U.S. Army Says 5.56mm Is Adequate

[Brenjen]

That looks exactly like my M-14 right down to the harris bipod & flip-up lens covers.

[Maverick]

Hang I was refering to an earlier post by someone else talking about 3 to 4 different weapons in a squad. Ungood logistically.

Where is the magazine in that snipers M14 pix posted?

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Maverick
Hang I was refering to an earlier post by someone else talking about 3 to 4 different weapons in a squad. Ungood logistically.

Where is the magazine in that snipers M14 pix posted?

They have 5, 10, 20 round mags. The 5 rounder is flush with the bottom of the weapon. They like the short mags to keep the profile low... the kid probably figured he'd be laying a bit flatter without the bipod and resting the weapon on the paraphet directly.. looks like he didn't like the angles and flicked the bipod down then scooched over to the right edge paraphet to get a bit higher behind the weapon.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh, and the M-1 CARBINE carried a PISTOL caliber round, and was intended for use by officers who could not shoot well with the 1911.

Make note people.  This is the first time, and possibly the only time ever that Virgil IS WRONG.  Keep it in the forefront of your mind so you can insult and tease virgil from hence forth.

The M-1 Carbine carried an intermediate round.  I'll post some numbers for comparison.

The M-1 Carbine fired the 7.62x33 round.  The round was NOT necked down.  It moved at around 1980 FPS.  The round had 109 grains to it.  Roughly 950 foot pounds.

The Kurzpatrone (in the STG 44) had the following stats: 7.92x33mm (necked) 2132 fps, 107 grains and 1070 foot pounds.

The AK 7.62 has: 7.62x39mm, 2328 FPS, 122 grains, 1463 foot pounds.

The .308 for comparison has: 7.62x51mm, 2650 fps, 150 grains, and 2450 foot pounds.

And just for ****s and giggles, a 9mm: 1502, 88.6, and 439 foot pounds.

The .45: 846, 230, and 370.

The M1C round falls on the low side of the intermediate cartridge range, but it is clearly way above a pistol cartridge.


And the M1Carbine was not meant for that at all.  It was originally designed as a replacement for the 1911 for back line and supply troops.  Or, as a partial replacement that is.  At the time, we did not have mass quantities of 1911 for all officers and non front line troops.  The problem is that the gun turned out to be very reliable as a light weapon on it's own, above and beyond an alternate for the 1911.

So the military realized it had a decent weapon, and started to issue it as a front line weapon.

No, Assault Carbines are medium sized weapons firing intermediate cased rounds with full auto capability. Like the SKS, AK's, M-16, etc. Assault RIFLES fire Rifle caliber and case rounds, and have full auto capability.. and in fact, with the M-16 now clipped to a 2 round 'auto' burst, it's just a freakin light carbine... it sure as hell ain't an 'Assault Rifle'.

Please don't think that we are arguing semantics here.  We are not.  You are just plain wrong.

The term assault rifle has to do with what the weapon can do, not the length of the barrel.  Any particular assault rifle can be clipped down into a carbine, that does not change the fact that it is STILL AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

The term "Battle Rifle" is exactly like I described it.  It is a larger rifle, with more range firing a more powerful bullet.  The term battle rifle does not denote automatic fire at all.  The 1903 is a battle rifle, as is the M14 as well as the FAL.  They are battle rifles BECAUSE they are larger and fire bigger rifle rounds.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Please don't think that we are arguing semantics here.  We are not.  You are just plain wrong.

LOL... You call a Carbine (hell, even the Army called it a Carbine) an Assault Rifle and then tell me I'm wrong.,.. and we ain't arguing semantics. You wearin a dress? ; cause you use logic like a woman.

Originally posted by lasersailor184

The term assault rifle has to do with what the weapon can do, not the length of the barrel.  Any particular assault rifle can be clipped down into a carbine, that does not change the fact that it is STILL AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

Enh? yer trying to make a case that any old carbine that can go full auto is an 'Assault Rifle'?

