Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old May 25th, 2008 #1
Neil Hudson
Senior Member
 
Neil Hudson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 682
Default Jews are bad at long range shooting

http://www.geocities.com/mazanga9/ID...rpshooting.htm

Interesting article about Israeli Sniper School.
 
Old May 30th, 2008 #2
Neil Hudson
Senior Member
 
Neil Hudson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 682
Default

Bump

This is an interesting read.
 
Old May 30th, 2008 #3
Sean Martin
......
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,397
Default

Kikes rechambered an AK-47 to fire the .223 and called it a Galil. The world praised them as master gun creators. OF course the AK came from a German idea.

Any way if kikes could shoot they wouldn't need guns that shoot around corners from close range. They could just shoot the rocks out of the kids hands from across the street.
__________________
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...64&postcount=9
Doppelhaken, Draco, Richard H, ToddinFl, Augustus Sutter, Chain, Subrosa, Jarl, White Will, whose next?
 
Old May 30th, 2008 #4
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin View Post
Kikes rechambered an AK-47 to fire the .223 and called it a Galil. The world praised them as master gun creators. OF course the AK came from a German idea.
I do not know if you mean as in a rip off or as a German concept but since I do not know I will simply address both.

The AKM and the German STG-44 do not have a lot in common except for looks. The AKM has a 1 piece receiver, the STG has a 2 piece. The AKM has a rotating bolt , the STG has a tilting bolt. Mechanically they are not alike and the true children of the STG would more likely be the FN-FAL and the G3. It's worth noting that the AKM was 2(!) kilograms lighter.

As for German idea, it is not a German idea. The idea of an intermediate round and a tactical idea of a gun that is between a submachine gun and a battle rifle is much older than the STG-44.

The first tactical assault rifle was the Fedorov Avtomat
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as86-e.htm
Which was produced in small numbers but was still used exactly as one would use an assault rifle today. The gun was in use during WW1 and the Civil War.

The idea of an intermediate round was not alien in WW2 either as it was realized that most encounters were in the 100-300 m range and thus Russia held a competition in 1943. It wasn't until after the war that Kalashnikov won with his rifle though.

Assault rifle design wasn't all that uncommon and many of Russia's gun designers were already working on assault rifles in the late 30's and early 40's. It's not difficult to recall a few - Tokarev, Shpagin, , Sudaev, etc ... All produced many prototypes with the creation of the intermediate 7.62x39 round. Sudaev's design by the way was produced before the STG-44 ever saw the battlefield and its obvious no one in Russia would be aware of the design. Had he not died in 1946 its likely that his design might have been today's ak-47 but instead it would be called AS-44 or whatever year he would finalize his design.

You'll notice that 7,62mmx39 is named M43 for the year it was introduced.

In conclusion there is no need to call it a "German idea" because the AKM is only inspired by other designs (Just as all technology is) but it is a purely Russian idea wrought from experience and I would recommend that you stop marginalizing the achievement because you look like a fool doing so.

Last edited by psychologicalshock; May 30th, 2008 at 04:15 PM.
 
Old May 31st, 2008 #5
Sean Martin
......
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
I do not know if you mean as in a rip off or as a German concept but since I do not know I will simply address both.
It is common knowledge that while a tank commander he got the idea from captured German weapons. Internally they are different but the basic idea is mostly German. A lot of our modern weaponry came from captured WWII weapons and even some of the finest rifles ever made like the Springfield were based on German designs like the Mauser.

First you are a botanist and now you are a weapons expert. Wow you really get around, google that is. M.K ripped off the Germans, even if the internal workings were different. I am not cutting down the AK but I want to give credit where it is due. And while we are on the subject the kikes did rip off the A.K idea and called it their own.

I really don’t trust any article that throws around the term “assault rifle” because what is a rifle for? Anyway you contend that medium caliber and range guns were around before the S.G.

