$28 Million for Amateur Hour

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Nov 23

RE: Low friction ‘contributed’ to crash. By Matthew vn Dongen and Nicole O’Reilly The Hamilton Spectator 30 N0v 23.

At $28,000 per page, the report by Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel must be the most expensive engineering opinion of a rank amateur ever paid for.  Low friction “likely contributed?” Well, duh! Friction is the resistance to movement of two interacting surfaces sliding past each other, and there are two types: static friction, the friction to be overcome for sliding to begin, which is always greater than the second type: sliding friction.  Tires rotating at speed experience static friction, until sudden braking or swerving causes static friction to be overcome and sliding friction to begin.

The most egregious item of wrongful judicial finger-pointing was to say that former engineering director Gary Moore engaged in “misconduct” because he dismissed an unsolicited sales gimmick and didn’t share it with colleagues as he found it “senseless.”  Wilton-Siegel believes that if Moore had shared the so-called report with engineering colleagues, the city “could have taken steps sooner.”  Then again, maybe they wouldn’t - if Moore’s engineering colleagues shared his opinion about the senselessness of the Tradewind’s contentions and evidence.  Wilton-Siegel offers pure speculation; and he fails to state which of Moore’s colleagues would have recommended a multi-million dollar repaving so soon after its initial construction.

Wilton-Siegel hinted at, but didn’t point a judicial finger at, the environmental groups whose demands were satisfied by building the RHVP with numerous tight curves with insufficient banking in the curves.  I said at the time that this was endangering human lives, but nobody listened, or cared.

-30-

*REPOSTED* The city could have saved themselves several millions of dollars if they had simply accepted the following as the findings of the judicial inquiry:

 I blame the wackos

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Feb 2019

Trouble with the Red Hill Expressway?  Water doesn’t drain away quick enough?  Road weaves too much?  Asphalt a little slick?

I blame the wackos – the environmentalist wackos who have afflicted the Expressway project since the 1970s.

You have to be of a certain age to remember the vigor and intensity of the opposition to building a road that became part of Hamilton’s official transportation plan in 1963.  Remember the save the valley campaign of the 1970s and early 1980s?  The professional integrity of every engineer who supported the plan was unscrupulously attacked.  The NDP government of Bob Rae withheld funding.  When construction finally began, wackos were trying to live in trees to halt it.  This die-in-the-last-ditch resistance was based ostensibly on environmentalism.

The environmentalist wackos claimed that the rare Red Hill flying squirrel would go extinct if the road were built.  The wackos claimed that the Red Hill valley was a “lung” of the city, purifying the air, and the city would be overwhelmed with air pollution if a road was run down the “lung.”  No objection went unused.

The Consolidated Hearings Board of 1985 recommended approval of the project to the Ontario government with a proviso that the design of the road take into account some of the concerns of the wackos.

An important thing to understand about environmentalism is that it places a higher value on the “environment” – whatever that means - than it does on human life.  One concern of the wackos was that storm run-off from the road would “scour” the bed of the Red Hill creek, whose course, being natural, mustn’t be touched.  Well, some modification was inevitable, but the engineers took the rate of run-off concern seriously.  There are large catch basins at the top of the Expressway that collect run-off, and the flow into the creek is throttled.  The initial design didn’t work out so well, and some flooding of homes occurred.

The banking of curves in roads is important in the speed at which those curves can be safely taken.  The greater the banking, the higher the safe speed.  But the higher the banking, the faster the run-off of water.  If the degree of banking were low to reduce the speed of run-off, and hence the “scouring” of the creek bed, it would mean that water would remain on the road longer and the safe speed of the curve would be lower – wet or dry.

If, in addition, the road were made curvy rather than straight in order to accommodate the existing creek bed and to reduce the rate of run-off, you create a road that imposes more lateral forces on the traffic than is necessary.  Lateral forces that engage with the low banking in the unnecessary curves.

Two other gestures to the wackos were: to call the road a “Parkway” rather than an “Expressway” and to set the speed limit at a low 90 kph.  Under normal conditions, a highway speed of 100 kph would be expected, and I’m sure a speed study would show that average traffic speeds are at least that or more.  The difference between normal highway speed and posted speed limit tends to create a differential of 30 kph under normal conditions, on a curvy road with low banking.  On dry pavement in daylight, no big problem.

