[Paleopsych] electile dysfunction

Val Geist kendulf at shaw.ca
Thu Nov 4 07:18:01 UTC 2004

Dear Lynn,

The Discovery Channel had an interesting series comparing weapons, including one on the M-16 versus the Kalatchnikov. There is little doubt that I would prefer the Russian creation in battle! I have never fired either one, having qualified on the Lee Enfield No. 4, mark I in 303 British in a Canadian rifle regiment (Regina Rifles). With a sling from prone using the regular peep-sight I could place then five shots into less than a 3 inch circle at 100 yds. Merely to illustrate that I am addicted to the quick, but aimed shot, which I am also in hunting. So, the automatic weapon has never quite appealed to me though I did fire the 9 mm sten gun a good many times. Hence my appreciation of the modern assault rifle is purely distant and intellectual. How could you knock out an enemy taking cover behind a tree with either the M-16 or the Kalatchnikov, as neither has much ability to penetrate? With the old 303 amour piercing ammo the chap behind the tree would be quickly knocked out! Automatic fire? I'd be afraid of running out of ammo! Accuracy in automatic fire? Accurate automatic fire is an oxymoron! (Though the old Bren gun was very accurate in single fire!). However, I have to defer to the following: In WW II the German military gave battle-experienced lieutenants the task of designing the ideal infantry rifle, based on their collective experience. That's how the G 43 in 8mm short came to be, a precursor to and the inspiration for the Kalatchnikov. And that I have to respect! That's experience used to its best advantage, and the Kalatchnikov proved these German lieutenants right! So, it's probably better than the tried and true Lee Enfield, a superior infantry weapon to the Mauser 98 or the old Springfield. I have handled the M-14 but never shot it. On my last day ever on maneuver the new FN rifles in 7.62 Nato were brought out for us kids to try. The Canadian army was about to ditch the old lee Enfield. There was only enough ammo to allow us 4 shots apiece, which I put at a 100 yds into a 4 inch circle. It was a pleasant rifle to shoot! Then my days in uniform were over and I went on to university. I still have a hard time believing that I was never recalled for service. Lucky me.  Cheers, Val Geist
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. 
  To: The new improved paleopsych list 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction

  Val, your point is well taken. The support troops qualify on the M-16 in basic training, and then hardly ever fire their weapon. It is a scandal.  With fluid battle situations and no front lines, everyone should be highly skilled with infantry weapons. 
      I liked the M-14, the weapon I originally qualified on. Big, heavy, with a .30 round that could knock down a water buffalo. But it could not be fired full-auto, so we went to the M-16 (.223 round) . Light, nice to carry, not as noisy, but not a good combat weapon, not as good as the old M-14. We probably should have copied the klashnikov and stayed with a .30 round (7.62 mm). If I were the king I would do just that. the AK-47 is a splendid weapon. The soviet system may have been dumb, but they did amazing things with their weapons. I appreciate the fascinating story about your father.  And I find your posts consistently insightful and informative. 
  Lynn Johnson

  Val Geist wrote:

    Dear Lynn,

    The M-16 was trouble in Vietnam, and appears to be so again. Issue Klatchnikows! IN WW II the German military was reduced to begging industry to copy the Russian T-34 tank - and forget fancy tanks. The Panther was the reply! The Russians sure loved the one's they captured and re-used! My father in law, a long-serving Wehrmacht officer who survived, had a professional's admiration for Russian weaponry. It worked when the German failed! Russia's "primitive" Moisin sniper rifle with a - superlative! - little scope was used also by German snipers!

    Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? Amazing! 

    Cheers, Val Geist


  paleopsych mailing list
  paleopsych at paleopsych.org

  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20041103/1b9ca49e/attachment.html>

More information about the paleopsych mailing list