If I built a gun based on the Vulcan gun design I am ripping that guy off even though the Gatling gun has been around much longer. which I will acknowledge. However I am saying that M.K got his idea after seeing the German weapon, which you haven’t debunked.
__________________
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...64&postcount=9
Doppelhaken, Draco, Richard H, ToddinFl, Augustus Sutter, Chain, Subrosa, Jarl, White Will, whose next?

Last edited by Sean Martin; May 31st, 2008 at 02:41 AM.
 
Old May 31st, 2008 #6
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin View Post
It is common knowledge that while a tank commander he got the idea from captured German weapons. Internally they are different but the basic idea is mostly German. A lot of our modern weaponry came from captured WWII weapons and even some of the finest rifles ever made like the Springfield were based on German designs like the Mauser.
What German weapons? He was a tank driver in 1941, what German weapons were there to be inspired by? The most he could have been inspired by is either a Garand or a SVT-40 both of which were battle rifles.

Quote:
First you are a botanist and now you are a weapons expert.
It's time to get an education because you wouldn't say something that foolish if you realized how important the nitrogen cycle is to the understanding of all life. My only experience with botany is evolutionary botany which by the way is an excellent instance of observed speciation.

Quote:
Wow you really get around, google that is.
Google wasn't needed, I simply typed in worldguns.ru and that was the end of that.

Quote:
M.K ripped off the Germans, even if the internal workings were different.
Without any evidence I will not ever accept this statement.

Quote:
I am not cutting down the AK but I want to give credit where it is due. And while we are on the subject the kikes did rip off the A.K idea and called it their own.
No doubt on that but when there is a 1943 competition to utilize a cartridge specifically made to be used for this purpose all bets are off. I wouldn't say M.K is the original assault gun designer, simply that the AKM is purely a domestic design given the amount of designs that were constructed before the STG-44 ever saw the day of battle (Take for example the previously mentioned AS-44 which was finished before the STG-44 was even on the front lines).
Quote:
I really don’t trust any article that throws around the term “assault rifle” because what is a rifle for? Anyway you contend that medium caliber and range guns were around before the S.G.
An assault rifle is first defined by its use and then by its caliber. If assault rifles could be made in full caliber they would be ; however, as we are aware they are not. The Fedorov Avtomat was of a reduced caliber and it was used for the same purposes the STG-44 was. If it isn't the first assault rifle then its the first rifle to use this idea and after the idea the only problem left to solve was to produce a lot of domestic bullets that were of an intermediate caliber (This would have happened if more factories had been available to produce the original Fedorov caliber) . Considering that the idea was already there its not surprising that it was worked on for years straight in the early 40's.

Quote:
If I built a gun based on the Vulcan gun design I am ripping that guy off even though the Gatling gun has been around much longer. which I will acknowledge. However I am saying that M.K got his idea after seeing the German weapon, which you haven’t debunked.
It has never been proven with any veracity that he did, it's merely urban legend which happens to sound good to Americans but is met with severe skepticism everywhere else. No one has ever produced any evidence worth noting and thus the claim is purely a speculative one which I am not interested in considering.

My only comment is simple - if he actually had the gun in his hands why reinvent the wheel? Why create a completely different mechanism that does not simulate the operation of what he had right before him? What would he gain from seeing it ? The M43 rounds already existed so the intermediate bullet wasn't needed, it seems the design wasn't needed either . To me, it makes so little sense that it would take direct evidence for me to give the idea any merit.

Last edited by psychologicalshock; May 31st, 2008 at 03:14 AM.
 
Old May 31st, 2008 #7
Sean Martin
......
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post

My only comment is simple - if he actually had the gun in his hands why reinvent the wheel? Why create a completely different mechanism that does not simulate the operation of what he had right before him? What would he gain from seeing it ? The M43 rounds already existed so the intermediate bullet wasn't needed, it seems the design wasn't needed either . To me, it makes so little sense that it would take direct evidence for me to give the idea any merit.
That comes down to an opinion argument like the AK vs AR. I was watching G&A TV and they were arguing that point when the AK man said “if you were on a deserted island with one gun and a rock to keep it going which would you choose”. The AR guy replied, “yeah but I’m not”.

