<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Lynn,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ljohnson@solution-consulting.com
href="mailto:ljohnson@solution-consulting.com">Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">The new improved paleopsych list</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] electile
dysfunction</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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. <BR> 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. <BR>Lynn Johnson<BR><BR>Val
Geist wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid00b601c4c226$4f168c00$03224346@yourjqn2mvdn7x
type="cite"><META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Lynn,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do your support troops fail to get a thorough
infantry training? Amazing! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cheers, Val Geist</FONT></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych mailing
list<BR>paleopsych@paleopsych.org<BR>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<BR>Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (<A
href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: 6.0.788
/ Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>