Why didn't the US switch to intermediate calibers completely and instead insisted on full size calibers for another 2-3 decades after WW2, despite the M1 Carbines success? Clearly the power it offered was completely sufficient. Of course I know the .30 carbine isn't exactly a true intermediate round, but I'd think that someone would have been aware of 7.92 kurz and even 7.62x39 and come to the conclusion that .30 carbine didn't give us any issues and the russians and germans are experimenting with this new fancy assault rifle idea, maybe we should do something like that as well. Most other countries adopted intermediate calibers much quicker, even though it's the US that had fairly unique at the time experience with something like a proto-intermediate caliber during WW2.
>>64610498Sorry, I know this has probably been discussed a billion times but I've never seen this topic personally (or at least I don't remember seeing it)
>>64610490>Clearly the power it offered was completely sufficient.sufficient for its role as a carbine, but not as a M1 garand replacementeven the full-auto variant, the M2 carbine, was still seen as more of a SMG replacement rather than a rifle replacement
>>64610490Intermediate calibers suck.No one is using them voluntary.5.56 is SCHV7.62x39 is worst mass produced caliber ever.
>>646105777.62x39 is still preferred in niche applications like use of subsonic rounds.
>>646105777.62x39 is perfectly adequate for target shooting, hunting, and killing men as long as you do it all under 300yds.Now 7.62x54mmR on the other hand...
>>646105777.62x39 is a based caliber. Sorry you were priced out after the ammunition import bans, zoomzoom.
>>64611973>ammunition import bansNTA, but real AK chads know that 5.45x39 is the meta.
7.62x51 was very much an intermediate caliber in the minds of the people in the 1950s, it was an improvement over 8mm mauser/.303/.30-06 in a lot of ways. They probably saw SCHV as a liability that was basically unproven and they'd be putting their boys in harms way if they sent them to war with ".22s". Most of NATO didn't even switch to 5.56 entirely until the 90s, they held onto their battle rifles 20-25 years longer than us and nobody really cares.
>>64610490.30 is a pussy round for pussies
>>64612032It wasn't intermediate at all. It's a full size round accomplished with shorter case length, so an improvement. Although it would have been interesting if they kept 30-06 and kept upping the loads and increasing action strength like modern hunting rounds.
>>64612323Audie Murphy is a pussy now?
>>64612770Ah interesting. I thought before Audie called it that becaue it was a gun *for* them. Not a gun to combat them.
>>64612770Holy based. 30 carbine confirmed for nigger removal.
>>64612467>shorter case length Yes, intermediate
>>64612774Implying niggers have ever used an m1 carbine. A “nigger gun” in the way you thought is a tec-9, a Mac-10, a full auto Glock, a Draco, an hi-point, and a stockless 7” AR.>>64610577>5.56 is SCHVI don’t get it. What’s your point? That SCHV is a demerit against 5.56?
>>64610490>insisted on full size calibers for another 2-3 decades after WW22 main things: Big Army takes forever to do anything, and NATO had standardized 7.62x51/.308 already. I'd like to guess that the US just had so much .30 cal ammo and tooling laying around from WW2 production that it probably didn't make economic sense to adopt anything too dissimilar to 30-06 for a while.
>>64612821it has only a negligible difference in power from .30-06, it is functionally identical in performance7.62x51 was not an intermediate in either a modern or their contemporary definitionyou literally had M1919s re-chambered for 7.62x5, it was that irrelevant to them
>>64613709>Implying niggers have ever used an m1 carbine
>>64614308WHITEY could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this neighborhood before. There could be WHITES anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his bare chest. "I HATE WHITES" he thought. Sweet Dreams are Made of These reverberated his entire car, making it pulsate even as the $3 bum wine circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of whites after dark. "With a car, you can go anywhere you want" he said to himself, out loud.
>>64614948Kek
It really is a mystery.They could have taken the M1 carbine, lengthened the action/cartridge by 10mm, given it a spitzer bullet, maybe in a smaller caliber but even that wouldn't have been necessary and they could have had and excellent intermediately caliber infantry rifle right in 1945.
>>64610593literally only by the gign and only because 300blk wasnt popular yet. hell you cant even find new production subsonic x39
>>64613709>>64614308Yeah the whole reason I thought that was because of the Malcom X pic
>>64614948>"With a car, you can get out of any Sundown Town on time."fixed.
>>64614308Well, shit. I’ve seen that before, never registered with me that that was an m1 carbine.
>>64615108>30 carbine>+10mm>smaller caliber>spitzerAre you deliberately describing the transformation needed to go from 30 carbine to 5.56? All that’s missing is the slight bump in case head diameter.
>>64610577This anon is correct, 5.56x45 is not an intermediate cartridge. Intermediate cartridges straddle the line between conventional pistol cartridges and rifle cartridges. .30 Carbine is an intermediate cartridge that resembles a lengthened pistol cartridge, 7.92k and 7.62x39 are intermediate cartridges in the form of shortened rifle cartridges. They all shoot medium weight bullets at velocities greater than a pistol but slower than a full power rifle and perform reasonably well in a wide range of barrel lengths.5.56 is purely a rifle cartridge, just a small one that shoots light bullets at high velocity. It performs extremely well in long barrels and very poorly in short ones. SCHV was the next evolutionary step after intermediate cartridges.
>>64615240According to your definition (intermediate = truncated rifle round), the only difference between 5.56 and an intermediate cartridge would be its sectional energy, nothing more. But sectional energy is a requirement for intermediate cartridges - the overbore ratio must be within some range to permit a flat-ish trajectory and effectiveness at ~300 yards. Otherwise, 460 Rowland, 50AE, 44 mag, 475 wildey mag, etc are all intermediate. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that 5.56 isn’t intermediate desu. This is a first.
>>64610490Reading between the lines, the M1 Garand was Too successful. Every general and admiral looked at how superior the M1 was over everything else and figured they just needed more of that and they'd win every time. The M14 was thus just a mag fed Garand. Then you had these reports of .30 carbine bouncing off winter coats in Korea and that killed any interest in intermediate rounds until Vietnam. No, I don't know how that happened, .30 carbine should put holes in a coat of steel plates.
>>64610490>M1 Carbines successCitation required. Sure, it is cherished as "The Warbaby". But the WWII combat vet (rare) I spoke to said it was underpowered.
>>64610490>Clearly the power it offered was completely sufficient.For the Ruger Blackhawk.>>64610577>7.62x39 is worst mass produced caliber ever.No, that would be the .30-30. Sorry fuds.
>>64614308>Whitman shot and killed 15 people, including an unborn child,[5]and injured 31 others before he was killedIt does "work".
>>64615285Intermediate = intermediate between rifle and pistol round with some properties of each. Service pistol rounds of the time had calibers from .30-.45, bullet weights from ~85-230gr, and velocities from 800-1500fps. Service rifle rounds were .264-.312 caliber, 140-190gr, and 2500-3000fps. The properties of intermediate rounds (.30 Carbine, 7.92k, .300 BLK, etc.) fall generally within those ranges. 5.56x45 at .223, 55gr, and 3200fps is something entirely different.
>>64610490>Why didn't the US switch to intermediate calibers completely and instead insisted on full size calibers for another 2-3 decades after WW2, despite the M1 Carbines success?M1 carbines got used a lot during Korea and got a bad reputation due to improperly trained soldiers completely fucking missing chinamen because they didn't sight their guns in or aim or anythingsomeone has a pdf of a report, it's like 1 cleaning rod per 20 men, only 5% of troops zeroed their guns once they got to korea only like 11% used their sights when they shot.You also had institutional inertia, both because muh big bore full rifle round muh range was a thing basically forever, see them doing that back after the civil war as well and because .30-06 was used in the MGs and it was easier to just have one round instead of 2 >muh backline troops>muh .45 acpit's not the same considering the backline troops in theory wouldn't need as much ammo as grunts
>>64615655>M1 carbines got used a lot during Korea and got a bad reputation due to improperly trained soldiers completely fucking missing chinamen because they didn't sight their guns in or aim or anything>someone has a pdf of a report, it's like 1 cleaning rod per 20 men, only 5% of troops zeroed their guns once they got to korea only like 11% used their sights when they shot.I've read similar things and I'm not in any way saying you're wrong, but how the FUCK could that have been the case? Why were they so poorly trained when many of them (or at least NCOs) would've been WWII vets?
>>64615150Tell me any reason why 300blk would be better than 7.62x39 in GIGN's case.
