ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
The British were pushing for a .280 cartridge in late '40s but Americans insisted on .308.
The US was trivially correct to reject this cartridge and the British were out of their fucking minds here. In fairness, the fact they had lost WW2 [and their Empire with it] hadn't really dawned on their people yet and wouldn't come to a head until the Suez crisis.
The thing about .280 is that it's not a good GPMG round (and it's also slightly too heavy to be that intermediate- its initial loadings were more powerful than 7.62x39 is too). 6.5 Japanese had similar ballistics to what .280 would eventually have and would be ultimately replaced on the grounds of insufficient GPMG performance- and for a US-led alliance that needed to have a logistics train that much poorer countries could support (read: one caliber for everything) the infantry rifles would need to remain in the same caliber as the machine guns.
Hence a full-power cartridge, that could be retrofit to replace both .303 and 8 Mauser (7.5 French was too fat, wouldn't have worked), was required. Yes, it'd compromise the infantry rifles somewhat, but infantry rifles weren't expected to win a war with Russia whereas American logistics was.
Note also that the Russians didn't really figure the AK out until the early 1960s, and the SKS is not better from a tactical standpoint than a Garand (or M14, or FAL) is anyway. The Russians didn't need to hurry, since they already had plenty of quasi-intermediate SMGs in inventory (the PPS-43); neither did the Americans, who used the M1 Carbine for that.
they proceeded to compromise their entire's bloc small arms procurement for the next 30 years
30 years is an acceptable timeframe over which to replace equipment. And it really didn't hold the [mostly useless] allies back: remember, the bloc consisted of Britain (who never fought a war -> didn't matter), other militarily insignificant European nations (a good chunk of whom stuck with Garands), Britain's soon-to-be-dispossessed colonies (never fought a war beyond the ones the US also fought with 7.62x51 -> didn't matter), West Germany (conquered), and France (who stuck with 7.5 French).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18hr ago
5.56 out of a 20" barrel can defeat level IV plates
No it can't, by the definition of what level IV plates are.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
18hr ago
They used AR-15s, which are not, despite years of anti-gun campaigning, particularly good rifles for waging war (or insurgency).
They're cheap, good, and half the world's nations actively use them to wage war in some capacity. If that is not a good rifle I'm not sure what is.
This theory of 'more bullets = better' is not actually better in general
Yes it is[1].
that the slower rate forces better shooting fundamentals for reliability per shot
But when we're actually fighting- we're shooting at targets that are actively trying to avoid being shot at, and trying not to be shot ourselves- and not just trying to score bullseyes on a static range, we want it to be as easy as possible for us to make hits. So we're going to use the lightest feasible caliber that will defeat the target over the distances at which we expect to engage (usually less than 100 yards), and carry the most bullets both in the gun and on the person in extra magazines (traditional rifle ammunition is quite heavy and is quickly self-limiting in how much you can carry).
5.56 is special in that the cartridge weighs about the same as 9mm does (as in, the standard pistol cartridge), recoils the same as 9mm loaded to its maximum potential, but is significantly more effective than 9mm is at longer ranges because ballistics magic[2]. And its magazines are shorter so you can have more bullets in the gun without making it unwieldly.
This is in contrast to, say, 7.62x39 (the AK round), where it weighs twice as much as 9mm, recoils twice as much, magazines with comparable ammunition quantity to a 9mm rifle make the gun relatively unwieldly, and isn't appreciably more effective than 5.56 given those things because of a lack of said ballistics magic.
Note that hunting doesn't have these constraints. Neither do specialized military applications like sniping. You want overkill in those circumstances because you're not going to get another shot- the fewer holes you put in the animal the more of its tasty body is preserved (in the hunting case), and for both of them, the ranges over which you need to shoot a target that's going to spook and disappear after the first shot mean you want something that's going to give you the easiest time of that at ranges further than those typical for combat (200-400 yards).
[1] The US Army's take on "we need a rifle to shoot 800 yards" reminds me of the time the British did that. Both nations invaded Afghanistan (and lost) before adopting a rifle like this- a nation whose geography lends itself to long-range ambush-style engagements will proceed to teach militaries that fight there they need weapons with that kind of range to be standard-issue.
And to be fair to the Brits, just like the Americans, perhaps they envision future conflicts against Near/Middle Eastern or African nations will benefit from a rifle like this- places that are scarcely urbanized, with an enemy whose dominant form of mechanization is the Toyota Hilux. Against peer nations in urban warfare, though, this is not a great plan. Of course, the Americans tend to be very good at expedient engineering; the AR-15 got issued in record time while the US was at war so if they need a new rifle they'll have one quick.
