June 1, 2008
Sometimes it's just too easy.
And you guys provide the content! All I have to do, in this case, is provide a picture. Not that I'm complaining...!
In the comments to the "Speaking of Bullets" post, AW1 Tim provided a discussion about musketry, and the "mythical three rounds per minute" claim for the standard Civil War infantryman firing the standard Civil War rifled musket. He mentions a special bullet - the Williams "cleaner" bullet. Not so-named because the bullet was cleaner - but because of the bullet's function. While doing the pictures for that post... well, I ran across these. I'll let AW1 Tim take up the tale.

Well, the problem with the 2-3 rounds per minute is that it never did happen. The "3 rounds per minute" that historians keep talking about is a myth. It is based upon the bench trials conducted for the M1855-series musket under ideal conditions and with properly sized and prepared cartridges.
There is also a world of difference between a smoothbore and a rifle regarding fouling issues. It's true that a soldier could, in all likelihood, get off 10 rounds or so at 2 rounds per minute when well trained. However, the fouling built up so fast that after the initial bundle of 10 rounds, loading became progressively more difficult. At Glendale and Gaines Mill, for example, there are numerous accounts of soldiers being unable to use their rifle muskets because of fouling issues, of men loading a round by pounding the rammer against a stone or tree, and letting fly with both cartridge and rammer.
The US Army's solution was to adopt the William's Patent cleaner bullet. For those unfamiliar with it, it was a standard minie round with a zinc washer at the base through which passed a metal slightly cone-shaped rod. When fired, the rod was driven into the washer's center, which expanded the washer and scraped the barrel clean of fouling. It also kicked like a mule. One or sometimes two of these rounds were included in every packet of 10 paper cartridges. The Army's mistake was to wrap them in blue or green paper, rather than the ordinary colour paper and the men could easily distinguish them and toss them away.
Some things never change :^ )
Anyway, over the course of an engagement, although initial rate of fire may be higher, the average is 1 round per minute, or even less, dependant upon the conditions and the ability of the men to clear fouling.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I believe three rounds a minute comes from the famed infantry of Wellington with a Brown Bess musket. Well trained British infantry supposedly could fire three rounds a minute. This 'skill' was accounted one the fire power advantages of the Brits along with fighting in lines of two rather than three and platoon volleying according to historians of the period. I doubt anyone could fire three rounds a minute with a muzzle loading rifle because of the rifling. Baker rifles were good for two rounds a minute.
by JimC on June 1, 2008 9:48 AM
Ummmmmm. Baker rifles!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 1, 2008 10:05 AM
Or maybe it's from the changes in Drill instituted by Wolfe(sp?)? Read about him some years(like 7) ago in an MHQ mag. His change of Drill was supposed to have made a huge difference, though beyond the staggering of fire to maintain a higher overall volume I can't remember what the other changes were.
by ry on June 1, 2008 2:21 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 30, 2008
Speaking of bullets...
(which I did, yesterday)...and the supply nightmares associated with... what with the doom and gloom of Wolfwalker, Canoneer #4, Kevin, et.al., regarding the pending collapse of the Republic, and the fear by El Borak, Terry and others of the overall collapse of civilization, a fair number have expressed the desire to retreat to the Castle, break open the Arms Room, and fort up.
Oddly enough, I'm not quite that down about things, but it never hurts to be prepared. There is a problem, however.
The Castle Arsenal is not an Armory. It has many weapons, to be sure... but it has many calibers, too.

And there are at least 6 calibers not therein represented. So, you're going to have to put in orders for which weapon you want issued to you - and then you're going to have to BYOBullets. I suggest you get your reservations in fast - the 7.62 NATO, 7.63x39, 7.62x54, .303, 30-06, and 5.56 weapons will go fast. If you need some help checking out the available calibers - click here.
Who's going to carry a flintlock? And somebody is going to get stuck with the muff gun, the Webley .25ACP.
Oh. The two rounds at the extreme right - those are a 60mm and 81mm mortar cartridge, not shotgun cartridges. I just realized I left out the 12 gauge riot gun cartridge... No, don't ask. The M97 is spoken for. SWWBO has it.
Update: Since Argent asked in the comments, "What's the fluffy thing..." I thought a little larger pic was in order. AW1 Tim adequately explained what it is - a .57caliber paper cartridge - but here's a picture. Argent: On top = fluffy. On the bottom = paper cartridge.

Simply put, you took paper, sufficient to hold the bullet and powder charge, and laid it on a flat surface. Put your bullet on it (to the left in the shot), and the powder behind it. Wrap up the paper and tie it off. In action, rather than up-end your musket, grab your powder flask, measure in the powder, drop your flask (on a sling, of course) reach into your box and get a bullet, etc, you grabbed a cartridge, bit off the end, poured the powder down the barrel and then stuffed the bullet, paper and all, into the muzzle and rammed her home, the paper acting as a wad. Made things simpler and faster - always good to simplify when you are going to ask people to do it under great stress.
And you really don't want to be the person getting the Webley. It's *small*.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
What's the fluffy thing at the front left?
by
Argent on May 30, 2008 7:04 AM
I'll take one of the modified flintlocks. I felt I could actually see the sights and target simu. with it because of it's length. Besides, I'm sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-breath-ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow on the trigger so a semi-auto or otherwise would be a waste of time.
by ry on May 30, 2008 7:12 AM
***Wildly raises his hand*** Me - me - me!!! I wanna Diddle Cricket aka .25ACP Webley. If it was good enough for K, in MIB, 'tis good enough for me.
BTW - Love them 60mm Zero Charges.
by Boquisucio on May 30, 2008 7:13 AM
The "fluffy thing" appears to be a paper cartridge for either the .577 Enfield P-53/58 types, or mire likely a .58 for the M1855/61/63/63 et al series.
Although, to be honest, the US Arsenals changed production in 1861 to a >57 caliber projectile, so as to serve both the Springfield and Enfield series weapons. Similarly, they went with a .53 caliber to as to serve both the US ,54 caliber series and the foreign .55 arms which were being imported in some quantity.
For keeping heads down, the Springfield/Enfield weapons are pretty good. Although it takes around a minute to reload, it can still penetrate 6" of seasoned white pine at 1,000 yards :) Soft lead, unjacketed, slow velocity and high mass makes for quite an impression on the target.
Easy to clean, too. Just hot water and rags and some sweet oil to wipe it down with before you put it to bed.
respects,
by AW1 Tim on May 30, 2008 7:16 AM
The M97 is spoken for. SWWBO has it.
She's on the night shift?
Need any 20 mike-mike?
by
BillT on May 30, 2008 8:31 AM
I can't recall everything you have there, but I'll take either a Mosin-Nagant (91/30 or M44 preferably) or a Steyr M95 :D !
by
Parrothead Jeff on May 30, 2008 8:53 AM
All of those are available, Jeff. However, you have to stand many feet to either side of me if you're going to shoot the noisy ones.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 9:01 AM
No, Bill. Not that one. And SWWBO doesn't do nights. That's for the newbies.
This one (albeit an original, not a repro like the one in the link).
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 9:05 AM
At least nobody will try to stick a *scope* on it.
Except maybe ry...
by
BillT on May 30, 2008 9:47 AM
Knowing my own skill set, I may have to volunteer to pass the ammunition (and cook!!) rather then be on the front lines, if it's all the same to you. I used to be a good shot with a rifle, but that was years ago. I have no idea if my poor eye sight would now mean I can't hit the broad side of a barn, but it's not unlikely. I will do what my leaders tell me to do, including shoot at people/things. However, unless you just need cannon fodder in the shape of an old woman with a few good years left in her, I think I will not claim a weapon. I'll take what you give me and do what I am told. Will that work for you??
by Terrymum on May 30, 2008 9:52 AM
Ah, heck, I'll take the flintlock. I have a fair history of beating people with blunt objects.
by
Misty on May 30, 2008 10:06 AM
No1 MkIII, please... SMLEs are *classy*, old boy.
by Neffi on May 30, 2008 10:16 AM
With or without the magazine cut-off, Neffi?
Terry - you get the Webley.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 10:21 AM
Hmmm - I want the weapon with the largest capacity, of course :-) But since I've been playing hooky from class, the Armorer will have to edumacate me on the options in that area.
Whatcha got that fires one of the 7.62 sizes and has a high-cap clip?
by
Barb on May 30, 2008 10:31 AM
Barb gets the matchlock. "Clip" indeed.
Ha-RUMPH!
If she abases herself properly, I *might* allow her to have the 3-round Berthier M1890 carbine. If she *really* abases herself properly, perhaps the Bethier M1916, with the 5 round, CLIP-fed magazine.
But that's about it.
Hey! I didn't get a ha-RUMPH outta that guy!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 10:34 AM
Heh -- I admitted to playing hookey, didn't I??? Geez - are you going to make me take Ry's place in the dungeon? Hmmm ... Cheetos!
by
Barb on May 30, 2008 10:44 AM
Randolph Scott.(Moment of silence)
by ry on May 30, 2008 10:45 AM
Heh. You *coulda* had the crank-fired belt-fed M1919A1 in 7.62 NATO, with Ry as your AG, but noooooo, not now. Not after you commit the clip/magazine heresy!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 10:46 AM
Seeing the price of Wolf or Bernaul 7.62 x 39 nowadays, you can't imagine how often I pat myself on the back for stocking up with dozens of spam cans of it that I purchased during the late 90s. It's doubled in price since.
I'm usually not that smart.
by GunTrash on May 30, 2008 10:50 AM
That explains your upcoming rotator-cuff surgery then... all that back-patting.
;^ )
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 10:57 AM
I'll bring my own sidearm. But I'm a fair hand with a long rifle, failing that gimmie a mortar.
I'll keep the neighborhood kids out of the yard ;)
by
BloodSpite on May 30, 2008 11:14 AM
I have a 1903-A3 Springfield, several .308 bolt actions, 2 AR-15's, a stainless Colt Commander, a commander size Para Ordnance in .45 ACP, .357 revolvers (5 r 6?), .32 ACP's, an SKS, numerous .22RF and .22WRF, MK4 Enfield in .303 British, hand & a half sword, calvary saber, katana, khukhri, multiple fixed blade knives, improvised explosives knowledge, ....
Maybe I'll share...?
by Alan Briley, RN on May 30, 2008 11:43 AM
Fine ... I'll just bring my own shotguns and sidearms. :-P
by
Barb on May 30, 2008 12:06 PM
And ammo! Don't forget to BYOB!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 12:08 PM
Oh, great. NOw people are bringing their own. That means I'm going to get stuck on the building of defenseworks(earthworks, trenches, nasty trap holes) detail. Man(kicks floor).
And I'm not going to ride the Trebuchet in the Bailey to be the Airborne of Argghhh!, period. There's still not enough cheetos in KS.
And if we're all holing up at John's, I think we need a bigger goat.
by ry on May 30, 2008 12:51 PM
ry,
I'll help with the breastworks, moat, sniper hides, OP's, and other defensive positions. Building and placement of booby traps, clearing fields of fire, range cards, pre-positioned coordinates for H&I fires, and other errata. Just don't make me an officer. Grunt or any NCO position would be appreciated. Plus, I love to parachute...!
Alan
by Alan Briley, RN on May 30, 2008 12:58 PM
Happiness is .... ammoman.com baby! Free shipping!
by
CDR Salamander on May 30, 2008 1:25 PM
Arsenal= where you make them.
Armoury= where you keep them.
Sorta like the difference between clip and magazine.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on May 30, 2008 4:10 PM
True enough - except that in the US, we've been inconsistent with that.
Like fusilier and fusileer.
We have had arsenals where we stored things, and armorys where we made things.
And Castle Argghhh! is a manufactory. Well, more accurately (and legally, as we've paid no Special Occupation Tax as a manufacturer or gunsmith and do no work for others or original building from scratch), an assembly, finishing and rebuilding facility, including both firearms and ammunition.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 4:29 PM
BM-59, tanker model. Hands down my favorite 'long gun'. The Italians finally did something right besides pasta. Take a M1 Garand and add a magazine to it. Fantastic lil' weapon in 7.62. Easy to maintain, deadly accurate and comes to point in a second.
Love my M1A1, but I'd chose the BM anyday. It's a joy to shoot and has the round to knockdown.
None o' that sissified .22 stuff here, 7.62 IS stopping power. And, isn't that what we want?
by Kevin on May 30, 2008 5:14 PM
I hope Springfield/Enfield users can do better than 1 aimed shot per minute; good troops could manage three shots/min with flintlock muskets a couple generations earlier, and the Minié ball made loading the later muskets faster.
Even I could manage two/min with a flintlock, until I ran out of cartridges, and I'm old and shaky. (I was shaky before I got old, but still...)
Even after fouling started to get in the way, two shots per minute ought to be doable with a Springfield type musket.
by steveH on May 30, 2008 11:24 PM
Given that the AmmoMan.com doesn't seem to have any 303Br in stock, I better bring over a few bandoliers with rounds in stripper clips to the party! Will about 500 do? I can't remember if you have a N04 Mk1 T, but if you do I'll have that.
I always used to tell my mates that if things went to hell, they could come here for a rifle and a bandolier, and bring me back more rifles and ammo after using the donations!
by SezaGeoff on May 31, 2008 7:25 AM
steveH ,
Well, the problem with the 2-3 rounds per minute is that it never did happen. The "3 rounds per minute" but that historians keep talking about is a myth. It is based upon the bench trials conducted for the M1855 series under ideal conditions and with properly sized and prepared cartridges.
There is also a world of difference between a smoothbore and a rifle regarding fouling issues. It's true that a soldier could, in all likelihood, get off 10 rounds or so at 2 rounds per minute when well trained. However, the fouling built up so fast that after the initial bundle of 10 rounds, loading became progressively more difficult. At Glendale and Gaines Mill, for example, there are numerous accounts of soldiers being unable to use their rifle muskets because of fouling issues, of men loading a round by pounding the rammer against a stone or tree, and letting fly with both cartridge and rammer.
The US Army's solution was to adopt the William's Patent cleaner bullet. For those unfamiliar with it, it was a standard minie round with a zinc washer at the base through which passed a metal slightly cone-shaped rod. When fired, the rod was driven into the washer's center, which expanded the washer and scraped the barrel clean of fouling. It also kicked like a mule. One or sometimes two of these rounds were included in every packet of 10 paper cartridges. The Army's mistake was to wrap them in blue or green paper, rather than the ordinary colour paper and the men could easily distinguish them and toss them away.
Some things never change L)
Anyway, over the course of an engagement, although initial rate of fire may be higher, the average is 1 round per minute, or even less, dependant upon the conditions and the ability of the men to clear fouling.
Respects,
by AW1 Tim on May 31, 2008 8:54 AM
Geoff - I do, indeed, have a (T). Looking for the transit case and scope can, if any are laying about.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 31, 2008 9:47 AM
Except maybe ry...
Heh. I'm well known for being 'unconventional'.
by ry on May 31, 2008 2:17 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 29, 2008
On bullets.
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war.
Such was the headline that caught my attention over the weekend.
The article discussses the drawbacks to the M855 round for the M16/M4, which was designed (shudder, oh no!) for killing the masses of Cylons, er, body-armored Warsaw Pact troops back in the day. And clearly, it isn't suited for modern conditions. The AP conducted some interviews and says so. You can read it right here.
The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.
Such as the interview with Sergeant Joe Higgins:
As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.
As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.
"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."
Gag me. "Spits out bullets" Faugh. And then conflating "firepower" with "stopping power" as if the terms are interchangeable. The author has a tight grasp of hackneyed phrases. He should let go.
Now, me, I'm a *fan* of the M14. Bar none, my favorite US service rifle. I *like* the 7.62 NATO round it shoots, too. My M1A (civilian equivalent of the M14) is, bar none, my favorite shooter in the Arms Room of Argghhh!. Of all the 7.62 NATO rifles I've carried and fired, I still like the M14. Better than the FAL/L1A1. Better than the CETME. Better than the H&K G3. Tied with the Beretta BM59. Which isn't surprising, given the BM59 and M14 spring from the same heritage. But I also know that I was a big strong fella and humping the rifle and ammo wasn't the drag on me it can be on feathermerchants.
But I admit, while not a fan of the M16 particularly, I *did* like the amount of ammunition I could carry for it. And it was a fine shooter. And I *like* SWWBO's M4-clone. That rifle points extremely well for me, and is a good shooter. But I'd still rather carry an M14. Well, for city fighting, I might well prefer the Springfield Armory M1A SOCOM rifle - if the wound ballistics are still good from that short barrel, it would certainly be handier in close-quarter combat than the M14. Heh. Wonder if I could score one for a review? Prolly not. Booksellers will give books to blogs, but I'm not enough of a gunblogger to score a rifle, I'm thinking...
Do note the premise of the article - and then consider this factoid they snuck in...
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
Emphasis mine.
Meaning, um, 80% didn't express that opinion. Heh. In politics, that's a landslide. If you want to do a little poking at DoD and the Administration, one-fifth apparently represents the sum of expert opinion I suppose. And you'd be surprised how many of that one-fifth included Fobbits who rarely leave the wire but have fully tricked-out rifles.
The last bit in the article hits the nail on the head:
The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.
"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions."
The rest of the article (which, if you are interested in the subject, you should read in its entirety)
runs through the usual discussions of bullets, rifles, marksmanship, and legal issues, etc., that have dogged military rifle/ammunition choices since mankind started using projectile weapons.
And emotions on the subject always run high. Me? I'm not fighting in this war - that has to be my first caveat, I admit I am looking at this from a remove of relative safety. But I don't see a compelling need to shift to a new rifle or new ammunition in the midst of the war, needlessly complicating the supply and procurement issues. SOCOM, with essentially it's own, and much smaller, infrastructure is suited to changing horses in mid-stream. When you talk the rest of the Army, and toss in the Marines, you have complex problems to manage within the defense industrial base and DoD logistics. And then the whines when units go into the box with the "new and improved" rifles/ammunition vice the ones that don't have 'em. And DoD will get hammered either way - because it will either be a better rifle and the ones with old rifles are being discriminated against and put at a disadvantage - or it will have teething problems and the services will be playing contractor favoritism and putting troops lives at risk.
Oh wait, that's already happening. And does anyone remember the fiasco of fielding the M16 in the middle of a war?
For my money, the Infantry needs a new rifle. In that, I'm with the Generals, don't just tweak the current rifle, go ahead and try to get to the next generation. But - I wasn't with the Generals when they were trying to make the next generation rifle the equivalent of a Heinleinian Mobile Infantry weapon.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Yes and isn't there the whole issue of NATO rounds being the same for supply and logistics?
and, I think I recall an issue about the big rounds stopping the bad guy and then coming out the other side to stop some other poor slob standing near by.
Just two othe issues I don't see raised.
by kat-missouri on May 29, 2008 12:42 PM
Someone out there (SOCOM?) is fooling around with a solid copper 70 grain bullet for 5.56 rounds. That sounds like it would have the ballistics of a knitting needle.
Anyway, if you are concerned about going through a doorway with big bullets, what's wrong with the M3 grease gun?
by Fred on May 29, 2008 12:55 PM
Anyway, if you are concerned about going through a doorway with big bullets, what's wrong with the M3 grease gun?
No place to mount a front handgrip, a laser-pointer, a 3x low-light combat scope, mag pouches and a xenon flashlight. And don't forget, the USMC version will call for a bayonet stud, too...
by
BillT on May 29, 2008 3:23 PM
Greetings:
Back in my infantry days, our basic load was 22 20-round magazines, one in the weapon and 3 bandoliers of 7. I used to hump and extra bandolier, 29 magazines all told.
One of the advantages we had was that the bad guys never seemed to have more than seven of their 30-round magazines.
When you're wandering around waiting to get jumped on (technically a reconnaissance-in-force) it's nice to know you can out shoot the bad guys until help arrives.
by 11B40 on May 29, 2008 3:25 PM
I know tales of hits-without-success are sexier, but that's probably because they're rarer. We had a big "iron sheik" type with an AK play suicide-by-soldier with us in Baghdad in 2003. A controlled-pair later, one "underpowered" 5.56 to the sternum and he looked like he got hit by a truck. Something about bone/bullet contact. Ok, it was a vital area, but right there I decided not to entertain complaints about effectiveness.
by Ironside on May 29, 2008 3:34 PM
If you're ever in Tucson, you're welcome to take my SOCOM-16 out for a spin -- as soon as I get it back from Springfield.
I'm the short, round guy in the first take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bBsodpPsDY
It's very handy in tight spaces and the compensator/ brake is awesome. Kicks up a lot of dust if you're shooting it over an old car roof, though.
by
Cowboy Blob on May 29, 2008 5:29 PM
Two questions, Cowboy -
1. Why does Springfield have your rifle?
2. In my world, if you're in a shooting war, and you have to reload, you, um, well duck behind something, or at least reload by feel while keeping an eye on the target...
3. Okay, three - and you can answer this in email - what'd ya pay for it? I've been *tempted*...
by
John of Argghhh! on May 29, 2008 6:29 PM
I agree Bill.
The 5.56 is a joke. Tell me is it legal to hunt deer in Kansas with a 5.56? Why isn't it?
Why is it we have to double tap? Why is it that we don't have a cartridge that turns an enemy inside out with one hit?
Size matters?
by
jim b on May 29, 2008 10:22 PM
I hate to seem to be an obsessive 7 millimeter crank, here, but yes I am one, so what can I say?
The M-14 has that awkward magazine sticking out of the bottom. Now, the Krag had a magazine you could top up from the bottom; FIFO. And it didn't stick out anywhere.
by
Justthisguy on May 29, 2008 11:53 PM
Square bullets anyone?
by
Argent on May 30, 2008 5:23 AM
John, Have to agree with you on the M1A and the SOCOM. Originally got the SOCOM II with the rails. Bad, bad, bad. Traded it off to a friend for a SOCOM 16, one rail to hold my Trijicon Tripower. Much better. I guess I'm old fashioned and can't see the need for all of the rails. That being said, my favorite rifle is still the Garand. I got a Springfield Armory one in .308 to match the M1A's that I have. You have to go along way to beat the old Garand for shooting fun.
by AndyJ on May 30, 2008 5:53 AM
Frangible vs. ball, anyone? no? Okay.
by ry on May 30, 2008 6:18 AM
Frangible runs afoul of the Geneva Convention, Ry.
Police can use expanding/disintegrating bullets, soldiers can't.
Mind you, you can eviscerate 'em with a shell fragment, but no dum-dums or things like dum-dums.
And JimB shows up to prove this statement by being contrarian:
The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.
"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions."
There's lots of emotion in the discussion.
And JTG, if I'm going to have to have an integral-magazine rifle, I'll take a Garand, which I at least don't have to load one round at a time.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 6:49 AM
Yeah, I know.
But if the point is stopping power(meaning, how much it hurts the target, lots of tissue damage) without wory of secondaries, frangible makes sense(it sticks in the walls and the people). Though, sometimes you want it to penetrate the wall so it isn't a perfect fix either.
by ry on May 30, 2008 7:07 AM
That's all part of the problem, isn't it? All the rules governing ammuntion, whether STANAGS (Standardization Argeements), the Conventions, etc.
All of those things have to be balanced or renegotiated, and it doesn't matter what you do - someone is going to hate you and call you a heartless bastard who doesn't care for the soldiers and is willing to get them killed for your convenience.
Any choice we make will generate someone with an expert opinion that the choice we just made borders on the criminal.
And whichever politician or just-barely-can-figure-out-which-end-of-the-rifle-the-bullet-exits journo will scream that it's just as bad a situation as Upton Sinclair wrote about in The Jungle. And a third of the serious gun mags will agree, a third will praise the decision, and a third will publish recipes for handloading the cartridge to make it better.
And depending on how you stake your territory, they'll all be correct.
Unlike personally owned weapons, where you can fit and fiddle with myriad choices to find the rifle/cartridge combination that fits your needs, the military rifle has to make a lot of compromises regarding cost, complexity, maintainability, durability, ease of use, and lethality - and has to work for a broad segment of dis-similar people.
We're never going to be at a point where everybody is happy.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 7:21 AM
All of those things have to be balanced or renegotiated, and it doesn't matter what you do - someone is going to hate you and call you a heartless bastard who doesn't care for the soldiers and is willing to get them killed for your convenience.
Well, when I say this, though more obfuscatedly and much looooonger, you say it's arbitrary(digs a hole real fast and slips away).
by ry on May 30, 2008 8:18 AM
Eh? Aside from Rule #1, where I'm always right, whattaya mean?
by
John of Argghhh! on May 30, 2008 10:56 AM
Well, there's always Rule #2, right John?
Heh heh heh...
(and, yes, I know what Rule #2 says)
by
Casey on May 31, 2008 12:12 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 21, 2008
ANSF, Coalition forces recover weapons caches in Nangarhar
Heh. Intent matters. The picture below looks a little bit like what Castle Argghhh! did when the collection was in transit from the Auld Castle to the New Castle.
And, I'm sure, there are those in this country who would see little difference between the two, and would like to see the Castle Armory treated in a similar fashion. Of course, a major difference between the two assemblages are that the ones at the Castle are, 1. Inert, and 2., generally in better shape.
Heh. That RPG-2 and associated B4 rocket look pretty tatty. The Armorer would be reluctant to pull the trigger on that one. The same is true for the RPG-7 rounds - their booster cartridges look... dangerous. And if the mortar rounds have been stored without their fuze well covers... well, it's no wonder that sometimes the bad guy's mortars blow up when they fire them.
Still, much of that stuff can be salvaged for the explosives or fashioned into IED's.
The stuff at the Castle will only hurt you if you drop it on your foot.