>>64615749>Why were they so poorly trained when many of them (or at least NCOs) would've been WWII vets?the korean war was 1950. I don't think many of them would have been vets. we had conscription back then and my grandpa was conscripted as a pog to korea (didn't actually go to korea I think he went to like panama or brazil or something fucking weird)
>>64613709Trying to understand the SCHV-schizo is a losing prospect. Ignore him or call him a retard and move on. Next he will tell you the AK isn't an assault rifle (also that assault/battle rifles don't exist depending on how schizo he is feeling that day).
>>64615306>I don’t know how that happenedThe people for whom the carbine worked had nothing to complain or report about. Those who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with it were making the most formal complaints. Guess which one gets the attention of the brass?
>>64615749Part of it was that the M1 Garand was still the standard infantry rifle. You'd see paratroopers and NCOs with Carbines but most infantry was rocking M1 Garands. The carbine's logistics and training simply wasn't a priority.
>>64615828But if that was the case then problems would be uniform across weapons. Someone doesn't stop being an idiot when issued a Garand rather than an M1.
>>64615320Didn’t he use three rifles? Do we even know today which one scored the most casualties? I was always under the assumption that it was his Remington 700 that did most of the heavy lifting. Not to discredit the M1 carbine, it’s basically a proto-ar15 in a civilian context, but I’ve never actually seen a full report on which rifle killed which person.
>>64615841Could be a case of simple confirmation bias. The officers to whom the carbine had been issued either didn’t zero their rifles or just weren’t good shots under duress. They see the actual trained grunts doing work with the Garand and assume it’s the fault of the rifle. If there’s nothing to complain about, then there’s nothing to report. The ones who complain will therefore make up most of the reports. Since most of the reports are negative, this confirms the bias already held against the carbine despite all other evidence points to the likelihood of poor marksmanship being the culprit behind its poor performance.
>>64615775My grandfather was a 'korean' vet too and when I was going through his stuff and basic training yearbook it was really shocking how poorly prepared they were. Imagine you're SD national guard, your unit is increasing in size 5x over, your ship leaves in 90 days, and the draftees are reporting as civilians and your unit is responsible for their basic. >>64614948I do not know the context of this photo and whether he was looking out for white racists or the nation of Islam, but I always found it odd that its always surface level implied that he was killed by 'the man' when it is well known it was the nation of Islam. Not until pol memes did i truly understand the absurdity of the schism that led to his murder.
>>64615895mine got drafted to the marines. his version of the story was that he went to nyu for a semester so they had him do a typing test and made him a grunt because he typed fast, but with a ton of errors so he didn't actually end up typing but still got to be a pog and not get deployed.the other version I heard, which is more likely, is that apparently he was buddies with some state senator's son which is probably why he was never deployed to korea
>>64615822I want to get in an argument over the assertion that the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle because the M-16 isn't an assault rifle because 5.56 is not an intermediate round. I don't even care which side.
>>64615749The degree of complacency, deliberate intransigence, and poor decision making in the leadup to Korea is hard to overstate. At the outset of the Korean war it was a proxy war between Sino-Soviet proxy DPRK and American proxy The Kingdom of Douglas MacArthur.
>>64616124>intransigenceThanks. I learned a useful new word.
Although he doesn't appear to have used it for sniping, Whitman was attempting to return fire by switching to the M1 when he was shot. If he hadn't been caught in a skillful flanking maneuver by the police, his war might not have ended there.
>>64615314Interesting. My great grandpappy hated the M1 carbine because he killed so many Germans in close combat with it.
>>64617633>in close combat with it.its power is on-par with .357 magnum, fired out a long barrelthis is obviously not a problem at close range, especially when you can magdump 16 rounds of it as fast as you can pull the triggerbut power drops rapidly over range, and the M1 carbine wasnt that much more long ranged than an SMG, preventing it from being an all-purpose weapon like a rifle
>>64615285>I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that 5.56 isn’t intermediate desu. This is a first.No it is obviously a full power rifle, it is a shrunken 30-06.
>>64617751What if you kept shrinking it down? At what point, if ever, would it become intermediate?
>>646177585.7
The Garand was a poison pill
>>64617949Such a good rifle it spoiled US infantry for 20 years.
>>64610490>Why didn't the US switch to intermediate calibers completely and instead insisted on full size calibers for another 2-3 decades after WW2, despite the M1 Carbines success?Chosin Reservoir PTSD from inappropriate engagement distances and poorly maintained sights (and low training) on the carbine. Stopping Power meme. Ordinance Fuddery bordering on full blown mutiny if not outright sedition in FAL trials and subsequent sabotage of M-16 adoption fouling out of spec powder. The consequence of .308 being forced on Eurofags gifting unto the nations the Pig rather than an RPD style SAW.
>>64615314>>64617633>>64617653M1 Carbines had plenty of power. the issue is the troops would fucking miss constantly either due to not using their sights or because .30 carbine has like a foot of drop at 200 yards so they'd miss because their sights were off. and then they would swear they hit the guy and he just got back up even though they completely missed. it's like the black hawk down thing>I totally hit that guy and he kept goingwhen in reality all blacks look the same
>>64612002>isWas. Now it's more expensive than M43?
>>64615845>Didn’t he use three rifles? Yes.>Do we even know today which one scored the most casualties?No, I don't. But he was the first mass shooter. At least that I know of.
>>64616101>M-16 isn't an assault rifle because 5.56 is not an intermediate roundBig if true.
>>64616463Words are fun.
>>64617633>hated the M1 carbine because he killed so many Germans in close combat with it.The dichotomy of man.>>64623111>due to not using their sightsI'll side with the guy who sold me the M2 bayo, he was a survivor. Travelling by train thru Belgium, I could see what he meant. Hell, I was there, son! That said, I use ot to train all my first time shooters, after sight alignment orientation on the 10/22. Many smiles when they hit the fucking target!
>>64623165there's some DoD memo from like 1955 about the korean war and for whatever reason a bunch of korean war soldiers just straight up didn't use their sights. would hip fire and shit. they surveyed them about attacking in day light, defending in day light, attacking at night and defending at night. for attacking at night it was something crazy like only 1 in 20 soldiers used their sights. I think even defending in daylight only 85% of soldiers used their sights.and again, .30 carbine has like 12 inches of drop at 200 yards so they probably misjudged distance and completely missed
Why didn't they adopt assault rifles as soon as they invented smokeless powder?
>>64623126>Now it's more expensive than M43?Sorry you were priced out of the superior choice zoomzoom.
>>64619993> subsequent sabotage of M-16 adoption fouling out of spec powderHarsh. I had that pegged as ordinary incompetence. I do agree that switching to high residue powder was Criminal.
>>64623199> for attacking at night it was something crazy like only 1 in 20 soldiers used their sightsDark sights on a dark background. They probably couldn't use their sights if they tried.
>>64613709>I don’t get it. What’s your point? That SCHV is a demerit against 5.56?the point is obviously that assault rifle is a worthless concept by itself and SCHV is the key tech that made it good.
>>64615317.30-30 is perfect for the guns it's designed for, namely lever actions that need those round nosed bullets to sit in their tubular magazines.
>>64623330they needed to be able to put down horses because cavalry was still a thing and they didn't have radio or indirect fire so they literally lined up like in the civil war and shot each other from 600 + yards because they couldn't really organize their units better because lol no radio. go look up some of the battles at the end of the 1800s like san juan hill. they were literally still doing civil war shit because they couldn't organize troops without radios. >why did it changethey figured out how to radio back for indirect fire for the artillery and machine gun usage got better and more common. in the spanish American war they were using gatling guns but like only 94 of that model were ever made and I don't think many of them actually got to cuba, like it literally might have been only like 4 gatling guns used in cuba. WWI was the first time multiple armies with modern machine guns and the ability to use indirect fire fought each other>>64624746>bro just hipfire wildly
>>64624763>the characteristic element of X is the reason that X is good.Yeah. This is true for all X. Assault rifles have been a hit because intermediate (specifically SCHV) cartridges are so great.
>>64624904>the characteristic element of XNothing about SCHV is characteristic to assault rifles, lying faggot. If anything they are a step backwards because they are slower than the fullsize cartridges they are cut down from.>Assault rifles have been a hit because intermediate (specifically SCHV) cartridges are so great.Disingenous deflection from the actual topic, as expected from the slimy lying kike you are.There was nothing great about assault rifles prior to SCHV.
>>64623199>1 in 20 used their sights at nightIronsights don't glow like today so i'm not surprised many would just point fire. I'd reckon that's exactly how they were trained to shoot during night battle too.