[2] The faster a bullet is going the more likely it's going to fragment or change course sharply when it hits the target. Getting a similar ballistic effect from a large cartridge means a heavier projectile [not getting into why] means a heavier cartridge means heavier recoil, so you get less of the things that make the rifle good in typical combat distances.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
It's just... forgettable.
The title doesn't describe what the movie is about, the MC is ugly (chimp face, permanent black purple eye) and [if the critics are to be believed, was if not still is] fag-coded, and the aliens' appearance doesn't suggest any interesting personality traits.
So yeah, "I'd let my kid watch it on Netflix, but I wouldn't pay 60 dollars to see it" is a pretty apt observation.
eye patch on a kid character
Eye patches are only appropriate on kid characters if they make him/her look like a pirate for obvious reasons.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
aren't you a LITTLE morally culpable for not taking the hit and blowing the whistle?
No. And while 'buying into it' implies/generally comes at a cost to the public at large, this is the same public perpetrating the hysterics around an action that isn't immoral (hence the need for the hysterics).
So it's on the same moral level as dodging any other tax is. No more, no less. [Which is why you want harsh consequences for elite misbehavior in this way: it's dodging the tax every other member of the public has to pay to its hysterical members.]
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
My bigger concern is that Affirmative action et al doesn't actually primarily help the people its meant to help.
Or rather, affirmative action helps precisely the people it's meant to help, and the[ir] claim it was meant to elevate someone else was always bullshit.
In fact, it's a good exercise to ask yourself what you owe to the artwork.
True, but the child[ish]-ness of that approach goes both ways; an audience that doesn't do that misses out on what the artwork had, but an artwork that isn't trying to hide what it has [beyond what is inherent/integral to the artwork] for [and this is subject to interpretation] "fuck you lololol" reasons.
Well, that's a result of the fanbase being largely tumblrites.
And the "fuck you, domination over accommodation" thing they embody means they legitimately don't understand those characters. Hence their rush to overwrite the plain text with 'no, he can't just be a crossdresser with other motivations, he has to be trans' [even though this breaks the entire reason his character arc ends the way it does].
I want Hiruko to step on me!
>Tells the MC to kiss her
>Accidentally pushes MC off the roof instead
>Promptly commits suicide
The funny thing about her characterization is, and unique to Hiruko due to her circumstances, that a good chunk of it is in the background and implications of certain events. I think she's the only character that does this across any of his works.
Vehx route too short
Why do you think so?
(I was legitimately shocked when I played that route because it's in large degree a match for this. Which is why I don't think it needed to be any longer; it showed V'ehxness was this way, and then ended.)
Ah, Kodaka's works, one of my favorite subjects.
But this phrase, that an artist should "express themselves", makes me nervous, increasingly nervous, for reasons that I don't fully understand myself and have never been able to entirely articulate.
That's because the implication, which is "[express themselves] within the service of a greater whole", has been lost. (Can't imagine why that would be more likely to apply to artists from highly conformist cultures at all, or why audiences from those cultures would be more likely to see it that way.)
This is also the problem with 'modern' art, by the way: when the creation of a thing is not only fundamentally selfish (it isn't interested in how you'll view it), but the work itself doesn't serve any other aesthetic purpose. It's the "doesn't owe you femininity" of the art world.
Ever notice that, especially evident with how the Western world interacts with other Kodaka VNs, that 'how the presentation will be perceived' is a central element of every ambiguous-gender character (Chihiro [Danganronpa] and Halara [Rain Code])? Progressive critique falls over itself complaining about what pronoun to use [which is the exact opposite of this], but most of their character arcs again involve that perception and service to a greater whole, where their presentation is merely an incidental/a tool to do other things.
Made in Abyss is also a pretty good example of this (and an even better one if it makes you uncomfortable)- it's extremely offensive to Western sensibilities, and it would be to mine as well if the work was just one big centerfold of a naked limbless Riko- but the fact the author thinks that way is harnessed into a narrative that flat out doesn't work if the main characters either aren't children or have the invincibility child characters usually have.
(This is also something Kodaka does when he can get away with it re: Ultra Despair Girls; Omori does this too in its own way [if you compare the Omoriboy comic, the tissue box serves the same purpose in both works, but in an extremely meta sense in the game compared to the comic]).