In my opinion the AK while not as flat shooting as German and even Stoner’s designs is still a superior weapon. Russia fought in several climates ranging from the extreme cold of Siberia to the deserts of Afghanistan. The AK was and is suited for any climate and condition. German guns with tight tolerances are accurate but not reliable during extreme climate changes and hardcore combat. At 100 yards unless you are shooting competition the calibers are close enough in trajectory while the AK (7.62) round has much more knock down.

Why reinvent the caliber, because Russia wanted it’s own caliber and I think the AK caliber is better. The Russians came up with their version of the .223 and chambered AK’s for it as well. I have seen the weapon and caliber in action and I thought it was horrible even though the Russians adopted it for a lot of weapons. The more logical question would be to ask why they did that.

A reason I would think they changed the caliber is that Russia was more equipped to produce the 7.62 round.
__________________
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...64&postcount=9
Doppelhaken, Draco, Richard H, ToddinFl, Augustus Sutter, Chain, Subrosa, Jarl, White Will, whose next?
 
Old May 31st, 2008 #8
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin View Post
That comes down to an opinion argument like the AK vs AR. I was watching G&A TV and they were arguing that point when the AK man said “if you were on a deserted island with one gun and a rock to keep it going which would you choose”. The AR guy replied, “yeah but I’m not”.
That's a pretty amusing anecdote. He avoided the question.
Quote:
In my opinion the AK while not as flat shooting as German and even Stoner’s designs is still a superior weapon.
The sights for compensating this are a bit awkward but they do the job . That and it's not like you have to adjust them for lower ranges.
Quote:
Russia fought in several climates ranging from the extreme cold of Siberia to the deserts of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is more of a 5.45x39 era than the 7.62 (Even though they did exist). I haven't fired a 5.45x39 but its apparently very good.

Quote:
The AK was and is suited for any climate and condition. German guns with tight tolerances are accurate but not reliable during extreme climate changes and hardcore combat.
This was one of the reasons Germany didn't have a battle rifle until 1943, G41 was ready but it was too unreliable for the battlefield.

Quote:
At 100 yards unless you are shooting competition the calibers are close enough in trajectory while the AK (7.62) round has much more knock down.
Its better to just have a largest caliber you can have if you're at close range since there's likely a lot of cover to even meet at close range (Meaning its better to shoot through cover)

Quote:
Why reinvent the caliber, because Russia wanted it’s own caliber and I think the AK caliber is better. The Russians came up with their version of the .223 and chambered AK’s for it as well. I have seen the weapon and caliber in action and I thought it was horrible even though the Russians adopted it for a lot of weapons. The more logical question would be to ask why they did that.
If you mean 5.45x39 its considered to have better characteristics than the .223 .
Here's a test on how far either round pierced AK-74 goes significantly further (And veers off)

The reason they did it is because the latest guns built on the technology are both good at piercing armor and firing at long range
This gun has an effective range of 1000
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as07-e.htm

Quote:
A reason I would think they changed the caliber is that Russia was more equipped to produce the 7.62 round.
The reason they did it is because 5.45 is better at piercing armor and they were expecting to fight armored foes. Speaking of which since the collapse of the USSR our domestic guns have gotten much more modern in handling (Comfort and accuracy being two important factors)
 
Old May 31st, 2008 #9
Sean Martin
......
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
The sights for compensating this are a bit awkward but they do the job . That and it's not like you have to adjust them for lower ranges.
You can buy an almost endless supply of custom sites for either weapon. I use the same site system on both.

Quote:
I haven't fired a 5.45x39 but its apparently very good.
You speak what you have read, if you have actually fired it you would be saying another thing entirely.

Quote:
Its better to just have a largest caliber you can have if you're at close range since there's likely a lot of cover to even meet at close range (Meaning its better to shoot through cover)
Wrong again. In close range you can have a medium caliber and still punch through whatever you need to pierce. The key is having the most firepower. What good is a .308 if you run out of ammo after 100 rounds?