>>64624980> There was nothing great about assault rifles prior to [later, mature generations].Also applies to any X. Gen 1 intermediates weren’t too great. SCHV fixed that. Still, there was merit to the squashed down full power cartridges like 8x33mm and 7.62x39mm. They just weren’t leaps and bounds ahead of the thing they replaced.
>>64625236>Still, there was merit to the squashed down full power cartridges like 8x33mm and 7.62x39mm.Only insofar as replacing SMGs and bolt actions with them.Trying to draw equivalence between them and SCHV by implying some generational relation is a dishonest falsehood that leads to dumb questions like the OP.
It's interesting that lessons learned from war are not always correct.
>>64615240define "short barrels"define "performs poorly"not all 5.56 is 55gr
>>64625283>dumb questions like the OPhey my question wasn't dumb, I just wasn't aware the M1 carbine wasn't actually considered powerful enough
>>64610577>>64615240I don't get why you schizos do this. Nobody will use your retarded definition of "intermediate cartridge," a term which is best kept intentionally poorly defined. SCHV is a useful criterion but one that does not take the place of "intermediate," 6.5 Creedmoor can also be argued to be SCHV. It's all relative, for 6.5CM it's relative to .308 and similar cartridges. Really, the best reason to keep the "intermediate" terminology around is to:>historically examine the shift from "battle rifles" to "assault rifles" during the Cold War>stop retarded bumfucking generals from shitting up everything with a full-power cartridge again>>646152405.56 is an intermediate cartridge in the form of a scaled-down full-power cartridge and loaded to SCHV specs. You could play this game all day.>It performs extremely well in long barrels and very poorly in short ones.Even the 20" bbl of the M16 wasn't considered long at the time. It's got the same length barrel as the M1 carbine. Various Cold War programs considered bullpups so they could use barrels that were 26", 28" inches long. Those were considered long.Barrel length wasn't even a consideration at the time. Guns were rarely as modular as what we've come to expect with the AR-15, you got a cartridge that was designed for a particular rifle and that's it, maybe you got a shortened cavalry variant but rarely anything other than that.>very poorlyThe difference in muzzle velocity between 20" and 14.5" barrels with SS109 is less than 10%.
>>64625782>SCHV is a useful criterion but one that does not take the place of "intermediate," 6.5 Creedmoor can also be argued to be SCHV.Intermediate isn't a useful criteria and it's the continuous historical trend towards it in general and 5.56's development in particular that are important. Intermediate buzzword is a meme garbage.
>>64625794>and it's the continuous historical trend towards smaller, faster ammunition in general
>>64625782>5.56 is an intermediate cartridge in the form of a scaled-down full-power cartridgeName one rifle cartridge loaded to 950 m/s.Its scaled down magnum rifle cartridge. Thing that before 5.56 was never used for military rifles.
>>64625794It's not a buzzword. Nobody's using it to sell you junk or bullshit their boss. Intermediate, in my mind, has an immediately obvious connotation. You just like to nitpick. I bet that you pretend you don't know what "battle rifle" means too. To me, one of the connotations is that an intermediate cartridge is one with less muzzle energy than the average for full-power military cartridges. That's the higher end of the spectrum. The other end is however much is enough to be useful at typical engagement distances, which for riflemen are known to be around 250-500 meters max if you ignore early smokeless autism and overmatch bullshit. This is by no means a complete definition, and you won't be able to make one. But you could give a chimpanzee a line-up of military cartridges considered intermediate and a paragraph about their intended doctrine and he'll immediately know what the term means. I agree with you that there was a trend towards SCHV, albeit a steep one, so I don't know why you're so opposed to the term. >>64625799I'll clarify that I don't think that .223 was conceived as a scaled-down case, it's a modified .222 Rem. Scaling down .30-06:.224/.308 ~= .73 scaling factor0.73^3 * 68gr H2O capacity ~= 26.5gr H2O.223 has a case capacity of 28.8gr H2O, but the scaled-down figure is very close to .222 which had a capacity of 26.9gr. Granted, .30-06 is a fairly big case, but it's not that crazy. There's little reason not to use magnum cartridges for military rifles anyway, it's all relative.
>>64626114>I don't think that .223 was conceived as a scaled-down case, it's a modified .222 RemYou'd be correct.
>>646253197"Disrupted by light barriers, icepicking
>>64625782The M1 carbine has a 16" barrel, they had to change the NFA SBR definition from 18" to make them legal to surplus.
>>64610490I fucking love the M1 Carbine in RS2: Vietnam. Best vietcong gun.
>>64614948>>64614308>"FEDS could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this neighborhood before. There could be FEDS anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his neck aboce his starched white shirt. "I HATE FEDS" he thought. A Kiss To Build A Dream On reverberated his entire hotel room, making it pulsate even as the nutmeg infused coffee circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of crackers with badgers. "With a hotel room, you can raise any racial consciousness you want" he said to himself, out loud.
>>6462631317 inches 3/4. They probably chose 16" to make it even.
>>64626114>It's not a buzzword. Nobody's using it to sell you junk or bullshit their boss. Intermediate, in my mind, has an immediately obvious connotation. You just like to nitpick. I bet that you pretend you don't know what "battle rifle" means too.It is a worthless buzzword that has no practical meaning or purpose. What idiocy is in your mind, if you even have a mind at all when spewing this buzzword garbage, is irrelevant. There's nothing to nitpick, i basically plainly stated that battle rifles are better weapons than non-SCHV "assault rifles", with both being worthless nitpicking terms.I'll go further and say openly that a battle rifle with a full size cartridge has more in common with SCHV than an overglorified obese SMG firing souped-up pistol rounds, as i already had hinted to that. SCHV is far more similar to rifle rounds, capable of propelling projectiles of simialr sectional density at similar velocities from similar barrel lengths and having similar external ballistics.>To me, one of the connotations is that an intermediate cartridge is one with less muzzle energy than the average for full-power military cartridges..50 Action Express is an intermediate round then, you stupid monkey. Your worthless aping is even more retarded than the overmatch meme and you should kill yourself for shilling the idiotic buzzwords you don't understand or comprehend.
>>64615314My grandpa was an officer and he loved getting his hands on an M1, since he found that just a 1911 was entirely insufficient if his position was being overrun. The M1 saved his ass during the Battle of the Bulge.
>>64625156Paul Harrell once talked about how the military used to train soldiers to use the gun's muzzle flash to aim at night. The first few shots were point shooting, but in theory they'd get more accurate the more rounds they fired.
>>64624742Considering they also told the troops that it was self-cleaning and didn't issue cleaning kits anyway, yeah it was sabotage in a Hail Mary attempt to keep the M14. The ONLY reason this was fixed was because Stoner told a sympathetic guy in the army who told the goddamn President who told the army to stop doing that shit and fixed it.The fucking President of the United States had to step in and fix this retardation. It was actually that bad, and the army brass never stopped being that retarded, hence the entire NGSW.>>64628347>i basically plainly stated that battle rifles are better weapons than non-SCHV "assault rifles", with both being worthless nitpicking terms.Thanks for admitting you're just retarded then.
m1 carbine had problemsso they were like we gotta solve em they did not master atlantian german tech and we're in a dark age as a result with no won wars in a hundred years
>>64624742>>64629382the reason for the powder change is because the original powder couldnt be produced fast enoufgthe new ball powder could and in much more massive amounts, you would have had to be crazy not to switch when the factory couldnt make ammo fast enoughthe DOD was just so keen on getting the M16 in and the M14 out that they rubberstamped it right after the new ammo passed initial testing before the gassing issues were apparent
>>64628347Intermediate is more useful than SCHV, you’re just a contrarian who doesn’t see the usefulness of it, probably because you’re autistic
>>64628347Battle rifles are not better than assault rifles, are you retarded?
>>64628347NTA, your points are nothing new, it’s why the world moved away from the 8mm Kurz and 7.62x39 incarnation of intermediates and towards the isometrically scaled down versions we have today (5.56, 5.45). So this has been well understood for decades at this point.>>64626114> To me, one of the connotations is that an intermediate cartridge is one with less muzzle energy than the average for full-power military cartridgesThere is an additional, very important, sectional energy constraint (overbore ratio), otherwise that other guy would be right - 50AE would indeed be intermediate.So something like >1000-2000ft*lbs at the muzzle>minimum ~10,000-15,000ft*lbs/in^2 sectional energy>cartridge mass no heavier than like 250-300grAnd ofcourse there will be weird cartridges at the boundaries whose classification isn’t so clear, but the above would include most cartridges that most people would consider intermediate. I’m not gonna impose an overall length limit, as I don’t think OAL changes the fundamental nature of a cartridge too much.