080214-A-3325A-001 - Afghan National Security Forces, assisted by Coalition forces, recovered a suspected insurgent weapons cache near Shamakalay Village, Khogyani District, Nangarhar Province. The cache included a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, eight rocket-propelled grenade rounds, five rocket-propelled grenade boosters, two hand grenades, a mortar fuse and a stockpile of 25 mm ammunition. (U.S. Army photo)
BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan – Afghan citizens supplied information leading to the recovery of several weapons caches in Kot and Khogyani Districts, Nangarhar Province, Feb. 8-14.
Afghan National Security Forces, assisted by Coalition forces, recovered a suspected insurgent weapons cache near Laghurji Village, Kot District, Feb. 8, consisting of 10 anti-tank mines, three 60 mm mortar rounds and two 82 mm mortar rounds.
Another weapons cache was found Feb. 12 in Kailoaghu, Khogyani District. This cache consisted of two anti-personnel mines, a hand grenade, and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher in good condition.
The final cache, discovered Feb.14 near Shamakalay Village, Khogyani District, was the largest. This weapons cache included a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, eight rocket-propelled grenade rounds, five rocket-propelled grenade boosters, two hand grenades, a mortar fuse and a stockpile of 25 mm ammunition.
According to a Coalition forces servicemember, the weapons were in fair condition when found.
“Recovering these munitions reduces the insurgents’ ability to conduct attacks in Nangarhar Province,” said Army Maj. Chris Belcher, Coalition forces spokesman.
Earlier this month, residents of Fateh Mina Village, in, Lal Por District, Nangarhar Province, discovered a suspected insurgent weapons cache in the area. Afghan National Security Forces were able to secure the area and safely remove the weapons from the cache site. In that cache, 30 rocket-propelled grenade rounds and 32 82 mm mortar rounds were secured.
Insurgents frequently use these weapons to terrorize Afghan citizens or attack Afghan National Security and Coalition forces throughout the Nangarhar, said Belcher.
“The citizens of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are committed to government objectives to thwart insurgent activity in their neighborhoods,” said Belcher. “Afghan National Security Forces continue to take these weapons out of the hands of insurgents, making Nangarhar safer for residents.”
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I seem to remember stabbing as a distinct possibility as well. Or has SWWBO hidden them from the uhm.. children?
by
Trias on February 21, 2008 11:35 AM
[glower]
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2008 11:41 AM
Geez, that stuff looks just as bad as the things we used to find wrapped in ponchos and buried alongside the paddy dikes. My guess is that the dudes who put that stuff there went non-combatant (in one way or another) before they could retrieve it *or* they scooted into the Border areas and became occupied with more important things -- like dodging Pak Cobras.
Dirt is *not* ordnance-friendly.
by
BillT on February 21, 2008 11:42 AM
You'd get a kick out of the pix that MH took of the caches they found in Iraq. Virtually all of them in all-too-operable condition due to them being stored in bunkers and such.
by Sly2017 on February 21, 2008 1:01 PM
The auld Armorer may like to prowl about a "forgotten arsenal" instead of rusty old Destroyers on his next vacation adventure.
Reportedly this is from someplace in A'stan.
http://s131.photobucket.com/albums/p296/rlanicek/CFD%2002-13-2008/?start=all
The Castle would need a major expansion!
by John on February 21, 2008 5:46 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 18, 2007
The Whatziss, revealed!
A Laurel, and Hearty Handshake to Old Fat Sailor and Mongo for getting it right. It is, indeed, a round for the WWI 3" Stokes mortar.

This woulda been your next clue if we'd needed one.
But OFS and Mongo took care of it.
Interesting method of fuzing, eh? Right before you hang and drop the round, you pulled the ring, inserted the round, and let it go - the lever flipped free as it cleared the tube, and off it went.
The Stokes mortar is essentially the first modern mortar. I could write a learned treatise here, but heck, real weapons geek Bruce Canfield has already done so - if you'd like to know more about the Stokes - simply click here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Wonder if Stokes had anything to do with the stokes stretcher?
Did a quick google and wiki search and found very little.
by jon spencer on August 19, 2007 6:53 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 15, 2007
Ammunition, Part the 4th. Closing out the muzzle-loading ammunition piece.
Closing out the reprise of the ammuntion posts... again - it's an old post, so some links may be broken. I'll fix 'em as I can.
G'day, everybody! While I certainly haven't exhausted the muzzle-loading era and may return to it, I'm going to close it out for now with a post about 'cleaner' bullets and what to do when your weapon misfires. Then I can move on to black powder primer fired cartridges and beyond - at a later date, at a later date, keep your shirt on!
If you need a refresher, here are parts I, II, and III.
As I mentioned in earlier discussions about black powder, a major problem with those guns and that ammunition was the residue, or fouling, from firing. It doesn't take long before it starts to get hard to load your weapon. Instead of the bullet dropping down onto the powder, you have to exert more and more force to ram the bullet down the bore. That takes time, meaning you reduce your rate of fire, and the distortion of the soft lead bullet can significantly reduce accuracy, and even range, if you distort the skirt of a minie' ball sufficiently. Most Civil War engagements were fought at distances where range wasn't a question, but accuracy, and most importantly, rate of fire, were important.
The most common kind of 'cleaner bullet was the Williams. It came as a Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3. In this photo, they are 1, 3, 2, something I didn't notice until after I took the picture last night. You'll have to excuse me, I was in the basement right after the tornado warning sirens had gone off. Have you ever tried to snag 7 cats and get 'em to the basement - quickly? And I expected Beth's new car to be a dimpled wreck from hail, too. In the event, nothing happened.

Shown with an 8mm Mauser round for comparison. Hi-speed (or patient) version here.
These were designed to clean the bore as the bullet traveled down the barrel. When fired, a zinc ring at the bottom of the bullet would expand to clean the debris and grease from the rifle. On the Type 1, the zinc ring is gone from years in the ground, leaving only the post. The Type 2 was only produced briefly, in favor of the Type 3. The differences are the Type 2 has a thicker ring than the Type 1, and in an attempt to contain costs, a smaller bullet. The Type 3 is basically a Type 1 bullet with the improved Type 2 disk. Depending on who you read, they ranged from really effective (Williams himself) to worthless. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle - and had more to do with training of the soldier and intensity of the combat.
There's more in the extended post.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Last but not least - what do you do with misfires? You recap and try again. If that fails, you drop your rifle and grab the rifle the guy next to you dropped when he took a bullet.
If you win the battle, or the action moves away from your position and you have some time, you get out your 'worm', and pull the bullet, something like this:

You put the puller on the threaded end of your ramrod, pushed it down to the bullet, screwed it in, and pulled it out. Having had to do this a few times myself, it's not something you want to be doing in combat.
Here are examples of both Union and Confederate pulled bullets. The Union bullet as three rings, the confederate, two. The Yankee bullet also has a thinner skirted cone, which made it grip the rifling better. The rings, or cannelures, are for holding grease to aid loading, ease the passage of the bullet, and to make cleaning easier by emulsifying the firing residue.
Pulled bullets head-on.
Side view.
End View.
Keep checking back. I've got more stuff working - the German 'Glasmine' and the "Elsie" mine.
� Secure this line!
by
John
on
Jun 15, 2007
�
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #18
June 14, 2007
Ammunition, Part the 3rd
Heh. Things change over time. This is part three of the Ammunition series that I'm reprising. Yesterday I was gently chid on a disagreement of fact - which I concede half of, anyway - and was posed a question that I really am going to have to buy the OED to be able to answer. Given the subject of yesterday's chiding... I may get chid again today!
Change over time - peoples blog-reading habits change, and bloggers posting habits change - I just realized that the JDM Warning in these, well, JDM doesn't read here anymore, I don't think - because, among other things, I quit writing things like that, as life got too cramped for the rather stout effort putting together a post like that takes. Mebbe when I retire, I can write "The Curmudgeon's Guide to the History of Arms" a snarky look at the subject.
Anyway - welcome to part three. If I have the time, I'll check the links - but this piece is over three years old, and so some links may be broken - the Armorer
***********************************
Welcome to Ammunition, part the 3rd. Yes, this one comes with another JDM Warning® - excessive words, not enough pictures. Hey, when you guys pay for my bandwidth you can gripe about the lack of pictures.
We left off in Ammunition, Part the 2nd with the shift from flintlock to percussion ignition of the powder charge. I mentioned how governments liked it because it was a cheap and easy replacement to do with flintlocks, so you didn't have to completely rearm, you could retrofit. Cheaper and quicker. Here's an example, with a US M1842 (Springfield) conversion.
Note from a collector's perspective - many of these rifles were back-dated to flintlocks because the original flintlocks were so scarce (having been converted, eh?). They don't hold the same value as a true original configuration, so take a good hard look at one of these offered in a flintlock form. The parts usually don't match in overall age patina, especially ones made with more modern parts made from different steels than the originals. You can see in the picture - where there is brass, that is a filler for the old flintlock pan. Oh, yes, I did say rifle. Many of these were rifled when they were converted to percussion as well. Not a deep rifling, not really a very useful rifling, but they were rifled.
The simple expedient of putting fulminate of mercury in a copper (later brass) cap that fit on a nipple simplified the soldier's drill and the gun-makers workload - meaning more rifles could be made, and effectively more shots fired in a given amount of time by a given body of troops.
Here is an example of modern large rifle caps. Not very dissimilar from the originals. A little more stable/less sensitive (don't want it too stable or it won't work well as an ignition system) and a little less sensitive to environmental conditions. Plus the ignition compounds are safer, both for the producer and the consumer.
When you ally the percussion cap with paper cartridges, rifled barrels and the Minie' ball, you produce a virtual revolution in the armament of the individual soldier. The soldier now has a weapon which has a near equal reach to artillery on flat ground - making the life of the artilleryman suddenly very much more dangerous. The added range and accuracy give a murderous advantage to the defense which can only be overcome with numbers, as the Army of the Potomac found out numerous times to it's lasting regret, and as the Army of Northern Virginia, especially Pickett's Division, found out on the third day at Gettysburg.
So, what's a paper cartridge? Glad you asked. Here is a paper cartridge and a fired Minie' ball.

The paper cartridge is another innovation designed to reduce the number of steps required to load, thereby speeding up the loading process and upping the number of shots the soldier can get off in a given time.
(continued in the extended post)
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
For example - you are armed with a flintlock. Mean People Who Suck are standing over there, shooting at you. You want to shoot them. Here's what you do, in general terms:
1. Half Cock the gun.
2. Ground the butt of the gun, holding it muzzle up perpendicular to the ground.
3. Grab your powder measure, whether it be a wooden bottle, horn, or other implement. Pour in the powder.
4. Open ball pouch, retrieve ball. (and, in some cases, patch)
5. Drop ball in barrel. If using a patch, put patch over muzzle first.
6. If not using patch, put wad in muzzle. This step can be skipped - but you better keep the weapon pointed up!
7. Get Ramrod.
8. Ram.
9. Remove ramrod.
10. Replace Ramrod.
11. Pick up weapon.
12. Open Frizzen.
13. Get priming powder measure.
14. Prime.
15. Replace (or let go of, if it's on a lanyard) priming powder measure.
16. Close frizzen.
17. Check flint. (This step can also be skipped now and again)
18. On order, go to full cock.
19. On order, fire.
In the age of paper cartridges, minie balls, and priming caps it goes something like this:
1. Half cock the rifle.
2. Ground the butt of the gun, holding the muzzle perpendicular to the ground.
3. Open cartridge pouch, get cartridge.
4. Tear cartridge open with your teeth, pour powder into barrel.
5. Drop bullet (with paper wrapping still on it) down barrel. (There's some disagreement about leaving the paper on it). I've fired both ways, no difference in accuracy, but you do get more burning embers - so have a care if it's dry).
6. Get Ramrod.
7. Ram.
8. Replace Ramrod.
9. Pick up rifle.
10. Open cap pouch, cap the nipple.
11. On order, go to full cock.
12. On order, fire.
In practical aspects, the rates of fire are about the same, 2-3 aimed shots per minute. The big difference is level of training required of the soldier, reliability, and accuracy.
In good weather, flintlocks could have a 20-30% misfire rate. Percussion less than 10%. In bad weather, flintlocks could be useless (except as unwieldy pikes), while percussion weapons, as long as the soldiers handled the cartridges properly between the cartridge box and barrel, would only have a failure rate of about 20%. There is no realistic comparison in accuracy - 100 men firing at 100 men with average smooth-bore muskets would get 3-5 hits at 100 yards. That same group firing rifles could have up to %25 hits in the right conditions at that range. Hence the power of the defense during the Civil War. And since a rifle is easily accurate out to 300 yards in the hands of a trained man, the danger zone is correspondingly large - especially if they defender are up high, firing down, such as at Maryes Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg.
So, how do you shoot round ball from a rifle? You use a patch, a swatch of cotton cloth. You put the patch over the muzzle, and you put the ball on top of that. The patch material should be thick enough that you now have to exert some real force to get the ball in the barrel. The patch is actually what engages the rifling and imparts spin to the ball. Some care had to be taken however, that you got a good, uniform ram and didn't distort the ball too much or it would be unstable anyway! And, as we later discovered, a round ball is not the most aerodynamic shape. But that's a later post...
Most mass-produced military arms of the smooth-bore era were not conducive to rifling, the manufacturing standards were too loose. Those military rifles produced were produced for specialist soldiers, who, due to the relatively low rate of fire, needed to be protected, either by fortifications or other, more conventionally armed soldiers.
Two things combined to make a sea-change in this arena - mass production of standardized parts with finer tolerances, and the invention of the Minie' ball.
The revolution in mass production was a meld of the work of John Hall and Eli Whitney. John J. Hall, rifle maker, and Eli Whitney, maker of anything, including guns, great contributions to economic progress was not Whitney's cotton gin - that just paid the bills. What made the the big change was the concept, and tools to support it, of mass production - made possible by standardized production methods and tolerances leading to interchangeable parts, first demonstrated at the US Arsenal at Harpers Ferry (worth a visit).
I've mentioned this before, but there is a reason, buried in history, that British mechanics are called fitters. Even up through WWII, Brit industry still didn't produce the same part to the same spec, hence the need to 'fit' the parts. This was true of smalls arms parts or starter motors. It made for highly skilled and talented mechanics and armorers, but is tough to sustain under wartime conditions. That's one reason Brit firearms from WWII and back have so many serial numbered parts, matched to the receiver number - a legacy of when the arms were assembled in what looked like an assembly line but was in fact a fitting line - craftsmen took parts from bins and fitted them together - and the parts were not always interchangeable with the rifle next to them in the rack.
This lead to the relatively cheap production of high-quality rifled arms. Then along comes Claude Minie'. "His "cylindo-conoidal" lead bullet would expand in the barrel to grip the rifling. With a diameter of 0.57", around 25% more could be carried by soldiers than the old 0.75" diameter cartridges. Effective at 600 yards, with the same rate of fire as the old musket, it changed the nature of two centuries of warfare." (The above description comes from here, a cool site about the Woolwich (pronounced Wool-ich) arsenal in England).
Minie' did not invent the concept of the easy-to-use muzzle-loading rifle bullet - he took the original idea and made it cheap and practical. The original designs were called "pillar" bullets that had separate bottoms with a 'pillar' protruding from them which was driven into the bullet by the gases upon firing. This causes the base of the bullet to expand into the rifling, and away we went. Minie' dispensed with that - as this picture shows, the base of the bullet is hollow - lead is soft - the pillar isn't needed, the gases will do all the work for you. He also designed the grooves, or cannelures - which served to hold lubrication for the bullet. The lube both greased the passage of the bullet and served to emulsify the firing residue - making cleaning easier, and with the use of special 'cleaner' bullets, could reduce fouling in the bore during combat, which will eventually lead to slowing reloading time, as you have to exert much more force to seat the bullet.
Let's take a break here and talk about how much of this firearms talk has made it into the culture (Sarah Brady shudders). "Lock, stock, and barrel." The major components of a musket. The lock, containing the mechanism for the hammer, and on flintlocks, matchlocks, etc - the pan. The barrel, which is the whole point of the thing, and the stock, which holds it all together. "Don't go off half-cocked." Referring to the way flintlocks and percussion weapons are loaded - the half-cock position is essentially the safety. Going off half-cocked meant you'd have to stop and cock before you could fire. "Flash in the pan." Refers to the unfortunate habit of flintlocks, especially after several shots, to flash off the powder in the pan, but not fire the charge in the barrel, due to fouling of the touch-hole (a term left over from the very beginning, where fire was brought to the barrel). That's why Sergeants were such 'pricks' - they carried extra pricks (tools to ream the touch-holes). And last, but not least for today's musings - "Bite the Bullet". That comes from at least the Civil War. In a time of still-crude medicine and little to no anaesthesia, troops were given a Minie' ball to bite on as they were hacked operated on. To me, these are some of the more poignant finds on Civil War battlefields. Like this one.
So, let's wrap up percussion weapons, shall we?
Here's are shots of a reproduction Enfield 3-Band Musket in .577 caliber. Enfield - where the rifle was designed. 3-Band meaning 3 bands holding the barrel and stock together - a long rifle. These rifles were used by both sides in the Civil War and highly prized as excellent weapons.
This is the rifle at full-cock. For capping, it would be at half-cock, which as I said is the 'safe' position.
Here it is capped.
And here it is, hammer home at rest, after firing (since I didn't want to clean it - I didn't fire the cap, sorry!)
When next I take up the subject, we'll go from paper cartridge to the black powder metallic cartridge - with a stop for the needle-guns and their linen cartridges.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Great Post!
by DaveH on April 8, 2004 9:06 AM
Don't forget about the Springfield and Fergusson breechloaders!
(This is almost as good as watching 'Tales of the Gun' on the history channel.)
by
GEBIV on April 8, 2004 7:20 PM
But Gebiv - that will make me feel bad, because I don't have any! Though I intend to build a Ferguson.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 8, 2004 7:28 PM
Cool, i have one of those "fired rounds" myself, found hiking at Shiloh Tennessee as a boy scout. Same crusty white stuff all over it... what is that anyway?
by
Vigilance Matters on April 8, 2004 10:13 PM
The white stuff is lead oxide. Better known as rust. When iron rusts, you get red iron oxide, when lead 'rusts' you get white lead oxide.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 9, 2004 6:12 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jun 14, 2007
�
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #13
June 13, 2007
Ammunition, Part the Second.
[Armorer's note - continuing from yesterday, the Ammunition posts from the Archives of Argghhh! Warning - some links may be broken]
Now for the JDM Warning® - Excessively wordy post ahead!
In the first part, we met D'oh! who discovered and then lost the concept of attacking your enemy with a projectile weapon because Mean People Suck. While I postulated the idea lay dormant for another 10,000 years until rediscovered, once a guy used the trick and survived, the whole concept took off like gangbusters. You go from hand-thrown rocks , darts and spears to applying mechanical advantage to the process, with slings, bows, and atlaltls. From there you move to applying more mechanical advantage and produce catapults, onagers, ballistas and other engines of massy destruction.
Trebuchet
But with the discovery of black powder things changed dramatically. For a long time, the western world held to the myth that black powder was discovered by a monk, Black Berthold. The Chinese have a claim, that they are still working on. This fellow in New Zealand has his own opinions, but offers no definitive answer... In short, it's still up for grabs - except for the adherents of the Chinese, Hindu, Greek, Arab, German, Spanish and English theories - though the english claim is really tied to Roger Bacon, who recorded the recipe, but never claimed to have been the inventor. At least, unlike the machine gun, you can't blame America for this.
What we do know is this - in the early to middle 1200's, gunpowder made it's debut in Europe. And the governing elites haven't been happy since, because, among other things, "God Created Man, but Sam Colt made 'em equal!" And if there is anything a governing elite dislikes, it's people with power to do something about it!
It didn't take people long to figure out that if you took a rocket, plugged it with something moveable, that the resultant activity of the moveable object might have interesting uses in hunting game and Mean People Who Suck.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Just as the first motorcars had the engine in front because that's where the horses had been on carriages (and carriage-makers were making the first bodies) so too the first cannon used a common projectile - the arrow.
Cannon firing an arrow, from "De Nobilitatibus, Sapientii et Prudentiis Regum", manuscript, by Walter de Milemete, 1326
But people quickly learned that round shot was better, whether made of stone or iron. The stone balls, while comparatively cheap, didn't do that well against fortifications. As a projectile, round ball and shot lasted until the end of the blackpowder era in the late 1800's, as this little collection of projectiles in my living room demonstrates.
Just as the first form of mechanical locomotion in the form of steam engines were large, because it was technically hard to make them small, so it went with firearms. As the technology improved, the 'gonne' got both smaller and larger.
Okay. We've got gunpowder. We got barrel making. We've got lead. We've got handier weapons. And there are plenty of Mean People Who Suck. Now we've got to go through the development of ways to get all this to work - i.e., getting the powder to explode. Many methods worked. Some better than others, and for a long time, the better methods were also more expensive to make or didn't stand up well to battlefield conditions. The first, and still simplest, is bring a coal to the hole. After that, well, it gets complicated. If you want a detailed look (and I recommend it if you have the time - this is an excellent site!)
Early "Handgonne"r
The next step was to take a fuse rope and touch it to the hole, and after that came the matchlock, where the fuze was held by an arm on the weapon and a trigger bar used to bring the fuse to the touch hole. I happen to have an arm like that, a North African Jezail that was made in the late 1800's. Unfortunately, the match holder is broken - but here is a representative example of an ignition system that survived very late in the era.
Let's cover the major bits. All blackpowder muzzle loaders had this much in common: a tube, generally closed at one end (there were breechloaders, but that's a different story) with a small hole to allow flame in. The soldier dumped in his powder, with or without a wad to hold it down, tamping it as he did so. He then dropped (or after a few shots and the fouling that resulted) rammed a bullet home. After that, it changes.
The basic components look like this.
A large (in this case, .69 cal) ball, and a quantity of powder.
There were many tools in use over time to make this job easier for the soldier under the stress of combat. If you look at engravings and paintings from the era, you see soldiers festooned with odd-looking bits of paraphernalia. Like this guy, taken from a 16th Century drill manual.
He has all those little bottles all over him so that he can load without having to measure while under a little pressure - ie, Mean People Who Suck inconsiderately trying to kill him before he kills them. One of the purposes of drill was to make the loading process automatic, and correct - learned at the muscle-response level, not just intellectually, so that you can still respond to the commands even though your lizard-brain is telling you to run. The rump of drill we have left today is what's left of a much greater body of drill. Today we use it to move groups of troops around in an efficient, disciplined manner - without the natural straggling that occurs when people move as a mob. This is just a tiny bit of what was a vast body of drill designed to move blocks of muskets around the battlefield quickly (in column) and get the weapons employed in mass quickly (shift from column to line) in order to mass fires on the Mean People Who Suck.
Modern tools that do the same thing as all the little bottles do are illustrated here. Powder measures. They both allow you to fill in bulk and dispense measured amounts, the large one for the main charge, the smaller one for the finer powder used in the pan of a flintlock or similar action.
Speaking of the flintlock, let's go on into that particular weapon, as it became the dominant form of lock until the good Scot Reverend Forsyth invented the percussion cap.
We've covered the basics of the weapon already. With a flintlock you add a pan, to hold fine grained powder that will be set off by the sparks. A frizzen, which serves to both cover the pan retaining the powder and is the striking surface for the flint, and the hammer, which holds the flint.
This is the lock at half-cock, with the frizzen down, and the hammer locked back so that you can open the frizzen to charge the pan, but not inadvertently send the hammer forward.
Next step is to open the frizzen and charge the pan.
I cheated here - I also cocked it. Normally you would still be at half-cock. Starting to get an idea where the phrase "Don't go off half-cocked" came from?
Now you are locked, cocked, and loaded. All you need is a target and permission to fire.
Target? If you look at old military smoothbores, you'll see the sights are rudimentary. Targets were blocks of men. There was much windage in the bore, to make it easier to load when the weapon was fouled from firing and to make manufacturing simpler and cheaper. Since the ball bounces down the bore, final trajectory is defined by the direction of the last bounce, so fancy sights aren't needed. Troops were taught to aim low, maximizing their chances of a hit.
Once you got the command to fire - pull the trigger.
There are sparks there, but in the light it's not easy to see them.
The next major improvement came with the invention of the percussion cap (for a discussion of that, see the Reverend Forsyth link, above). This further simplified the loading and firing drill. Though improperly trained soldiers would still screw it up, witness the rifles picked up in the area of the Pennsylvania militia at Gettysburg some of which were loaded near to the muzzle with multiple charges - the militia drilled without percussion caps to save money and ammunition - and forgot to cap their piece when under fire. There are also several confederate accounts of casualties caused by ramrods. Works once.
The other nice thing from a governmental perspective was that this new technology was adapatable to older arms and didn't require a complete re-arming to take advantage of it.
And that's going to wrap it up for this installment - next up, percussion ammunition in Ammunition, part the third.
� Secure this line!
June 12, 2007
Ammunition, part the first.
[Armorer's note - today is just a killer day - since we've got a lot of readers who are new since I published this - I'm going to be lazy and give the newbies a taste of the stuff I used to write when there was *time* to write like this. So, from the Castle Archives...]
Ammunition. What is it? The Webster's defines it thusly:
am�mu�ni�tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (my-nshn)
n.
1. Projectiles, such as bullets and shot, together with their fuses and primers, that can be fired from guns or otherwise propelled.
2. Nuclear, biological, chemical, or explosive material, such as rockets or grenades, that are used as weapons.
3. An object used as a missile in offense or defense: Rocks were my only ammunition against the bear.
4. A means of attacking or defending an argument, thesis, or point of view.
Okay, so I've been promising to discuss ammunition. Teased you with a picture.
Let's get started. At the beginning. JD - the above paragraph was for you, I'll be covering 1-3, and if you keep being grumpy about no gun pictures, 4.
As artillerymen have known forever - the weapon is what hits the target. The rest is a delivery system. Ammunition is consumed by delivery systems.
As the bumper sticker so fatuously notes, "Mean people suck." It's true now, it was true 160,000 years ago, too. Creationists who don't like dating like that - work with me - it's funnier this way. Bullies have been around as long as people have been around. Even before we climbed down out of the trees and tried that walking upright thing.
D'oh! was out doing a little gathering near the present day village of Herto, in what was to be known eventually as Ethiopia. He'd done pretty well, and had a nice little woven-grass baggie of nuts to his credit, that he looked forward to using to entice M'arg's father to let him do a little foolin' around with her tonight.
M'untz is out looking for food, too. But he prefers to harvest the harvester's harvest. Rather than actually bend over and pick all of the goodies himself, he prefers to bend over the prostrate body of his unconscious/dead victim and pick up the bag, once. Lazy b*st*rd.
So, D'oh!, happily anticipating the night's frolicsome promise, comes into a cleared area in the verge of the forest - and sees M'untz. M'untz has been waiting, knowing that D'oh! always comes this way, having slept through the anti-terrorist briefing - the part where they say vary your routes daily. M'untz, a hulking brute of early Homo Sapiens Sapiens, stood there, slapping his yet-to-be-named-thus knobkerry in the palm of his left hand, grinning evilly.
D'oh! realizes this in Not Good. Last time this happened, D'oh! had bruises that lasted weeks, and he still had a knot on his forehead from a previous encounter with M'untz's knobkerry. Running was no good. D'oh! was fat and slow. M'untz was a ponderous runner - but have seen how fast a rhino can go when it gets up to speed? D'oh! also knew that M'untz wouldn't just take the bag and leave. Some weird concept of honor drove M'untz to think of himself as a hunter, and he had to take down his prey, which meant D'oh! was going to get thunked on the head again. D'oh! really wished that M'untz would go hit something eatable, fresh meat was so much better than what was left after the hyenas left a carcass.
Necessity being the mother of invention, and with terror fueling an adrenaline rush, D'oh! had an idea. Since people who beat on you suck, and people who beat on you with a club REALLY suck, the thing to do was to try to get them before they could reach you with the club. Hmmmmm. Space. Distance. Range. Rock. Rock! There was a nice rock nearby. D'oh! reached down and picked it up, hefting it experimentally (though the concept of experimentation not being known yet, D'oh didn't recognize the pattern).
M'untz started across the clearing, again with that evil grin, this time the knobkerry held up and ready for the knock on the head.
D'oh seized the moment and hurled the rock. However, being the first human to ever throw a rock, he threw like a girl. [Hey! Baseball hadn't been invented yet - *everybody* threw like a girl] The rock went sailing harmlessly over M'untz's head, landing with a rattle and crash in the bushes behind him. M'untz wasn't sure what had just happened, but he knew there had been a Perturbation of the Force. And THAT pissed him off. So he knocked D'oh! on the head and killed him. Picking up the bag of nuts, M'untz went off munching happily with visions of a naked M'arg doing really interesting things by the fire tonight dancing in his head.
Since M'untz was a self-absorbed bully, he never thought anymore about the rock. Since D'oh was dead because of no training in the use of rocks - his idea died with him, not to be raised again for another 10,000 years, when a distant descendant of his, B'art, would actually kill a distant descendant of M'untz, and the idea of launching weapons at your enemy/prey would be born, squalling and squealing, into the toolkit of people who wanted fresh meat, or were just mean and wanted other people's fresh meat, or who needed to defend themselves against people who wanted their fresh meat - even back then, the police didn't always get there in time, Constable B'arney being more common than Officer K'ojak.
In our next installment, we'll skip 150,300 years and get to gunpowder, since I currently don't collect any weapons that don't use chemical energy to hurl the rock. Suffice it to say that whole projectile thingy went through a lot of development, to include the application of mechanical advantage (a concept first introduced by B'art's pal M'artin, with the invention of the sling), through spears, atlatls, bows and arrows, catapults, and other such stuff.
So, here it is. The first projectile weapon, found near the village of Herto, in Ethiopia.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Okay, that post took a long time to get to the point and what's even worse is that I was a little unclear about what the "knobkerry" thing was at first. Just show the stinkin' guns!
-Jim.
by
JD Mays on March 19, 2004 9:14 AM
I don't care. I had fun writing it. Plllpppptttt!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 19, 2004 9:26 AM
Wow, why weren't there laws against rock throwing back then?
I wonder how many kids were killed or hurt by rocks not being locked up properly?
Besides, no citizen really needs rocks, only the police should be allowed to carry these deadly weapons.
And look what rocks have caused! Wars, killing, brutality across the ages. I wish we could live before the rock, in the peaceful utopia of human tranquillity.
And John, I did some research into the names you used. It appears that some surive to this day!
E.g. "B'art" was transformed to "Bart" but a trained nameologist can see the roots are still there. Very interesting.
Thanks for the post. It reads like you had fun.
by
Russell on March 19, 2004 2:54 PM
So, where and what are the arsenal markings of the ur-projectile?
Details, y'know.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on March 19, 2004 8:58 PM
Great post, John, but did I miss something? How do we know this isn't just a ..... rock?
LOL
by fdcol63 on June 12, 2007 9:19 AM
Wow. I was entranced but that Kerry knob thing really creeped me out. Got yer details from the Leakys...
by Cricket on June 12, 2007 9:32 AM
The old collecting budget was a mite sparse in those days, eh John?
by Neffi on June 12, 2007 10:26 AM
" ... that Kerry knob thing really creeped me out .."
Ooooo-kkaaayyy! I could have done without THAT image. LOL
by fdcol63 on June 12, 2007 10:46 AM
No, Neffi - wait until parts 2, 3, and 4.
Frank - I can answer that "just a rock" question, too.
It has markings.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 12, 2007 10:53 AM
John,
In going through our archives, (I didn't realize they went back that far) I came across a story:
By Numm
Big tree by river
Rock bad, should not let use. People hurt by rock accident. D'oh killed trying to use rock. Here idea. Ban use of rocks. Call it Basalt Weapon Ban.
Take that John, Bwahahahaha!
by
NevadaDailySteve on June 12, 2007 11:33 AM
Oh, Steve, 10,000 comedians outta work, and this is the best you can do?
8^ D
by
John of Argghhh! on June 12, 2007 11:44 AM
Okay, so dip me in maple syrup and call me stupid but I find these posts extremely informative. Then again, I think the P51-Mustang is beauty in motion, and all Military pilots should have to qualify in one.
Veritas et Fidelis Semper
by Deborah Aylward on June 12, 2007 11:54 AM
Looks like a triple dip to me. At least I know how that happens here. I still don't understand how my congressman can do it in envelops with paper.
That said .... looks like a great weapon. I want one with a silencer.
by
jim b on June 12, 2007 12:04 PM
Ahh, see what a difference the markings make? Now we know which way is Up. *snicker*
by
Barb on June 12, 2007 12:47 PM
John,
I apologize. Puns are the lowest form of humor. My friends have tried interventions but they don't work. I can't help myself.
by
NevadaDailySteve on June 12, 2007 1:12 PM
If this was the rock that had been thrown at M'untz and it had hit him on the noggin, would that have left a "headstamp" to help with identification of this particular piece of ammnunition?
by
SezaGeoff on June 12, 2007 7:45 PM
does that arrow mean 'lob in the direction of Muntz?'
by Cricket on June 12, 2007 8:27 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jun 12, 2007
�
Who Tends the Fires links with:
"News"! With 110% more Filler!
January 5, 2007
The Whatziss from yesterday.