On wet pavement or at night, a large speed differential could become a problem if drivers don’t adapt to the conditions and if slow drivers don’t politely stay in the right lane.  Straight road, less of a problem.

It’s rich to watch vengeful wackos laugh in grim triumph as the city encounters alleged problems with the Expressway.  If the city is having problems is it because the traffic engineers who designed the road didn’t follow the purest principles of good road construction but shaved at the edges to accommodate the concerns of the wackos?

The climate of recrimination created by wacko tactics in the past may be corrupting management of the problems caused by accommodating wacko concerns.

-30-

 

Vincent J. Curtis testified in support of the Expressway before the Consolidated Hearings Board in 1985.

 

 

 

Flacking for Trudeau

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Nov 23

RE: Questions of Conservative judgement. Editorial The Hamilton Spectator 28 Nov 23.

Flacking for the Trudeau Liberals in media has become intense over the last few days, as the spectre of their hero losing the next election to Pierre Poilievre become more real. Belatedly, they’re trying to “define” Poilievre, which means they’re trying to smear him, making him unacceptable to the general public and even to polite society.

The consistent lines of attack are: his questioning about the potential terrorist attack on the Rainbow Bridge, his unchivalrous discourtesy to a female CP reporter, and most especially, the CPC vote against an update of an existing Free Trade treaty with Ukraine.

The CPC voted against the trade deal update because one provision mentioned a requirement for carbon taxes. Ukraine already has a carbon tax, and so does Canada; so why should this even be in a treaty update? What the provision does is lock Canada’s carbon tax into an international trade treaty, meaning that Poilievre, to repeal Canada’s carbon tax, will also have to abrogate all, or part, of an international treaty.  If the CPC had voted for the update, it would give Trudeau cause to crow about Poilievre having voted for a carbon tax. You won’t hear this explanation in the Trudeau flacking MSM.

The Rainbow Bridge business was thought so much to be a potential terrorist attack that the FBI were called in to investigate, who found it not to be. As for the MSM whining about Poilievre’s unchivalrousness towards a female CP reporter, who attempted a gotcha question, well, equal treatment works both ways.

The Left is known to coordinate its actions, but the degree of similarity of lines of attack against Poilievre in the MSM makes one wonder how deep the collusion goes.

-30-

The glory of the hockey-stick

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Nov 23

RE: World racing well past warming limits as carbon emissions rise. AP story by Seth Borenstein, The Hamilton Spectator 21 Nov 23

The glory of hockey-stick climate “science” is that its phenomena aren’t bound by the laws of physics and chemistry. For example, in ordinary physics, moving past a “tipping point” results in an irreversible forward movement in that direction, often with accelerating speed.  Not so in climate “science.” The hockey stickers believe that, with enough earnest effect, one can reverse the irreversible sudden forward acceleration.

As reported by AP’s science writer, the lacklustre Seth Borenstein, “the 1.5-degree goal is based on a time period measured over many years, not days, ‘scientists said.’” So, the tipping point isn’t really a tipping point; it’s just a permanent increase in global temperature, confirmed after many years. And so, that the world passed 1.5 degrees for 86 or 127 days this year, doesn’t matter; it’s only a foretaste of what’s to come!

As for the earnest effort, “To have an even money shot at keeping warming to the 1.5C limit, … countries have to slash their emissions 42 percent by the end of the decade.” Since this is science, why is this claim merely an “even money shot?”

Actual atmospheric physicists have computed that doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in an increase in global temperature of 0.72C. That’s it. Raising the question, what the hell are the hockey-stickers actually measuring to say 1.5 or 2.0?

The big mystery is the claim of 1.5 “above.” Above what?  Above “pre-industrial levels.” Well, what’s that number; they must have one to say that we’re 1.5 above it?  They won’t say, because once they do, the game is up.  First question, how do you know, given there were only ten stations measuring temperature in the whole world in 1850, and most of them were in the US? And if you say it’s 12.8C, then 14.8C doesn’t seem all that dangerous.