>>64626114>.223 has a case capacity of 28.8gr H2O, but the scaled-down figure is very close to .222 which had a capacity of 26.9gr. Granted, .30-06 is a fairly big case, but it's not that crazy. There's little reason not to use magnum cartridges for military rifles anyway, it's all relative.Now check 5.56 chamber pressure.It's really a little magnum round.
>>64629405>Intermediate is more useful than SCHVIt's not and you know it.>you’re just a contrarian who doesn’t see the usefulness of itThere's no usefulness because it's a worthless term with no purpose.>>64629408Eat shit assault faggot. Your garbage rounds are worthless and have none of the benefits of SCHV that everyone adopted.>>64629435>NTA, your points are nothing new, it’s why the world moved away from the 8mm Kurz and 7.62x39 incarnation of intermediates and towards the isometrically scaled down versions we have todayThe world hadn't moved towards 7.62x39 and 8mm Kurz to begin with, only the soviets did, which is exactly the point retards like OP fail to get.
>>64629654There is a purpose, it’s to class the rounds that assault rifles use that fit between pistol and full powered rifle rounds, SCHV included. Super simple, concise, and useful for classification.And assault rifles beat battle rifles in any combat scenario 10 times out of 10. Battle rifles as a concept were always inferior to assault rifles
>>64629667>There is a purpose, it’s to class the rounds that assault rifles use that fit between pistol and full powered rifle roundsWhich is a worthless thing to do. There's not a single reason to make this shit up.>And assault rifles beat battle rifles in any combat scenario 10 times out of 10. Battle rifles as a concept were always inferior to assault riflesDelusional subhuman retard.
>>64610490> I know the .30 carbine isn't exactly a true intermediate roundIt's not an intermediate round at all its a hot pistol cartridge
>>64629678There is, it’s for classification purposes. It’s like saying labels are worthless.>delusionalSpeak for yourself, what I said is vindicated by the many decades that assault rifles have been used in combat and all of the battle rifles that have been phased out due to direct experience in combat. Being able to sling more lead down range will always be an advantage. Battle rifles simply don’t have the firepower and require more constant resupplies or risk getting outgunned
>>64629690>Speak for yourself, what I said is vindicated by the many decades that assault rifles have been used in combat and all of the battle rifles that have been phased out due to direct experience in combatThe dishonest subhumal slime again tries to muddy the idea by hiding behind SCHV rounds when defending the pathetic failed abortions that are "assault rifles". How original.Kill yourself already, tranny. You're absolutely disgusting.
>>64629690>Being able to sling more lead down range will always be an advantage. Battle rifles simply don’t have the firepower and require more constant resupplies or risk getting outgunnedGood thing medium caliber low velocity "intermediates" offer next to zero advantages over full size rounds in that regard then. Good job beating yourself at your own homosexual game.
>>64629697SCHV ARE assault rifle rounds, there’s no separating the two. They are intrinsically linked. However even without that, the AK was noted as having a firepower advantage over any contemporary battle rifles, considering it’s controllable full auto, much lighter ammo, and higher magazine capacity>>64629703Even if this were completely true and not an obvious exaggeration, the controllable full auto, increased magazine capacity, and lighter weight of the rifle would already be huge advantages over battle rifles
>>64629708>SCHV ARE assault rifle rounds, there’s no separating the two.Trying to intentionally confuse low velocity and SCHV rounds is disingenous and gay and you should be beaten to death for it, tranny. They couldn't be more different.>the AK was noted as having a firepower advantage over any contemporary battle riflesSubhuman delusions.>considering it’s controllable full autoIrrelevant and wastes all the ammo you boasted about saving.>much lighter ammoA total lie. >and higher magazine capacityAlso irrelevant.>Even if this were completely true and not an obvious exaggerationIt's completely true and not an exaggeration at all.>the controllable full auto, increased magazine capacity, and lighter weight of the rifle would already be huge advantages over battle riflesThey aren't. The atrocious ballistics with zero benefits means ak is far inferior as a weapon in every respect.
>>64629719NTA but in typical schizo fashion, you're conflating different views and combining them into one strawman. Only one guy in this conversation thought 7.62x39 was good and he's long gone. SCHV cartridges are always better, but non-SCHV cartridges like 7.62x39/6.8 SPC (maybe not 7.92 Kurz) aren't unusable either.
>>64629729The guy i'm directly replying to in that post is insisting on exactly that. It would be very good if he hung himself instead but for such a dirty lying kike it's unlikely to happen.Heavy and slow cartridges aren't unusable, just outright inferior to faster full size cartridges in the same caliber, let alone SCHV which are a major improvement over both, at least in terms of infantry rifles.
>>64629719Okay you seem to be autistic about this so I’ll nip it in the butt: SCHV and low velocity are basically the same. They go in the same kinds of rifles, they have about the same effective ranges, and they’re almost the same weight. There is no doctrinal differences. You are purposely making them out to be radically different to try to separate SCHV from assault rifles to make your point, which is simply wrong and you know it is, otherwise you wouldn’t be doing that.>subhuman delusions.The AK was better than any of the battle rifles.>irrelevantFull auto is good for gaining fire superiority and in close quarters combats. Having it does not mean you hose down the entire mag every single time, controlled bursts are very useful.>A total lie.Even with 7.62x39 you can almost carry double what you can with 7.62x51.Also irrelevant.A higher magazine capacity is THE MOST relevant thing here frankly. This is the biggest advantage and the reason why battle rifles today have been relegated to DMRs. They carry more ammo in magazines, meaning you can shoot more without reloading (fire superiority) but that also means every extra magazine you bring will have more ammo. For the same weight or amount of magazines as a battle rifle, you will have more ammo with the assault rifle, meaning you WILL win the firefight>atrocious ballistics with zero benefit The atrocious ballistics don’t matter at all because most combat engagements occur within 200y, which is well within 7.62x39s effective range, and most battle rifles until the late 70s didn’t have magnified optics so they wouldn’t have an advantage past 200y unless the enemy were fuck huge white paper targets like how the marine corps has for their qualifications. Not only that, most battle rifles weren’t accurate enough for their superior ballistics to really matter.Honestly, if this was all bait it’s really well done, otherwise you’re just retarded and don’t know what you’re talking about
>>64629729Im playing along for the sake of arguement when I used the AK example. Idk what his deal is with non-SCHV. They’re worse sure but still fared better in combat than the full powered ones did
>>64629742>SCHV and low velocity are basically the sameLike i said, completely delusional.>They go in the same kinds of rifles, they have about the same effective ranges, and they’re almost the same weight.This goes beyond delusion at this point.>The AK was better than any of the battle rifles.Better at getting one sidedly killed for nothing.>Full auto is good for gaining fire superiority and in close quarters combatsAnd battle rifles are perfectly capable of that.>Even with 7.62x39 you can almost carry double what you can with 7.62x51.Delusional x3.>A higher magazine capacity is THE MOST relevant thing here frankly.If it was important then any battle rifle can get a bigger magazine it its designers are as uncaring about going prone as the ones who made the AK. There's absolutely nothing special about larger mags.>The atrocious ballistics don’t matter at all because most combat engagements occur within 200yEvery time a retard brings this up the claimed number becomes smaller.>and most battle rifles until the late 70s didn’t have magnified optics so they wouldn’t have an advantage past 200y unless the enemy were fuck huge white paper targetsIncredible cope. .308 will be more effective at 300 yards than 7.62 soviet is at 200.You should lay off the copium and do a modicum of research for your blatantly false claims, ak tranny.
>>64629748>They’re worse sure but still fared better in combat than the full powered ones didThat's still a complete lie.
>>64629756Okay it is just bait lmao, you really had me going there dude. Good play, you got me>>64629759I mean no military ever replaced AKs with battle rifles, let alone the better assault rifles with battle rifles. Except the army, though socom is sticking to the AR so go figure
>>64629765>Okay it is just bait lmao, you really had me going there dude. Good play, you got meAnd so the tranny runs away battered after lying through its mouth so much the situation became untenable.>I mean no military ever replaced AKs with battle riflesNeither did one in reverse. Considering that AKs were distributed around the world exclusively at throwaway prices or for free, this speaks about the inferiority of the ak.
>>64629767Oh cmon your bait was too obvious, why would I keep going! The jig was up.Like the last statement, the AK obviously wouldn’t take over in the west or western aligned nations because they were combloc guns lmao. You were too obvious there
>>64629771>Oh cmon your bait was too obvious, why would I keep going! The jig was up.Yes yes, you're totally not running away with a blown out asshole and are just smug for no reason after blatantly lying about things that are easily checked.>the AK obviously wouldn’t take over in the west or western aligned nations because they were combloc guns lmaoNeither did it inspire any imitations, which those countries would have no trouble adopting if they viewed them at all beneficial.
