Replies

As I recalled the 7.62x39 was about .312, but have never reloaded in the way you describe. Used to put 30-30 bullets into loaded down .308 cases looking for the ideal recoil vs. performance ratio, though. Never got there, bullets are designed all wrong for war. Personally, I have a lttle familiarity with the StG 43, know a collector who lets me shoot his, with Nazi headstamp ammunition. Very good weapon, better than the AK.

I've owned a couple of MP44s/StG44s, even had one in high school I bought from one of my dad's fellow American Legion post members for all of $50- he couldn't find ammo for it. Now, one magazine is worth more than that, and I got eight with it. I always wanted one of the Mkb42(h) prototypes, but the one I saw that was for sale was at a time when I was short the cash required to carry.

Back in 1976 and '77 I carried an MP44 *for real* as something with a little more range than the folding-buttstock Uzi I kept under the dashboard of the Volkswagon Rabbit I was driving at the time. I practiced going out of the sunroof and could be out and on the ground in under three seconds.

The MP44 is more controllable than the AK, which it oughta be, being less powerful and 12 pounds heavy, near the weight of a BAR. The one I've really wanted to wring out over a long period was the FG42 in the full-power 7,92x57mm Mauser caliber. I've shot 'em a couple of times, but really getting a chance to use one has eluded me so far.

-archy-/-

In Iraq a DEFENSIVE weapon is needed. The offensive weapons are carried on the vehicles.

A defensive weapon is relatively close range, and good at clearing buildings, busting an ambush, etc. By defensive I mean like a 12 gauge in the hands of an expert. (Shotguns are not practical weapons for general issue because it takes too long to train the troops. Need to shoot more than 85% birds at skeet to do OK with a shotgun.) A Thompson handled by a man who knows what he is doing is OK, as is an UZI. Body armour stops shotgun and pistol rounds very easily, of course.

The AK is a good defense weapon. A better cartridge than the 7.62x39 is the WW2 German 7.92x33, although the Germans believed something like 7mm would have been better if they hadn't had such time pressure. The case shape and balance of the cartridge made for excellent chambering and extraction without making the chamber neck area too loose. It is meant for guns that begin extraction with chamber pressures still high enough to aid extraction. Call them ten percent blowback operated. Those boys knew what they were doing.

The bullets need redesign also. The Voss designed bullet used in the early CETME rifle program deserves study, although I would probably go with a 9mm and 180 grain bullet, but a long spitzer boat tail VLD bullet shape. Basically a steel, lead, polymer, and gilding metal bullet in order of weight. Center of mass well behind center of drag, more so than the SS109. Optimized for "knockdown" and able to pierce class IV armor at minimum velocity, maybe 1600 fps at the muzzle. Loaded into a high pressure relatively small case capacity round it would make a folding stock Kalashnikov action weapon about 22 inches long. This is do-able.

For a short barrel to work well you need an expansion ratio over 6. This means moderate velocity and a relatively large bore size.

There is an interesting new Russian cartridge, 9x39, that will penetrate grade IV body armour that stops 30-06 armor piercing. The cartidge is optimised up to about 200 yards. Good expansion ratio down to about 10" barrel, maybe.

Problems with the M16 include but are not limited to the Ljungman action that puts propellant gases in the reciever. This is so dumb I am still amazed.