The game of the hockey-stickers is to keep the donkey moving forward by holding a carrot in front of it, while beating it mercilessly with threats and imprecations.

-30-

Empty credentialism

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Nov 23

RE: More gas plants threat to health. Op-ed by Dr. Mili Roy. The Hamilton Spectator 18 Nov 23.

If there is anything remarkable about the op-ed penned by Professor Dr. Mili Roy, it is how casually she exposes her complete ignorance of the subject she is writing about.  It is as if no serious professionals familiar with the matter and the allegations this which eye doctor is making don’t read the popular press.

Her analysis of an alleged looming climate crisis is nothing rldr but the usual banal nonsense you read about in the mainstream media. She’s either unaware of, or dismisses out of hand, claims by dozens of famous scientists who say there is no climate crisis, the claims of global warming are vastly overstated, and are nothing to worry about.

Her claims about natural gas (methane) display a particular lack of refinement. There’s the lab and then there’s the real world. Methane is not a dangerous greenhouse gas: first, it’s only present in the atmosphere at 2 ppm concentration; it’s infra-red absorption is in a low-energy part of the infrared spectrum, and that absorption peak is itself overlapped by a water vapor band besides.

Her claims of health harms are absurd. Methane is clean-burning, has none of the potentially harmful chemicals that are found in raw coal, and produces no particulates upon combustion. That’s why natural gas stoves can be safely used in the home.  The claim that “air pollution causes 6,600 premature deaths in Ontario each year” is a canard first floated by the OMA in 2005, when they claimed 1,500 premature deaths per year to support their demand that Ontario shutdown her coal fired power plants in Nanticoke and Lambton. When I challenged the OMA’s claim, demanding to see death certificates, the OMA responded vigorously to obscure their admission that there weren’t any. Quite obviously, the adjective ‘premature’ creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

There is absolutely nothing to Dr. Roy’s claims; hers is just another example of waving the authority of her eye doctor credentials to pretend to authority in physics and chemistry. And she's obviously never seen a natural gas stove.

-30-

Amateur advises the Pro

Do your homework

Vincent J. Curtis

17 Nov 23

RE: Poilievre needs to drop the complaining. Op-ed by Craig Wallace.  The Hamilton Spectator 17 Nov 23.

Once again, we see complete political amateurs giving advice to the professionals. Craig Wallace advices Pierre Poilievre to “stop complaining!”  (It’s just too damned effective right now against the reviled Justin Trudeau.)

Wallace doesn’t ask for much, only “a detailed, peer-reviewed, science-based alternative policy.” Wallace needs to do his homework.  Environmental economist Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph has been doing research on carbon taxes since the 1990s, and he’ll find instructive McKittrick’s article in the October 6, 2020 Financial Post entitled, “If carbon taxes work, why all the new regulations?” Trudeau’s carbon tax was not based on “detailed peer-reviewed science.” Taxing an inelastic demand doesn’t reduce demand.

But here is some peer-reviewed policy alternative: do nothing.  Canada’s contribution to world CO2 emissions is negligible; and China, India, and Russia are paying no attention to this Western mania about plant food in the air. Even if you believe the Western mania, there’s nothing Canada can do about it.  And the hard physics is that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will cause a 0.72℃ rise in global temperature. Nothing to worry about; it’ll get lost in the noise.

Poilievre will have a lot of brake-slamming and reversing to do in his first term.

-30-

Renewables' real costs

Vincent J. Curtis

11 Nov 23

RE: Why Ontario should embrace renewables. Op-ed by Gideon Forman, a policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation.  The Hamilton Spectator 11 Nov 23.

The article by a propagandist from the Suzuki institute should be read with great skepticism.  In 2010, University of Guelph economist Ross McKittrick calculated that it would require 7 MW of nameplate wind generation to replace 1 MW of conventional generation because wind is that unreliable.  In addition, behind every windmill is a natural gas generator to supply power when the wind isn’t blowing.  Beyond that is all the addition copper wiring and transmission lines required to tie together these widely separated windmills, whereas conventional generation (including nuclear) have a tiny footprint compared to a wind generating facility.

Wind power is considered baseline power, meaning the grid has to take the power when it’s generated, no questions asked; meaning keeping the grid stable is a continuous engineering challenge.