>>64629775Well no, everything I said was completely factual. Plus it did inspire imitations, the galil, the jeetsas, the SG550, the AR70, the FNC, the RK62. Basically every country that didn’t adopt an AR15 or AR18 replaced their battle rifles with AK copies
>>64629778>Well no, everything I said was completely factual.Completely delusional, you're so bad at it you absolutely must be some kind of communist tranny to be this mental.>Plus it did inspire imitations, the galil, the jeetsas, the SG550, the AR70, the FNCAll SCHV rifles with zero inspired features from the AK that aren't themselves stolen from the Garand wholesale.>the RK62Literally forced on Finland by the soviets unilaterally.>Basically every country that didn’t adopt an AR15 or AR18 replaced their battle rifles with AK copiesAgain the slimy lying faggot muddies the terms by substituting his worthless guns with SCHV rifles.
>>64629784I mean, you didn’t disprove anything I said, you just said Nuh uh. I think you agree you just won’t admit it out of pride. Why do you keep saying SCHV guns and not assault rifles? That’s silly
>>64629790Why would i disprove your claims when you took no effort to do so when going nu uh yourself against my statements. I know that you did try to google that but found out you're wrong and so now you're twisting around like the disgusting kike you are to cope with being a subhuman liar instead.>Why do you keep saying SCHV guns and not assault rifles?Because assault rifle is a meaningless buzzword that kikes like you use to spread their lies and group totally different weapons together with so i will deny you this opportunity.
>>64629797I did, I wrote detailed explanations about why every point you made was completely wrong and contrary to reality. Not only that, I did google on occasion and was proven correct, especially so on weight of the ammo for both of the arbitrary round categories you made up (because you’re too special to use intermediate despite it being accepted doctrinally). I stand by the fact that I’ve been correct, your lashing out shows you agree as well but won’t admit it. In short, you’re coping and don’t know what you’re talking about, I assume you just play video games
>>64629803>I did, I wrote detailed explanations about why every point you made was completely wrong and contrary to reality.You went "nu uh" and claimed the opposite with nothing to back it up, then promptly fled the argument and are now coping about it and wasting time to save face.>Not only that, I did google on occasion and was proven correctIs that why you didn't post any findings here? Lmao, what a pathetic bitch you are.>for both of the arbitrary round categories you made upSays the incresingly desperate kike still trying to shills his false equivalence here.>I stand by the fact that I’ve been correctDeclaring your victory or facts isn't the same as actually demonstrating them, you know. You should just shut up and run away for good at this point instead of doing this pathetic display.>your lashing out shows you agree as well but won’t admit it.I've sufficiently proven my point so much that you are completely incapable of arguing against it except through projections.
>>64629808What do you want to back it up, I just stated the obvious and explained how it played into doctrine lmao.> Is that why you didn't post any findings here?The only thing I looked up really was the weight, which was just 100 rounds of 7.62 nato weighs about 5-6 pounds, 100 rounds of 7.62x39 weights 3-4 pounds, and 100 rounds of 5.56 weights about 2.5 pounds. Meaning for both intermediate examples they are exactly or almost half the weight of the full powered example. The weight savings should be obvious, as well as the effect this would have on magazine size and combat loads.
>>64629808Oh forgot to ask, but where exactly have you proven your point? Because I haven’t seen that once here
>>64629820>What do you want to back it uLiterally anything from weight, velocity or ballistics. You know, the things that i keep talking about.>and explained how it played into doctrine lmao.You didn't, you just claimed they are totally the same because muh intermediate buzzword. Which isn't true at all either because the doctrine is wildly different between russia and NATO, for example, even with SCHV let alone short and fat rounds.>The only thing I looked up really was the weight, which was just 100 rounds of 7.62 nato weighs about 5-6 pounds, 100 rounds of 7.62x39 weights 3-4 pounds, and 100 rounds of 5.56 weights about 2.5 pounds.I somehow doubt that, given how inaccurate your numbers are. Why not use a metric ton as a ballpark? I'll tell you - it's because with steel mags 7.62x39 weights exactly the same as an equal amount of .308 rounds in G3 or FAL mags, nothing like 5.56 is.>The weight savings should be obvious, as well as the effect this would have on magazine size and combat loads.Yeah, so obvious you have to round the numbers to whole pounds to make this shit up.
>>64629823You are clinically incapable of recognizing or stating the truth so it's very understandable that you can't see it.
>>64629830Okay you win, the battle rifle is superior to the SCHV or whatever
>>64629841Yes, i win and you're free to excape this humiliation and not burden yourself with constantly bringing up your false equivalence anymore like you just did again with that strawman.
>>64629851SCHV are intermediates, however
>>64629856Intermediates are a meaningless buzzword that groups totally different kinds of rounds together in a false equivalence. No matter how much you pretend they're the same they aren't much like when you put on a dress and lipstick it doesn't make you a woman because your dick and balls or the axewound in their place will never become a vagina.
>>64629861I mean, it really doesn’t matter what you say as your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. 5.56, and all SCHV are intermediate rifle rounds. You can use the tranny example but you are the only one spouting this opinion, much like a tranny is the only one saying they’re a woman
>>64629866Your false equivalences are irrelevant because the rounds couldn't be more different. They have nothing in common and the definition is worthless, no matter how much you push for it or deny reality.SCHV are just rifle rounds that're twice as light. Slow and fat "intermediates" are just souped up pistol rounds with slightly more aerodynamic bullets. They couldn't be more different and there's no relation or continuity of any kind between them.
>>64629868And yet they’re both between the full powered rounds and pistols rounds in terms of size and muzzle energy. Both are… intermediate
>>64629878.50 Action Express is also in between the full powered rounds and pistols rounds in terms of size and muzzle energy. This makes it "intermediate" which means jack shit and shows how worthless your definition is.
>>64629881Or it could just mean .50 ae is a meme round outlier that isn’t typical of pistol calibers
>>64629882It fully meets your idiotic definition of "intermediate", why cope about it like that? It definitely has more in common with 7.62x39 than the latter does with SCHV or rifle rounds, which share almost every aspect and feature.
>>64629886Because it’s a meme round outlier, it was made with the intention of being an exception to the rule. Now if it was used in an assault rifle, I might change my mind
>>64629893What makes it an outlier that doesn't make 7.62x39 an outlier? Make up your mind already. Do you stick to your dumb definition or did you decide to drop it and go entirely by your feelings?
>>64629900.50 ae isn’t bottlenecked, and it’s an outlier in terms of pistol cartridges. It’s pretty beefy comparatively. And the definition isn’t mine, I had nothing to do with it
>semantics, the thread
>>64629914Yeah it was an utterly pointless discussion
>>64629906Where are bottlenecks in your definition? Why is it a pistol cartridge if it's an outlier and not an intermediate now? Do try to argue instead of just stating your feelings about it.If you shill the retarded definition so vehemently then have the dignity to man up and stand with it instead of sliming away to hide behind some appeal to popularity or random wikipedia editors.
>>64629914My entire point from the beginning was about rejection of semantics and looking at the physical properties of the things directly.
>>64629919It’s the bit that’s pinched on a case. .50 ae doesn’t have this and it’s a pistol round, therefore it’s a pistol round
>>64629923Is 7.63 mauser an intermediate round? It has a bottleneck which is apparently crucial for non pistol rounds now. Is .45-70 a pistol round? How long are you going to twist around and evade the point to waste my time?
>>64629929What was your point again?
>>64629934My point is that your "intermediate" definition is worthless and groups together rounds that have nothing in common. Are you pretending to be retarded or is it natural?>inb4 he ignores the point and keeps wasting time evading it
>>64629922>wants to avoid semantic arguments to have equally pointless pedantic argumentsYou're not beating the autism allegations at this rate.
>>64629940I don't mind pedantically arguing about autistic topics as long as it's not semantic bullshit that i despise, that much is true.
>>64629937I mean it’s no worse than any other definition, look at battle rifles. They’re not supposed to be exact, it’s just a general grouping so that every conversation involving groups of vaguely similar firearms doesn’t devolve into constant explaining of why they’re similar and semantics. You don’t gain anything from getting rid of it
>>64629952It is worse because it intentionally misleads people into equating very different rounds and weapons that are grouped together for no reason, exactly like the OP. So it's not just pointless but even malicious like that. Battle rifle is a useful term for describing a specific thing but it is also poisoned by the above definition it's commonly tied to and is similarly muddied by its misconceptions so i reject it also. It's not important enough to specify it like that with a loaded term either.