Actually, the term for a bobbed assault RIFLE is 'Carbine LENGTH'.  Semantics again. BTW, I never mentioned barrel length alone as a qualifer for the monicker 'Assault Carbine' since in my experience a Carbine had two features.. smaller ammo AND smaller size. Smaller than what, you say?? Smaller than a RIFLE!!!  

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The term "Battle Rifle" is exactly like I described it.  It is a larger rifle, with more range firing a more powerful bullet.  The term battle rifle does not denote automatic fire at all.  The 1903 is a battle rifle, as is the M14 as well as the FAL.  They are battle rifles BECAUSE they are larger and fire bigger rifle rounds.

How the hell do you spell potato?

A KAR98 is a Bolt Action Battle Rifle. A M91/30 is a Bolt Action Battle Rifle. A Garand is a self-loading Battle Rifle. A FAL is an Assault Rifle. An M-14 is an Assault Rifle. An AK-47 is an Assault CARBINE. An M-16 is an Assault CARBINE.

Need an example??.. lets use yours... AN M1 CARBINE is NOT an M1 RIFLE and it sure is hell NOT an ASSAULT RIFLE.

I rest my case.

Again.

Till yer next post.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I hate to tell you this, but the 30 carbine round isn't even a good pistol round. I own one of the damned things. Not only that, I reload it. Some one may for some reason "classify" it as a genuine rifle cartridge, but it ain't. You can put a 357 magnum in a Model 94 Winchester lever action carbine and it still won't be a rifle cartridge.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Here's your comparison:

30 M1 Carbine, 110 grain round nose bullet, from an 18" M1 Carbine, clocks 1950 feet per second, and by the way, it uses WW 296 pistol powder. A measely 15 grains.

357 Magnum, 110 grain hollow point, from an 18 Model 94 Winchester Carbine, clocks 2415 feet per second, and uses 23 grains of WW 296 pistol powder.

A more reasonable and effective load for your 357 is a 140 grain hollow point, over 19.5 grains of WW 296 pistol powder, at 2096 feet per second.

So, if anyone tries to tell you that the 30 M1 Carbine cartridge is ANY sort of rifle cartridge, there's your real facts. It ain't even as good as a 357 Magnum. It's a pistol cartridge, regardless of what the military "classified" it as.

Oh, and as my dear old Dad used to say, before he left this crappy world, "the M1 carbine was best used by a snot nosed lt. who couldn't hit a bull in the bellybutton with a base fiddle." Or, "we gave the 30 day wonders the carbine, because they were even worse with a 45". Having done his time in World War II and Korea, I figure he had some idea of what he was talking about. He was a Garand man, by the way. Somewhere I have his expert marksman ribbons.

[Dago]

This is your answer:



M14 receiver in a Sage stock.  Shortened barrel at 18.5 inches, with vortex flash suppressor.  Sufficient Picatinney rail for all the good accessories.  With either an Eotech sight (shown), open iron sights, or scope, you have a perfect battle rifle.

This stock holds the receiver as well as any bedded stock, and better than most.  The barrel free floats, the shoulder stock extends or collapses as needed.  

Fires the 7.62X51mm rounds (.308).  Great Close Quarters Battle Rifle,  and also with the inherent accuracy to make a pretty darn decent sniper rifle out to 600 meters when scoped.  

Can be reloaded with stripper clips or fast magazine change.  Extremely reliable well proven receiver.

This combo is currently in service with US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  SAGE stock can be had with 3 differant shoulder stock choices including the M4 collapsable version.

My next rifle build I think will be this one, just for fun.

[lasersailor184]

No point in arguing with you two.  You've believed something that is so wrong for so long that only a really heavy hammer could convince you otherwise.