Another unmentioned problem with windmills is their short service life.  Siemens AG of Germany is in serious financial trouble because the windmills they sold in Europe with an expected lifetime of 25 years turned out to have only 12 years of actual service life.

I don’t trust for a moment the quoted cost of $48 per MW-hr of production with all the subsidies built into the renewables project.  The capital costs and cost to the environment that these enormous facilities themselves have are completely ignored in the Suzuki cost analysis.

Ontario is far better off looking to develop its nuclear capability with nat gas generation providing on-demand peak power.  That is, if Ontario wants a stable, cost-efficient grid without fear of blackouts.

-30-

Climate Scammin’

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Nov 23

RE: Report shows world struggling to get on track in climate change fight.  AP story by Seth Borenstein. The Hamilton Spectator 15 Nov 23

AP’s senior climate propagandist uncorked another stinkeroo with his report on science papers hectoring “the (Western) world” for not getting with the program. Most people understand a far-fetched claim, citing a cause so remote it can’t possibly be true; they also understand the adage “Many a slip ‘twixt lip and cup.”  Well, those are some of the problems with the propaganda regurgitated by the lackluster Seth Borenstein.

‘More people dying of heat’ is fakery in several respects.  The first is statistics; the researchers can’t possibly know for sure that the numbers they claim are right; but we do know that more people die every year from cold than from heat. Another problem is that the temperature this year is the same as it was in 1998, all intervening years being less than 1998, so how can people be dying in greater numbers from global warming, when it didn’t warm in the period? Oh, they’re comparing 1991-2000 to 2012-2022. Sorry, statistics from India and China in 1991-2000 are not reliable. Look, to die of heat takes a lot more than an invisible change in climate. (Climate change is what’s supposed to happen in 2100.)

Speaking of India and China, they and Russia are the reasons the world will never get with the climate program, and together these nations contribute half of the world’s annual CO2 emissions. Westerners can wring their hand and don sackcloth and ashes, and it won’t matter a damn to rising CO₂.

Luckily, the hard physics of it is that the Green House Effect of CO2 is already maxxed out, and doubling CO₂ from 400 to 800 ppm has negligible effect on global temperature, a mere 0.72℃.

The world will never “get back on track” because more than half of it doesn’t buy into this Western mania about CO₂.

-30-

More from the Linney Bin & other stories

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 23

RE: Students to take part in climate rally. Op-ed by Grant Linney, who boasts of being trained by Al Gore in 2010 and having given over 200 presentations on climate. The Hamilton Spectator 14 Nov 23.

If there’s anything good about students out protesting over climate, it’s that they won’t be in class having their heads stuffed with nonsense about climate change.  Grant Linney worries over the psychological harm coming to students because of this “existential crisis on young people,” which amount to nothing more than his propaganda.

What is “climate” anyway? Climate is an opinion of what the weather should be based on the previous 30 years. The planet is still warming from the Little Ice Age, and some experts believe still warming from the last (Pliocene) ice age.  There is no correlation between rising CO2 and temperature, as there have been period of falling and long periods of stable global temperature despite continuously rising CO2.

The business of 1.5 or 2.0 was pulled out of a hat, for no one know what the best climate possible is; perhaps the Holocene Climatic Optimum, from 9,500 to 5,500 years ago when temperatures were much higher than today.  Nevertheless, the latest climate physics shows that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in a temperature rise of only 0.72℃.  Nothing to worry about.

If there was a prison for spreading climate misinformation, Linney belongs in it next to his pal, Al Gore.

-30-

 

Waddle the plank

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 23

RE: HCA Climate plan doesn’t match threat, director says. Story by Richard Leitner.  The Hamilton Spectator 14 Nov 23

Some of the climate crazies on the HCA board are worse than others.  Brian McHattie, for instance, thinks that the HCA, by its own heroic actions, save the planet, or at least the HCA lands, from “climate change” by its own heroic efforts.  In the grip of some fever or other, McHattie was heard to expostulate about a need for “extraordinary responses”

HCA Climate Director Fionnula Wade tried to soothe the feverish McHattie with comforting words about having spent scads of thousands on an EV SUV, and will now spend near four-score thousand more on multiple places to plug it in - and receive a grant of 5k for it!  In addition, near three-score thousands were spent on a building, and reduced its carbon footprint by 22 tons per year – the equivalent of five gas-powered vehicles off the road, she gushed.