Not too many takers on this one. Which is interesting, given that there is boatloads of data out there on this particular beast.
That said - only two takers, but #2, Pat - got it mostly correct when he identified them as rounds for the M8C Spotting Rifle. His only error (obliquely) was continuing on and tying it to the 106mm recoilless rifle.
These were used for the M8C rifles used on the British Wombat recoilless rifle - a quibble, certainly, except the red paint in the flutes indicates their Brit origin.
This website (the Armorer wants one of these guns) has a nice set of pictures of a before and after restoration of a 106RR.
The spotting rifle is used by the gunner to acquire his target, without wasting main gun ammo, and with a lessened signature to give away his position. The M8C is a gas-operated semi-auto, which means the gunner just pings away with it until he sees a hit on his target at which point he fires his main gun. The use of a special cartridge with the M8C, vice a regular .50 cal round, is because you want the ballistic performance of the round to be roughly equal to the trajectory of the main gun - speed of flight isn't as important as trajectory matching is.
Tanks can use their coaxial machine guns for the same purpose. The Israelis even mounted M2 .50s on their M109A1 155mm howitzers for the same purpose - to make it easier to use the guns in direct fire mode.
Now for the fun part - doing some research for this post, I found this very nice picture of an M50 Ontos - the USMC reckless rifle carrier of the Vietnam era.

And I found this website with a lot of great pictures of the Ontos, certainly one of the odder weapon systems we've developed over the years. A lot of firepower on that little tracked chassis - but all served from outside the vehicle, on a vehicle, by the very nature of the weapon, that is going to attract a *lot* of attention.
Enjoy.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I just watched a CBS set of DVD's of archival reports from Viet Nam...starring Walter Cronkite (and seeing a young Dan Rather and a Charles Kerault) During the Tet offensive and battle of Hue they showed a curious contraption scuttling about the city shooting at things. I Googled and fount the Ontos. (Greek for THING). Firing a beehive round (flechettes) it could do a better job than artillery penetrating the jungle. However...the crew did have to get out of the armor to re-load the thing...
I have always thought the recoiless rifle was given a premature retirement...
by
haji 0 matic on January 5, 2007 8:44 AM
Oh, wow. That "Ontos" thing produced an instant flashback to the MechWarrior computer games. It looks like a BattleMech that was designed by somebody who just wanted maximum firepower, and didn't give a darn about speed, mobility, ammo supply, or anything else.
by wolfwalker on January 5, 2007 9:08 AM
Great weblink!! I spent two "seasons" at Pohakaloa. The first time ('75), our unit still had 106mm RRs. The seond time ('76), the 13 jeeps of the AT platoon had been traded for 25 jeeps of the TOW platoon. That was where I first saw one of those things fire. Also, BTW, the first time I ever got to see real WP fired downrange and live ordnance dropped from planes.
I got to fire a 106 one time. It was just unbelievably thrilling! That is one big noisy gun and you are leaning over it when you fire. Push-pull. (or vice versa, I can never remember...) KA-EFFIN-BOOM!!!!
And I always wanted to fire an ONTOS, but I never saw a real one. Also, the two bottom guns were supposedly ground mountable. The loader had to get out of the vehicle to load the guns from the rear. The 6 guns were attached to a swiveling TC turret; all he had to do was point the center mounted 50 at the target and the guns were aimed. Crappy little vehicle, immense defensive firepower, at least once...
:-)
by
SangerM on January 5, 2007 10:05 AM
Generally, tankers don't use the coax for ranging as the GPMG is not a good MV match for a 105 or 120mm. The Centurion and Chieftain used 50cal Ranging Machine Guns (no trajectory matching) before the arrival of Fire Control computers. Firing a burst (3 rds) from the RMG gave the gunner a complete firing solution; he would then select the appropriate aim point for the main gun and fire. The major limitation was that the 50cal could reach out to 1800m but the 105mm Sabot was effective to 2500m, the 120mm to 3000m+.
Trajectory matching worked with the 106mm as the relative MVs were similar. As for the Israelies. they also mounted 50cals over the main gun to engage targets which could not be handled by the coax, but didn't rate a 105mm round.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 5, 2007 12:21 PM
wow.
that whatziss just went from zero to bodacious in one post.
way cool.
by
MajMike on January 5, 2007 12:39 PM
The Ontos looks like it belongs with those Battlehammer games.
by
Trias on January 5, 2007 10:29 PM
Oops, center mounted .30, not 50.
I also got to drive an M60A1 (RISE, Passive, etc.) during a gunnery season in '79 (couple months of prep and do), we scored green at Graf, and I got fire it one time. Wasn't as much fun as the 106mm, but when I drove, I sometimes left the hatch open or cracked, and THAT was a kick in the butt when it fired. Well, except for 2 times:
1) The turret was turned to port and the .50 shells started falling into the driver compartment, one went down my shirt back. HOT! OW! That was a LOT of shells.
2) I used to drive with the hatch open, but not locked into place to my right. One time, while we were engaging night targets to starboard w/ the CoAx, the road canted sideways, with the slope downward to port. The well-lubed hatch slid downward and pinned my head between it and the hull. How I managed to get that thing pushed back uphill and locked into place AND didn't ruin the engagement or turn the tank, I'll never know. And Thank GOD and NATICK for CVCs. And in '79, I was wearing the 'new' one that had the shell over the padded headpiece, not the full helmet. Slight headache, strong memory of being really stupid.
by
SangerM on January 6, 2007 8:56 AM
I used to drive with the hatch open, but not locked into place to my right.
In an odd cascade of associations, Sanger - the first thing that popped into my head when I read that sentence was "canted" - which, the story coming from you, is oddly appropriate.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 6, 2007 9:04 AM
That got a good laugh... Thanks for noticin'
And yeah, I know.
Believe it or not, that has been mine since '2000, and it used to have a full structure. I'd started reworking it in Dec 05, after I got TGR done but that got put on hold until after I get done with school. The plan is to use it for different kinds of stuff than TGR, more...personally skewed... :-)
by
SangerM on January 6, 2007 7:15 PM
Oh, BTW, guys and gals, if you poke around on that restoration site some, not only will you see some other cool pieces, but some cool French Postcards, as in, like the proverbial Platonic Ideal of the French Postcard. Very risque to us Merkins when issued, but tamer than some things in kids' books these days.
O Tempora, O Mores!
(Translation: Back when I was a kid, we didn't get to look at that kinda stuff. Dammit!)
by
Justthisguy on January 9, 2007 12:19 AM
John,
Well, now, I'm confused. One of my college room mates said he was assigned to be an ONTOS driver, but he was in the D.C. National Guard. Perhaps the Army was phasing them out, and, as usual, the Marines got the castoffs? Ditto, the Guard?
by Outpost37 on January 9, 2007 8:38 PM
The official Army position is here.
That said, we never did adopt the Roland missile system - but one National Guard ADA battalion did get it for a while.
Might be the same thing with the Ontos.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 9, 2007 8:43 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
November 21, 2006
The Sunday Whatzis, revealed.
Confused? Click here.
That's a bullet for the Nordenfeldt 1-inch anti-torpedo boat gun. The Nordenfeldt guns were an early type of machine-gun. Like the Gatling gun, they used multiple barrels and mechanical power to operate. Unlike the Gatling, the didn't last very long in the grand scheme of things, much less enjoy a renaissance when someone realized what electricity might accomplish when applied to the concept.
Here's a group of Brit tars training with one (though no feed hopper has been loaded).

The Nordenfeldt guns were developed between 1873 and 1878 and were very popular in Europe, especially amongst the sailors. They generally had four barrels in line horizontally and were fed by gravity-feed hoppers. You can see them with 5 barrels or as few as two. One advantage the Nordenfeldts had over the Gatling was that the mechanism was much easier to get to for the purpose of clearing jams. Plus, if the jam was too complex and the situation dire, you could simply disconnect the barrel and keep firing with the remaining barrels. Unlike the Gatling, which used a rotating crank to cycle the gun, the Nordenfeldts used a lever that was moved back and forth. I've seen both a lever in the vertical plane, on the left side of the gun, or a handle that moved in the horizontal plane, on the right side of the gun. The sailor on the left right (sigh, I suppose, in the future, I'll just submit all posts to CAPT H for editing before publishing) in the picture has his hand on the lever for this particular gun. The cyclic rate of fire was about 350 rounds per minute.
Here we can see some more sailors getting it on for the camera. This gun has its feed-hopper mounted.

All that flailing about did affect accuracy a bit, but heck, they weren't used as sniper weapons.
The Brit National Maritime Museum has a wonderful copyright protected (way too expensive to buy permission to use) photo of a 1-inch Nordenfeldt anti-torpedo boat gun right here.
The Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Grounds has a nice little four-barrel Nordenfeldt - which shows the lever nicely, too.

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
now that is certainly an interesting little bit of bang stick.
by MajMike on November 21, 2006 8:27 AM
Interesting. It makes me think of harpoon. Is it based on the design or am i delusional again?
by
Trias on November 21, 2006 12:04 PM
So did the barrels fire sequentially or volley?
by Pogue on November 21, 2006 12:57 PM
Trias - as in a harpoon gun? Not really. Perhaps I don't understand the question.
Pogue- they fired in sequence.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 21, 2006 3:06 PM
Before the "progressives" took over, the Melbourne Museum (Australia) had quite an impressive firearms gallery. The Nordenfeldt in the collection took pride of place at the entrance to the gallery, and was able to be touched and operated. Thousands of children must have put millions of imaginary rounds in defence of Her Majesty's Victorian Ships through that weapon.
by
SezaGeoff on November 21, 2006 4:42 PM
Ooh, the Museum still has it - even if it is spelt wrong. Go to Nordenfeldt and click on the pictures for a larger image.
P.S. ours is nicer than yours (snark) - is that because it is squid equipment?
by
SezaGeoff on November 21, 2006 4:55 PM
"The sailor on the left ..." hmmm, looks like what sailors would refer to as "... to starboard".
Tsk
Cheers
[Oh, feh, I fixed that in the version that got... dumped.]
by J.M. Heinrichs on November 21, 2006 5:59 PM
Interesting note.
The guy who brought back all the Martini rifles from the Armory in Napal also found a couple of twin-barreled Nordenfelt guns there(not to mention a pile of other interesting boomenshooters).
by emdfl on November 21, 2006 8:50 PM
Geoff - I rather think the one at the National Maritime Museum in Blighty is nicer than yours... all that gleaming bronze.
As for the condition of ours - yep, we took (and at many museums, still take) crappy care of things like this.
Especially at Army Museums. The Navy and Air Force, with all that flight pay to draw on, have much better private support than us dumb grunts.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 21, 2006 8:51 PM
Oh, and the middle picture? HMS Cerebus, which might ring an Ozzie bell...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 21, 2006 8:54 PM
Oh, and the middle picture? HMS Cerberus, which might ring an Ozzie bell...
Though I got the picture elsewhere, it's there on that site, too.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 21, 2006 8:54 PM
Interesting about the Cerberus picture, because I had a thought that the 4 barrel may have been from Cerberus, but most of the data indicates that they were 2 barrel 1-pounders. I also wondered about the long barrel in the background as it originally had no secondary armament, but some sources list a pair of QFs added later. Wiki has timelined armament specs.
by SezaGeoff on November 22, 2006 5:41 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
November 15, 2006
The Whatziss, revealed!
The question is here, if you need to catch up.
Al and MajMike were correct, it's a linker-delinker for disintegrating link machine gun belts. The markings are frankly not conclusive as to origin. They are not Brit nor US.
The three-pronged side links:

The two-pronged side de-links. It really doesn't make linking any faster, but it sure reduces the stress on arthritic hands... Werekitten noted that it was a spreader - it actually does both - part of what I like about the cleverness of the gizmo. It squeezes to link, but flip it over, and it spreads to de-link. I shudder to think where you all might go with this.
Regardless - Bragging rights to Al and MajMike (though MajMike has some scale issues, not unusual with guys who have spent time running about in panzers).
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
I at least got a little bit right. That's more than I've ever done before!
Oh, I can die happy now.
by
WereKitten on November 15, 2006 7:15 AM
My wife says I have some scale issues too, but we'll save that for some other post.
by
al on November 15, 2006 8:01 AM
not a scale problem once ya showed it in a palm grip.
by MajMike on November 15, 2006 3:25 PM
Once upon a time ...
... we received a resupply of rounds for our C1s, a box of 7.62 Blank, linked. So we enjoyed of period of rest, delinking the rounds and filling our mags. The links were carefully collected and returned to our Supply Cpl for disposal.
The next day, we were given the opportunity to include a Browning M1919 in our defenses. And our Supply Cpl handed us a can of 7.62 Blanks, clipped, and a box of links with which to assemble a belt ...
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on November 15, 2006 4:57 PM
Nice, much smaller than I had estimated.
by
Trias on November 15, 2006 11:16 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 7, 2006
Since only the hardcore show up...
...on Saturdays - here's a Whatzis for Mr. Bullet Encyclopedia, Chris:

Post WWII.
You may begin. Anyone may play - but I'm hoping this one at least makes Chris pull a reference book off the shelf.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
4.6mm x 36 ("Loffelspitz") from Heckler & Koch c.1968, for the G36 rifle (of that period).
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 7, 2006 11:34 AM
JM beat me to it after looking at some reference materials I have to agree that it is the HK 4.6x36.
by Chris Denny on October 7, 2006 4:46 PM
Man, we need a varsity and JV set of quizes. Some of us tadpoles would play more if we had a chance(both as a matter of time and money to buy references).
by han solo on October 7, 2006 6:45 PM
Han
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 7, 2006 10:05 PM
What John said, Han. Though, admittedly, until you get the references bookmarked, time is your enemy.
Almost always, almost, anything that appears here can be found on the 'net.
And yes, John and Chris are correct.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 8, 2006 9:35 AM
looks more like a copper plated Saturn V booster if ya asks me..
by
MajMike on October 8, 2006 4:55 PM
Wouldn't that be a brass-plated booster, MajMike?
by
Barb on October 9, 2006 12:55 AM
true true, but i was trying to work the projo into teh funny as well... and "copper" just rolled off the fingertips so much easier!
by
MajMike on October 9, 2006 7:43 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 5, 2006
Time for a whatzis!
Trias likes those, and I missed his birthday, and we haven't done one in a while...