What a retarded fucking nigger.>>64629914It's not. Don't be a fence-sitter, just because someone says the sky is blue and another says it's orange, that doesn't mean it's actually green. This moron wants to do away with de-facto standard historical terms just because it doesn't scratch his autism the right way. He's so belligerent about it too, as if he's the status quo.
>>64629977>de-facto standard historical termsWait until this arrogant faglord learns that "battle rifle" is a neologism that wasn't used in the period either, lmao.
>>64629961It doesn’t mislead them, you just have a skewed view of the definition. Rather than seeing how these rounds are historically, conceptually, and developmentally linked, you just argue the technical details and if the definition was removed then it would just turn every caliber discussion into that, which I think is less useful
>>64629977>Goes on a rant about how calling the sky blue is right>Declares that being the established standard is more important than reflecting and describing reality right in the next sentence.The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
>>64628347Battle rifles are in no way better than something like the AK-47. I'll take an AKM over a FAL every fucking day of the week. Its performance is worse than the AR-15/5.56, but it's comparable out to 500 yards albeit with a much larger MPBR lethal radius. Brass case 7.62x39 is about 30% lighter than 7.62x51, or about 30% heavier than .223. It's a transitional round, but not completely incapable like how you make it out to be. >.50 Action Express is an intermediate round then, How about you read the next sentence, you troglodyte? .50 Action Express has too high a form factor number to be useful beyond 300 meters, and as such, its 'required energy to be useful at typical engagement distances' is HIGHER than the energy ceiling for intermediate cartridges. It's like how glass is aplastic because it reaches failure before having reaching a plastic region on the stress-strain curve. My incredibly basic definition still works in this case. >>64629435The SD for 400 gr .50 Beowulf is .229, much higher than .183 for 124 gr 7.62x39 or 0.177 for 62gr M855.
>>64629986>It doesn’t mislead them, you just have a skewed view of the definition.It does mislead and i don't.>Rather than seeing how these rounds are historically, conceptually, and developmentally linkedBy that you mean - none at all? I agree.> you just argue the technical detailsThe fact that they are more fundamentally different between each other than the fullsize rounds they are put in opposition to aren't technical details.>and if the definition was removed then it would just turn every caliber discussion into that, which I think is less usefulIt wouldn't. Not only do "5.56 rifle" or ".308 rifle" and so on describe these weapons far better but we already have a general term for them all together that's not loaded with misleading garbage - self-loading rifle.
>>64630002So rather than ignoring the effect that rounds like 7.92 Kurz and 7.62x39 had the idea of a SCHV program to begin with, you’d rather do away with all of it entirely to just refer to rifles by their calibers, necessitating splitting all categories up into smaller ones? Or one very big one that describes all rifles past bolt actions? I fail to see how this isn’t a huge detriment to any discussion
>>64629981What's next? People in 1917 didn't call the Great War "WWI"? Fuck off.>>64629992How do you even think consensus is reached? I disagree with the establishment on a lot of technical topics, but the current historical definitions work just fine. "The Soviets adopted assault rifles before the West," and "NATO later considered small caliber, high velocity rounds" are concise and meaningful sentences, and while your definition would also make useful statements (albeit ones that are slightly longer), it's not worth tearing down a significant part of small arms history.
>>64630001>Battle rifles are in no way better than something like the AK-47. I'll take an AKM over a FAL every fucking day of the week.Whatever you believe in.>but it's comparable out to 500 yards albeit with a much larger MPBR lethal radius.It's not comparable past 100 yards, let alone 500.>Brass case 7.62x39 is about 30% lighter than 7.62x51, or about 30% heavier than .223That's not true. A steel AK mag loaded with 30 rounds of brass cased 7.62x39 weighs 946 grams, a G3 mag loaded with 20 rounds of M80 weighs 704 grams. Four 30rd 5.56 mags weigh as much as three G3 mags. Only with lighter mags does 7.62x39 allow you to have at best 1 extra mag with you, compared to double the ammo with 5.56.>.50 Action Express has too high a form factor number to be useful beyond 300 metersWhy do you keep inventing new definitions then? Shouldn't you stick to the one you shill for rather than find some outside parameters to fit?>The SD for 400 gr .50 Beowulf is .229, much higher than .183 for 124 gr 7.62x39 or 0.177 for 62gr M855.M855 has an almost identical trajectory to M80 from the same barrel lengths, much unlike 7.62x39. I don't see how bringing up BC is relevant since you can load almost any bullet weight into the case.
>>64630012>that rounds like 7.92 Kurz and 7.62x39 had the idea of a SCHV program to begin withThey didn't in the slightest. >you’d rather do away with all of it entirely to just refer to rifles by their calibers, necessitating splitting all categories up into smaller ones?If you can't imagine the type of weapon from such a concise description you shouldn't look into it past "self-loading rifle" either, in any case it'd be better than misleading people with inaccurate terms.
>>64630017>How do you even think consensus is reached?Through media and shilling.>I disagree with the establishment on a lot of technical topics, but the current historical definitions work just fine.That's because you're ignorant and lazy and don't understand a thing about the topic.> "The Soviets adopted assault rifles before the West"This is used to imply some kind of innovation or forward thinking on their part which is completely untrue and is another consequence of the falsehood. It's also one that the soviets themselves greatly perpetuated. >it's not worth tearing down a significant part of small arms history.In fact it's this false history that needs to be torn down, more so than the definitions that perpetuate it.
>>64630032There is a direct line in those calibers being adopted and the US adopting their own “intermediate” and seeing it suck and pushing forward the SCHV trials. Regardless, my point is that the description is too concise and just muddies conversation while self loading rifle is too generalized and necessitates further explanation and just muddies conversation
>>64630047>There is a direct line in those calibers being adopted and the US adopting their own “intermediate” and seeing it suck and pushing forward the SCHV trialsNo there isn't, you can't show me a single instance of that happening. Unless by "intermediate" you mean .308 that had the exact same ballistics as the military loads of .30-06 by which point the definition of "intermediate" falls apart even further.>Regardless, my point is that the description is too concise and just muddies conversation while self loading rifle is too generalized and necessitates further explanation and just muddies conversationI completely disagree. People already refer to aks by their number and to rifles by their name to specify, this is more easy succint and clear than that and the general term is good enough for people who don't live in video game weapon class concepts.
>>64630057I do mean .308, which was an attempt to make an intermediate cartridge but didn’t go far enough and failed to actually be one (as you point out it has the exact same ballistics as .30-06, so not intermediate), which is why the SCHV program then happened.People refer to their AKs by name but just saying AK or even assault rifle gives a particular image which it doesn’t usually share with battle rifle. These terms are good enough at describing what they’re supposed to describe and what you want is at best the same but more specific and long winded, ultimately pointless. There’s no reason to do it besides scratching your particular need, as no one else really complains about it
>>64630028>Whatever you believe in.>It's not comparable past 100 yards, let alone 500.I'm sorry, but you're just delusional. I don't think there's a point in debating you here. I hate 'defending' 7.62x39 because I spent so much time back in the day telling off gamers about how it sucked compared to .223, but there's a reason there was even a conversation about this in the first place. It's shit now, but it was pretty good for its time and remained useful in the hands of Middle Eastern goatherders. >That's not true. A steel AK mag loaded with 30 rounds of brass cased 7.62x39 weighs 946 grams, a G3 mag loaded with 20 rounds of M80 weighs 704 grams. Four 30rd 5.56 mags weigh as much as three G3 mags. Only with lighter mags does 7.62x39 allow you to have at best 1 extra mag with you, compared to double the ammo with 5.56.That's down to the magazine. 7.62x39 ammo weighs around 17 grams ea.>Why do you keep inventing new definitions then? Shouldn't you stick to the one you shill for rather than find some outside parameters to fit?I'm not shilling anything, you fucking caveman. Holy fuck. I came up with that criterion on the spot. And I didn't even come up with anything new in my second post, I just reiterated how the definition still worked because it also indirectly accounts for projectile design. It's clear that you aren't interested in having a civilized conversation. You're not even reading my posts.>M855 has an almost identical trajectory to M80 from the same barrel lengths, much unlike 7.62x39. I don't see how bringing up BC is relevant since you can load almost any bullet weight into the case.Yes, 7.62x39 is worse than 5.56. No shit. And BC is worth bringing up because we're discussing military loads and their projectiles, and more importantly the doctrine that effected their design.