I got weirdly obsessed with one of the girls and wanted to waifu her
Which one? The first one, the tomato, the tomboy, the onii-chan, the girlboss, the swordswoman, the one that makes fun of the audience for being Danganronpa-obsessed, Hulkamania Sister!, the ahegao-faced one, the secret one, or the enemy (not that one, the other one)?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
they are taking the stance of "I don't care about the impact to you, I want to have fun".
You have discovered the entire point of Independence Day, which celebrates exactly this on a nation-state level.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
4d ago
it’s a loose indication of maturity
It's an indication of someone desperate to signal maturity. [Hence, soyjacks.]
some lower or working class people who never stopped wearing them so much
You generally need to be clean-shaven for a respirator, so it's a sign you don't [have to] work in a factory.
It helps that the new wave of beards are generally speaking a little more cared for than previously.
They're all just neckbeards to me.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
but I didn't need a klaxon to tell me that
It's a Blue Tribe Is Right About Global Warming alarm; the fact it's a klaxon in the first place tells you it really isn't well-meaning.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
If Iran threatens to provide Hamas a bomb
I don't think they'd going to threaten to do it, I think there would be no warning until some very important Israeli infrastructure just all of a sudden disappears. Besides, Israel "doesn't have" that kind of bomb anyway.
The point is to nullify the strategic advantage Israel has because it has enough bombs to check Iran (and outside US intervention is the only reason they haven't been conquered yet), and a smaller blatantly suicidal people are just the delivery vehicle Iran needs to do that. It doesn't matter if Israel then goes full Old Testament and kills every last Hamasi in the area (and maybe the US stops them, or maybe they don't, but if they stop they'll absolutely try it again)- the attack went off, that's what matters.
All the better if it hits something actually important (like, say, where Israel gets its water from), and while Hamas is surely too stupid to manage that... well, what if they aren't?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
Couldn't your conclusion that 'If Hamas manages to get an attack off it's the entire host nations problem as well' apply to Iran giving them a nuke in the first place?
No, because Iran is the only one capable of retaliating (in a nuclear fashion) hard enough to discourage that. And Israel doesn't need to go nuclear if this happens; a conventional war would be just as destructive for these nations and peoples. Perhaps that is part of why the neighboring countries are unwilling to host the Hamasi as refugees.
Couldn't Israel just state preemptively they will regard any use of nukes by hamas as use by Iran
Maybe, but I don't think Israel can win a war with Iran (hence the emphasis on keeping them down/contained). They're sufficiently equipped to wreck any country Iran allies with outside of that lovely mountain range that defines the western Iranian border, but unless the Americans want to put their boots on the ground and suffer the 3:1 attacker casualty rates to conquer Iran then Israel can't really touch them. Israel doesn't have those numbers, Iran's a peer nation (except for the nuclear weapons), and if either tries in the future are the Israel-hating Blues (and even Reds; Israeli influence might not be as stable in an era of Red reforms) even going to lift a finger?
Remember, the ultimate problem Israel is fighting is that, absent Rome/Europe/Washington and its religious fixation on holding Jerusalem, it is the natural geopolitical state of Judea to be in the Persian orbit. Hence the rhyme with Biblical times- Jews evict the Canaanites, then the Persians conquer the Jews.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
many people still somehow think progressive lip service is fine or even morally just
This is natural- casting shade on people not wanting to conspicuously consume (in this case, from the society-wide patronage network that activists embody) is a thing rich people do naturally.
When you're rich in virtue, conspicuous consumption is saying "yeah, polygamy is totally for everyone".
When you're rich in rent-seeking, conspicuous consumption is saying "yes, my property values the environment is more important than developing the next generation".
It's not necessarily realized by people doing that, since this is just copying the fashions of the richest- but it is still that thing either way.
We have a few social techs for allowing non-genocidal acclimation of oppressed populations but when they can all be trivially overridden by the logic that "any observed inequality in outcomes is proof positive of ongoing oppression which must be rectified" then guess what comes back on the menu.
But note that this is a civil matter, caused by women/the womanly/progressives seeking more social power. Any nag they can get their hands on will be used, and nags are quite powerful in democracies (commonly referred to as "women's tears winning in the marketplace of ideas"). This doesn't even require women having the vote to work- universal male suffrage is generally enough, the 18th Amendment being a good example of that.