The first hint - post WWII.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
It's a .50 cal round.
by ry on October 5, 2006 7:42 AM
Yeah, what ry said.
by fdcol63 on October 5, 2006 7:43 AM
Like I would make it *that* easy.
Geez.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2006 7:47 AM
no way that could be a 12.7mm its too small.
look at the pattern on the background - its a piece of cloth or paper and the scale would make it maybe an 8mm approx or smaller. the long projectile would suggest that over a 7.62mm in my opinion anyway
what it is I don't know - I'm just a rank amateur at this
by
supercaffinated on October 5, 2006 7:52 AM
I thought 7.62 Nato, but I'm guessing.
by
hdw on October 5, 2006 8:05 AM
SuperC- pretty much everybody here, including me, is a rank amateur at this. Which is what makes it fun.
Keep going, guys. Relative dimensions matter.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2006 8:22 AM
so now that we have memorized the dimensions of the wood grain on every piece of furniture in the Castle, we're back to the pink quilt...
2" squares if i remember correctly.
by
MajMike on October 5, 2006 8:39 AM
silver tip on the round = "anti vampire"
by
MajMike on October 5, 2006 8:40 AM
My My. Your neck is longer than that on Linda Evangelistas head. By its looks, Id venture to say that this little beauty feeds the Frenchie MAS 49-56. Properly stated: The 7.5x54SRmm. Oh, I could kiss that neck. - BOQ
by Hikkie givin' Boquisucio on October 5, 2006 9:31 AM
6.5mm x 55 Swedish maybe?
pretty esoteric and fits image pretty well
thanks for the welcome in John!
by
supercaffinated on October 5, 2006 9:41 AM
nevermind - just realized its post ww2...
by
supercaffinated on October 5, 2006 9:46 AM
While you've not got the caliber correct, SuperC, you're working in the right direction, in that case size vice bullet diameter is greater than in your average, run-of-the-mill military calibers.
It *is* a military caliber, btw, just to drop another hint.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2006 9:55 AM
The abortive 4.8mm round for the equaly abortive brit EM-40 rifle.
by Chris Denny on October 5, 2006 9:55 AM
A sniper round of some sort, possibly in the 7.62mm range?
by fdcol63 on October 5, 2006 10:05 AM
We have a winnah! Chris is correct.
Well done, sir.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2006 10:06 AM
EM-40? Could someone identify the name's origin as I'm familiar with "SA80" and "L85/86". As far as I can trace, the abortive 4.85mm project was the L64/65.
Er, 4.85x49mm was the cartridge size, "4.85mm British" the name.
Check Photo #5 here: http://members.shaw.ca/cartridge-corner/idpics2.htm
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 5, 2006 1:28 PM
Geez, John, why doncha just write the post on it, while you're at it?
Chris was close enough that just ignoring it would have sent people on chases down real ratholes...
8^)
Intel weenies. Even former tanker intel weenies.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2006 1:42 PM
Whatever it is just remember one thing.
When loading them into the chamber ... the pointy end goes in first.
It's Scoresby time!!!
by
jim b on October 5, 2006 2:43 PM
jim b does that mean all politicians go in head first?
by
supercaffinated on October 5, 2006 3:22 PM
Heh. You two. This reminds me of the time, in band camp - er, an ROTC FTX, when the cadet, eventually to be a... wait for it... Military Intelligence officer (and later retired a Colonel...) was loading her M14 magazine. I looked over, saw what she was doing, and asked why she chose that particular method of loading?
She replied, "I figure I have a 50/50 chance of getting it right."
I replied, "You lose."
She said, "Why?"
I replied, "Because loading the rounds that way guarantees at best one shot, and probably will jam and not load at all, anyway."
She was loading one round facing forward, the next facing the other direction, etc.
She'd never seen a blank before. And the only rifles she'd ever handled were the dewat M1903s the Drill Team used.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2006 3:40 PM
Interesting point ...
However, I was trained by Canadian Army NCOs, and while their language may have been more functional than elegant, I was able to comprehend their instructions and advice with minimal repetition. Except for grenades.
The 4.85mm British was an attempt by the Brits to improve the 5.56mm in accordance with their operational data dating back to the Boer war. They would have preferred to use the 6.8mm round developed for the EM2 but politics were not favourable.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 5, 2006 4:33 PM
supercaffinated ... I totally avoid that entire field.
John I thought I was just joshing.
But I am NOT gonna make any wimmins jokes.
Yes I have heard that some troops call wimmins in the military ... "Long haired air fresheners" ... but I never did that.
by
jim b on October 5, 2006 4:49 PM
Damn too slow. Not that i would have gotten it. You know it looks a tad er rusty.
by
Trias on October 5, 2006 7:39 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 18, 2006
The Answer to the Whatzis.
Eric finally got it. It's the "glasflasche" or glass bottle, that contained the "clark" poison gas in a German WWI 77mm shell.
Like in this picture.

Congrats to working your way through the problem. Of course, it was an *easy* one for this collection of geeks!
And no, I am *not* the John who posted it on Gunboards.
For more information on the subject - read the document that finally pulled it together for Eric.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
hmmm... a very *innocuous* name the Huns chose for their poison gas, eh? Kampfstoff indeed!
by Neffi on August 18, 2006 7:40 PM
Wow, I got darn close for being just a Military MoM!
Very cool whazit! Pretty for being so deadly.
by Karla (threadbndr) on August 20, 2006 10:44 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 8, 2006
Okay - enough teasing on the Whatzis from Sunday.
I just left you guys hanging yesterday, in order to give the "I only read Argghhh! from work" guys a chance at the Whatzis.
You really did pretty well. Owen got it quickly, and Captain H went a step further and emailed a link (chicken - won't post openly...) to a write up. They were the first to get it. And, speaking of that, CAPT H - upon further review, I withdraw my statement about this shell being Brit (as I was informed by the guy I bought it from) it *is* the French version of Armstrong's studded projectile.
Oh - and that *was* a shadow guys, not a notch, in the pic. That was just an artifact of taking the picture, not a deliberate attempt to mislead. This time. Owen - your size referent is... 3 inches. That's the nominal caliber. Some sources say 3.3, but that would include the studs, at least in my example.

Zinc, not a lead or copper stud - which strongly argues for it being french and not Brit.

This was an early method of rifling artillery - if you notice, the studs are slightly offset, and the studs themselves actually have a direction - the shell was fitted into deep grooves and rammed home. It worked well enough when the guns were new, and not badly fouled from firing... but it also only worked well with black powder. When more powerful propellants were used, the friction inherent in this process was too great and the studs just sheared off, and the flight of the projectile was unpredictable.
But with the acquisition of this piece, the artillery collection has representative examples of most major varieties of imparting a spin to the projectile. Now if I could only find an affordable shell with an *intact* papier mach sabot...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
*groan*
you sucketh, JoA.
by AFSister on August 8, 2006 8:06 AM
That's a good thing, right?
by
John of Argghhh! on August 8, 2006 8:08 AM
The studs are slightly offset
Well, that's certainly appropriate 'round here, ain't it?
by Masked Menace on August 8, 2006 1:43 PM
"the shell was fitted into deep grooves and rammed home..."
*That* was the phrase I thought would bring the 8@)'s out!
by
John of Argghhh! on August 8, 2006 2:14 PM
Must.Resist.Making.Comment.... MUST RESIST
MUST RESIST
by Were-Kitten on August 8, 2006 3:30 PM
So where is the picture of the hexagonal Whitworth with a twist?
(that should interest Were-kitten!)
Oops - should use search more often!
by
SezaGeoff on August 8, 2006 6:55 PM
This post is wide open exposed a target for gay jokes. I must shaddap.
by
Trias on August 9, 2006 8:20 AM
Trias, as our token Gay (everybody else is closeted...) it's your territory. You're the only one who can do so without violating PC Rulez!
Just remember to pay attention to the PG-17c Rulez.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 9, 2006 8:23 AM
I am the only gay in the village castle.
I will be good.
by
Trias on August 10, 2006 12:39 AM
Actually, that's not true. Jeff Soyer, from Alphecca, is a regular reader, and is openly gay. And with 1800-2200 readers a day, there's bound to be more, just closeted in that, unless you choose to reveal yourself, the Castle practices Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Care.
If you choose to reveal yourself, we drop the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and just practice Don't Care.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 10, 2006 6:35 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 24, 2006
Whatziss, answered!
Old Fat Sailor - I name you Brainiac of Argghhh! You got it right.
If our Ozzie OFS hadn't gotten it, I would have offered up this as a clue today, followed quickly with this.
If that was insufficient (I'm thinking it would have been enough) - I'd have offered up this.
But I don't have to do that. Because OFS identified it - it's a stand of quilted grape.

In this case, a replica of Revolutionary War-era stand of quilted grape, in the six-pounder version. An early form of "Improved Conventional Munitions," grape was used against attacking infantry at greater ranges. Comprised of a wooden base, or sabot, with a wood rod protruding from it, they were stacked round with iron balls, held in place by the cloth and twine wrapping, which was then doped. The wrapping and sabot kept it all together for easy loading, and the paint helped waterproof it, prevent rot of the cloth, and provided some more rigidity.
The ones you find in museums have usually been painted black or red. This one is au naturel, to show the basic construction better. Made this way to speed loading (that infantry is looking pretty determined), the twine and cloth gave way upon firing, turning the gun into a giant shotgun. Grape, with it's larger balls, had a greater range at the expense of fewer projectiles. Canister is grape's short-range cousin, being smaller balls, usually lead musket balls, loosely loaded into a container (canister) and fired when the infantry had gotten annoyingly close and looked like they were still interested in killing artillerymen. Of course, once you started shooting this at infantry, the infantry became notoriously uninterested in taking prisoners, either... infantry sucks that way.
Why is is called a Stand of Grape? In fortress use especially, but also in the field, you stood them up on the wooden sabot, so they wouldn't roll around. Larger guns oft times fired grape made of larger iron balls held together by iron plates and rings, like this stand of 12-pounder grapeshot.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Wow - now that I know what the rest of it looks like, I'm especially impressed the OFS got it. Thanks, as always, for the kewl education, John!
by
Barb on May 24, 2006 10:28 AM
But you haven't explained the Mummy's nipple.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on May 24, 2006 1:45 PM
I was gonna snark the nipple... but JMH trumped me.
LMAO!
(So John... what is the "mummy nipple" for?)
by Were-Kitten on May 24, 2006 2:18 PM
Your discussion reminds me of what was reputedly the last command of Lt Alonzo Cushing, commanding what was left of Battery A, 4th US Artillery in the third day at Gettysburg, as Pickett's Charge came toward the stone wall on Cemetary Ridge: "Load triple canister and keep up the fire!"
Or, as a more modern artilleryman once told me: "The situation isn't REALLY desperate unless you're shooting at zero elevation."
by
Blake Kirk on May 24, 2006 3:15 PM
W-K, JMH - that would be the fire-tempered end of the wooden dowel that forms the spine of the stand.
Sigh.
You aren't fooling me. You just wanted to drag the conversation down into the gutter and type "nipple". And make sure that "nipple" appeared a lot of times in the comments so that when someone typed "nipple" into Google the leading site for "nipple" would be Castle Nipple.
That about cover it for you two?
You both need to get out more.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 24, 2006 3:36 PM
What's wrong with writing "nipple"? We're all mammals here, right? I dare say most of us are humans, most of whom have only two nipples, unlike the other mammals, (except for elephants) who tend to have multiple nipples to go with their multiple teats.
Now, a lot of people don't know how to pronounce the word "teat." They say it as if it were spelled "teet." That's wrong. "Teat" rhymes with "tit", which as everyone knows, is actually a small bird.
Why, one of my favorite airplanes was named after a tit; that would be the Hawker Tomtit.
Is this one of those "homo-nym" situations?
by
Justthisguy on May 24, 2006 4:43 PM
Dang! That reminds me! What with all of the chaos in this house since the ex-brother was here, I seem to have lost my nipple wrench. You know, the one you use to tighten up loose spoke nipples on bicycle wheels?
Oh, did I mention the fun I had when shooting a friend's cap'n ball weapons? Aside from that wonderful black powder aroma, we got to play with nipples! We had nipple picks, and (again) nipple wrenches, and discussed the comparative advantages of plain steel nipples vs. stainless steel nipples.
Face the music, guys and gals; we're mammals, and all nipple-shaped things remind us of, well, NIPPLES!
by
Justthisguy on May 24, 2006 5:15 PM
And the newly sedated JTG falls into dreamless slumber on the couch outside the Jungle Room, snoring gently, mind filled with pleasant dreams.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 24, 2006 5:34 PM
Is that a hint, or a hope?
OK, whatever. I'll stop now.
by
Justthisguy on May 24, 2006 5:44 PM
Not from Oz just the address, BTW some times my Air Assult medic daughter accuses me of crewing a 24 pounder with JPJ :-)
by Old Fat Sailor on May 24, 2006 6:33 PM
Regardless - we Auld Fat Farts gotta stick together!
Bravo Zulu!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 24, 2006 8:10 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 3, 2006
Since Owen's running around picking fights in the comments today...
...let's see if we can distract him with bright shiny objects.
Silly blog graphic and refrigerator magnet to the first person who gets this one.
What is it? Whose is it? When was it used? Bonus points for succinct dissertations!

Let's see if we can attract a lurker or two with this one.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I hate suspense. Somebody answer this, because I don't have a clue.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 3, 2006 11:20 AM
Heheheheheheheheheh. My evil plan is working!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 11:33 AM
I've checked back about fourteen times in the last five minutes, did I mention I don't like suspense? I had a couple of ideas, so I did a little research... Now I have less of an idea than I did before.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 3, 2006 11:38 AM
Shinny Gun Pr0n - Yippie! Could dat be the pointy thingy on a Pre-Fragged HE V-Bessie, Bullet-Trap Boom-boom thingy?
by Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 11:58 AM
It's a 9mm shrapnel round for eliminating ant colonies under the sink. It was developed by EuroGreenies who felt that Raid and other insecticides--
1. cause needless mental suffering to the targets,
2. accelerate melting of the snowfields on Kilimanjaro and
3. smell icky.
by cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 12:40 PM
Hee hee hee. Well, I *might* not have yet snagged Owen's attention, but I've got at least one victim wrapped up.
Boq... look here and consider your answer.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 12:46 PM
And I was gonna guess Owen chaff.
by jim b on March 3, 2006 12:54 PM
[In small sqeeeky voice:] 'Elp me - 'elp meeeee!
Gosh durn it, caught in his snare again.
Furiously slaps his head while spotting a Driving band and Gas Rings.
by Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 1:07 PM
Actually, Boq - the ensnared person is High Desert Wanderer...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 1:25 PM
LMAO too funny let Owen try to upset as many individuals as he chooses . Simply consider the point of a wannabe who had raised himself above all veterans who are really heros as he trys to drive them from the internet .
Owen is one sad excuse for for a person ( notice I did not say MAN as he is not ) . Like his buddies ViperAss and Doc171 and Billy lagre and the Mrs (he he he ) lets not forget Maggie who runs the POW/MIA page and steals money.
Lets see how owen replies to the TRUTH
One REAL COMBAT NAM VET
by
Carfl on March 3, 2006 1:53 PM
LMAO too funny let Owen try to upset as many individuals as he chooses . Simply consider the point of a wannabe who had raised himself above all veterans who are really heros as he trys to drive them from the internet .
Owen is one sad excuse for for a person ( notice I did not say MAN as he is not ) . Like his buddies ViperAss and Doc171 and Billy lagre and the Mrs (he he he ) lets not forget Maggie who runs the POW/MIA page and steals money.
Lets see how owen replies to the TRUTH
One REAL COMBAT NAM VET
by
Carfl on March 3, 2006 1:53 PM
Heh. The Castle Echo hit Carfl pretty hard. I think that's a record... 11. [I deleted a bunch of 'em]
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 2:01 PM
Okay, if anyone reads this after Carfl's stutter attack.....it looks like an anti-personnel artillery shell.
by
SGT Jeff (IRR) on March 3, 2006 2:01 PM
Incomplete answer, SGT Jeff. And, well, any more and I'd give it away... which I'm not ready to do just yet.
Gotta make Owen earn his cookie!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 2:05 PM
Sorry Mr. Tuttle (ret),
It can't possibly be an Ant destructive device. Ever mindful, of the Formicids, Blattids, and other tiny friends' sensibilities, The Euro-Weennies wouldn't advocate for their demise. Specially in such a violent and conflagratory way.
If anything, they would lovingly control their population with Nature-friendly and Bio-comforting agents.
by Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 2:45 PM
Nah--the Formicae perform useful functions, so the Greenies couldn't care less about them.
However, since they consider themselves stalwart defenders of their Blattidae role models, they'd screech like scalded Spotted Owls if you tried using *anything* on 'em.
by cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 2:58 PM
Hah! Iz lookink ver' much like that thing Momma used to keep hided in her nightstand. Took MANY batt'ry and wuz ver' noisy- dunno what uzed for but Momma call it her Warzaw Willy or zum zuch ting, sheesh.
by Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 3:05 PM
ANDRE!
Vhat are you doin' snooping around en me nightstand!?!?!
Bend over, you naughty boy. You are due for ze spankin' ut your life!
*swat*
*swat*
*swat*
by Andre's Momma on March 3, 2006 3:19 PM
I can take ze punish; but it more fun when Dbie do it! But zat's our liddle secret, no?
Oh- vait a minnit...
by Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 3:23 PM
I think this is the first time a thread has been hijacked and turned into a caption contest...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 3:26 PM
Heh. I see I shouldn't have gone to that meeting.
Bill, Boq, *this* is the Cartridge, Flechette, 9mm, Anti-Blattidae. The cat hairs are a free service of Castle Argghhh! Security Forces, Inc.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 3:36 PM
*grin*
by Andre's Momma on March 3, 2006 3:38 PM
And, just to make sure, I did a little simple googling. The answer to the question *is* on the 'net.
You gonna let Owen beat you to it?
That will be... distressing.
Because I have no doubt he's going to get the answer.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 3:40 PM
Oh but trustink me, Cheif- you not want be zeeing dat foto no times soon, I tellink you! 'Sides, Swinging Slav makazine got ze copyright...
by Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 3:42 PM
ANDRE!
You promised NEVER to show ze foto ut me spankin' yous.... unless you share ze moniez from ze sale!
Handink it over, bub!
by Andre's Momma on March 3, 2006 3:52 PM
Just a hunch, but it could be a relic from the Boer War.
It's definitely *not* a Long Tom shell, but there were whole bunches of interesting tubes that were shrapnel spitters back then. Check your e-mail, cuz nanny doesn't like the link addy.
My turn to go to a meeting. *Another* meeting...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 3:52 PM
Sigh. You two need to get a room. I'm trying to have a Whatizzit contest here and you guys are turning this place into a tawdry pr0n palace complete with sticky floors. Cuddit out!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 4:01 PM
This is the site Bill was trying to post... *except!*
http://abw.netf1rms.com/unidentified_weapons.htm
Replace the 1 in 'netfirms' with an i. The reason the Comment Nanny won't let him post it is because netf1rms.com is a *huge* hoster of spam generating websites. But it should be okay to visit this site. (At least, nothing horrible happened to me when I did it).
Scroll halfway down to the pic just above the entry titled Novelty Weapons. Look center of mass, then slightly right and slightly low.
To which I respond:
Nope. One problem with it being an artillery round is that square projection a little left of center, right at the bottom of the engraved frag/grip area.
Of course, that is something of a red herring, given what it *is*.
But I like that *site*!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 4:12 PM
I've been googling for about 30 min. or more now.... no luck.
No pops on "aluminum artillery crosshatch" or anything close to it.
I give.
by AFSister on March 3, 2006 4:19 PM
I'm touched by your confidence that I'll get it, John, but I'm nowhere yet. I've spent hours looking at 47 mm shells, before I noticed that little square projection.
And is that a dial below it? Base time fuze? Could it be some sort of primitive AA rocket head?
I'd love to see a shot of the base.
by OD on March 3, 2006 4:54 PM
Who would have thunk it Andr, your mother in Warsaw used a Djakonoff Rifle Grenade.
by Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 6:30 PM
Or maybe it's a rifle grenade. Definitely WW1. Looks Germanic, somehow.
by OD on March 3, 2006 6:59 PM
Zo Boq- you have familiar wit dis thing?! I think iz wuz for ladyz only... hope you had pot uf swine grease like Momma, WOW you yelping udderwise my fren! But here is no-one askink, no-one tellink; all velcome I thinkink.
by Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 7:50 PM
And Boq scorez! His spelling sucks... oh, wait, *that* was on purpose.
You can find one here, a third of the way down the page or so.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 7:56 PM
Between the wars, Soviet, Owen. Boq gottit.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 7:57 PM
Oh bugger, you got it. I should've hit refresh and I would have saved myself some time.
I was looking at Russian and German rifle grenades, but I had the wrong war.
The Djakonoff does have an adjustable base time fuze. I never knew there were such things on rifle grenades.
by OD on March 3, 2006 8:18 PM
I'll put up more pics tomorrow.
Ah, Owen in *second* place. Life is good. ;^)
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 8:51 PM
Here's a decent description:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/37mm.html
You did lead us down the garden path somewhat with the 50mm bit. It's actually 40mm.
If you enjoy watching me lose you should do these more often. It's good fun.
by OD on March 3, 2006 8:55 PM
dang it.
I shoulda gone with my gut, and google'd "grenade" because when I was describing it to someone, I said it had a crosshatch design, "like a grenade".
dang it.
by AFSister on March 4, 2006 10:08 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 23, 2006
Time for a gun post...
...and not just because we've been nominated at Countertop Chronicles for "Best Gun Pron" in the Gunnies, either!
A topic covered in the gunblogs, I know by Murdoc and others, as well as me... Metalstorm gets closer to entering service. This is an ugly little spud.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Next month a new high-explosive munition will be fired in Singapore and then tested again by the U.S. Army, heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a gun that can fire 240,000 rounds per minute.
That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.
Metal Storm Inc., a munitions company headquartered in Virginia but with its roots in Australia, has been developing a gun that can shoot at blistering speeds, albeit in short bursts as each barrel is reloaded.
Company website with video click here.
Speaking of Murdoc, I'll let him have at this story.
Speaking of machine guns... take a look at the durability (not to mention reliability) of the latest rendition of that venerable old pig, the M60. Do me a favor - right click and save as - don't stream it. Right-click and save-as here.
I'll close this post with a picture of a new Castle Armory acquisition - a M1886 German Shrapnel round - that has a very interesting (to the Armorer) time fuze. Subject of a future post.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Okay, kids, nip over to Countertop Chronicles, ASAP. We're number two so far, but Oleg's running away with it.
by cw4(ret)billt on January 23, 2006 9:40 AM
Hey, John - Remember my e-gram when you first ran the MetalStorm story, about my vision of a deuce-and-a-half full of bullets and batteries following each GI?
Heh. Now we know why SecDef is turning those six ARNG combat brigades into truck drivers...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 23, 2006 9:54 AM
I have been following metalstorm for years!! They actually have ideas about ways to use that technology for more than just bullets that kill, including firefighting, etc. The technology is really impressive, and has had the U.S. interested for a loooong time.
Glad to see it coming along nicely...
by
SangerM on January 23, 2006 10:23 AM
The Metalstorm ideas look useful, and I can think of a number of military applications. For that matter, science-fiction author John Ringo has envisioned multi-barrelled Metalstorm packs firing 105mm APFSDS rounds from a heavily modified M1 tank chassis as a HEAVY Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) system. Evidently the barrel packs would be easily ejectable and replaceable, rather like MLRS six-packs are today.
Changing the subject a little...
As someone who spent a LOT of time as an infantry company armorer in the late 70's and early 80's keeping a sextet of Hawgs functioning, I'm duly impressed by the M60 video. However, when I was an armorer, the problem was never with NEW guns, but rather with the older guns that had been beaten around a great deal. Consistently, the two biggest maintenance problems with the M60 were excessive play in the reciever due to loose rivets or cracked welds connecting the longitudinal rails to the front plate, and wear and spalling on the camming surface on the front of the operating rod yoke. The M240 has its own quirks, but receivers that become loose over time is not one of them, and it uses a vastly different mechanism for locking the bolt.
The M60 was based on a great concept: marrying the action of the Lewis Gun to the feed mechanism of the MG42. The concept just wasn't implemented as well as it might have been.
by Blake Kirk on January 23, 2006 11:08 AM
The M60 series machine gun?
*shudder*
Ugh! The trigger housing group is held on by a forward retaining pin, which, in turn, is held on by a leaf spring that hooks onto the trigger retaining pin, and the forward trigger housing retaining pin. It drops off, the forward pin goes, and you lose all ability to control the firing of the weapon...
The M60E3 was even worse, as they tried to lighten the weight, and put the bipod assembly on the gas tube... Waaaaaay too much dependance on spring loaded detent pins...
Nope, didn't like the M60, but it was the only thing we had...
by
Sgt. B. on January 23, 2006 1:37 PM
The M60 was fun to shoot. It was also easy to take apart (cock it, lift the feed tray cover, and pull the retaining pin - oh yeah, stand to the side). Also a lot easier to haul up and down the lava and mud hills in Hawaii than pieces of .50 cal.
But I was only a temp-hire-grunt, and as soon as I could, I went east-way east-to wear the 1AD patch instead of that electric strawberry.
And my first PSG was a 60 guy in vietnam, and he LOVED the thing, but then he was a healthy 6-4 montanna swede on whom it looked like an M16 did on the rest of us. He's the one who taught me how to take 'em apart in a hurry. Of course, he also taught me how to make candles out of the wax wrapping on 4.2 mortar shell cartons, and how to roll my own one-handed (I never could get that right, though). A real product of the era...
by
SangerM on January 23, 2006 7:43 PM
Quick question/fact check:
That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.
According to FAS, an M-16 can go
90 rpm and 900 rpm. (A true expert would have to verify these for this research jockey). And I'm sure that there are other guns in the arsenal that have similar or higher rates of fire.
Anyone care to have at it?
by
lawhawk on January 24, 2006 1:42 PM
I actually meant to get into that in the post, but saw a shiny object...
There's a conflation of the MK19 40mm grenade launcher with machine guns.
I was posting this for the geeks, and forgot that normals might drop by...
...and then the shiny thing walked by, er, caught my attention.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 24, 2006 1:57 PM
And the Mk 18 could dump them down the spout as fast as you could crank it. Of course, your arm would be ready to fall off after about thirty seconds...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 24, 2006 3:15 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 12, 2006
Little tiny additions.
Not to the Castle, but to the Armory Holdings. As noted, large, expensive additions to the collection are on hold, so the Armorer indulges his collecting jones with smaller stuff, in price, if not always in size. Yesterday's mail delivered a case in point. The Armorer is a Rotarian - and one of the fun things about my particular club is that they are very tolerant of their more eccentric members (among whom the Armorer, of course, is numbered). Rotary sponsors several forms of international exchange programs, both hosting international students and small groups of Rotary-sponsored people doing research, projects, etc. We are probably one of the few clubs that takes visiting foreigners out shooting, usually themed shoots, such as the US Civil War for the Japanese group last year (using member's Civil War era firearms), the South American Mauser shoot for the Argentines, etc. The Armorer has hauled some of the Castle Holdings to meetings, and we've had guest speakers bring their own Kewl and Needful Things to illustrate their talks.
Then there's my usual table and the two other geeks who sit there, Beau and Charley. Charley is a groupie. He got into collecting late, whereas Beau has been collecting for 50 years, and I, 33. We sometimes look like drug dealers or gun runners out in the parking lot, open the trunk and admiring some wondrous new acquisition. We do have some discretion - we don't routinely stroll in with pistols and rifles. But we do stroll in with pocket-sized stuff. I went home yesterday to let the Exterior Guard assume their duties, and the mail had arrived.
Which contained this wonderful bounty from France:
Lefaucheux pinfire rounds, in 5, 7, 9, and 12mm caliber, and 5 (only one shown) 6mm Longue cartidges. The Longue was interesting to me as it is another transitional cartridge (as discussed in this post some time ago) reflecting the state of manufacturing at the time - using a copper case and a brass base, because they hadn't worked out all the kinks of producing drawn brass cartridges with primer pockets in their bases. The Longue is a rimfire cartridge, meaning the primer composition is in the rim of the base of the cartridge, rather than in the center of the base - just as .22 ammunition is today.
The pinfires represent a different form of transition - that of figuring out just where the heck the primer goes. You may be surprised to learn this system was was developed by a Frenchman named Casimir Lefaucheux possibly as early as 1828, and it was certainly established on the Continent by 1840, though it was slower to jump the Channel, reaching England at the Great Exhibition in London in 1851, and making it to the US just prior to the Civil War. These rounds represent the attempt to apply percussion primers with self-obturating (sealing) cartridge cases, to produce effective, reliable self-contained breech-loading ammunition.
This is how they worked - the primer was either glued to the side of the cartridge on the inside, or was embedded in molded powder compound, and the pin runs through the cartridge and protrudes from the side, as this diagram from an old book shows.
It worked fairly well, all things considered - the drawbacks being complicated assembly and the fact that there would be some blow-by around the pin - which was okay in a black powder weapon, which generates relatively low, slow-building pressure, but wasn't going to work for the new nitro-based smokeless powders.
The Arsenal does not yet contain (but will, but will) any pinfire weapons. A pinfire pistol looks pretty much like any other, with two exceptions.
And if you want to see those - hit the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry!
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
One, to modern eyes, is the little hole at the back of the cylinder, through which the pin protruded. Like this:
Here we see another flaw in the system - the protruding pin can be problematic when dropped, for example, hence most pistols have a rim either in the cylinder or the frame that is as high as the pin, to help protect from accidental discharge. More expensively, pistols were made with shields that covered the pin entirely, as in this pistol. All of which made for more expensive weapons. Yet another drawback was getting manufacturers to standardize the amount of pin protrusion, and the quality control to make it happen - else you were going to be restricted to using a specific brand of ammunition. Regardless, this was still preferable to separate loading of individual components. Except in a military application. Pinfires did not enjoy much luck with the militaries of the day, who saw the expense and risks far outweighing the benefits.
The last thing about a pinfire pistol that will catch a modern eye is the hammer - they seem to sit too far forward on the cylinder, and they are particularly noticeable when cocked, as in this example of a 20-chambered Belgian revolver.
Anybody got a nice pinfire for sale cheep - drop me a line!
If you liked this post, you'll probably also enjoy this one, on the Snider cartridge, and this one, on British .303 cordite rounds. Or, just for fun, this one or this one.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
no matter how many of them lil tiny Frog bullets you surround the sterling Gen Washington with he will not yield
by jim b on January 12, 2006 11:17 AM
I can see why the Quartermaster folks frowned on those things; they look *delicate*, i.e., easily banged up so that they won't work, as a consequence of just carrying them around in the field.
by
Justthisguy on January 13, 2006 6:20 PM
Umm, I shoulda wrote "Ordnance," above.
by Justthisguy on January 13, 2006 6:26 PM
Nope. Those things are too small to dignify with that term!
by cw4(ret)billt on January 13, 2006 7:26 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 12, 2005
Castle Artillery Pr0n
And now for something completely different, (ok, not really for longtime visitors), from the stocks of the Castle Armory. Since people who hide behind things but still want to sneak up on you (or even jump up, run at you and stick you with long pointy-things-with-sharp-edges really suck, people (i.e., artillerymen) thought up Shrapnel. In this case, a very specific artillerist, Major General Henry Shrapnel (though he invented it, I believe, when he was a mere Lieutenant).
So - from the Armory Holdings, a used WWI French Time/Impact Fuze. Of a type originally developed in 1889, this particular version is the 24/31mm Modele 1915, sitting in the nose of a 75mm Shrapnel round, seen here disassembled (albeit an empty round with none of the cool fiddly-bits).
This is how you normally find them... with the nose of the projectile attached. In WWI, true shrapnel rounds (vice fragmenting HE now that the fact is that *all* fragments are called shrapnel) were essentially one-use mini-shotguns delivered over the target, where a small black powder charge in the base blew out a small plate, upon which were stacked lead or steel balls. The nose blew out, and the balls scattered like shot from a shotgun. Unlike the shrapnel rounds from the Civil War era, which suspended the balls in a matrix and then blew the whole round into pieces. Now when you read a WWI memoir that talks of the little puffs of white smoke from the shrapnel... you'll know what it means. It doesn't mean standard HE bursting in the air.
Since you rarely see these old "beehive" fuzes intact, here are two - one ready for putting in the shell, the other with its lead foil protective cover. The cannoneer punched a hole at the appropriate time mark (there is a spiral powder train in the body of the fuze) so that when the round was fired, flame from firing would flash around the projectile as it left the muzzle, finding entry at the punch mark, igniting the powder train. Hence the lead foil cover - the flame exposure is very brief, so the powder has to catch quickly and must thus be protected from moisture. They also had an impact component, that series of pointy-things inside of springs running down the middle, as shown in this cutaway drawing:

Here's a graphic cutaway from a Victorian-era Brit ammunition manual that shows what these rounds generally looked like. This particular round in the drawing didn't have a "blow-away nose" like the round in the Castle holdings - it just blew out the brass fuze, which being a softer metal, shears out before the threads on the baseplate of the projectile did. If it was a "burster" type round, the central tube would be filled with powder - here it's a flash-tube to convey the flame from the fuze-function down to the charge in the base.
Here is a photo of three Brit rounds from the 1890-1914 era. The two on the left have bursting charges in the base - you can clearly see the brass flash-tube running down the middle to the charge in the base. The one on the right has its bursting charge up top - meaning it probably blows out the base or shatters the round. Shattering the round is most likely, since the balls would not have near the velocity (and would have a much greater dispersion pattern, which can be good or bad depending on the way the target infantry is arrayed). I'm guessing that one didn't last long in service.
Lastly: Don't forget to Vote For Us!
To close this completely - you can see some of these fuzes larger cousins on the "ready rounds" in this engraving of French Artillery from WWI, with a 155mm on the left, and a 270mm Mortar on the right - the rounds for that monster are fitted with the Beehive fuze. The engraving is from a book published just after the war, and is in the Holdings of the Castle Library.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Good stuff, John. Castle Argghhh! Not Just An Adventure, An Education!
by Neffi on December 12, 2005 2:19 PM
So *that* is why the French 75mm rounds are always shown in pictures with a thingy sticking out of their noses. Guess they didn't have the Krupp Patentzuender, with the clockwork in it, that caused the icky death/fuze calculation in the lawsuit.
In other news, the Sweety and I went shooting together yesterday; first time in 3 years for both of us. We didn't do too badly, all things considered; I think both of us can reliably hit you in the upper torso from across the room.
But, man do I hate indoor ranges! (realistic as they are for any probable serious social use of our pieces)
Yah, JoA, I saw that comment. Will try to write something. Real Soon Now.
by Justthisguy on December 12, 2005 11:16 PM
P.S.: I'm amazed that a rifled breech-loading piece, with presumed tight seal of the rotating band, would reliably light that fuze. I guess it's a very hot environment just in front of the muzzle just after firing.
I voted for you again, that makes three times. Sorry I dint do more, but was distracted. What I can't understand is how Blackfive got so many votes. I mean, the boy visited Naples FL and actually *liked* the place! He therefore obviously doesn't have full use of all neurons. Isn't he some kind of infantry person? Maybe that explains it.
by Justthisguy on December 13, 2005 12:04 AM
Hmmpf. Wouldn't put it past him to have snuck into the computer centers of all of the Retirementvilles and switched his addy with the hotlink to AARP...
by cw4(ret)billt on December 13, 2005 3:55 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 30, 2005
The way to the Armorer's Good Graces...
...is via firepower.
Something SWWBO knows well, having bought me this for Christmas before we got married, and *this* after, and not being annoyed by this or this or this.
Now comes AFSis, fresh from New York. (Happy Anniversary, kiddo!)
And she sends this, a 24 pounder in Castle Clinton... who could ask for more?

Heh. Mebbe cannon with a Cute Chick? Like this?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
*laughing*
I thought you'd get a kick out of those pix....
I should have more up later today, along with your military history lesson for the day.
by
AFSister on August 30, 2005 1:36 PM
Hubba-hubba - a 3"/50 Packing Mama!!!
Who could ask for anything more.
by Boquisucio on August 30, 2005 1:49 PM
Eat yer heart out, Jane Fonda! The Castle's got the Kitty with *real* firepower...
by cw4(ret)billt on August 30, 2005 3:31 PM
hmm. John dear, perhaps I should pose with the Vickers?
he he he.
by
beth on August 30, 2005 9:33 PM
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on August 30, 2005 9:35 PM
*glancing up and counting*
*gazing over the assemblage*
Motion has been made, seconded and those in favor have been heard. Any
*flicking thumb-latch of shoulder holster*
opposed?
The "ayes" have it. Polish up the Vickers, John...
by cw4(ret)billt on August 31, 2005 8:25 AM
Argghhh! Now we're letting Canadians vote on domestic policy?
by
John of Argghhh! on August 31, 2005 8:42 AM
Oh yeah! Go for it Beth!
Good thing Cricket is so far away- she might wrestle you for that Vickers spot....
And thanks for the compliments guys... very nice.
by
AFSister on August 31, 2005 9:11 AM
LOL. I love old cannons. What is the correct plural for them anyway?
Now, in our history lesson for today, we were watching the history channel and one of the Child Labor Units was impressed with a huge cannon. He asks the Armorer this:
Was the gauge of the cannon determined by the weight and size of the cannonball? IOW, was it called a ten pounder or a 400 pounder because the ammo weighed that much?
We can look it up, but I would rather have an answer from someone who has not only been an artillery officer but has studied them closely
as it related to his profession.
Thank you.
by Cricket on September 1, 2005 11:35 AM
Cannon is both singular and plural. Cannons is also acceptable.
When you see a gun referred to as a 6 pounder, 10 pounder, 12 pounder, 18 pounder, etc, that refers to weight of the "standard" round, normally solid shot, though in later eras it would refer to the standard HE round (such as the 18 pounder howitzer of the Brit Army in WWI).
Caliber references bore diameter, and you'll see that in two fashions. One, the generic 105mm or 8 Inch designations, for example. You will also see guns classified as 5inch/38 caliber,5inch/54 caliber, and 5inch/62 Caliber. This is more common in Naval service, where there might be several different versions of a cannon in service. The second number is barrel length expressed in terms of barrel diameter... in the terms of you normals, barrel length divided by barrel diameter.
Ground artillery makes those distinctions as well, but in Army usage it rarely makes it into the nomenclature, the Army preferring to use the "M" number, such as the M110 vice the M110A2 howiters, which had 8inch cannon of differing lengths.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 1, 2005 12:22 PM
So, to get the caliber, you divide the length of the barrel by the width of the diameter of the barrel?
Is that like 'sizing up a weapon?'
by Cricket on September 1, 2005 2:43 PM
Darnitall. I hate when that happens. Otay.
Third question: So, caliber or weight isn't always
consistent?
You can have a four hundred pound cannon fire and ten pound round?
by Cricket on September 1, 2005 2:46 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 1, 2005
All right... since a lot of you are taking off early...
...for the holiday (and, since the Armorer's father has just had surgery (he's fine), Armorer-posting will be light... so perhaps Dusty and Bill will take up the slack (hint, hint).
Meantime - here are two relatively rare cartridges. Grognards - state your determination in a comment *then* check the comments and see what other people think. All six (maybe) of you who will try, anyway! 8^D
These cartridges are interesting in themselves, and represent special or rare applications.
This is the easy one (I think):

This is harder, though I'm sure the Googler's will score it - there's enough info in that headstamp to lead you to the answer. Boq will probably get it without the assistance of Google.

Here they are with a Win 32.20 for comparson.

Since they've *both* been indentified - might as well give a shot of the bullet hiding in the depths of the Nagant round:

Hmmm. I think there's a post in there somewhere... with pictures of Nagants, cartridges... and just how *does* a gas seal revolver work...
Trivia note: Actual fire command given in Soviet manual for the pistol:
At the fleeing deserter - Fire!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Best guesses:
38/55 Black Powder brass
1943??? Winchester made 45/70 GVT. It looks like a military brass to me, being annealed and with a lacquered primer pocket.
I don't get the 1943. I would have thought all the Trapdoor Springfield rifles had been retired by then!
by R Shapiro on July 1, 2005 7:42 AM
Has a girl ever gotten one of these?
Well, I'm feeling risqu this morning so I'm going to give the 1943 a whirl...
Is it a .45 Government line throwing blank?
Just wondering...
by
ALa on July 1, 2005 7:56 AM
No, a girl has never gotten one of these... yet.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 1, 2005 8:50 AM
The 45/70 is either a blank used in a line throwing gun or as an impulse charge for a cable cutter used in minesweeping I imagine.
by Shadow on July 1, 2005 9:22 AM
ALa wins, being first (and the first girl ever to win, too)... Shadow is correct, as well. And here I thought you'd all get the first one quicker than the second.
Shows why I don't play the stock market much. My prognostication skillz are weak.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 1, 2005 9:25 AM
Could the other one be a 7.62 Nagant cartridge? That odd taper at the end of the case sure looks like one.
by Roger Ritter on July 1, 2005 2:05 PM
And Roger comes in with the other! Good job!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 1, 2005 2:11 PM
*high fives Ala*
by
~Jen~ on July 1, 2005 4:03 PM
Just to confirm ALa's win, here's a quote from Frank C. Barnes, "Cartridges of the World", 7th Edition, page 445, continued onto page 446:
Cartridge, Caliber .45, Blank Line Throwing M32
Case: Brass
Primer: Non-mercuric, non-corrosive
Propellant: Commercial
Ballistics:
Pressure: 20,000 psi
Ident: No bullet, rimmed long case, ".45 M32"
stamped on head of case.
Note: This cartridge used with Lyle life saving gun,
Cal 45/70
by Justthisguy on July 2, 2005 6:08 AM
Heh. As if *my* word is insufficient? But your quote does *not* in a technical sense, support her contention - the cartridge in question is *clearly* marked Mk1, not Mk32.
So there!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2005 8:08 AM
Mr. Barnes died during the preparation of that edition, which was finished by somebody else. Maybe he had a buncha stuff on his mind at that time, and couldn't quite get every detail exactly right?
Not to snark or nuthin, just bein' pedantic.
Perseverance!
by Justthisguy on July 2, 2005 9:07 AM
JTG - I'm sure Barnes was correct... I'm just pointing out that it *wasn't* the round in question, is all!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 2, 2005 9:43 AM
...I like my 45/70 cartridges stuffed with a 405 grain semi-jacketed semi-wadcutter, shot from a M1886 Winchester (black powder, eh?). What that does to a watermelon is kinda obscene...
by Neffi on July 2, 2005 7:06 PM
Aw shucks - Missed the contest. Serves me well for being AWOL for a few days. Purty Brass - purty brass!
by Boquisucio on July 5, 2005 7:50 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 9, 2005
Boquisucio - this one's for you!
Okay - aside from Boquisucio, who cannot play this round - can anyone identify this headstamp?
Okay, Boq - you can play for this one.
Who can identify this one? First right answer gets bragging rights! Rifle caliber casing...
Email responses only for this one. Just to give some guys a chance!
Update: Heh. One taker (who got it right in two tries). Okay, here's a hint that will ease the red herrings as you Google... rimmed casing, straight-sided, with a taper to it.
Obviously all the airplane guys check in around here, and the cartridge types have given up on me.
Update II: Okay. Here's another hint. Sheesh, only three takers... A reminder - this pic is larger than life - the thing is rifle caliber.
January 19, 2005
Assault Rifle Ammunition
JMH sends along this link to an interesting article on 6.5 Grendel.com comparing and contrasting the developmental history and choices in choosing/designing ammunition for the assault rifle genus.
Perhaps of equal interest to me (and any other ammo collectors out there) is the homepage of the author of the article, Anthony Williams - CANNON, MACHINE GUNS AND AMMUNITION... looks like my kinda guy!
by
John
on
Jan 19, 2005
�
SayUncle links with:
Les has more
January 12, 2005
The new 6.8mm Spec Ops round.
Before I launch into this discussion - I reload now and again, but it's vanilla, using standard data. I gunsmith, but I'm not a designer, I'm a repairer of milsurp (hell, anything, if you ask me to), nor do I do custom work. I'm looking at starting to build my own guns - but they will be older guns, originals of which are unobtainable with my projected lifetime income, and the ones available shouldn't be shot, anyway. I'm talking hand gonnes, wheelocks, matchlocks, etc. There are several manufacturers out there who will provide castings and forgings, rough finished stocks and (interior at least) finished barrels that the home crafstman will have to fit, temper, harden, polish and assemble. It's the only way I'm going to push the holdings of the Castle much farther back in time, as reproductions. But that oughta be cool, as well as fun - and since you can get all the pieces individually, if you screw it up, you can order a new part and start over and not go broke.
I bring that up because unlike at many other gun-related sites, I don't get into the technical bits about ballistics (I can write a nice treatise on interior, exterior, and terminal if you'd like) but I'm just not into it like that.
One reason for that is, I don't hunt, and I don't precision target shoot. My interest in shooting has always been from a practical perspective. I was more interested in being technically competent, and able to hit man-size targets from whatever position I was in, preferably behind cover, and knowing when to use area fire to reduce risk. Combat shooting. I've never been one of those guys who takes his shooting rest, sets up on the bench, shoots through his chronograph, and takes calipers downrange to measure his shot groups. If everything was center of mass at my aiming point, I was happy. Which is a good thing - my preferred weapon for recreation is a surplus military firearm... shooting surplus military ammo. I could lock that in a shooting vise and still have irregular groups, so if all my shots are in the center of mass at 100 yards and over, that usually is pretty competent shooting. I was also a paintball wizard in my day - that kind of snapshooting is a useful skill, if it doesn't truly give you a proper appreciation for cover versus concealment.
So, if you ever come across me on the range - I'm usually shooting faster than the other guy, unless he's just playing like I am. If I can, I'll have multiple targets at different ranges, and engage them in sequence, or randomly.
Because that's the kind of shooting that kept my ass intact, those very few time I needed it. I don't have a 10th the firefight exposure most combat troops in Iraq have.
So - I do collect cartridges, in that I like to have at least one to match each weapon in the arsenal here at the Castle, and there is much to learn (or to teach, when cracking open skulls and pouring in data) and having the artifacts makes it both easier to learn and to teach.
The parent cartridge for the 6.8mm Rem SPC is the old .30 Remington, which is essentially a rimless .30-30. Left to right: .30 Remington, 6.8mm Rem SPC, .308 Winchester, .223 Remington.
Where was I? Oh, yeah - the new 6.8mm round. CAPT H, my Canuckistanian Compadre, sent along a link to this article on the new round, written by one of the guys involved in its development.
Why develop a new round? There are actually lots you who read me who know more about it (or at least have stronger opinions, based on the comments) but the .223 round fired from the M4 just doesn't have the oomph, especially at range, we'd like. I hate it when I shoot someone and they get back up. That means I have to divert my attention from the other guy I'm shooting and re-engage a target that doesn't have the good sense to stay down. Never mind the fact I expected my soldiers to behave the same way if they (or I) got shot - the fight's not over just because you got unlucky...
I have never been a fan of the M16, though I found the M4 handy as a field grade officer, and vastly superior to the Beretta. Yeah, I'm one of those guys who would come into a division TOC with an M4. I'd still pack the M92, as well, or, if I was in a friendly environment for that sort of thing, I'd have my Remington-Rand M1911A1. I'm curmudgeonly that way. And I got in trouble now and then with more conventional bosses... Hell, when I was a battery commander, I traded my VTR (Vehicle Tracked, Recovery - a tracked tow truck) driver my .45 for his M3 Grease Gun. I figured if I needed to influence a fight personally, a subgun was going to do better at that than a .45, at greater range, and with less likelihood of sight problems with someone else's no-longer-needed, sighted-for-them M16. And yes, you really can shoot one of those things accurately enough - just don't hold down the trigger!
But I'm a big guy, and my favorite rifle continues to be the M14 - even though I know why it didn't last, except as a sniper weapon. But that's instructive, too - it survived as a sniper weapon because it was accurate, reliable - and the cartridge had good combat ballistics.
The new 6.8mm round seems to be the good compromise here. Virtually the same flight characteristics and lethality as the .308, yet still small enough for the M16 receiver, bolt, and gas system.
I'll look forward to getting a chance to pop a few caps. Too bad I don't know anyone in the MTU at Benning... I probably could have scored a shot at it when I was down there last November. And mebbe I'll hold off on getting a semi-auto M4 clone until they come out in 6.8mm for the civilian market.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I've always felt that the primary purpose of a pistol was as trading material for a real gun. The M-14 didn't last for the same reason the M1911 didn't--it suddenly dawned on the bean-counters that they could ship umpty-scads of 9mm/5.56mm rounds in the same volume as a mere scad of .45 ACP/7.62mm. A shame, because the M-14 with selector switch gives you some nice options at ranges in excess of 700 meters.
But, if I have my druthers, I'll take rockets (okay, it's a zen thing--"Become one with the rocket, then one with the target. Then--touch!")
Gratuitous disclaimer: Mister Chairman, I am not now, nor have I ever been, involved with chipping my own flints.
by cw4billt on January 12, 2005 11:01 AM
Let me know if you are ever building your own Ferguson Breechloading Rifle. I might travel out to the armory and build one alongside you. I've been in love with that gun ever since I discovered Louis L'Amour as a kid.
by
GEBIV on January 12, 2005 4:34 PM
Well, GEBIV - you might have to pack your bags.
It's on the list.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2005 4:38 PM
I've seen several manufacturers offering 6.8mm uppers as well as complete rifles/carbines.
The most advertised is Barrett's M468.
by
Heartless Libertarian on January 12, 2005 5:53 PM
Sigh. I really didn't want to know that...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2005 6:04 PM
Midway has a DPMS upper for about 600 bucks.
I've seen 'em in Shotgun News for less, from other makers (and of course in other sizes and styles).
Scary, innit?
by Sigivald on January 12, 2005 6:26 PM
Glad you included the Ferguson on the list--talk about historically significant (and not just because it was a "first").
If Major Pat had been less of a gentleman and had popped George Washington in the back, as he didn't do, just think of the course history may have taken--as in, Horatio Gates as C-in-C of the Continental Army. Shudder.
by cw4billt on January 13, 2005 7:20 AM
Robarm's new XCR is looking interesting, offered in 6.8 makes it more so. I have a little bit of trouble parting with the cash they ask for, but they are one of the few designing new, US semiautos and seem to have a following.
Great read, good luck with the rifle building aspirations. I am a lowly AK builder myself, but the sense of accomplishment is all the same.
by
Head on January 13, 2005 8:33 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 7, 2005
What is it?
This ain't a contest. I've been asked to help ID this bullet, and I haven't a clue, nor a reference that mentions anything remotely like it.
Anybody out there got some idea of what it is?
Another shot here.
From the email asking for help:
So now that I have the bullet in my hands I can tell you a few more
things about it. The rear of the bullet is not solid copper like Tom
told me. The "wires" are also not steel like he thought. They are not
lead nor aluminum, they appear to be a stiff alloy that is not
magnetic. I tried to scrape them with a knife blade and they are very
hard. I also measured the bullet diameter with my calipers and took
several readings at the base and about 1/4" from the base, I came up
with three readings of .350, .351 and .352. The jacket is scored by the
5 groove rifling from the base to approx .365" forward of the base. By
now you've noticed the "wires." This bullet consists of 7 "wires"
forming the core which is spirally wrapped by 5 more "wires" that are
the wire fingers you see sticking out, one of which is broken off. The
bullet as you see it weighs 92 grains.
So, what about it smart guys? Got any ideas?
Update: Right now the working hypothesis is a Ballisticlean round.
Like this description.
If that holds up, SangerM wins the non-existent prize! Oh, heck, I've got the Arsenal Store - Sanger, pick a pic of something you like, mug or mousepad on the Castle!
Update 2. I think we can move beyond working hypothesis. The Sheepdog found this (and you should go there to see it - so he can have the traffic bump!)
Having gone the extra mile and found confirmatory photographs - I'll extend him the same offer I did SangerM.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I am stumped right now, but seem to recall some tests being done years ago on different types of cores for bullets that included strands, strands and solid cores, etc. Some of these were done to support hydrostatic shock, some for a better mushroom, some for penetration, and so forth. Let me see if I can find anything in the files...
by
Laughing Wolf on January 7, 2005 8:35 AM
No pic available, but could it be a "Ballisticlean" Training Round??? See links:
www.le.atk.com/Interior.asp?section=1&page=pages/federal/fed_rifle_ballisticlean.asp
www.le.atk.com/Interior.asp?section=1&page=pages/federal/fed_pistol_ballisticlean.asp
by SangerM on January 7, 2005 10:03 AM
And just for grins, here's a new use for bullets...
www.bullworks.net/virtual/armory/bullets.htm
by SangerM on January 7, 2005 10:04 AM
I seem to recall some tests made using bullets which incorporated bound tungsten strips (are any of the strands tungsten, perhaps?), but I'm completely at a loss as to the purpose of the tests.
What puzzles me is the caliber. Every test I've ever seen on something like this has involved using bullets of a "military"-style caliber: .223, .30, 7.62mm etc -- but NEVER a .35-cal bullet.
I'm going to post a link to this on my Forum; those geeks are going to go nuts about this one.
by
Imperial Firearms Advisor on January 7, 2005 12:08 PM
I don't know what is, John, but I know what I'd name it: "The Human Rototiller." Argghhh! That's nasty!
I've posted a link to your post at A.C.E. If anybody who visit there knows, Daniel E. Waters, a very knowledgeable firearms historian who visits there (and maybe here as well) will know.
by A.C.E on January 7, 2005 12:39 PM
Interesting.
There are rounds in current use that have a similar design to this one, but a different composition.
I'm thinking in particular of a round that SWAT snipers/long-riflemen use, consisting of a jacketed projectile with a tightly-compressed stranded lead core. The round is designed specifically for situations where single-shot-to-the-head instant incapacitation is required. As the bullet penetrates the inner table of the skull, it sheds the jacket and fragments violently, with virtually no penetration out the other side.
Judging by the stated composition of the bullet you describe, I'd guess it to be a more-penetrative implemention of the same concept, perhaps with an eye toward game larger than man?
Surely someone here can provide additional illumination.
by a curious reader on January 7, 2005 12:46 PM
Sounds like 9mm (.355 cal) and the bullet weight bears that out.
I think SangerM is correct:
http://www.miragetechnologies.net/Federal%20Ammunition.htm
"BallistiClean is available in our jacketed, stranded zinc core bullet- designed to break up on hard targets-and in our Close Quarter Training (CQT) round. "
by DrMark on January 7, 2005 1:12 PM
I have seen a bullet that looked just like this on what I remember to be a discovery channel documentary, though I may be wrong.
The "wires" were tungsten formed in a spiral over a penetrator core,swaged into a spire pointed hollowpint with a very thin jacket over them.
It was designed to produce damage similar to a prefragmented bullet, without breaking up.
by
Chris Byrne on January 7, 2005 1:14 PM
.35 cal is very close to .357 and/or 9mm (its about 8.9mm). Is it possible this could be an attempt for an 9mm winmag or .357 mag improved manstopper? Do we know if the tip was elongated or if the wires were curled up so that it would fit in a standard pistol cartridge? IMHO the "fingers" being wrapped around the core like they are poionts in this direction. The base looks a little long for a pistol cartridge, but anything is possible. Were was it found?
I know I am asking more than I am answering, but that kind of information might be handy in identifying the ammunition.
by Coolhand77 on January 7, 2005 1:25 PM
DrMark is right. It's a BallistiClean bullet, or a derivative thereof.
Ow. That thing has GOT to leave a bruise, although I suspect the one in the pic was fired into hard media -- the "spokes" will slow penetration, big time.
In soft media (eg. flesh), the expansion probably isn't that radical.
by
Imperial Firearms Advisor on January 7, 2005 1:42 PM
Obviously a frangible round, and my initial thought was that it was used for training aerial gunners in WWII. Caliber and rifling are all wrong for that, though--methinks SangerM has nailed it.
Again.
The lad is good...
by cw4billt on January 7, 2005 3:28 PM
The answer is here:
http://sheepdog.blog-city.com/read/995259.htm
by
sheepdog on January 7, 2005 3:49 PM
Flip sweet John! Thanks
by
sheepdog on January 7, 2005 4:10 PM
It's a .308/7/4 or a .223/12/31 caliber. This is what happens to a round fired at random into the air upon striking a magnesium laden firework by some IDIOT on the 4th of July (7/4) or New Years Eve (12/31). All kidding aside, I have no clue as to what kind of round it is. Yer pal BULLSEYE.
by
BULLSEYE on January 8, 2005 6:21 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jan 07, 2005
�
Airborne Combat Engineer links with:
Name that bullet 07JAN05
�
sheepdog.blog-city.com links with:
So John what do I win? ^_^
�
Les Jones links with:
Gun Links #29
October 21, 2004
The answer to the teaser...
Okay. The teaser I posted was pretty tough. A lot of thought went into most of the responses. If you're new to how I do this... *usually* not always, but usually, there are clues in the Arsenal photo album. In this case, the answer was there, as I had already uploaded all the photos while I was still doing a little research to flesh out the post.

