This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There were people in the late 19th and early 20th century who grasped an important point about ballistics that drove them toward a hypothetical high velocity 6.x mm round as the ideal round. They were ignored by the gigantic round advocates in charge of the US at the time. But they existed. That was originally published in 1930, it was republished 1957.
In the 19th century the US Navy correctly envisioned the future and developed a high velocity round.
In a report used to justify the development of the 19th century .236 Navy.
Looking at the development of the 7.62x39 I see that the Soviets considered dozens of alternatives. But never once considering high velocity smaller diameter. Maybe they were unaware of American and British developments in high velocity smaller caliber rounds. And so merely made a really underpowered version of some 19th century round.
They already had a perfectly serviceable intermediate round that they had only recently phased out- the 6.5x50mm Japanese cartridge. Soviets had Not Invented Here syndrome.
Which they didn't continue with. Too much barrel wear- materials science and manufacturing tolerances just weren't there yet.
The advantage of going larger (and using shorter projectiles) means you don't get nearly as much barrel wear; to the point that you'll crack the receiver on an AK at the trunnion (a consequence of being one step removed from a bolt-action conversion) before you shoot the barrel out. This is why, when you compare 6.5 Creedmoor guns to .308, and fire the same weight of projectile, you'll find the barrel on the 6.5 will be shot out sooner- you'll also notice that all the other militaries that used 6.5mm cartridges underloaded them compared to how hot they would be loaded later on, and I think this has something to do with it. 6.5 Grendel guns have the same issue compared to 7.62x39 (though to a much lesser degree than 6.5CM), which is why the only military that uses that round is running a shorter 108-grain projectile (at 2750 FPS) rather than a comparable 124-grain one from 7.62x39 (running around 2400).
7.5 French uses a slightly shorter, lighter projectile compared to 7.62 NATO for similar reasons.
.30-30 is perfectly adequate for animals in the 200-pound weight class regardless of how many legs they walk on. 7.62x39 wasn't even the first cartridge to copy that ballistic profile; that one goes to .30 Remington, then 7.35 Carcano (all 51-52mm in length- inefficient when you consider how much brass is needed to make those cartridges compared to 7.62x39, but all of them are exactly as powerful as they need to be).
It's also the most powerful intermediate cartridge; 7.92x33 (and later, .300 Blackout) is down 200 FPS from the Soviet round, and 7.62x33 (aka .30 Carbine) runs 400 FPS slower. But .30 Carbine is not really a 300 yard cartridge, whereas x39 has a much easier time of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link