From: Glen Closson (glen_closson@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Mar 10 2006 - 18:45:48 PST
There was a practice round called the "sub-caliber" for the LAW. I think I
have a book for it someplace.
For practicing with the AT-4 they have it shoot a 9mm tracer.
Regards,
Glen
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Louis Pasteur
-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org] On Behalf
Of Patrick Jankowiak
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:12 PM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] NOS M65 breech assembly or diagram needed
I was shown a picture of what I was told was a 'practice' round once. it was
a metal rocket about 1" diameter and had fixed fins at the base. I don't
remember where I saw that. I remember them telling me the real thing was a
folded-fin fattie that filled up the tube though.
PJ
Jay Travis wrote:
> I'm no expert on them myself, so you may well be completely right. I do
> remember they did have a couple of different versions, including a
training
> version, so some of them might have had fixed fins too. It's all academic
> anyway, as trying to put one back into service with ANY kind of warhead
> would be an e-ticket ride straight to Club Fed via the BATF boys. They'd
> probably get annoyed even using it to shoot bottle rockets, if they caught
> you doing it. Model rockets would be questionable, I guess. Didn't they
> recently come out stating that they changed their minds about trying to
> regulate over-the-counter hobby rocket engines? Still have to be careful,
> though- you'll put an eye out! ;-)
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: dgrev <dgrev@iinet.net.au>
>>To: <dagobert@ix.netcom.com>
>>Cc: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
>>Date: 3/11/2006 8:52:28 AM
>>Subject: Re: [MV] NOS M65 breech assembly or diagram needed
>>
>>Jay
>>
>>
>>>Are you sure of that?
>>
>>No, just going on what I have been told.
>>
>>
>>>The outside difference would be the folding fins
>>>that pop out after launch,
>>
>>We may be talking about different models of LAWS.
>>
>>
>>>but the explosive itself would be some form of a
>>>shaped charge with a cone cover, to penetrate armor with a plasma center
>>>when it hits. I would think a regular grenage, rifle or otherwise,
>
> would
>
>>>just make a loud noise and a dent in the side of anything armor.
>>
>>Agreed, you will note I did say "modifications internally".
>>
>>
>>>(Although
>>>granted, the LAWS system is supposedly ineffective against modern armor
>
> and
>
>>>wouldn't do much good unless you were being attacked by something like a
>>>T-34) Now, I could well be wrong, and if so, please enlighten me, but
>>>that's what I thought was the case with them.
>>
>>I am going on something I was told over 5 years ago by an ammo
>>collector - which I am not.
>>
>>Regards
>>Doug
>
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
>
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:42:04 PDT