximum feasible firepower was good in principle, but the recoil was too great.