 |
|  |
 |
|
jolair
|
|
It was made by Robert Capa. The man is Federico Borrell García (just only one of the almost 2 millions spanish anarchists in those days).
You can see the moment he died, 5th september 1936 in Cerro Muriano (Cordoba, Spain). The picture was published in "Picture Post" (an english publication) on december 1938.
Last edited by jolair on 20-03-2003 at 15:59
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002 time: 23:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kramerman
Yes, the AR-10 is what you were thinking of.
The M-14 was dropped because the M-14 was a lot heavier both in itself, and its ammo was about twice as heavy... i wouldnt mind tho, because one 7.62 could take a man down where as multiple 5.56 might be needed. Also, because of its very powerful rounds it was very hard to keep under controled while using automatic fire. To do this effectively it had to be fired while prone and using a bi-pod. The M-16 adn its lighter round however can be fired automatic relatively under control .
The early model M-14's fired 30-06 bullets (truely powerful rounds), but the .308 (7.62) winchester was developed with modern propellants to be shorter, but almost as powerful due to the use of modern propellents, adn therefor weighed less, so more ammo could be carried by a soldier. |
Well, my question about the choice of the M16 over the M14 was somewhat rhetorical. I've humped and used the FN, M16, and (on occasion) the AK-47 as well as SMG's of various manufacture so I'd say I have a pretty good idea of these weapons good and bad points.
The americans virtually forced the adoption of 7.62 within NATO since they used that ammo for the M14. Shortly thereafter, the US reversed course and changed to the .223/5.56 which nullified the whole idea of a single ammo calibre for NATO.
Sure, you can carry more .223 ammo than 7.62 and .223 allows easier automatic fire. My point was really aimed at why the US army chose to change in concept from single aimed shots to (random) autofire. I think there is ample evidence from a comparison of the combat effectiveness of the US marines (who maintained the concept of marksmanship) vs US army to suggest that single aimed shots are more effective. General Puller certainly thought so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ColdWizard
|
|
'Tis amazing how certain people can blindly leap to such accurate conclustions about the reasons people have for posting in this thread, not that I expected anything else...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ColdWizard
|
|
Spiffor, you're a complete and utter wise and intelligent fellow. If we ever meet I'd enjoy buying you a drink and shaking your hand
Attachment: b2.jpg
This has been downloaded 132 time(s).
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|