It's a tround. From Triangular Round, seen here with a Brit WWI-era .303 MkVIIZ ball round. The Tround was developed by David Dardick, who developed a revolving pistol that could be magzine fed. Yep. A magazine fed revolver (see picture links below)
The tround uses a strong plastic (some sources also assert aluminum-reinforced) cartridge of triangular section. The gun is a revolver, but the chambers are open to the outside. The cylinder was wrapped in a casing (which is why in the picture below it doesn't look like a revolver), except where the cartridge was loaded and the case ejected, similar to the drawing here, from Chinn's series of books on machinegun development (ya want those books or CD if you are into machineguns). That's the innovation that makes it possible; the cartridge drops straight into the chamber through the gap in the casing, rotates in line with the barrel and when fired is supported by both the cylinder and the casing, which in combination act as the more traditional chamber.

Primer view. (click the link, you guys from Sixgunner - I do too know the bullet end from the primer end!)
The Dardick pistols and carbine were produced in Hamden CT, from around 1959-61 There were 3 different pistol models, and a carbine modification.
Model 1100: This came with two interchangeable barrels for the .38 Special and .22 Long Rifle. The barrel lengths were 3.0 inches. It could hold 11 trounds.
Model 1500: This also came with 2 interchangeable barrels for the .38 Special and .22 Long Rifle, but had 6 inch barrels and could hold 15 trounds. I have seen sources which also say the 1500 only carried 11 trounds.
Model 2000: The Model 2000 held 20 rounds.
Rifle Conversion: Remove the barrel and the pistol frame could be fitted into a stocked rifle.
Numrich/Gun Parts Corporation also produced Dardick pistols, but what little info I've found on that indicated they never worked reliably due to manufacturing flaws in cylinder timing.
There are three types of trounds, of which I have two. The first, and the kind I don't have, is really a carrier for the standard cartridge, which slipped into the tround. The second, of which the black one I used in the teaser is one, were purpose-built, with a primer, powder, and bullet integral to the tround. Tround are reloadable. Reloading would have been relatively easy, as there is no case expansion and thus no need for resizing or crimping. Simply replace the primer, load the powder and press the bullet in place. There is an internal cannelure in the case to hold the bullet and provide enough resistance for the initial pressure build to ensure a more complete powder burn and reliable tround-to-tround perfomance - though I have no idea how many times you could reload one.
The example in the Arsenal is a .50 caliber dummy, part of a bunch made for the development of a tround-loaded light machine gun in the late 80's early 90's.
The other tround in the collection is the one which had the most commercial success. It was developed for a drilling device for rock drilling. This is a salesmans sample. Sarco has 'em for sale I believe - they want $100 which is a heckuva lot more than I paid for mine at a gunshow.

Made of clear plastic, it has three ceramic 'bullets' in it, with a common powder charge and primer. To quote from Sarco's website:
Super rare 20mm rock drill cartridge - Dardik's only commercial success. This was a rock drill gun and if drilling hit a snag it shot three ceramic bullets in to the holes to pulverized [sic] the snag.
I think it was Gunner of No Quarters who asked me if I knew anything about trounds. Now you know pretty much all that I do. Sorry if I was a little slow, Gunner!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Thanks for the post, John. I'd always wondered if L. Neil Smith had made up the whole "automatic revolver" thing for his SF novels. You've certainly answered my unasked questions!
by
Nicholas on October 21, 2004 6:06 PM
Zounds, you have dug up a fascinating bit of history here. I love reading about offbeat firearms and rounds. Have you ever run across the Gyrojet? I think I read long ago that it was some type of pistor which fired a rocket-propelled round..
by John Cunningham on October 22, 2004 12:00 AM
Well John, a search of the Castle's archives would have brought to light this and this!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 22, 2004 6:07 AM
Can you direct me to more info on the tround machinegun development in the late 80s that was mentioned?
by Chet on January 3, 2005 1:16 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 4, 2004
Extra-Super Serious Geek Alert!
WARNING-WARNING-WARNING-WARNING!!!! If you are easily bowled over by technogeeky jargon, just skip on down one. If high school physics broke your spirit, just keep on movin' on - if you think Superman comics are packed full of useful insights into how Newton's Laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics work... just keep on keepin' on!
Still here? You'll like this. The Instapilot will like this. Anybody wanna argue the math? [N.B. - it was sent to me, I didn't work this out]
We know the formula for kinetic energy is KE = mass x velocity2 . Now let's check in with the Movie Physics Guys.
So in their example, a small .45 caliber bullet weighing 15 grams and traveling at 288 meters per second yields is 619 joules of energy.
They further explain that if a man weighing 139 lbs (63.2 kg) were to fall off of a bed, it would yield roughly the same energy as being shot by that bullet; the difference being with a fall the energy is disbursed through the entire surface area of the man's body versus a bullet where the focal point is a tiny circle.
KE = mass x velocity2
KE = (.015kg / 2) x (288 m/s x 288 m/s)
KE = 619 joules of energy
Potential energy is defined to be PE = (mass) x (g) x (height), where the height is the vertical distance of the object from the ground and g stands for gravitational acceleration or acceleration due to gravity. Near the surface of the earth, g is a constant approximately equal to 9.8 meters per second per second (m/s2). You can use these formulas to calculate the total energy of the system by just adding up the forms.
PE = mass x gravity x height
PE = 63.2kg x 9.81 m/s x 1 meter
PE = 619 joules of energy
So taking this information, let's plug in the numbers of the Apache's M230 automatic gun ammunition. We have each 30mm round weighing 350 grams and traveling at 800 meters per second.
KE = (.3505kg / 2) x (800 m/s x 800 m/s)
KE = .175 x 640,000
KE = 112,160 joules
Now that's a little hard to wrap your army around... I mean just how much energy is 112,000 joules? Well, for starters it's 180 times the energy of the .45 caliber handgun bullet. So imagine 180 people all pointing .45 caliber handguns at this guy's body and everyone pulling the trigger all at the same time. Hmmm, yes...messy.
Furthermore, we can calculate just how high up this guy would have to plunge in order to release the same amount of energy as was released when he caught one of the Apache's 30mm rounds square in the chest...
112,160 = 63.2kg x 9.81 x height
height = 112,160 / (63.2 x 9.81)
height = 112,160 / 619.99
height = 180.9 meters (or 593 feet)
Now, taking our queue (sic) from the evolution of skyscrapers, I found an average 4.26 meters (13.96 feet) per floor. Thus this terrorist you see splattered all over Main Street in downtown Baghdad? He looks the same as if someone tossed his happy ass off a 42 story building.
And the best part? The Apache's 30mm gun is really a popgun compared to the 30mm gun of an A-10 -- same diameter slugs but they're much heavier and travel much faster. So should you be unlucky enough to eat one of the Warthog's tank killing depleted uranium slugs...
KE = (.91kg / 2) x (1500 m/s x 1500 m/s) = 1,023,750 joules of smack down
1,023,750 joules / 619 joules per .45 cal bullet = 1,626 people shooting you at once
1,023,750 joules = 63.2kg x 9.81 x height
height = 1,651 meters or 5,417 feet or a 1.02 mile freefall
But at a fire rate of 3,900 rounds per minute, the A-10's bullets will be more like Lays potato chips -- nobody's gonna eat just one. All you terrorist rats in Iraq and Iran better keep that in mind when you hear the whoop-whoop-whoop of helicopter blades, eh?
Hat tip to Cary!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Wow.
I just love when science explains the effects of high-velocity/large calibre ammo on things.
Now lets do the math for that anti-personel tank round that John was talking about. (At least I think that it was talked about here...)
by
GEBIV on October 4, 2004 7:59 PM
Now, for fun (and I sho wisht I wuz good wit nummers), imagine how much energy is released at the point of impact from a few dozen 25mm rounds from an AC-130 circling at 15K feet overhead. Or how it must REALLY suck to be on the incoming end of the 40mm, and especially that ass-kicking 105!!!
The only thing I think must be more fun to watch/use are the miniguns in the MH-53 Pave Lows and the MH-60 Pave Hawks. What they may lack in size, they more than make up for in street-clearing, stump-grinding rpms!
SangerM
by SangerM on October 4, 2004 9:09 PM
... and the 120mm APFSDS long-rod penetrator fired from an Abrams has more than 10x the energy of the A-10's 30mm.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 4, 2004 10:03 PM
Scientific Sickness! A 10 on the ouie gooie geek meter.
by
Mark Adams on October 4, 2004 10:24 PM
Mark! Again you wander through! Well, look at it this way - if you want to have a military available for Democrat Presidents to use, we've got to take kind of a non-partisan approach to this. Ya can't just toss us out as thug Republican stooges every time the PIP (Party In Power) and have the rest study horticulture...
Just a thought!
You should hang around Police/Fire/Ambulance/Trauma Center locker rooms. Kinda goes with the territory! Trust me - if you are going to have an army, it's better to have one that has some idea of what it's doing... then you don't find yourself having to kill children with car bombs to express your displeasure with the regime change...
by
John of Argghhh! on October 4, 2004 10:40 PM
One problem. The equations here are assuming that 100% of the energy from the bullet is transfered to the body. In fact, relatively little of it will be transfered, because the body just doesn't have enough stopping power. In the initial example of a single .45 bullet, you might actually get 100% energy transfer. For instance, if the person were wearing a bullet proof vest which succeeded in stopping the bullet (or at least slowing it down enough that it didn't exit out the back) then the force of impact would be exactly like that 1m fall out of bed.
If a human body (say it was the hulk) actually stopped a bullet from an apache, then yes, it'd be accelerated backwards as though it had been dropped off a 40 story building, which, even though the bullet didn't pass through, would pretty much liquify any ordinary person. As it is, the bullet passes clean through, and only loses perhaps a few hundred Joules.
Instead, I propose an alternate system. Let's say the human body is capable of stopping one .45 bullet's worth of energy before giving up & allowing the bullet to exit through the back (in reality, it'd probably take 2 or 3 people to stop a .45, especially if it avoided big bones, but we'll just use the 1 person idea for now). In that case, you could line up 1,626 terrorists, and with a single round from an Apache, you could puncture every single one of them.
Now all we have to do is figure out how to get them to all line up!
by
Beck on October 5, 2004 2:23 AM
Good points, Beck. Of course, the .45 was developed for that purpose with that in mind, to not go through people, if possible. The example above also does not include a discussion of the attenuation curve as the bullet loses energy over range.
Still - it is an illustrative example, ain't it.
As for your falling out of bed analogy - not in my experience - if for no other reason than you've generalized the energy too much - there is a concentration of the impact energy.
Both my father and I have been shot wearing flak vests. We agree it's far more analgous to having the Hulk hit you in the chest with a baseball bat than falling out of bed. In my father's case, it did result in broken ribs and the bullet penetrated, albeit just under the skin along the ribs.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2004 5:57 AM
I once worked with someone who had, in an earlier life, participated in RAF weapons research. The conclusion reached was simple. Rate of fire is no substitute for weight of fire. You can fire enough .32 ACP from a full-auto Skorpion to total the ballistic energy of one round from an elephant gun, but it won't stop a charging elephant.
by
triticale on October 5, 2004 8:04 AM
The other thing, since we're being pedantic, is that air resisteance when falling off the taller buildings. I'm not sure that they won't have hit terminal velocity. In more ways than one.
by
Fred on October 5, 2004 8:21 AM
Wasn't the .45 designed to defeat the kind of simple armor the Moros wore? That was the line we got when I joined the Army....
by SangerM on October 5, 2004 9:56 AM
It was designed to hit 'em and stay in 'em and knock 'em down - not so much because of the armor, but because they drugged themselves and were, well, perhaps just tougher, and the .38 wasn't doing enough damage to cause them to lose interest in dropping your intestines around your ankles.
Same problem the Brits had in colonial warfare that caused them to go to the .455 round. Stopping power for non-wussy natives who were grumpy about exterior meddling in their affairs. Apparently euro-soldiers were wusses who would go, "Oh! My! I've been shot! I must sit down and rest."
The natives were more like, "Izzat the best you got? Eat assegai, asshat!"
Or, in the case of the Moros, bolo machete.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2004 10:10 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Oct 04, 2004
�
There's One, Only! links with:
Big Guns!
September 27, 2004
You know you wanted it.
...but you didn't want to dig through the archives or visit the Castle. But you knew you wanted to take another look at a french Chassepot Needle Gun with Cartridge inserted. If only for a firearms moment of Zen...

Besides, some of you are new, and haven't seen this stuff at all!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
What's this? A picture of a French weapon after it's been dropped and it's owner heading to the rear?
by
Instapilot on September 27, 2004 11:33 PM
Aw, c'mon, Ip! It's a weird old weapon, and there are still plenty of brave Frenchmen, I just betcha they're grumbling into their vin 'cause they're not in charge. Reminds me of the time I made a fool of myself, in front of a serious, real collector, at the rifle collection at the Chickamauga battlefield park.
It's a good place to check out if yer ever in the North-Western corner of Georgia with time on your hands. They have a room there with what must be hundreds of different old rare rifles, and carbines, and muskets, oh my!
by Justthisguy on September 28, 2004 10:59 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 28, 2004
The answer to the question...
If you need to refresh yourself on the question... go here.
Many good guesses, not just in the comments, but in email, from people who were afraid they might get ridiculed for being wrong... (this is *not* that kind of site - unless you get stupid and snarky first!). Lots of people (22 in all) played this time, and much good logic and knowledge was on display.
Pretty much everybody fell victim to what Douglas Adams spoke of in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: '.....where due to a tragic miscalculation of scale, the entire battlefleet was swallowed by a small dog.'
1. We had people guess this.
2. And one like this.
3. And this.
4. Mebbe one of these.
5. Possibly one of those.
6. Someone even suggested these.
7. Surprising me (as this would have been my guess a few months ago), no one guessed this.
The answer is in the Flash Traffic.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Just to refresh your memory... it looked kinda like this.

In scale, with (L-R) an 8mm Mauser, 9mm Parabellum, mystery bullet, 81mm Mortar primer (12 guage blank, essentially).

See what I mean about scale? By photographing it on fine-grained white paper, and giving you no context, you supplied the scale. And y'all went big. And, to be fair, you really had to be a geek to know it was the bullet to a Gyrojet Pistol.
Gunner, of No Quarters Blog, went out and did a little searching himself and came up with this French site, which shows another variant of Gyrojet bullet. Be patient - Google is translating it for you.
Here's a crappy shot of the base end - showing the primer and the angled venturis that spun the bullet for stability.
I'll close this out with a shot of all of 'em together... just to reinforce that scale thing!

Last, but not least, what's in the numbered pictures above?
UPDATE: Oops. I screwed up (has to do with how I was building the post). I actually answered the question below in the version of the post that I apparently threw away... Beck having actually provided an answer (correct) in the comments clued me in to there was a problem! Which is cool, since I now know an interesting tidbit about Beck! So, I'll repair this post... and provide the answers.
1. 90mm Armor Piercing solid shot.
2. 57mm/6pdr Armor Piercing solid shot (essentially identical to the 2pdr guessed, just proportionately larger)
3. 75mm APCBC (Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) in this case in the 75mm recoiless rifle cartridge.
4. 57mm Recoiless Rifle.
5. US Navy 5in dummy training round.
6. As Beck noted, a pipeline pig.
7. 30 pounder Parrot solid bolt.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
OK, I'm not up on your collection. Do you have a gyrojet pistol? That is the ultimate in old Science Fiction cool!!!! It was used as a murder weapon in an old Larry Niven story, and probably a lot of other stories from the early, glory days of SF pulp fiction. If you have one, post a photo, please!!!!
by
Jack on August 28, 2004 12:46 PM
Gyrocs are cool sounding, but the practical limitations really kind of kill them. First off, they are not close in weapons, the 'bullet' has to accellerate out of the barrel a pretty decent distance I recall. Thus, in the kind of combat one expects with pistols, its a bit useless (Close in, tight fighting.) That said, I'd think the Gyroc from RunAway would be cool, heat seeking bullets.
by Mythilt on August 28, 2004 7:54 PM
Neat!
I hate guessing!!!
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on August 28, 2004 8:06 PM
John, you spoilsport.
Jack - I've been tempted, many times, but haven't yet broken out the bucks for a Gyrojet.
by
Beth on August 28, 2004 8:45 PM
I wonder if the price of unshot Gyrojet ammo is now high enough to justify going into new production. Think about it. Fewer legal hassles than making actual gun ammo; it's a rocket with less than four ounces of propellant, and thus completely (Federally, at least) unregulated. I don't even think the G-j launcher qualifies as a gun under the Fed regs. If it did, you could certainly cobble up one for yourself more easily than rifling a steel barrel, etc.
I do wonder what the guy used for propellant, and of course there's always the issue of the development work he must have done, and how to duplicate and/or acquire it.
by Justthisguy on August 29, 2004 12:37 AM
Two things: first, the whole concept of rocket bullets is unbelievably neato. I would even go so far as to say it's nifty. I didn't even know such a weapon had ever been developed.
Second thing, #6 is what's known as a "pig." It's a big wodge of metal for raming down a pipe. They serve various purposes, from pipe cleaning, pipe wall thickness checking for QC, and even pipe expanding. When I worked at Shell Oil, I helped develop technology for a pig that could be rammed down solid well pipe at enormous pressure & thereby expand the pipe diameter by ~20%.
Since such enormous abuse to metal combined with high pressure meant absolutely rediculous amounts of friction, heat, and stress, accidents were extraordinarily messy to clean up.
by
Beck on August 29, 2004 1:54 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 27, 2004
Castle Argghhh!'s newest acquisition.
Since the Castle is supporting 1.5 kids in college, high-end items remain on the wish list and not in the pipeline. While reasons of frugality (and, okay, debt service) have scaled back operations, the mailman or BBT (Big Brown Truck) does still make the occasional delivery.
This arrived yesterday.
Anybody out there know what it is? Click the pic for high res.