The average carbon footprint of a Canadian is 20 tons per year.  The HCA could have saved all the money and still cut its CO2 emissions if Brian McHattie quit the board and the place left unfilled. The amount could be doubled if Wade’s position were deemed redundant.

-30-

Nothing to offer

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 23

RE: Advocates call on Council to reform Board of health. Story by Teviah Moro. The Hamilton Spectator 14 Nov 23

These “advocates” want a Board that reflects the city’s diversity. What they mean by diversity is unclear: is it racial diversity, sexual diversity, diversity in professional competence, or these and more?

Nothing could be more democratic, representative, professional, as well as responsible than the current organiztion of the Board, which consists of 16 city councillors who are informed by public health staff.  These ‘advocates’ want something, on the grounds of diversity, that isn’t representative, is less professional, and, most importantly, isn’t responsible.  The bad, new idea would be of a Board that is “fully separate from council” and have “final decision making power” – and here’s the funny part – with powers shared between the city’s elected representatives and ‘”community representatives.”

These advocates need lessons on civics before they can seize control of the Board of Health; the city council are the community’s representatives, by law not self-appointment.

The first question Councillors should ask the advocates is, “where are you going to get the money?” and the second is, “who is going to enforce your ‘final’ decisions?”

The genius of the British-Canadian constitutional principle of political fusion is found in the current structure of the Board; change will only result in inefficiency.

-30-  

 

 

Foreigners hectoring Canada

Vincent J. Curtis

9 Nov 23

RE: Major fossil-fuel producers failing on climate targets, jeopardizing transition. CP story by Jordan Omstead. The Hamilton Spectator 9 Nov 23

Speaking of jeopardizing: the cosseting, jet-setting climate nuts who authored this report are hectoring Canada about not reducing Alberta’s oil production, while spreading nonsense about an alleged climate crisis, in order to protect their comfortable incomes.  They don’t care about middle class people who have to scratch out a living, except to the extent they don’t want to become one of them.

By some accounts, the world is already 1.8℃ above “pre-industrial” temperatures (never giving a firm number), and the climate hasn’t fallen, collapsed or dissolved in chaos as we were long promised.  In short, another climate hoax.  The figure of 1.5 was pulled out of the nether regions.  There is no evidence that the planet’s current climates (for there are many) are the absolute best that can be, and that anything warmer, as occurred several times since the end of the last ice age, would be disastrous to the world.

The hard physics of it is that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would increase global temperature by 0.72℃, nothing to worry about; and no reason for the Western world to destroy its economies just to shut-up incessant Marxist fear-mongers.

A growing world, to escape mass poverty, will need growing quantities of oil and gas; and Alberta, Canada, is helping to sustain global economic growth.

-30-

The Assault Rifle 1918-1967

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Mar 23

1918-1942

Since the “assault rifle” ban in the United States (1994 to 2004), a lot of public debate in Canada has gone into what an assault “style” rifle is.  Rifles and assaulting being of professional interest to soldiers, below is an account of some elements of the evolution of assault style military rifles.

We start with the Browning Automatic Rifle (M1918).  Designed by the legendary John Moses Browning, it was to be used by American troops in the assault of German trenches in World War I.  Many of the assaulting troops would carry these things.  Upon leaving the trench, the BAR-man would fire a round from the hip every time his left foot hit the ground to keep enemy heads down - so-called walking fire - and in the final assault, the rifle would be switched into automatic mode.  The BAR fired the full powered .30-06 Springfield cartridge, and was, of necessity, long and heavy to be controllable when employed in full auto mode from the hip.  It was fed by a 20 round detachable box magazine, which gave it a lot of firepower for the day.  The BAR was not designed for clearing trenches, just getting there.

Despite its original purpose, the BAR is not considered an assault rifle.  It’s too heavy and unwieldy for close-in work - as it had to be because it fires a full-powered rifle cartridge.  The BAR was never tactically deployed in WWI, and was used as a squad support weapon in WWII and Korea.