>>64630087>17 grams ea.cf. 12-12.5 grams for 5.56, 24 for .308.
>>64630066>which was an attempt to make an intermediate cartridgeIf it's assumed intermediate in any similar way to other "intermediates" then the intermediate definition becomes worthless. >People refer to their AKs by name but just saying AK or even assault rifle gives a particular image which it doesn’t usually share with battle rifle. This is true but outside of videogames M16/M4 are used and function exactly like the battle rifles used to and unlike the aks, especially non-74 ones. So it's a general misconception based on appearance rather than function.>>64630087>but there's a reason there was even a conversation about this in the first place. It's shit now, but it was pretty good for its time and remained useful in the hands of Middle Eastern goatherders.Yes, the reason being soviet propaganda and peddling of it to famously incompetent and underperforming regimes and militaries.>That's down to the magazine. 7.62x39 ammo weighs around 17 grams ea.And measuring ammo by single round weight is misleading compared to calculating a total round count because math gives different results in conversion.>I'm not shilling anythingYes you are.>I came up with that criterion on the spot.And why would you criteria be relevant?>I just reiterated how the definition still worked because it also indirectly accounts for projectile design.This is just a cope out, it accounts for nothing because it's just a buzzword with a barely usable generalist definition slapped onto it.>Yes, 7.62x39 is worse than 5.56.It's not about how it's worse, it's about how it's different compared to both 5.56 and .308.>And BC is worth bringing up because we're discussing military loads and their projectilesBC is relevant but you brought up SD and i meant to refer to it rather than BC.
>>64629654>Your garbage rounds are worthless and have none of the benefits of SCHV that everyone adopted.Anon, you retard. Small-caliber, high-velocity rounds like 5.56 are intermediate cartridges.>The world hadn't moved towards 7.62x39 and 8mm Kurz to begin withThey tried, the world was experimenting with other slow heavy bullets. For example, the British were wasting time with .280 British, the Czech were trying to make 7.62x45mm, the Swiss were considering 7.5x38mm, etc. What ended up happening was that poor countries realized that if a war ever occurred, it'd be easier for rich countries like ours to supply them if they chose the same cartridges we did. That's why when the US used .308 a large portion of the world followed suit and when we used 5.56 (and Russia switched to 5.45x39 soon after) they started switching to those calibers too.>>64629678>Which is a worthless thing to do. There's not a single reason to make this shit up.The terms "assault rifle" and "intermediate cartridges" are way more standardized than "SCHV." The proof lies in the fact that your SCHV rounds are all considered intermediate cartridges by the industry itself.>Delusional subhuman retard.He's right though. Making assault rifles that excel at 300 meters is way more efficient than making a rifle in a cartridge that could go out to 800 meters, but the rifles produced were so inaccurate (4 MOA was the standard) that they could only effectively be used up to 300 meters. Add to that that assault rifles could have more ammo in the magazine, then they are more effective at those ranges too.>>64629719>Trying to intentionally confuse low velocity and SCHV rounds is disingenousWhen the US military issued the M16, every manual given to the soldiers about the gun clearly labelled it an "assault rifle." The people involved in the creation already decided what to label it, your retarded screeching won't change that.
>>64630017>What's next? People in 1917 didn't call the Great War "WWI"? Fuck off.He's right in calling "battle rifle" a neogolism, classifying each rifle separately by certain characteristics happened as retronyms. "Battle rifle" as a technical term didn't exist until 1996. Before then they were just called rifles or infantry rifles, as the world had no need to classify them separately yet. There was however, a separation between military assault rifles and civilian sporting rifles in the 1950s.>>64630044>That's because you're ignorant and lazy and don't understand a thing about the topic.The historical definition and the technical definition align in this case no matter how much the other guy screeches that SCHV rounds are not intermediate cartridges.>This is used to imply some kind of innovation or forward thinking on their part which is completely untrue and is another consequence of the falsehood.We can agree here. The West was the first adopter of assault rifles with the German 7.92x33mm cartridge, not the Soviets.
>>64629937>My point is that your "intermediate" definition is worthless and groups together rounds that have nothing in common.They do have many things in common. They were lighter than full-powered cartridges, had less recoil, and subsequently one could add more of them to a magazine. without it being excessively long, as a drawback they struggle at longer ranges compared to full-powered cartridges>>64630002>we already have a general term for them all together that's not loaded with misleading garbage - self-loading rifle.Anon, this whole time you've argued that the historical term is wrong, and now you're pushing for a pre-WW1 term?>>64630057>Unless by "intermediate" you mean .308 that had the exact same ballistics as the military loads of .30-06 by which point the definition of "intermediate" falls apart even further.This is a strawman; nobody in this thread is claiming that .308 is intermediate. However, if you look at its development, it was a failed attempt to make one, which led to its quick replacement.>for people who don't live in video game weapon class concepts.Anon, "intermediate cartridge" and "assault rifle" are terms that have been around since the late 1940s; the first shooter videogame was Maze War in 1973. To claim that everyone who uses the term "intermediate cartridge" is mistakenly living with video game class concepts is very disingenuous.
>>64610490The short answer:>money>logistics>holy fuck that's a lot of garands and .30-06 (logistics again)>magazines>energy retention at range>orthodox thought
>>64630001> The SD for 400 gr .50 Beowulf is .229, much higher than .183 for 124 gr 7.62x39 or 0.177 for 62gr M855But SD is only one component of BC. By virtue of superior form factors, both the 124gr 30 cal and m855 have higher BCs. The G1 of a 400gr .500 bullet (Barnes) is 0.22. M855 is 0.3. And in any case, the 50 Beowulf shoots that 400gr bullet at like 1600fps. This is why I included a sectional energy requirement, to ensure high velocities for a long MPBR and decent barrier penetration
>>64630707>They tried, the world was experimenting with other slow heavy bullets. For example, the British were wasting time with .280 British, the Czech were trying to make 7.62x45mm, the Swiss were considering 7.5x38mm, etc.They didn't. .280 British isn't like that at all, 7.5 swiss is an irrelevant experimental short lived prototype and 7.62 czech is just an attempt to dissociate with the soviets. There was zero influence, effect or imitation of the STG44 across the world because it wasn't an effective gun when compared to semi-auto fullsize rifles rather than bolt actions and smgs.>The West was the first adopter of assault rifles with the German 7.92x33mm cartridgeThis wasn't innovation either but degeneration born out of german wartime desperation. Not even Germans themselves saw potential in the cartridge postwar.>They do have many things in common. That's a lie.>They were lighter than full-powered cartridgesWe've gone over this, they're not by any meaningful amount. No matter how much you repeat the lie it won't become true.>and subsequently one could add more of them to a magazine. without it being excessively long7.62x39 mag is excessively long and 8mm Kurz has literally the same catridge diameter as the 8mm Mauser. There is no difference in capacity or mag length compared to fullsize cartridges, just a matter of design decision.>Anon, this whole time you've argued that the historical term is wrong, and now you're pushing for a pre-WW1 term?Yes, the pre-ww1 term is still more accurate and informative. Not that i care much for the term as long as it's not a literal poison pill borne from soviet propaganda.>nobody in this thread is claiming that .308 is intermediate>it was a failed attempt to make oneSo it was intended to be "intermediate"? Make up your mind shitter.
>>64632687>Anon, "intermediate cartridge" and "assault rifle" are terms that have been around since the late 1940sAnd they've been inaccurate media-fueled labels applied to very different weapons ever since. The idea that SCHV is in the same class as an AKM or is closer to it than to a fullsize rifle is preposterous nonsense born from wartime propaganda that made it into video games so now it's being defended to the death by underage retards that latched onto it.I'd also like to note that a milled receiver AK or STG44 aren't lighter than any battle rifle at all themselves.
>>64610490Should've used 9mm for everything desu>>64610577This, so much this
>>64610577>SCHVWhat does that mean?
>>64632805small caliber high velocity
>>64632811Ahh.
>>64610490The short and simple answer is the west fell in live with the fg42.
kek, he's bumping the thread
>>64614043Blame Dugout Doug for insisting that we keep to 30-06 during the interwar years solely because we had so much ammo left over from the Great War.
>>64632845.276 Pedersen Garand my beloved.