Another view is here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Tank main gun round?
by Sergeant Major V on August 27, 2004 8:57 AM
I'm pulling this out of my lower oriface, but it looks to me like that is either a dummy round or a round that uses seperate powder rather than a cartrage. My guess is that it is a round from a ships cannon or similar, where the round is placed in the breach and bags of powder are placed behind it. But I'm not really conversant in ammo or milstuff, so it is a major WAG.
by Mythilt on August 27, 2004 9:20 AM
The indentation on the bottom makes it look like a shell, but it does not seem right. Also the fact that the photo does not show the bottom well. So here goes.
Either a dummy practice round, or a decorative shell that is hollowed out for liquor.
by
gunner on August 27, 2004 9:42 AM
I'd say it looks like a 2 pounder projectile but with out something for scale and the lack of markings on it makes it hard to tell. If it's a 2 pounder it's missing the driving band as well. Perhaps a demilled 2 Pounder HE shell?
by Montieth on August 27, 2004 10:25 AM
It's a dummy round--check the diameter and you'll get an idea of the tube it went with, i.e., field artillery or naval gun. it's too stubby to be a tank round. Best guesses are it was either used for
1. gun drills with dry-firing (check the wear pattern around the body) or
2. it incorporated a sub-caliber device for using the tube in an anti-marmot role...
by
cw4billt on August 27, 2004 12:16 PM
I know..I know....that there is one of them thingies that them there alaskans use in the pipe line to get rid of clogs, yep
by Sir Knight on August 27, 2004 3:07 PM
Looks like a WWII-vintage 90 or 105 mm tank main gun penetrator round, maybe British, since my examples of the US version have rifling on the aft end. Maybe 50s era recoilless rifle.
Looks like a fuze plug at the top, definitely a coupling ring at the bottom, so I think I'm okay.
by
Paulie at The Commons on August 27, 2004 6:16 PM
How about a shell for either a 3" ordance rifle or a parrot gun.
by Tim on August 28, 2004 1:55 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 14, 2004
Answer to the "What is it"

Hi-Res.
The object in question is one of four darts contained in the bullet in this experimental bullet designed to improve the performance of what Kim du Toit calls the "9mm Euroweenie Pellet." The case is marked 9mm Luger. Well, actually, because it's cut in half, it's marked 9mm Lug. The darts are embedded in rubber.
Here is the cut-away with a standard Winchester 9mm, and here it is with an 8mm Mauser, just to keep you in scale.
So, those of you who argued for penetrator, or 'core' were correct, if you had a leetle teeny tiny scale problem.
In looking at everyday things since I posted the initial bit, I noted that the metal tip of a ball point pen looks very similar, and, so would a removable tip from a drawing compass, something one commenter got very close to.
Now - anybody know who made these? I don't. I got it off of Auction Arms some years ago and have no idea where it originated.
Oh! Yeah! The background - that's not pigskin. It's a really cheap blanket!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
4 darts? While it looks good. I think the frangible(?) rounds being sold today do what this seems to be attempting. Being darts they might have been trying for deeper penatration. But the bullet "opening" would not really release them in a true line. Maybe they were trying to make them tumble by having 4 crowded in there,thus "cutting" 4 paths.
That is an interesting little item. Not quite a flechette.
by
Gunner on July 14, 2004 10:26 PM
I think you're right, Gunner.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 15, 2004 6:44 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jul 14, 2004
�
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #25
July 2, 2004
I'm finishing up the VB post...
...here's an easy challenge for ya to tide you over.
So, what is it?

Here's a hint, for those of you who have to play it safe.
This one is so easy, no answers in the comments. Email your responses (all four of you who ever play these things) to:
johnbethd*@*DIESPAMBOTDIE*yahoo.com
removing the asterisks and capped letters, natch.
June 28, 2004
The answer to the question...
Which only one of you guys bit on, anyway. The question is here.
Gunner - you were really very close. It's the cartridge (not the primer) that goes in a PIAT round. Which isn't recoilless, but ya still got pretty close, all things considered!
Here's the cartridge in context (in service it was all the way up inside the tube and not visible).

My PIAT round is actually one of the more complete 'in the wild' outside of big time museums. I have the cartridge, the fuze holder (battlefield recovery from Oosterbeek Heights, Arnhem), and a fuze. Since it was an inert trainer not intended to be fired, it disassembles to show the forcing cone of the shaped charge and the shape of the charge itself.
So, take this post, add to the other PIAT post, and you've got a pretty good idea of what the PIAT was and how it worked.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Oh MAN!!!
I could have won this one. I know what a Piat round is. I missed the post! No fair!
(I'm lying. I did miss the post but it could have been the radio button on an Edsel as far as I know.)
by Calliope on June 28, 2004 8:26 AM
Well, I would have commented but since it was obviously not related to either the 105mm L7 or the 76mm L23, it must have been a less worthy find.
Besides, I spent 2.5 hours surfing for cartridge information because SomeOne only raises these questions becausae he knows that all my reference material is in boxes!
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 28, 2004 1:28 PM
I would've tried to guess if I knew even vaguely what any of those things were... Since I don't, I didn't. *G*
by
Teresa on June 28, 2004 5:43 PM
C'mon, Teresa, wing it! That'll show the test of your metal... rather than the weak excuse of "All my stuff was in boxes..."
snicker
by
John of Argghhh! on June 28, 2004 6:38 PM
I always thought the PIAT was a small rocket like the Bazooka round. It is more like the spigot mortar you talked about.
Always thought it was their version of the Bazooka, but never could figure out why they had that long, hard to cock, rod that activated it.
Saw a guy demostrate how to load it on TV once and would not want to do that under fire.
by
Gunner on June 28, 2004 10:53 PM
You are not alone there, Gunner. There are sites on the 'net that assert the PIAT round is rocket-assisted like a bazooka. While I don't know for sure, I can see at least three reasons people could develop the idea - especially since PIATs are pretty rare.
1. The opening of the tube is slightly flared (to make it easier to insert the cartridge and for the rod to enter - but if you don't know anything about rockets, that could look like the nozzle of a rocket exhaust.
2. The round itself looks vaguely like the bazooka round; fat nose, thin tube, circular fins.
3. Since many of the contemporary accounts of the PIAT refer to it as the 'british bazooka' or "british equivalent to a bazooka" it's easy to take that idea and run with it.
All of which serves to point out a dilemma for the historian, when using secondary sources (and if you've ever tried to write something using only primary sources, you know how hard that can be) - you have to make assumptions that the writer you are sourcing has done their homework. Journalistic sources are considered by many as primary sources, as you are using the writing of someone contemporary to an event... but as anyone who has followed the coverage of OEF/OIF knows - journo's don't always know what they are talking about. Many contemporary readers (like me) recognize the errors and account for it - but 30 years from now those errors will be set in stone and harder to chip away at.
Heh. This turned into a post, didn't it?
by
John of Argghhh! on June 29, 2004 6:26 AM
I saw an interview with a British soldier who carried one during the war. He stood about 5'3" and said with his small size it was a pain to cock it. He then did it for the camera. That little 70-80 year old guy did it just fine. But he did grunt some.
by
Gunner on June 29, 2004 9:16 PM
I've always thought that the P.I.A.T. was one of the more typically british weapons; archaic yet functional. Do any of these ever come up for sale and how much would they sell for? Cheemo!
by Derek on July 26, 2004 10:03 PM
We could argue functionality of a weapon that if not used perfectly under fire requires 150lb men to re-cock a 200 lb spring under fire...
I always described it as a weapon that fit the the Brit gov'ts attitude to it's soldiery - love/hate.
Anyway. Yes, they do come on the market now and again. Almost all of them are like mine, later models with the single-leg monopod, though there are a few with the 'stirrup' monopod (which is almost an oxy-moron...).
One like mine (especially now since I got a butt pad finally) with slings seem to run between $500-700. I've seen them higher, but I don't know if they sold at that price. You can occaisionally see them cheaper than that - if it isn't an auction, and it's complete, snatch it up. If it's an auction, hope no one else notices, and snatch it up.
Add $100 for the sub-caliber tray insert.
If one were to come on the market with canvas, and a bomb, those have been going for $900-1000.
Bombs can be a little funny, and pricing is variable on those. Mine is a training dummy, properly marked, and has the fuze, all the internals (since it was intended to be taken apart for instructional purposes) and little to no rust. $300 any more. A beat up warshot, with the guts ripped out, and some rust, crappy paint, will match it in price, because there is a hard corps of collectors out there who only want warshots, not trainers. A pristine but deactivated warshot will go in the $500-700 range. I have seen no serviceable rounds available anywhere. Of course, with a round, you also have to get the launch cartridge. The unavailability of that stuff is why the PIAT was removed from the NFA list.
My round, since it's complete with fuze, fuze holder (Arnhem battlefield recovery) and launching cartridge would go in the $400-700 range depending on how desperate or deep-pocketed were.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 27, 2004 5:54 AM
Thanks for the info John. One did come up for sale (briefly!) on ebay, but the auction was cancelled. I was able to contact the seller by email, but he has set a reserve of $1,500! for the P.I.A.T. He has no projectile for it, although I've found one in England but I'm not sure if it could be imported to the U.S. His P.I.A.T. has the stirrup monopod which you suggested is rarer the the single leg monopod, but would that make it worth $1,500.00?
I served as a Canadian Military Engineer and I'm now participating in reenactments as a WW II Royal Canadian Engineer sapper. If you ever come across any commonwealth Engineer kit for sale, I'd be extremely grateful if you notified me. Thanks for your help. Cheemo!
by Derek on July 31, 2004 9:10 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 26, 2004
SCOOOORRRRRE!
...and the crowd goes wild! Woo-woo! Am I excited!
Looky what I just got! One of the Holy Grails!
Wanna guess what it is? Something more specfic than the d-uh comments, now!

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
And to think that he was posting this whilst I was waiting for him to show up on our candlelet, romantic deck .... nekkid.
by
beth on June 26, 2004 9:14 PM
She's raht chere, and che t'aint nekkid!
Liar liar bra on fire!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 26, 2004 9:15 PM
*Now* she is! I just got flashed!
Whee!
Full Frontal! Who needs porn!?!?!?
by
John of Argghhh! on June 26, 2004 9:16 PM
Primer for a recoiless rifle round?
by
Gunner on June 26, 2004 9:38 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 14, 2004
You know you always wondered...
...why it was called cordite, didn't you?

You know you did. Now, you know. Look at the propellant in the cartridge case.
Corded. Ergo, cordite.
As in this bit, from this warrior turned peace protestor in Canada (I felt it rude to just snip his bit and not let you read the rest of his message...)
Mostly the memories which came back to me are not the sounds and the sights, but the smells: the smell of diesel exhaust from the tanks as we made our way up the spine of Italy is one smell that stays with me; the smell of cordite as we passed near heavy artillery sites soon after a barrage; the choking sweet-sickly smell of dead tank crews in burnt-out tanks in Italy; the distinctive smell of dead farm animals and tote-mules in the river valleys of Italy; the offensive odour of dead soldiers in Okinawa as I followed a truck of casualties being transported to the US embalming unit in the rear area. I had shoved these deep into my dead files. However, I'm afraid they've all come up again.
First off, I agree with him completely on the smell issue. The smell of burning powder, diesel exhaust on a crisp cold morning, ripe roadkill - those will all trigger memories, some good, some rather nasty. I know I sometimes attract looks on a cold morning if I'm anywhere near a running diesel and I stand there and take a good sniff... though every now and then someone standing near me will say something like, "Just like the DMZ, ain't it?" Or Graf, or Hohenfels, or Hof, or fill-in-the-blank, where-ever they spent a cold military morning with idling diesels. For aviators it's kerosene.
"The smell of cordite" has worked it's way into the vernacular, even though cordite is no longer routinely used as a propellant - unless you, like me, are shooting surplus ammo. It's a cliche'.
And now ya know what it looks like - at least in a WWI-era .303 Brit bullet. In tech jargon:
CORDITE, the name given to the smokeless propellant in use in the British army and navy. The material is produced in the form of cylindrical rods or strings of varying thicknesses by pressing the material, whilst in a soft and pasty state, through dies or perforations in a steel plate by hydraulic or screw pressure, hence the name cordite. The thickness or size of the rods varies from about I mm. diameter to 5 or more mm. according to the nature of the charge for which it is intended. The smallest diameter is used for revolver cartridge and the largest for heavy guns. When first devised by the Ordnance Committee, presided over by Sir Frederick Abel, in 1891, this explosive consisted of 58% of nitro-glycerin, 37 % of gun-cotton, and 5% of mineral jelly. This variety is now known as Cordite Mark I. At the present time a modification is made which contains gun-cotton 65%, nitro-glycerin 30%, and mineral jelly 5 %. This is known as Cordite M.D. The advantages of Cordite M.D. over Mark I are slightly reduced rate of burning, higher velocities~ and more iegular pressure in the gun, and lower temperature.
If you'd like to read more, go here.
If the picture above is too small for you, then hie ye here!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
My wife nearly has a degree in psychology, and was telling me once about how the sense of smell is processed in the same part of the brain that serves as memory storage. That is why there is such a strong link between certain smells and certain memories.
To me, there are two things that diesel exhaust bring back, depending on the flavor. Diesel and fresh turned dirt reminds me of being a kid watching local farmers plow. But mix that smoke with that smell of rain, and/or bodies of water, and it reminds me of my time spent on the USS Phoenix.
by Chris Van Dis on June 14, 2004 9:07 AM
I also agree about the smell thing, it brings memories back very fast for me. Music does this also for me but not quite as dramatically.
Interesting post John I had never considered why they call it cordite, and I certainly didn't know it came corded in rods like that.
by Calliope on June 14, 2004 9:58 AM
Oh! Nice to have you back too! 8^)
by Calliope on June 14, 2004 9:58 AM
I did always wonder why it was called cordite, thanks for explaining.
And welcome back. I'm taking a bit of a hiatus right now, so it's good to see you back.
by
Jack on June 14, 2004 2:31 PM
My Dad (Marines, Pacific during WWII, 7 Purple Hearts) always comments about each new 'realistic' movie about warfare that until they could supply smells, it would not be realistic.
by m on June 15, 2004 3:34 PM
I have a bunch of old (vintage '48) .303 ammo that is loaded with cordite. It looks like 0.7mm pencil lead, only kinda tan and translucent.
Unreliable ammo, though.
by
Kevin Baker on June 15, 2004 8:05 PM
Seems to me cordite does have a distinctive smell -- I think it's the mineral jelly -- fire some old .303 ammunition loaded with Genuine Cordite, and it emits a smell notably unlike common smokeless powder. So, those who use "smell of cordite" to refer to other propellant aromas are missing out on the real smell.
(Mind you, I haven't fired a .303 in several years, so my memory may be playing tricks on me.)
by
Eric Wilner on June 15, 2004 8:05 PM
Yeah thanks for the info. I am doing a project on it so thanks for the good info. :)
by boy on December 10, 2004 9:36 AM
Well i dont see the powder in the pitsurw tho so. :)
by boy on December 10, 2004 9:40 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 27, 2004
Another little agent of nastiness.

Oddly enough, there really isn't a whole lot of info about the German Glasmine 43 out on the web. Not that I spent a huge amount of time or effort (I'm sure someone will) but what's here may be the most complete set of pictures out there on this ugly little spud.
From the Army Medical Activity website talking about fragment producing weapons (for doctors) I did find this:
In an attempt to reduce the metallic content of the antipersonnel mine and increase the difficulty in its detection, a glass mine (Glasmine 43 (f)) was developed. This consisted of an outer glass casing 4.2 inches in height, from 4 to 6 inches in diameter, and from 0.25 to 0.40 inch in thickness. Approximately 40 pounds of direct pressure was required to break the glass shear plate and activate either a chemical or a mechanized ignitor
It was developed to be hard to detect by having as little metal as possible (the mine detectors back then weren't near as sensitive as your average Wal-Mart metal detector is now), using no strategic materials, and able to be produced by an industry not already overwhelmed with war work. I guess the germans were just boarding over the broken windows...
Here is a picture of the basic components, though you can't see the (inert) charge (original waxed paper, block of wood inside). A glass bowl, made of tempered glass so it will shatter jaggedly, into which sits the explosive, a detonator (lower right), the thin glass plate (usually missing from these) leaning up against the bowl, and the top cover, another piece of thick glass to add to the fragmentation effect. Obviously, with the very thin glass plate, these were not intended for long-term minefilelds in front of defensive positions, but were for hasty delaying and harassing minefields. This top cover is a relatively rare color, brown. Most are that greenish-blue tinged color of the bowl. Mines this complete are rare, because, well, they're glass! The effort the seller went to to ship it to me from Scotland made unpacking a 20 minute process - but the thin glass plate survived!
This is a shot of the charge, with a 8mm Mauser rifle cartridge for scale. Wrapped in paper and waxed to waterproof it, it's just big enough to blow off your foot - like the Elsie I covered yesterday. This one at least has a secondary use - the glass bowl is a glass bowl, after all...
Next is a picture of the detonator - called a 'saukopf' or pigs-head by the Germans, for obvious reasons. Remove the cotter pin on the left, and the initiator is armed. It took roughly 40 pounds of pressure to set it off. The real purpose of the brown piece of glass was to make sure that when stepping on the mine the something went deep enough into the bowl to hit the fuze.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
So....I take it the force of the explosion alone was enough to cause significant casualties. I don't know much about mines but I would have thought fragmentation for shrapnel was an important part of the theory. Doesn't seem like glass would do it....or would it?
by Calliope on May 27, 2004 8:43 AM
Anti-personnel mines are more psychological in their action. Slows people down, make's em cautious, etc, giving you a chance to open the lead, or target them as the "Mill About, Mill!"
They are a compromise between size and concealability/emplaceability.
The mines intended to cause a lot of casualties, like the German "S-Mine", or "Bouncing Betty" as our guys called it, generally pop up into the air and explode at waist height, scattering frags or ball bearings.
Again, that trade-off in size, portability, ease of emplacement limits them.
Mines, of all types, are more about denying, diverting, slowing, and fixing the enemy for destruction via other means than they are intended as direct casualty causing agents, as used by conventional forces.
Unconventional forces use them for the same purposes - and add pure terror, as well.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 27, 2004 8:53 AM
Thanks. I did not know it was as small as it is. I thought it was large serving bowl size, it is smaller then I thought. I also have never seen the inside workings of one. The one I saw for sale had the bowl and glass sheet only.
You have a nice example there.
by
gunner on May 27, 2004 5:32 PM
Unconventional. Hmm... I seem to recall having read somewhere that crazy-brave young Afghans would sometimes carefully lift AP mines, take them home, and re-emplace them around the old homestead. They claimed they made really excellent burglar alarms.
On glass fragments: Remember the famous "gravel" and "leaf" mines from the Viet-Nam thing? Supposedly they had glass fragments so they wouldn't show up on x-rays when the victim got to the hospital. There may be, or was a while ago, a whole warehouse full of them out on Johnston Island, out in the Pacific, which no one can enter, or even go near, because there's no way to disarm the things and they've gotten really really sensitive from old age. That was the story I read, anyway. Surely they've been blown up by now, one way or another.
On my comment in the other thread: I'm not so much anti-DY as I am anti-golf. I think maybe we should train the gators around here to associate golf carts with food.
by Justthisguy on May 27, 2004 10:20 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
May 27, 2004
�
No Quarters links with:
Esoteric items of war
May 26, 2004
Last but not least on Canadian stuff today: Elsie
The Canadians have signed on to the Landmine Treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention in recognition of their strong support, and in my experience in planning sessions, they are pretty up front and aggressive about it (though they are willing to position themselves behind minefields provided by us... because we are Bad People and didn't sign on. It's all Bush's fault, of course. Even if Clinton was in office.
Perhaps this is one reason they are so into it. They developed a pretty nasty little bugger of their own, the Elsie.
I have two, shown with a rifle bullet for scale:

Not large at all, just big enough to blow off your foot. Exactly the kind of thing that so annoyed the people who wrote the treaty. Small, hard-to-detect, easy to emplace mines that look a lot like toys to small children (though service mines (vice the training ones shown here) are not quite as attractive a color!
Before any Canadians get huffy - they are/were also produced by the US and Japan as the M25 and Type 67 respectively. They are very simple.

The C3A2 (Elsie) is a plastic bodied cone shaped A pers mine which is designed to wound or kill by blast effect. The mine has two components; the body and charge. The body resembles an arrow head, it has a smooth finish and contains the firing mechanism. The charge is a seperate component which fits inside the body, it contains a shaped explosive charge and has camouflage material on its exterior. When delivered, the body has a dust cover to protect the internal cocked striker mechanism/detonator. After the body is placed in the ground, the dust cover is removed and replaced by the charge. The mine is water resistant and it can be laid in wet ground. The C3A2 contains 7.8 g of Comp A5 while the older C3A1 version contained Tetryl. The mine is difficult to locate using metal detectors under most field conditions. Due to its small surface area the C3A2 has limited resistance to blast overpressure from explosive breaching systems like the Giant Viper and MICLIC. The Elsie is also produced in the US as the M25, and in Japan as the Type 67.
The designers were curiously respectful of the victims buddies:
The C3A2 "Elsie" is difficult to locate using metal detectors in areas that have high metal content in the ground such as artillery shell fragments. On detonation the mine will cause immediate blast injury to the victim as well as hearing damage to anyone within a 5 meter radius. Due to its shaped charge the mine concentrates all of its explosive force upward. The secondary fragmentation hazard is thus greatly reduced.
Wouldn't want to hurt anyone with that secondary fragmentation hazard...
Here's a picture of the mines and their component parts, less the safety clip. I haven't found a clip yet... The mine on the left has the shipping plug with it. The little black bit in the center is the explosive charge (inert trainer in this case) that is inserted into the mine to make it live. In this photo, you can see that it is in fact a shaped charge, albeit a wee one.
If you'd like all the dirty details, they're all laid out here.
Still to come: The german glass and shuh mines.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
As a member of the armed forces, what is your opinion of the attempts to prohibit land mines?
I waver between the attitude of "if you're going to fight, use every weapon available" and "weapons that maim are inhumane".
As Sherman said, "War is Hell." And even better to recall, Lee said, "It is good that war is so terrrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
by
Jack on May 26, 2004 4:00 PM
Leave it to you, Jack, to ask a question that requires a book-length answer!
Lessee if I can keep it shorter than that.
I have no problems with mines, if everyone is doing what they are supposed to do - which is record the locations, types, etc. For the express purpose of post-conflict clearance.
Of course, many users, especially irregular forces, don't get those Geneva Convention briefings and don't do what they are supposed to do.
What it really comes down to is, mines are a weapon used mostly as an economy-of-force measure. You use them to augment defenses, cover gaps, etc.
Those usages I just don't have a problem with. The Canadians were able to sign on to the treaty with a straight and earnest face because they simply don't envision a military situation arising where they will need them. And, as long as the US exists to cover their national survival needs, they are correct. And that isn't meant to be insulting to the Canadians. It's just hard to envision a situation where the Canadians are going to find their forces in the kind of situation that make mines so useful.
Reality is, any weapon can maim. If I shoot a guy in the foot, simply because I'm hosing the area down in combat, I'm going to maim him with my rifle.
That said, anything you can do to make mines less dangerous after the period of their use is a good thing. Self-destructs, etc. And making mines (as the Soviets reputedly did for Afghanistan) that resemble toys, etc is just pointless cruelty.
Mines have a place. Most, not all, but most, of the nations that signed on to the convention either had no intent to abide by it or, taking a good look at their near-mid-even long term military situations simply didn't see where mines were a critical component of their defense policy and were thus able to do the feel-good thing with little to no additional risks to themselves.
The real thing is who has quit making mines, and are mines no longer being openly transferred.
That's a little murkier.
I'm not sure that answered your question, Jack, but there it is. Mines are a double-edged sword, they have their place, efforts to make them less dangerous in post-conflict situations are on-going, and there it sits.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 26, 2004 4:18 PM
Shaped charge? Up through one's tootsie? Eeeyew Gross! On the other hand, we have WAY too many golf courses in this county (over 120 now and more every month), and all these lazy DY geezers ride instead of walking. Betcha it would take care of their tires. Sorry, I don't like what my recently arrived neighbors have done to this part of Florida. Owhell, now that the bald eagles are coming back, maybe I'll get to see their annoying Yorkshire terriers grabbed and eaten by vicious birds.
by Justthisguy on May 26, 2004 8:16 PM
Hmmm. They do look a little bit like sprinkler heads.
But I won't endorse it. Nope. Not even for damyankees. It *is* one word, right?
by
John of Argghhh! on May 26, 2004 8:28 PM
Oh, wait. That would be damnyankee.
A damyankee is from the Corps of Engineers.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 26, 2004 8:29 PM
Thanks, John, you did answer my question. I was a little simplistic when I said "weapons that maim are inhumane" and you reminded me of that when you pointed out that ANY weapon can maim.
You are correct. Using mines is a good "economy of force" measure that if we track where they are located and ensure the mines are removed when they are no longer needed have no bigger negative moral implications than any other weapon of war.
by
Jack on May 27, 2004 1:21 AM
Jack is right. I had a good time camping and touristing (Is that a word? No.) at the Lake Allatoona facility in North Ga. When people asked me where I was staying, I would say "...with the dead technicians." That is, corps(e) of Engineers.
Now do you understand why I don't show my real name here? (It ain't John Smith)
by Justthisguy on May 27, 2004 2:47 AM
Aw, shoot! I do wish all of these blog-people would use the same conventions in their comments! After my comment displayed, and only then, did I notice that the name and link of the commenter show up at the top of his remarks. Some people do it the other way. Very sorry. When I wrote "Jack" above I should have written "John" the site owner. I think.
Can we please have an easy-to-remember, universally observed convention in all of these here blog thingies?
by Justthisguy on May 27, 2004 3:04 AM
What? Each of us do it the same way? How Eu-ish! How, how, how, anti-quaint!
Besides - we gotta keep you guys guessing!
My real name ain't John Smith either... But John is correct!
Most of us use the default comment templates for our various software packages. It's kinda like cars... everything around the driver is kinda laid out the same from model to model... but not quite.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 27, 2004 5:39 AM
I haven't said anything in this thread, yet. But I do accept being correct.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on May 27, 2004 9:35 AM
Groan.
Gad, John. Your cavalry-ego is intact today, I see.
OH - btw, tell the webmaster of the society of your favorite regiment that it's Cavalry, not Calvary...
But what should we expect from Cavalrymen who play with pink pistols?
by
John of Argghhh! on May 27, 2004 9:41 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 23, 2004
Today, I may find time...
To bloviate a bit about these...