Also developed in WWI was the Bergmann MP-18 (Maschinenpistole 18), the first submachine gun. It was issued to German sturmtruppen in 1918.  It fired the 9 mm Parabellum pistol cartridge.  Shorter and handier than a rifle, it was effective in trench fighting.  Submachine guns are not considered to be assault rifles because the cartridges they fire lack power and range.  Since submachine guns typically fire from an open bolt, they lack useful accuracy beyond 50 yards, whereas rifles are accurate beyond 300 yards.

Between the wars, the British developed the famous Bren light machine gun.  It was purpose built as a squad support weapon, and features a quick detachable, replaceable barrel; meaning it isn’t a rifle. The Bren could be used in walking-fire mode.  Because it has a replaceable barrel, the Bren is a step up from the BAR.

The German MP-38/40 submachine guns, designed by Hugo Schmeisser, are not considered assault rifles: the 9 mm cartridge lacks power and range, and the weapons simply lack the accuracy of a rifle.  The Machine Pistol idea will be important later in the war.

The M1 Carbine was developed befor the United States entered WWII.  It fires the .30 Carbine cartridge, which is like a hot .357 Magnum – powerful but still pistol-ish.  The M1 Carbine was developed to replace the Colt M1911 handgun.  The M2 Carbine is the fully automatic version of the M1.  The M2 is on the verge of being considered an assault rifle because it’s select fire, but the cartridge is a little light for serious rifle work, and the M2 Carbine is not considered an assault rifle by the experts.

In WWII, the Germans developed the FG-42, a rifle for their parachute troops.  This rifle is short, light, and handy for a rifle.  The 20 round detachable box magazine enters the left side of the receiver above the trigger group.  It fires the full powered 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge, and is select fire.  It was designed to fill the gap when the squad LMG, the Maschinengewehr (MG)-34, wasn’t available.  (The disastrous assault on Crete was behind its development.)  Though modern even by today’s standards, the FG-42 is not considered an assault rifle because that full-powered cartridge makes the rifle hard to control in full-auto fire unless the bipod is deployed and the rifleman is prone behind it.  It was not designed for clearing trenches or rooms; it was a paratrooper’s rifle (Fallschirmjagergewehr).

##################################################################

1943-1960

The first “assault rifle” was designed by Hugo Schmeisser (of MP-38/40 fame) between 1938 and 1943; it represented his vision of the next generation of military firearm, combining the attributes of a submachine gun with a rifle.  It was designated the StG-43, succeeded later by the StG-44/MP-44.    StG stands for “Sturmgewehr”, literally storm rifle, following sturmtruppen. Storming was something the Nazis thought was grand - the party published a weekly newspaper called “Der Sturmer.”  From sturm we get storming or “assault.”

Giving it the sexy name “sturmgewehr” (vice the technical designation maschinenkarabiner machine, or automatic, carbine) was a way of selling the concept to Hitler, who didn’t buy it anyway because he wanted semi-automatic sniper rifles developed for mass production.  The program was renamed MP-44, for Hitler would accept new development in submachine guns.  The StG-43/MP-44 was select fire, chambered the 8 mm Kurz intermediate power cartridge, was short, reasonably light, and handy.  It was fed by a 30 round detachable box magazine.  The 7.92X33 mm Kurz was created by shortening the parent Mauser case, and using a bullet of the same diameter but of shorter length, reducing bullet weight from 198 to 125 grains.  Recoil from the 8 mm Kurz was significantly lessened.  The MP-44 put a lot of easy, controllable firepower into the hands of the infantry soldier, and the rifle could still reach out effectively beyond 300 m.  The troops loved it.  It was automatic like a submachine gun, and not as punishing as the Mauser K98k.

During WWII, the Soviets were famous for their submachine guns and their tank riders.  After the war, the AK-47 was developed based on the example of the MP-44, and was to replace the submachine gun in Soviet service carried by the tank riders.  The AK-47 was select fire, and was supplied by a 30 round detachable box magazine.  It fired the 7.62x39 mm cartridge, first developed for the SKS.  The AK-47 is considered an assault rifle even though originally deployed as a submachine gun replacement; it was, however, carried by assault troops.