Not allowing credit and pride to flow forward in the same measure as guilt is also a woman thing, because women aren't generally wired to seek credit and pride in the first place- so it makes sense they would simply ignore it exists [at best] and actively seek to devalue it [at worst]. This is related to inherent male disposability in an environment of excess men, and right now there are simply too many men (which doesn't require you actually be a man; which is why women who function like men complain about this just as much as men themselves do).
The reason incomplete genocides could work in the past is because the rulers at the time were less vulnerable to them; the womanly could cry "no ethical consumption under capitalism" all they wanted, but at the end of the day the only way they have power [outside of a post-industrial society where women are productive in their own right] is if a man listens. And men with power are far less likely to bow to the demands of useless people.
Is this risk completely mitigated? Well, no- you can still have the Church organize moral movements, but even in that case the Church is made up of people and property, those people have names and addresses, and since they have organization they have pre-scribed outlets for any charity they might feel (it's their own money, so the moral hazard is avoided). In a democracy like this you can't pull off that kind of suppression.
No evolved solution to this currently exists. Men are not wired to resist women when they believe themselves rich enough to be above needing to put themselves first (for a bunch of complicated reasons), but this is not symmetric. Only once men have been exposed to being poor will this change, and that only lasts for a little while.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
6d ago
Certainly you can understand how that at face value looks incredibly stupid right?
The more obviously stupid the thing is, the greater the power flex it is to do it. This is why it only works in one direction.
Humorously, Westerners also tend to say 'African-American' even when the subject is not American- because the American propaganda (which they all consume) all says "but describing someone in the most obvious way is Bad, Actually". Capitalizing 'black' is the same thing.
"African-American" is commonly understood to mean American Descendants of Slavery, not Elon Musk.
No, it means "Black" (implication: description + privilege). As a bonus, this works on the entire West, since you can't be ADOS without being A (and it's a great way to tar cultures that were never racist with the same brush they use domestically).
they just need enough to make the cost of a nuclear exchange so high Israel would never risk it
But this has further implications that you omit.
If Iran has the bomb, they can provide it to a smaller, far more suicidal group of allies (the Palestinians) to lock the Israelis into their current borders unless they negotiate with Iran. Technology transfers, taxes, religious rites/rights, not purchasing American weapons, etc. is what that looks like.
In this way, the Hamasi would serve as the permanent Iranian veto over the [Ashke]nazi. Because they simply don't care if the Israelis nuke them in response- the fact is, the Israelis get hurt far more than the Palestinians, the Palestinians are suicidal, and that is sufficient to accomplish this goal.
Conversely, if Israel believes that Iran will, or already has, or will inevitably soon obtain, a bomb like this... then their only response is to start removing the local kebab as fast as humanly possible. They didn't like the paragliders the first time; imagine how much they're not going to like them when the settlers further encroaching on their territory prompts an air-borne SADMization of the Israeli countryside.
The Iron Dome can stop a lot but the bomber is going to get through. And sure, Hamas could always attack from another country (perhaps one in which they seek refuge after the dust settles), but in that case that other country [and its people] are collateral the Israelis can threaten such that Hamas is kept down- since if Hamas manages to get an attack off then it's the entire host nation's problem, and Israel becomes the one with the nuclear veto.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
7d ago
Well, yeah; this is 100% an autistic Christian thing.
You make yourself an enemy of the God of America when you lie on the form, because He knows the contents of your heart and what is done in secret.
That is why "lying on the form about the contents of your heart" is accepted by American culture as both valid, and an offense that strips you of any right to participate in it so long as they see fit that the question remains on the form.
Interestingly, it doesn't actually make any moral judgment- it still maintains the presupposition that there are good people who are also [disqualifying class]- but then, if the man be good, he would not lie on the forms because [see above].
Thus lying on the form is, while a completely natural thing to do, a sin -> if you were good, you're certainly an enemy of God [and by extension, the country] now -> OK to revoke and eject on those grounds.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
What we instead got is this monstrous inversion where our successful people generally act conservative in their personal lives while encouraging self-destructive libertinism and emotional disregulation in the rest of the population.
Indeed; and while invoking Cain and Abel may flatter my personal biases, there's another one right next to it that very certainly does not: you can perhaps view [those humans given to be] traditionalists as Adam, progressives as Eve, and liberals as the Snake (and the sexes in that story are that way for good reason).
The liberals lie to the progressives so they'd take accept something that was too advanced for them and [that the liberal knew] the only reason they [progressive] wanted it was to be turbo-selfish with it.
The progressives in turn lie to the traditionalists, saying the thing was perfectly fine and good for everyone, don't think about it, just enjoy it.