Originally posted by SaburoS
Naw, was designed to tumble upon impact, causing a larger wound channel. That was the main reason for the 1 in 14" twist for the barrel. The original testing was done in thinner air that the later cold weather (denser air) testing revealed the flaw of the concept. The bullet was too unstable at that rifling. The 1 in 12" made it too stable in the moderate temps making the round far less lethal than anticipated.

Flash forward to when the SS109 62 grain round was introduced in the 1 in 12" rifling twist...same thing, too unstable. They tried the 1 in 7" to overstabilize but ran into premature wear issues. Settled on the 1 in 9".
Still the round is just too unpredictable.

Meant to address this, but got too worked up with the other stuff and forgot.

This is wrong.  THE MAIN REASON FOR CHOOSING THE 5.56 ROUND IS SO THAT IT CAN FRACTURE.  This was THE NUMBER ONE REASON for choosing the 5.56 over the .308.  A tumbling bullet isn't too much more dangerous then a non tumbling bullet, especially if it's practically a .22 caliber.  Anyway, above a certain speed, the bullet will fracture upon contact with skin.  The bullet fragments take on a shotgun pattern and create a nasty wound.  

This was true for the Ar-15.  However, the M-16 was almost an entirely different gun, including the ammo it used.  Of course, it wasn't really tested, it was just mass produced and given to our soldiers.  The problem then arose that the gun and the bullet were so mismatched that the two were wildly innaccurate, and the tumbling through the air killed all air velocity.  And like I've said before (which you have no doubtedly not read), the bullet needs to strike with a certain velocity to shatter.  If it doesn't hit with that velocity (which out of memory, I believe to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2500-2700 FPS) the bullet doesn't shatter, and thus you have a glorified .22 caliber bullet.

This is part of the reason why M4's don't have such a great effective range.  It's not that the gun can't reach the long distances, or that it can't do it accurattely.  It's that the bullet is leaving the muzzle at a much lower speed.  And if it's the same bullet from an M16 (and not customly talored), it's not going to break upon impact much sooner.  This is because the carbine doesn't have enough barrel length to get the bullet up to what it should be doing.  And thus you have a glorified 22.

Anyway, for most of the vietnam war, they constantly tried to update the M-16's, the bullets and the cleaning abilities at the same time.  But without focusing on one, they always had to match the ammo to the gun at each step.

Again, like I've said and you so gloriously ignored, the round does a GREAT job of wounding a soldier.  However, it does not Incapacitate a soldier.  Minus a vital organ shot (brain, heart, lungs) the soldier is still capable of fighting back.  Or at least, fighting back at that moment.  The number one thing you care about on a battlefield, is not how many guys you shot, but how many guys are shooting at you.  If you shoot a guy, and he's still shooting at you, you're in trouble.

And do not give me that bull**** about shooting one soldier effectively removes from the battlefield two more.  It is complete and utter crap.  It only applies to civilized armies.  The last time we fought a civilized country, it was during WW2.  And ironically, the other country we fought WAS NOT civilized.  Every single war since then we have fought people who fight with extreme zealotry that wounding a comrade does not stop their warriors.

[Brenjen]

Sweet Dago....SWEET! (build me one while you're at it)

 I must chime in, the .30 carbine fired rifle ammunition, granted it is weak & sucky, but it is rifle ammuniton. (I had one too Virgil - I got rid of it, but I do see why you compare the two)

The M-16 is not a carbine, the M-4 is the carbine version.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
snip~
This is wrong.  THE MAIN REASON FOR CHOOSING THE 5.56 ROUND IS SO THAT IT CAN FRACTURE.  This was THE NUMBER ONE REASON for choosing the 5.56 over the .308.  A tumbling bullet isn't too much more dangerous then a non tumbling bullet, especially if it's practically a .22 caliber.  Anyway, above a certain speed, the bullet will fracture upon contact with skin.  The bullet fragments take on a shotgun pattern and create a nasty wound. ~snip.