The SKS, fielded in 1945, was designed to be the replacement for the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 in Soviet service.  It was semi-automatic only, was fed by a 10 round internal magazine, and chambered the 7.62x39 mm cartridge.  The SKS is not considered an assault rifle.

After WWII, the U.S. developed the M-14 to replace the M1 Garand.  The M-14 was designed to be select fire, but the cartridge it chambered was the full power 7.62x51 mm NATO cartridge, making this light-ish rifle uncontrollable in full auto mode.  Neither the M1 Garand nor the M-14 are considered assault rifles.

Now we come to another American firearms genius, Eugene Stoner.  His first major offering was the Armalite AR-10.  It chambered the 7.62X51 mm NATO cartridge and was fed from a 20 round detachable box magazine.  Employing aluminum and plastic, it was remarkably light and handy; its straight line design made it more controllable than the M-14 in full auto fire, but you still couldn’t clear a room with one on full auto like you can with a submachine gun.  The AR-10 came too late in trials to be accepted by the U.S. military, but it was manufactured under license overseas and sold to a number of militaries of minor countries during the 1960s.

The AR-15 was a miniaturization of the AR-10.  Stoner developed a bullet for the notably accurate .222 Remington cartridge, so that it would pass a military test for lethality; and with some tinkering, the .223 Remington was born.  The AR-15 chambered it.  The USAF was interested in replacing their M1 and M2 Carbines with which their guard troops were equipped, and the AR-15 attracted favourable attention.  Colt also attracted interest in the AR-15 from East Asian countries, whose soldiers were often 5’2” and 120 lbs.  The M1 Garand, which the U.S. offered in military aid, were beasts for soldiers of that size, and the AR-15 sold itself.

########################################################################

1960-1967

Armalite sold its patents on the AR-10 and -15 to Colt in 1960.  Because of problems manufacturing the M-14 and of the pressing needs of the war in Vietnam, the U.S. DoD began, in 1963, ordering AR-15s, designated the XM-16E1, in hundreds of thousands to fill the gap until something better was developed and in production.

Well, it turned out that nothing better came along, and the M-16 and its lineal descendants remain the standard issue service rifle in the U.S. today.

The AR-15 today now refers to a semi-automatic only version of the original Stoner rifle and its subsequent modifications.  Colt started selling semi-automatic rifles branded “Colt AR-15” on the civilian market in 1964, the same time Colt began filling large US military contracts.  These rifles were made semi-automatic by deleting the auto sear from the trigger group.  Hence, our question is, “is the M-16 an assault rifle?”

The M-16 fires an intermediate power cartridge and is select fire.  It’s controllable in full auto mode, can fill the role of a submachine gun but not that of a light machine gun.  By these criteria, the M-16 is an “assault” rifle, though it was never developed with the “assault” intention in mind.  It was intended to be the next generation service rifle, superior to the M2 Carbine; and not to fill a niche role, as the AK-47 was.  Assaulting positions in a human-wave charge like in WWI, while firing something in full auto mode, simply isn’t in the U.S. infantry manual - anymore.  Technically, the M-16 meets all the criteria of an assault rifle; so, yes, an expert would say that the M-16 qualifies as an assault rifle, but I put an asterisk next to it because “sturm” nowhere enters this picture.  The non-intentional and technically accurate “automatic carbine” (maschinenkarabiner) is its proper classification, in my view.

After the AR-15, Eugene Stone came up with the AR-18 concept.  Where the AR-15 uses a direct impingement gas system, the AR-18 uses a short-stroke piston to cycle the action.  The AR-18 is much like the AR-15 in design purpose - an automatic carbine - but was intended to be manufactured in third world countries, required little sophisticated machining to build, and it got around the direct-gas impingement patent owned then by Colt.  Also chambering the .223 Remington, the AR-18 was made in a few thousands; it’s most famous descendent is the British SA-80.    The SA-80 is a bullpup arrangement, and meets all the criteria of an assault rifle; but like the M-16, it was developed as the next-generation, general-issue service rifle and not for a specific niche role.  The AR-180 is the semi-automatic version of the AR-18, and was sold on the civilian market.