And now everything's fucked up because beings that weren't supposed to have to deal with knowing [thing] now just have to deal with the consequences of knowing you can do [thing].
That, combined with the separation from God that comes from not being perfect with it, is how the knowledge from the fruit kills you!
Actually, both the Garden of Eden and Cain vs. Abel contrapose when read this way, but then the difference between the snake and Abel was that Abel acted faithfully and the snake faithlessly (and the siren call of the liberal t'was ever thus: did God truly say?)
It's strange that I've never heard anyone explain this in this way. Or maybe not, considering it's quite embarrassing, and especially to those "closer" to the fault (though there is ultimately no degree of "closer" in sin, and the traditionalists are too busy abusing it to shit-talk the progressives anyway in the "hurr Eve ate it first that means I'm better" sense anyway).
And maybe it's wrong, maybe I'm reading too hard into these... but if you're trying to explain how human nature and sin works to a prehistoric people then I'd say it describes the major players/impulses/excuses of the classes of humankind very well.
Of course, it doesn't say what each should do in response; the fact people can be bucketed this way is [and quite importantly] not part of the curse, but "the people more ready to accept 'did God truly say?'-type questions when they're posed in faith will instead desire and be ruled over by that class of people who are not so willing, and they will not be willing because they're cursed with having to work for a living until they die" sure is!
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8d ago
Why would having sexual intercourse in general be the equivalent of shooting to kill?
No, the purpose of having proper sexual intercourse (i.e. using your genitals "properly, for their intended use") is the equivalent here. Not just sexual intercourse in general in the "mutual masturbation" sense, which is as suspect (smuggled assumption: sinful?) as "using a gun only for target practice" is to certain other people.
Again, genitals (as with guns) can be used for pair bonding and pleasure, it's just that that's not their telos/"what they're meant for".
Your metaphor is subtly broken, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Using a gun for a reason other than to shoot ballistic missiles is suspect, because that's not what it's there for.
No, by that logic, it's "using/having a gun for a reason other than shooting to kill [its primary purpose] is suspect" (so 'I'm just here to shoot targets because it's fun' is immoral and weird).
Thus, by that same logic,
Sexual intercourse can be done for making babies and for pair bonding and pleasure (for example, post menopause or when the woman is already pregnant.)
"having sex for pair bonding and pleasure" is suspect.
Which is the Catholic position on sex.
It appeals to people who are given to being addicted to seeking sex, and Catholic Christianity treats everyone (both men and women, but the emphasis is traditionally more on men) as being in this condition by default. It makes sense that Catholicism draws in people that are aware they have problems with sex in this way, hence the assertion everyone does and that it's Godly for you to behave as if you were addicted to sex at all times[2].
Other denominations of Christianity, in particular the more Charismatic strains, treat dancing and alcohol/other drugs this way as well. Catholicism has a more measured response to the latter, but not for sex.
[1] Which forms one of the two prongs of the stereotypical Blue viewpoint on guns. They can't just be telling the truth, it has to be for some nefarious purpose. You'll recognize that rejecting that's true is also the [classical] liberal refutation of the Christian party line on the gays (and on those readings of 'fornication' and 'sexual morality' more generally).
It's more like a kind of mutual masturbation
[2] And if you're one of those men who tends to treat their partners like a human fleshlight during sex, then the smuggled assumption of "and that's bad" becomes trivially correct. Some (many?) men legitimately do have problems with this [source: I read the posts here], and when they do, following that rule is probably better for both them and their wives (and it forces them to have buy-in to the relationship through childbirth).
Of course, there's another answer in "well, just don't do sex that way lol" (and this approach is hinted at in a few other Pauline letters), but having "don't be fucking stupid lol" as the rule is about as effective as abstinence-based sex ed is at avoiding pregnancy for most people who [spiritually] require the structure of Catholicism in the first place, so...
Well, you can have that, or you have the traditionalist/progressive projects which are just unironic rewrites of Harrison Bergeron (the only difference between the two is the hair color and name of the antagonist).
(And that story itself is basically just a modernization of Cain's justification for killing Abel.)
But man I wish we had more liberals/libertarians posting here.
Sure, but most of us aren't filtering that through 7000 levels of irony and then getting butthurt about it being perceived as pointlessly-hostile nonsense.