Since you apparently don’t know anything about bullets here is something that may save your life. The more powerful the round the less damage it does up close. If you ever went deer hunting you would know that a strong say 7MM magnum won’t instantly kill a deer in most shots at 100 yards because it is traveling so fast it hasn’t had time to expand and goes through the deer leaving a small pencil sized hole. They die eventually but it takes a couple days.

You can take the much smaller .243 caliber and it will knock a deer flat dead on impact. Up close you need a round designed for up close, one that will expand in the distance you are shooting, or at least tumble.



Quote:
The reason they did it is because 5.45 is better at piercing armor and they were expecting to fight armored foes.
Wrong again, it has the tumble factor compared to the punch factor of the 7.62. The 7.62 will punch through the target while the 5.45 is unstable when it hits. Since they cannot use hollow point ammo in combat the 5.45 hits a target and tumbles inside the target creating a gigantic wound cavity.

Now stop trusting google and get out and actually shoot the freaking guns. BTW can you strip an AR or AK down to the last screw? How about a Cetme or FAL? If not then you don’t need to be in this discussion.




BTW you have taken the focus away from the kikes. Good job, your jewish masters must be proud.
__________________
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...64&postcount=9
Doppelhaken, Draco, Richard H, ToddinFl, Augustus Sutter, Chain, Subrosa, Jarl, White Will, whose next?
 
Old June 1st, 2008 #10
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sean(doc)martin View Post

Wrong again. In close range you can have a medium caliber and still punch through whatever you need to pierce. The key is having the most firepower. What good is a .308 if you run out of ammo after 100 rounds?
The difference is in assault rifles and its quite clear that a 7.62 will go further than a 5.56. This isn't a bolt action vs pistol difference.

Quote:
Since you apparently don’t know anything about bullets here is something that may save your life. The more powerful the round the less damage it does up close. If you ever went deer hunting you would know that a strong say 7MM magnum won’t instantly kill a deer in most shots at 100 yards because it is traveling so fast it hasn’t had time to expand and goes through the deer leaving a small pencil sized hole. They die eventually but it takes a couple days.
I am already aware of this, it's one of the reasons bolt action rifles in WW1 weren't considered particularly good at disabling people and body/head shots were sought . The anecdote goes that if you're hit in the leg by one and it misses the bone it will heal in the time it takes for the muscle itself to heal. The velocity was too high for any tumble to happen and thus the bullet simply went through. Of course given how much disease went around the lack of tumbling might not have been of any importance.



Quote:
Wrong again, it has the tumble factor compared to the punch factor of the 7.62. The 7.62 will punch through the target while the 5.45 is unstable when it hits. Since they cannot use hollow point ammo in combat the 5.45 hits a target and tumbles inside the target creating a gigantic wound cavity.
That's more of what the M16 does (due to fragmentation also) , the 5.45 rarely fragments and it punches through armor quite easily because while it's smaller it also has a lot of force.

The tungsten core version of the rounds are especially good at punching through armor and it has been proven that the latest rounds can be a serious threat even to armored vehicles. ( 7N10 and above)


Quote:
Now stop trusting google and get out and actually shoot the freaking guns. BTW can you strip an AR or AK down to the last screw? How about a Cetme or FAL? If not then you don’t need to be in this discussion.
It's pointless for me to get a gun for which I can't get specialized ammunition to test out its piercing capacity. If I cannot experiment what's the point? I am planning on buying an ak in the near future but not for that purpose. Perhaps a pistol also.



Quote:
BTW you have taken the focus away from the kikes. Good job, your jewish masters must be proud.
This is pathetic coming from someone who can't see the irony of his own beliefs. Calling me a Jew or shabbos goy is quite sad.

The article speaks for itself - the Israeli forces are worthless and do not even have a whiff of discipline. If you hadn't made the incorrect comment I wouldn't even have bothered replying. I would have simply bookmarked the site and left.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM.
Page generated in 0.11837 seconds.