>>64632687>They didn't. .280 British isn't like that at all, 7.5 swiss is an irrelevant experimental short lived prototype and 7.62 czech is just an attempt to dissociate with the soviets."It was a prototype; it was an attempt." Anon, that is them trying to make a cartridge that worked for them before standardization between nations. Trying to deny that is extremely disingenuous of you. >>64632687>There was zero influence, effect or imitation of the STG44 across the world because it wasn't an effective gun when compared to semi-auto fullsize rifles rather than bolt actions and smgs.That's a lie, every assault rifle (even the SCHV ones you deny are assault rifles) exist due to the massive potential the STG 44 showed. If it wasn't for the Germans then the world would still be using full-powered rifles combined with SMGs andany attempt to change the status quo would be squashed (much like how before the push for assault rifles the 6mm lee navy, .351 Winchester, and .276 Pedersen were squashed, 2of these three rounds follow the SCHV doctrine you are obsessed with).>Not even Germans themselves saw potential in the cartridge postwar.Anon, the German arms industry took a heavy hit after the war ended. Lots of their talent and manufacturing capability was taken by the allies. >That's a lie.Prove it. You haven't proved anything you've said; you've just whined in a corner that all the people responding to you are wrong.>We've gone over this, they're not by any meaningful amount. No matter how much you repeat the lie it won't become true.Well first of all that was my first time saying it; second of all a 7.62x54mm R weighs 23-31 grams while a 7.62x39mm weighs 17-19 grams, so its objectively true, even more so when you take into consideration that soldiers are carrying many rounds, not just one round.
>>64632687Cont. of >>64632877>7.62x39 mag is excessively long and 8mm Kurz has literally the same catridge diameter as the 8mm Mauser.Hey moron, if two mags are the same size but one holds 20 rounds and the other holds 30 rounds, then that might influence why they decided on the smaller cartridge.>Yes, the pre-ww1 term is still more accurate and informative.Right, because being able to differentiate between intermediate cartridges and full-power cartridges isn't informative, but a term that groups together anything from autoloading pistols to modern naval guns is. (sarcasm)>So it was intended to be "intermediate"? Make up your mind shitter.Are you illiterate? It's pretty easy to understand that they were trying to make something and ended up making something completely different from their original intentions. The guy who invented Coca-Cola, John Pemberton, was trying to make a medicinal remedy for headaches. We can't call it medicine because it isn't, but we can acknowledge an attempt was made. LOL>And they've been inaccurate media-fueled labels applied to very different weapons ever since. The idea that SCHV is in the same class as an AKM or is closer to it than to a fullsize rifle is preposterous nonsense born from wartime propaganda that made it into video games so now it's being defended to the death by underage retards that latched onto it.Ever since the 1940s, when video games didn't exist yet? Okay, retard.>I'd also like to note that a milled receiver AK or STG44 aren't lighter than any battle rifle at all themselves.Neither is an L85 shooting a 5.56 (an SCHV round).
>>64632877>Anon, that is them trying to make a cartridge that worked for them before standardization between nations.They dropped it long before any standartization could occur, ignoring the fact that swiss didn't care about standartization at all and didn't pursue it anyway.>every assault rifle (even the SCHV ones you deny are assault rifles) exist due to the massive potential the STG 44 showedThat's a lie and you cannot prove a single thing about this bullshit falsehood.>andany attempt to change the status quo would be squashedDelusional subhuman.>Anon, the German arms industry took a heavy hit after the war ended.8mm Kurz would be easier to use and make guns in than anything else for a delapidated industry, coping loser.>Prove it. You haven't proved anything you've saiI literally just did.>Well first of all that was my first time saying it; second of all a 7.62x54mm R weighs 23-31 grams while a 7.62x39mm weighs 17-19 gramAgain, even with the absolute lightest post-soviet mags you only get about 30% more ammo per load carried over .308, down to 10% difference when using older steel mags. Compare that to literal 100% improvement with SCHV and your bullshit lie gets exposed no matter how much you twist and parrot it.>Hey moron, if two mags are the same size but one holds 20 rounds and the other holds 30 roundsWho's the moron claiming that mags are the same size here?>Right, because being able to differentiate between intermediate cartridges and full-power cartridges isn't informativeDifferentiating between SCHV and slow and fat cartridges is informative, poisoning the discussion by confusing the two is not.>t's pretty easy to understand that they were trying to make something and ended up making something completely differentPost any proof of this besides the name, because if it's all about calling it "intermediate" then they succeeded.
>>64632913>Ever since the 1940s, when video games didn't exist yet?>preposterous nonsense born from wartime propaganda that made it into video gamesThe lying nigger kike literally cannot read because he's so busy sucking cocks.>Neither is an L85 shooting a 5.56 (an SCHV round).If you are going to argue that L85 is as much a piece of shit as STG or AK then i won't stop you. I just wanted to expose another lie about how "saut raffles are lighter than muh baffle rafles"
>>64632913>ignoring the fact that swiss didn't care about standartization at allRetarded anon, they are using 5.56. >That's a lie and you cannot prove a single thing about this bullshit falsehood.Anon, then why haven't you proven anyone here wrong with Google? You claim to look things up and prove yourself right but never show us your findings.>Delusional subhuman.LOL, you're denying that rounds like .6mm Lee Navy and .276 Pedersen were squashed? You truly know nothing about calibers at all. >I literally just did.When? You screeched like a sperg, but you haven't posted any links or even a screenshot to prove your retarded claims that SCHV isn't an intermediate cartridge.>even with the absolute lightest post-soviet mags you only get about 30% more ammo per load carried over .308, down to 10% difference when using older steel mags. Compare that to literal 100% improvement with SCHVWhy are you even comparing 7.62x39 to .308? The Soviets weren't moving away from .308. LOL>Differentiating between SCHV and slow and fat cartridges is informative, poisoning the discussion by confusing the two is not.We already do differentiate between them. Nobody is confusing 7.62x39 or .300 BLK with 5.56 or 5.45. That's just a strawman one particular unscrupulous retard keeps bringing up.>Post any proof of this besides the nameThe burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim, as they are responsible for providing sufficient evidence to support their allegations. You've been screeching allegations this whole thread to multiple people, yet you've posted 0 evidence.>I just wanted to expose another lie about how "saut raffles are lighter than muh baffle rafles"Yet the AK was much lighter than the SVT-40 battle rifle the Soviets made in WW2. Funny how a fair comparison makes your argument fall apart. I wasn't arguing that the L85 is bad (even though it is); I was pointing out how your statement about the SCHV rounds was wrong, again.
>>64633001>Retarded anon, they are using 5.56.40 years after ww2. They didn't even switch to .308 from their equivalent prior to that.>Anon, then why haven't you proven anyone here wrong with Google? I did but you keep parroting lies regardless.>LOL, you're denying that rounds like .6mm Lee Navy and .276 Pedersen were squashed?They were dropped because of technical and wartime limitations, not because of some ideological opposition. That's like saying US killed their SALVO or flechette programs because they only cared about .30 cal.>When?When i disproven your lies in the subsequent points.>Why are you even comparing 7.62x39 to .308Because that's what the contemporary options were.>The Soviets weren't moving away from .308. Who gives a fuck about what soviet subhumans did? They are still using antiquated junk from tsarist times. >We already do differentiate between them. Nobody is confusing 7.62x39 or .300 BLK with 5.56 or 5.45.You do this in your every post, desperately inventing any lie to muddy the difference between them.>The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claimSo show me how .308 is a failed "intermediate" round.>Yet the AK was much lighter than the SVT-40 battle rifle the Soviets made in WW2And FN FAL is much lighter than the M1 Garand, so i guess it's an assault rifle now according to a slimy kike like you.>Funny how a fair comparison makes your argument fall apart.There's nothing fair about it, irrelevant failed soviet guns have no bearing on the argument.>I was pointing out how your statement about the SCHV rounds was wrongYou failed to do so because you cherrypicked one boat anchor. I disproven your blatant lie by showing that there was no meaningful difference in weight at the time when your touted assault rifle was used.
>>64633029Actually the Swiss only adopted 5.56 in 1990, without a common rifle round with NATO for the entire cold war.
>>64610490mainly because US and Brits wanted 1 size fits all, including machineguns.30 carbine was obviously not going to work for squad automatic weapon, let alone GPMGsEven as assault rifle it wasn't all that great. It had fairly extensive use in Korea and they were not satisfied.Germans never intended to have MG-42 in 7.92 kurz (inb4 somebody digs up an experimental one-off version of MG-42 in 7.92 kurz)Soviets never got rid of the ancient 7.62x54mmR completely when they switched to AKs and SKSs
Why the fuck are you retards arguing with the SCHV-schizo? Just call him a schizo and move on. It's not like as if he's new and you need to explain to an uninformed reader he's retarded, we all know who he is.