The problem is that [too much acknowledgement of] HBD is just as destructive to classical liberalism as it is to progressivism for reasons that should be obvious- once you start treating HBD as prescriptive rather than descriptive then there's no reason to be anything but a hardcore turbo-trad. If your political philosophy suggests society should maximize its "gain" from realizing HBD is true and immediately go full Apartheid, then you prevent those with [the characteristic that predicts poor performance] but perform well anyway from properly developing[1].
This is OK for traditionalist societies in which one Knows Their Place(tm)[2], but there's only one way to compromise such that differences are sanded down over time, and that's by giving them more freedom then their characteristics suggest in the chance that, when members of that group beat the average, we enable both a eugenic effect and more effective suggestion that the HBD-disadvantaged group better assimilates. (Whether those things have worked is an exercise for the reader- I assert that they have, that what is left at the bottom probably can't be fixed, and that it is unfortunate that they look that way but our ruthless market system will pay them what they're worth backstopped by our infinite greed above all other moral principles.)
Since the entire conceit of liberalism is that good performers who are worthy of unrestricted freedom shouldn't be held back by bad performers who are not[3] (and those negative consequences of excess freedom correctly fall on the virtueless, which is the fundamental problem trads and progs have with liberalism since charity for those people isn't mandated), we can understand it, but we can't really do anything about it other than offer our velvet glove before we give 'em the iron fist.
That does mean HBD predicts those most likely to get the iron fist are going to be [characteristic predicting poor performance], which means we can have the potential blind spot of confusing [characteristic predicting poor performance] with [poor performance], and the fact we know that means we're vulnerable to the bad-faith rent-seeking my outgroup defines itself by having the right to do because Muh Oppression or whatever.
[1] And now you know why otherwise high-potential modern teenagers and early twentysomethings are so fucked up- arresting development like this has serious group-level long-term consequences, but we pretend it's OK because "at least it's not HBD".
[2] Knowing One's Place is not unique to Traditionalists; after all, Progressives have the same stack vocabulary, they just put themselves on top of it axiomatically, where with the Traditionalists they at least have the notion (albeit as unenforceable as the liberal claim that charity will fix the problems) that those on top are to perform like they're at the top.
[3] And note that liberalism doesn't inherently conflict with HBD categories from being imposed; you can still have a liberal slave-owning society, or one with limited franchise for certain groups, and nearly every place with a tradition of liberalism has been this way at some point. This is another weakness liberals have to progressives, since progressives will argue using liberal aesthetic but will destroy all protections for high performers in the process if left unchecked.
Because it's not sufficiently intermediate and it's not just the rifles (which only form a minor part of the equation). It's worth noting that both France and Switzerland both flirted with intermediate caliber rifles (in .30 Carbine), but ultimately rejected them; if you want to go "7.62 bad because fat burger country", fine, but then why did every other Western nation that was looking to change calibers and was capable of indigenous weapons development also reject the idea? They all should have been aware of the StG-44.
We have the benefit of hindsight, and the Americans had the 'benefit' that the first war in which intermediate caliber weapons were being used against them in large numbers was one of the two terrain types in which submachine gun-type weapons utterly dominate (the other being urban warfare).
Note also that the first commercially-viable .22-caliber cartridge that wasn't an overpowered meme (sorry, .220 Swift) was a 1950s invention. It's far more difficult to make a viable bullet that small; your manufacturing tolerances have to be much better than they do with the .30s or with the .264s (which appear to be the lower limit of this, considering that other than the US adopting a bleeding-edge 6mm rifle that one time in 1895, no other military would adopt a smaller cartridge until 5.56 NATO). That's feasible with 1960s manufacturing technology, but not necessarily with 1920s or 1940s (and the Russians would take into the 1970s to figure it out).
NATO adopted what it did at the right times and nobody really got screwed over. European nations used their 1950s equipment until it wore out, then unloaded it on the Africans as military aid then developed indigenous 5.56 rifles around 1980. Not really a setback.
It's not just the rebarreling, it's also to facilitate easy manufacture of already-existing designs. Britain did this with the Enfield and the Bren, Germany did it with the MG3 (and some MG42s), Spain did it with the FR7/FR8, the Italians famously did it with the BM59, and the US did it with the M1919 (as well as the M14).
Converting an existing design, especially one that had seen significant and continuous improvement due to actually being used in warfare, is generally going to produce a better product than a clean-sheet design. This is one of the reasons the FAL lost in the US' rifle trials, by the way (the other is that it's just a bad gun lol).
A war they fought with Brens and No. 4s in .303. And honestly, no, the other ones don't really matter.
More options
Context Copy link