Although we agree, this last quote should lie in proper juxtaposition to the fact that he spent many decades diligently working to improve the. Colonel Whelen experimented with the GI. Although his experiments with the. The beauty of the. The parent is the. Whelen and built by Howe. James V. Howe undertook this work of making dies, reamers, chambering tools, and of chambering the rifles, all in accordance with my design.
With a grain bullet, the. The European designation for this cartridge would be 9x63mm. It comprises a. Whelen while at Frankford. The cartridge resembles a. In this instance, James Howe necked down cylindrical brass, available in the arsenal manufacturing process, to form cartridges with a. Quality Cartridge has also manufactured unformed, cylindrical empty brass cases head-stamped for this cartridge.
Now, I may have a jaundiced attitude toward the sainted colonel because my longtime boss and predecessor as technical editor of the American Rifleman Pete Dickey had met Whelen on several occasions as a boy and found him a pompous blowhard who didn't know near as much as he let on.
I wasn't there for that, so can't comment on Whelen's personality or erudition, but his most famous quote is simply absurd on its face, regardless of its source. It is certainly the case that only accurate rifles may be desirable or useful or maybe only accurate rifles have a place in your gun safe, but it is preposterous to say only accurate rifles are interesting. If some archaeologist dug up the first Chinese hand cannon, would your interest in it be conditioned by its accuracy?
If you had the chance to examine an antique musket owned by Louis XIV, would you wonder what group it would shoot? Would you decline the chance to shoot an MBI Gyrojet because the chance of it hitting a tin can at 25 yards is infinitesimal?
I would argue that a "gas trap" M1 rifle is quite interesting, though they weren't much for accuracy. The Colt All-American shot patterns, not groups, but its construction was unusual and ahead of its time. The AK is not renowned for accuracy, but I would say its role in world history is pretty interesting. So Whelen's quote is bunk, in my mind, but I can guarantee it will continue to be used as long as a gunwriter is facing a deadline. Give a Gift Subscriber Services.
See All Other Magazines. See All Special Interest Magazines. Obviously, early tier BBs are the worst offenders here. Maybe the whole idea is to make you frustrated that you out-planned and out-positioned the enemy and still came up with zip, nada, nothing to show for it, so that you will quickly buy your way into the next tiers.
Net result for me was to just avoid researching other BB lines and focus on other types. Just curious if other folks are frustrated by the extremely random nature of accuracy in these ships, or is it just part of the nostalgic charm of the dreadnought era? Maybe wargaming could introduce a "Guaranteed True Shell" mechanic whereby a battleship will always have one shell go exactly to aim.
Seeing as how this is an arcade shooter and not an accurate simulation, the hit rates for all guns are artificially high. Be grateful for that. Also, you seem to be experiencing your first Epiphany with our resident deity, RNGsus. Even Russian cruiser "rail guns" are subject to the whims of computer dice rolls.
While it's true that dispersion is a fickle thing Still trying to work out the mental math that the OP seems to have worked out to perfection where he thinks a rifle and guns on a battleship, floating on a liquid footing no less, are supposed to share similar accuracy at wildly different ranges. What you describes is exactly how it happened in real life. There were so many factors that could effect individual guns accuracy. If one barrel is slightly more worn than its neighbor than accuracy is going to suffer.
If the powder in one gun is a couple of degrees cooler than the other accuracy is going to suffer. There is a reason the broadside position was the preferred position.
0コメント