but first, another linkfest.
Matt weighs in on Abu Ghraib, again, since the media won't turn down any of the volume. He also takes a shot at the Air Force. Not like that's hard or anything...
I added a blog to the Microbe Microscope. Slings and Arrows. Go here, then hit 'main' and read the rest. Nicely focused, unlike this place.
Eric, at Classical Values, tries to take on the "Invincibly Ignorant." Does a pretty good job, too.
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
So, if the gods themselves find this exercise impossible, I may well be wasting my time.
But I am still pissed, and I have my blog, so where else can I go but here?
The rest is good, too.
Eric Aaron (Sorry!) at Pardon My English smacks on Kerry for his snarkiness. I find the press' angst over reportage amusing. I suspect the mission would be clear to them if the roles were reversed.
Been here. Done this.
The dogs like us!
Goldie has bloggerblahs. No worries, girl. We all go through it. More'n once, too.
My first linker, An Old Saab, are finally back at work. Lazy bums.
Over at Bastard Sword... an attack on Kerry! Whee!
Last, but not least, Aaron examines more tales of abuse in jail.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Oh good, I like to hear about Elsie and her friends.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on May 23, 2004 3:34 PM
Wow. I swear that is a German glass mine. I have seen a photo of the bottom and the thin glass sheet inside of only one.
((((DROOOOOOOLLLL!!!)))
Is it real? German? Details man!!!!
by
gunner on May 23, 2004 10:55 PM
fyi.. it's Aaron, not Eric..
by
Aaron Margolis on May 23, 2004 10:58 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 26, 2004
How are we different from the Terrorists?
I've made this point before when arguing the silly argument that we drop more bombs than they detonate IED's, SIMP bombs (Self-Immolating Murderous Perps), and other explosive events.
We try to minimize the damage and confine it as much as possible to military targets. These asshats just define EVERYTHING as a military target.
Here's a nice article on the on-going research.
Working to Reduce Collateral Damage
By Ralph Kinney Bennett Published 03/25/2004 at Tech Central Station.
One of the first "feedback" responses to my recent article on terrorist car bombs went on to the effect that the United States uses bombs, too, and that we have dropped more of them than all the car bombs combined thus far in Iraq.
This gentle reader missed the point entirely. American bombs have been directed by the military at military targets purely, and although there have been some accidental misses the efforts of U.S. forces to minimize civilian casualties are unparalleled in military history....
The whole article is here. Interesting stuff for an old Joint Targeteer.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
A nice reference to Tom Clancy would have been appropriate, as in "Clear and Present Danger", published 1989.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on March 26, 2004 9:37 PM
But Bush is EEEEEVIL! Don't you get it?
by
The Commissar on March 26, 2004 9:59 PM
Ah, here I have to admit a cultural failing... I don't read Clancy. I've tried, his books just don't hook me. So, there's a cultural referent that I am lacking.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 27, 2004 8:29 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 20, 2004
As proof I am working on another ammo post...
...here's a 'screen shot' of one of the pics I've taken for the series.
The breech end of a Chassepot needle-gun, with a genuine Chassepot cartridge in the tray.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
out of idle curiousity, have you ever fired that thing? I've never seen one in the flesh (so to speak) .
by Dave on March 21, 2004 8:18 PM
No, I haven't fired it. For several reasons.
1. It has a notoriously bad gas seal, whether with leather washers or the rubber plug. This one, while it has the remnants of a plug, has no gas seal. The gas vents directly into the shooter's face!
2. The needle. One of the weaknesses of these guns is that the needle is exposed repeatedly to the heat of combustion of the powder. This makes them brittle over time and they fail. Needless to say, replacements are hard to come by.
3. The ammo. There is no shootable ammo available to my knowledge and the effort to develop a shootable form (the primer for these is contained in the base of the bullet - the needle punches through the linen and charge to get to the primer) combined with the gas seal problem mentioned earlier - dissuades me from trying!
4. Add all the above together - there's a reason the rifle was obsolete almost as soon as it was fielded!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 21, 2004 8:37 PM
Like I said, it was idle curiousity. I like oddball guns, but I REALLY like oddball guns that I can shoot. You're the first person I've ever ran across who has one of these silly things.
The gas seal alone would be enough to keep me from firing it. I had a minor accident with a .54 Sharps some years ago (powder on top of the breechblock) that made me a much more careful boy.
by Dave on March 22, 2004 10:53 AM
I understand completely. I am as interested in the history of (military) firearms development as I am in shooting them, so I own several weapons I either won't shoot for safety or wear & tear concerns and several that I haven't taken the time to try to develop a low power load for, like my Werndl, Sniders, and Martini's. I do have a .303 Martini that I have shot. I also have a "Khyber Pass" Martini-Enfield that is in some off-the-wall caliber. Someday I need to make a cast of the chamber and slug the bore. It's larger than a .303 or 8mm, smaller than a .57. While I have a fairly extensive cartridge selection from the era, nothing I have comes remotely close to fitting. Just need to take the time to cut a dowel and melt some lead to make a chamber cast.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 22, 2004 3:22 PM
hmmm Martini Henry's... I've had the chance to buy several and was always too broke. I've not seen a Snider in ages. I always thought they were a better design than the Sprinfields converted to cartridge after the "late unpleasentness."
I've got a buddy with a repop Trapdoor that he's afraid to shoot live because it leaks around the breach so bad.
by Dave on March 22, 2004 7:43 PM
That must be one crappy repo that it leaks around a rimmed cartridge. And he shouldn't - if a rimmed cartridge is leaking, you've got to be pretty close to a blow-out of the case.
Still want a Snider? Enter Snider in the search window.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 22, 2004 8:04 PM
I saw those a couple of months ago, I would have REALLY loved to have gotten one of the 3 band Enfields, but I think they may be gone already. The main thing (besides $$) that stopped me was the fact that I like to handle 'em before I buy.
The Trapdoor I mentioned does have a serious problem. He bought it to take to Montana when they were filming Son of the Morning Star back in the 80's. As far as I know he's never used it for anything but blanks.
by Dave on March 22, 2004 9:52 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 16, 2004
See? Ya didn't believe me, didja?
But I am too working on an ammo post! See? See?
Hiding in there are representative examples of just about all the small arms types of ammo. Not all, to be sure, the Gyro-jet is certainly missing, but it's a pretty good sample nonetheless. There's rim-fire, black powder, needle-gun, gas-seal, grenade launcher, blank, drawn brass, wrapped brass, paper/brass, etc. Enough to give you a pretty good feel for the development. Now, since people write whole books on the subject - this is a tough post to write!
February 18, 2004
A little change of pace...
Okay - in hopes to inspire Mike the Bartender who is a very busy man these days, I offer a mix of militaria.
On the left, a cup-discharged grenade I believe to be Belgian. If anyone can provide more information, and, even better - pictures of the launcher, well, that would be too cool.
For the Bartender at Madfish Willies - a schnapps glass. Recovered from a collapsed german dugout in the Verdun sector. Whether by the heat of the blast, or the pressure it was under while buried - it's slightly deformed, and that dirt on it is resistant to gentle cleaning methods. Any glass restorers with advice on that would be appreciated - whether in the comments or via email. I'm not interested in restoring the shape or polishing it back to a shine - I just want to clean up the dirt a bit.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
John you should be working at a museum somewhere. I for one would love to go on a tour through a gun museum with you as the guide.
by Calliope on February 18, 2004 4:39 PM
Well, it would be fun for a while, I bet. But I'm pretty sure, knowing what people make in the museum business, that I'd have to be the Firearms Curator at the Smithsonian to live as comfortably as I do now.
But I probably wouldn't hafta think as much or work as hard as I do now.
Hmmmmmm.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 18, 2004 8:31 PM
Maybe just soak it in a vat of Coca-Cola. That stuff will clean sunspots.
by TrooperJohnSmith on February 18, 2004 9:22 PM
Hmmmm. Good point. My grandfather used it to strip floors before refinishing too. Problem is, I'm a recovering Coke-a-holic and can't pass an open one by.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 18, 2004 9:28 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 6, 2004
Moonbats got you down? Need a Cluebat?
But these are the smelly, nasty, stringy haired anti-globalization kinda vandal Moonbats? Ya just don't want to get close enough to whack 'em upside da haid to give 'em a Clue?*
C'mon down to the Imperial Armory! We have a brand new Long-Range Cluebat!

The LRC is designed to be launched from any 1.5 inch Cluebat Launcher! If you don't have your own riot grenade launcher, you can use any basic bullet launching device you have, just add our cup to it, insert the baton round (less casing, please, we have them available in bulk) and away you go! (The pistol is the Amorer's Walther PPK CO2 pistol he uses in the basement range to keep his aim true.)
For those of you who have arguments with multiple Moonbats and need to spray the room with Clues, we have this option:
So, as you can see, the Armory is now equipped to add a whole new dimension to dealing with Moonbats!
*Irony, satire, humor. Don't go bashing Moonbats on your own unless you are being physically attacked. It pisses off the Police, cuz' the government has exclusive rights to violence initiation. Think about that for a minute.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
November 11, 2003
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not your friend, Part 1.
All right, it's Veteran's Day. Veteran's Day started out as a commemoration of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. The cessation of WWI armed hostilities. The war didn't officially end until the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and the hostilities continued, breaking back into open warfare, into WWII. So, for all us Vets out there, it's WWI weapon day at Castle Arrgghhh! Even as we speak, I'm working on the Rifles of the Major Combatants! I'm going to keep this post at the top today, so if you check back to see the new stuff, just scroll down!
Update: Having had some time to think about it - I'm also going to include some of the little things in the life of the soldier. Today is about the warrior who puts life and limb on the line - and while I am going to showcase a lot of the weapons, I'm going to dig into the other boxes, and show you some of the other stuff of day-to-day life. So, start coming back mid-afternoon (got a business meeting to deal with first!) and see some more little bits and pieces of the life of the soldier.
Okay - what do all the things in this picture have in common?

Give up? They are all grenades, and they were all used during WWI. Many Nations went into WWI with grenades that required lit fuzes (though not the Germans). They came out with grenades we'd recognize today. I thought I would share a bit of my ordnance collection with y'all. Normal disclaimers apply - it's all legal where I live, which wouldn't be true if I lived in California - while they are all inert, they are not full of MT-5 epoxy filling. For the record, since I never intend to use them, if I was moving to California (I can't imagine why, I'd have to leave some guns behind) I wouldn't object to filling them - although persnickety collectors have a cow over that. Which is okay - they are allowed to have a cow. Or a moose. Anyway - let's lookit some engines of destruction!
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Nations represented in the lead pic are Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Austria, and Serbia. There are home-made improvisations, cottage-industry built, and your regular, run-of-the-mill industrial giant production. There are percussion fuzes, friction fuzes, wicks, and variations of a theme.
Let's start with these:
On the left, a British No. 15 grenade. On the right, a French M1884. Both required a flame source to light off. As the Brits found out at the Battle of Loos, that was a problematical issue in a driving rain storm. The Brits give great credit to that little problem as a major contributing factor to the loss at Loos.
Another fuzing attempt was the 'bracelet' grenade. Here are two french ones: one the left, Model 1847 Luis Phillipe" with 1882 mods. On the right, the Model 14. Yes, they went to war with a grenade dating from 1847, if improved.
The soldier wore a leather strap around his wrist that terminated in a hook. The hook engaged the loop in the fuze. You reached back and threw. Several advantages - no flame, no hard surface needed. Drawbacks? You had to throw hard, which was fine for distance, but tough for close in, and accuracy suffered. The grenade on the left had a different problem - it's a simple wood plug, jammed into the ball. Like as not, it just pulled out, leaving the now-inert ball sailing away, only dangerous if it hit your target in the face. The one on the right is a product improvement - the fuze screws in.
Let's leave fuzes for a minute and talk about availability...
The nations went to war in 1914 unprepared for a war of such magnitude. Not surprising, since no one had really been expecting a big war at all - and certainly not the one the developed and took on a life of it's own. This forced some improvisation, as above and below. Above: two french 'petard' grenades, handmade in the trenches, or locally by enterprising businesses. The top one is essentially an fire-lit pipe bomb for anti personnel work. The lower one is a friction-ignited grenade for blowing up wire or clearing bunkers. Below are two examples of British Battye grenades, designed by a British engineer officer and produced by french engineers at Bethune in 1915 during the great ordnance crunch. Simple segmented bodys, filled with ammonal and a wood plug, held together with wire. The one on the left has a Bickford fuze, the one on the right is a chemical fuze. I should take this opportunity to remark that segmenting iron on the outside has little impact on fragmentation, though it does enhance grip. The way that iron/steel fractures means that segmenting should be done on the inside. But that makes it very, very much more time consuming and expensive to make the grenade!
Back to that vexing fuzing issue. The top grenade below is a Brit No19Mk 1. Below it is a No1Mk1. Both have impact fuzes, and represent the early and late methods, in numerical order so to speak. Both have handles to increase leverage to get distance - and height. Both are built to try to get them to land on the head - the No19 having cloth streamers (should be three, missing one - hey, I was lucky to find anything original!) to help stabilize the grenade. The No1 uses a cup on the head of the grenade to carry a pin to initiate the detonator. Problem with that is that the brass deforms easily just being carried around, much less thrown, so the cup didn't always compress properly. The No 19 has that flat plate. To work, they need to come down fairly vertically, and hit something hard. This limited how far you could throw since they need high arcs, though the No19 design is more forgiving in that respect. Mud was not good. Another not good aspect is they were very hard to throw properly from the prone position. And kneeling or standing was a good way to attract a machine gunner's attention. The frag ring on the No1 was next to worthless as well. Often as not, the No1 blew out both ends, leaving the casing, and ring, intact.
Okay, what are some of the other options?
Above, a french Model 16 "Citron Foug", and below it a Serbian 'egg' grenade. Both required the soldier to remove the cap and rap the grenade on something hard. The Citron Foug uses a nail. Simple, right? As long as it isn't muddy. You can't even used your shoe if it's muddy. Ever wonder what some of those dents are from you see on WWI helmets? Nope, dang it they still don't work well so we're still searching for a reliable method and a good shape.
And that is a post for a different time!
� Secure this line!
by
John
on
Nov 11, 2003
�
Backcountry Conservative links with:
Veterans Day
�
AlphaPatriot links with:
Ordinance Lovers
�
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler links with:
Grenade Pr0n
November 8, 2003
This is just a tease...
While I work on the rest of the post...

Suffice it to say it's about grenades and WWI. Modified Gun Porn is back!
Update: I'm still working on it! Hadda get that military geek stuff done, first!
Last Update: It's done! Of course, unless you came here directly from a bookmark, you know that already, since it's the first post of Veteran's Day!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Castle Argghhh!!! must be quite spacious to house all these goodies.
by
Ghost of a flea on November 8, 2003 11:04 AM
Castle Arrgghhh is 2800 sq ft, counting the finished part of the basement. And it is crowded down there. If you haven't, click on the building in the sidebar, and journey into the Arsenal.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 8, 2003 11:28 AM
It is semi-obvious what most of them are as I went to the collecting militaria site you linked to earlier. But the item on the right edge is beyond me.
by gunner on November 8, 2003 7:25 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 16, 2003
More GunP0rn
I was busy yesterday, and will be again today, so my commentary will be light again (not that most of you come here for that...). Oddly enough, Misha links to my post yesterday, everyone comes here to look at the pictures, and goes back there to comment. Weird the way it works. Like reading your local paper and sending your Letters to the Editor to Time.
Anyway - as the discussion ran it's usual meandering way into a discussion of the various merits of which arm, which caliber, etc, Ironbear broke in with a comment "But absolutely nothing says "I love you" like a Carl Gustav M2 M550 round through the window..."
I was inspired. So here she is, that stocky little Scandinavian number, the M2 Carl Gustav 84mm RCL! So here's to you, Ironbear, GustavPorn!

So, there she is on stage, all her bits covered, and the strap dangling deliciously akimbo on her shoulder. This little sweetheart was born in Sweden, and later emigrated to Israel. She came to the US after the IDF dumped her for another woman! Talk about miffed! She was dumped for her younger sister! She's still proud of who she is, and doesn't hide her identity from anyone.
Want to know more? Then come behind the curtain... no cover charge, no tip to the maitre 'd blog....
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Here she is, having dropped her covers and exposed her bits!

Now she kicks up her legs and gives us an upskirt shot!

Here's a shot of her up-front bumps, for use by Manly Men who like a No-Frills Woman and want to get down and dirty up close! However, when she accessorizes, she can enhance those bumps and keep the Other Poor Dumb Bastard at a distance!
What!?! Who is this? Two of her friends, Illum and TP-HEAT have come to help out with the show!

Arrrrreeee ya ready to rrruuuuuuummmmmmbbbbbllleee!!!!!????? Here is her Sharon Stone shot!

And to top it off, (turn the lights down, guys - and check out the windows for the cops).
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
Here it is! Insertion!
Ooops! Looks like TP-HEAT has suffered pre-backblastulation!
Technical Non-innuendoed Note: Now you can see how this particular reckless rifle works. Instead of venturis, the base of the cartridge case holds in just long enough to launch the projectile, then gives way and blows out the vent. This is why you don't stand behind a reckless rifle gunner, and why shooting these things from inside buildings is, well, exciting, to say the least!
BTW - LE-types... if you check the last displayed (vice linked) photo, you can see the brighter line just in front of the rifling? This represents the edge of the bore-diameter hole cut in the breech. She thoughtfully covers her ugly surgery scar with the cheek rest. And in the 'insertion' photos, you'll notice the round isn't all the way in - that's because she can't chamber ammunition any more, just like the applicable immigration laws specify. In short, she's legal, dudes!
My usual caveats apply!
Goblins - you have your own set of warnings.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Heh heh. Glad you liked the wisecrack, John. An old friend of mine was fond of that quote - where I stole it from. [He was an reckless gunner, perhaps unsurprisingly]
"Oddly enough, Misha links to my post yesterday, everyone comes here to look at the pictures, and goes back there to comment."
Works the other way today: you comment there, we come over here to post. ;]
Impressive weapon. I always loved the M2 550... although I don't think I'd care to hump the bitch or her ammo load over rough terrain.
by Ironbear on October 16, 2003 3:26 PM
Fun piece of kit to fire, although my last opportunity was in '81. At that time it was the M2 but during the mid-80s we upgraded to the M3: steel liner for the rifling and wrapped in fibreglass?/carbon fibre?. This reduces the barrel weight from about 35 lb to less than 20 lb. I understand that the M3 is the version chosen as the Ranger Assault Weapon.
Also a different topic: http://www.britishguns.net/soq/
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 17, 2003 9:49 PM
My only opprotunity was in '80-81. Looonggg time ago. ;]
I've read about the Gustav M3 in Jane's, J.M., but never had a chance to see one in IRL.
by Ironbear on October 18, 2003 5:59 AM
Thanks for the detailed pictures. I am working on building a replica for airsoft. Do you know of any links that give good measurements? Or do you know where I can get a de-milled Charlie G ibn the USA?
by zbear on March 8, 2004 10:26 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Oct 16, 2003
�
Say Uncle links with:
Gotta love it
October 2, 2003
Warning! Exteme Danger of Causing Nanny-Stater Heads to Explode.
Or, at least turn 'em into gibbering dolts with outrage. I like that.
This is a shot of my burgeoning grenade collection. I'm going to work up a photo essay on the subject that I'll link to on the sidebar, rather than punish dial-up visitors.
Most, not all, but most, of these grenades are from WWI, a fascinating era in grenades. Where you could find this, a Brit No 15, Mk 1, fuze lit by a match (Not Good, as the Brits found out at Loos), next to this, a No 5 Mk1, in the same trench.
Visible below are some other tools of the trade (which I like every bit as much as the guns) like a trench club, some submachine guns, wire cutters, and a stereo-optic rangefinder. As ever, if you are appalled, all grenades are inert, empty, no explosive and my Standard Disclaimer (SM) applies. If it doesn't display for you (some problem somewhere) it's listed on the sidebar under "Gun Pics" as Periodic Disclaimer.

If you'd like to see more WWI grenades, I recommend this excellent site, .Granaty WWI run by Greg. It is a polish site, but don't let that deter you - english speakers can glean a lot from it!
There is also this site, which specializes in Brit grenades. You'll find several of mine grenades in the pic discussed here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Like the old grenades. This is the first time I have seen the rifle grenades of WW1. Truthfully I did not think they had any. But the Bergmann(sic) on the bottom shelf I like. I have always liked the small sten's of WW2 and the other "tommy" guns.
by Gunner on October 2, 2003 8:27 PM
I've got british, italian, austrian, and german rod grenades. I've got british, german, french, russian, and US cup grenades. I've got british, french, german, and US cup dischargers.
On the bottom shelf, from the bottom up:
Brit Lanchester (based on the Bergmann)
German Erma MP
Italian Beretta.
Right rear is a Sten MkV. Hiding behind the stock of the Lanchester is a Sten Mk II with loop stock. There is a Sten Mk III right above the Erma stock. I also have a Mk II with T stock.
I've got a PPSh 41, a Suomi M37, and a MAT49. Looking at getting a PPSh 43, mebbe a Vigneron, too. I'd like to get an M1A1 Thompson, but I think I'd rather spring for a shootable one, even if the barrel will be too long in a legal semi-auto.
by
John of Arghhh! on October 2, 2003 8:47 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 1, 2003
Scary Gratuitous Gun Pic
This is what happens when you let an Infantryman play with nukes. They develop the Davy Crockett. While it's not quite true that the blast radius exceeded the range - you didn't have a lot of area to work with! Yes, that little thing on the ground in the right rear is a nuke. Well, not that actual one,of course, since it's in the Watervliet Arsenal museum (well worth the visit if you can get there). So, no, I don't have one - but I wish I did (with an inert warhead, I'm not stoopid!)

Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
My favorite part of the Davy Crockett - blast radius is longer than the range!
by
blaster on October 1, 2003 11:25 PM
Well, okay, I didn't read the whole post.
I think some of the effects stuff in the link you have isn't quite right - it was up to 1 kt.
But, yeah, you'd be okay from a mile away at even 1kt.
by
blaster on October 1, 2003 11:38 PM
I actually have a better discussion of effects hiding somewhere back in the archives... but it's still scary to think about actually employing these.
Talking to some vets while wandering through the National Infantry Museum, they did allow that it was fun to shoot in training, not that they got to shoot it much!
http://infantry.army.mil/museum/index.htm
by
John of Arghhh! on October 2, 2003 5:14 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 28, 2003
As a Redleg...
...and having a strong interest in the technology of war, I have a projectile collection, as well. I used these things when I was teaching tactics and military history to Field Artillery officers, and still lend bits and pieces of my kit for displays in the local area.
These are my older bits - civil war projectiles, all battlefield recoverys. I really like the sectioned shrapnel shells, showing the balls in the supporting matrix, and the details of how the fuzing operated (obviously not that well on these!).

The shells are Union. How to tell? The balls were generally all the same (though the south did have some odd side-loaders due to technical issues in small manufactorys) general design and shape and used the same fuzes. The discriminator right here is the supporting matrix is yellow - sulphur. As sulphur is a key ingredient in black powder, the south didn't have the luxury of using it in this manner. They used pitch, instead. So, if it's yellow, it's Union. Have fun with that, those of you who think the outcome of April, 1865 was a bad thing. I'm glad to be a Yankee, thanks - even though the only family I had fighting in the Civil War were on the losing side - one on staff with Bragg, the other a member of the Orphan Brigade.
The Winchester Bullet Board
This piece has an interesting history. It's an early 1900's "Double W" board that shows all the ammunition products Winchester was producing at the time. As it was made at a point when the technology was shifting from black powder to smokeless powder, it's really a priceless asset in documenting the cartridge tech of the era. These are physical cartridges, not just embossed pictures as in the much more modern boards (though some companys still make 'em like this!). This is one of the better ones left - but it could have been one of the best, except... It came from the family hardware store in Paragould, Arkansas, after the last brother who ran the store died and no one else in the family wanted to continue operating it. It was complete at that point. A family member of mine was (and still is, behind the scenes) a politically connected fellow in Little Rock. He loaned it to the state, and it hung in the capital building for many years during Clinton's governorship. While I doubt Bill swiped any of the cartridges, someone stole several of the more expensive ones - which I've been replacing, bit by bit. What complicates the effort is these were purpose-built dummies, not just unloaded cartridges. Thus far, the real challenge has been finding the missing (and most expensive - why they were stolen!) shotgun shells.

Update: I should note that the board hangs in the living room - a testament to just how wonderful WonderWife (tm) v3.x is!