The last Stoner design we’ll consider is the Stoner 63.  This interesting firearm could be configured in six different ways, including: as a rifle, a carbine, a Bren style automatic rifle, and a belt-fed light machine gun.  It was adopted by the U.S. Navy SEALs in 1967, and used in Vietnam primarily in the belt-fed LMG configuration.  With a 15” barrel, a 100 or 150 round belt in a box underneath the receiver, the Stoner could be rested on the ground using the box housing in place of a bipod, and a squad of four SEALs could put out the firepower of a platoon.  It was remarkably light and controllable, which is why it was so popular in Vietnam.  The Stoner, as configured by the SEALs, is a world-beater for clearing trenches, rooms, and jungle clearings as required, and for any other assault purpose; but only in its rifle and carbine configurations would it be classed as an “assault rifle.”  Technically, the preferred SEAL configuration is an LMG.

The Canadian FN C1 and C2 are not assault rifles.  They are long, and fire the full power 7.62 NATO cartridge.  The C1 was not intended to fire in full auto, though the sear can be slipped to make it do so.  It is uncontrollable in full automatic fire, as is the C2 when fired standing.  The C2 fills the same role as the BAR: a second-rate squad support weapon.

The purpose-built “assault rifles” covered here are the BAR and the AK-47.  All the automatic carbines are, by intention, improved, general issue, next-generation service rifles, whose principle improvement is the ability to fill the role of a submachine gun.  The expression “assault rifle” was originally coined to sell the new rifle concept to Adolph Hitler, the term “sturm” having a cachet among Nazis.  Hitler wasn’t seduced, and so the concept was continued in development, in spite of him, as a new submachine gun, the MP-44.  After the war, the sturmgewehr concept was translated and accepted as “assault rifle” which was a rifle (a carbine, really) with certain characteristics: select fire, intermediate powered cartridge, magazine fed, controllable in full auto, and capable of filling the role of a submachine gun.  The experts typically don’t consider the intended role of the weapon in the classification of a rifle being an “assault rifle” or not, and perhaps they ought to adopt the non- intentional, and technically accurate, expression “automatic carbine.”  Fully automatic rifles weren’t designed to “kill as many cabinet members as possible in the shortest time;” they were designed to win the fire-fight by putting more rounds downrange than the enemy was.

The public debate over what constitutes an assault rifle in style amounts to a discussion of undeclared, unexamined prejudices in disguise, with the opportunity to employ illicit substitutions in argument.  “Style” in this case, means that the things in question don’t actually possess the offending automatic characteristic: they only resemble the offending thing stylistically; and “assault” sounds so terrifying, menacing, and insensitive.

-30-                                                                                                          

 

 

 

Fanatical Stupidity is the real problem

Vincent J. Curtis

6 Nov 23

RE: Price of fossil fuels the real problem.  Op-ed by Catherine McKenna. The Hamilton Spectator 6 Nov 23.

You’d think that the editors who turned the Hamilton Spectator into the Dog’s Nest Dispatch would realize that surviving 2024 is of more immediate importance than adapting to some speculative 2100; but no.  They continue to run articles on stupid climate alarmism written by stupid people advocating stupid policies.

Catherine McKenna was once known as Canada’s climate Barbie, for her blonde good looks and empty head.  She didn’t run in the 2021 Federal election, though the then Minister of Environment and Climate Change, as a growing scandal of millions of dollars of unaccounted-for no-bid contracts issued by her department threatened to engulf her reputation. That scandal died with her candidacy.

McKenna proposes a smarter carbon tax.  Her proposal proves she knows nothing about economics, either, as the carbon tax is a tax on an inelastic demand.  People still have to heat their homes in winter and drive to work, and people must do these things practically regardless of the cost to do so.  People will find the money by economizing in other areas; but as we saw in the Maritime carbon tax holiday on home heating oil, even this has limits.

Worrying about climate change is stupid.  Measures that allegedly will prevent it are stupid.  The people advocating such things, by and large, are stupid, or have a financial interest in keeping up the hoax.

What’s the reason the Dispatch, er, the Spectator’s excuse?

-30-