LOL, it's going to be a you're wrong! No, you're wrong! thread.
Sorry but you're wrong about the 5.56 and you have yet to address the rifling issue. That was the main reason to make it just this side of being stable. They wanted it to yaw and create a much larger permanent wound cavity as well as the "vaunted" temporary wound cavity. You're explaining the results of some incidents but not addressing the original design philosophy of the 5.56 x 45m round.

[Brenjen]

You're explaining the results of some incidents but not addressing the original design philosophy of the 5.56 x 45m round.

iirc the original purpose of the soviet design was a mirror of the reasons the U.S. designed it; so the troops could carry more ammo into the fight. The major difference in the two bullets being the air pocket the Soviets designed into the round behind the head of the bullet instead of a hollow-point. The 5.56x45 round will impact & create cavitation similar to a hollow point but fly like a FMJ. The U.S. thinking was penetration, thus the steel core SS 109's for going through body armor/flak vests, light skinned vehicles etc. The U.S. was trying to get the best of both worlds so to speak & the Russians saw the high velocity round as a chance to blow off peoples arms & legs:lol

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
~snip~Anyway, above a certain speed, the bullet will fracture upon contact with skin.  The bullet fragments take on a shotgun pattern and create a nasty wound.

That would  make it a frangible bullet and if that was the design intent, that would make it against the Hague Accords of 1899/1907. There's a reason the World's Military is using FMJ ammo. To get around that limitation, the .223 was designed to tumble on impact causing a much larger permanent wound cavity.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
This was true for the Ar-15.  However, the M-16 was almost an entirely different gun, including the ammo it used.  Of course, it wasn't really tested, it was just mass produced and given to our soldiers.  The problem then arose that the gun and the bullet were so mismatched that the two were wildly innaccurate, and the tumbling through the air killed all air velocity.

 
LOL! Tumbling through the air does a hell of a lot more than kill velocity. That's why they tightened the twist from 1 in 14" to 1 in 12" for the M193 55 grain bullet. The Vietnam issue weapons were using the 1 in 12" barrels, not the 1 in 14" (going by memory here).

Originally posted by lasersailor184
And like I've said before (which you have no doubtedly not read), the bullet needs to strike with a certain velocity to shatter.  If it doesn't hit with that velocity (which out of memory, I believe to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2500-2700 FPS) the bullet doesn't shatter, and thus you have a glorified .22 caliber bullet.

So if that's the case, I guess those hit with other bullets going at least 2500-2700 fps will "shatter". How about those hit with a .308, 30-06, .50, .338 Laupa? Do they shatter most of the time?

Originally posted by lasersailor184
This is part of the reason why M4's don't have such a great effective range.  It's not that the gun can't reach the long distances, or that it can't do it accurattely.  It's that the bullet is leaving the muzzle at a much lower speed.  And if it's the same bullet from an M16 (and not customly talored), it's not going to break upon impact much sooner.  This is because the carbine doesn't have enough barrel length to get the bullet up to what it should be doing.  And thus you have a glorified 22.

Hate to break it to you, but the .223 just doesn't have great effective range to start with. It's a cartridge design that for military purposes was for an AirForce survival rifle. It had to be light. Because it had to be light, it had to fire a small catridge. Because it had to fire a small cartridge, it had to carry a lot of ammo (err the soldier had to). Because it wasn't as lethal as the proven .308, the stupid reasoning of wounding was better than killing excuse was given. It started as a compromise where it still stands. It falls short in too many areas. A Jack of all trades that falls too short.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Anyway, for most of the vietnam war, they constantly tried to update the M-16's, the bullets and the cleaning abilities at the same time.  But without focusing on one, they always had to match the ammo to the gun at each step.

They introduced a different powder that the system wasn't designed to use. It fouled the chamber and bolt assembly way too excessively causing mostly failure to feed mallfunctions and lesser a failure to eject the fired casing.
It's still a crappy design to have the exhaust gas contaminate the rotating bolt assembly and foul the chamber. For the military, the gun sucks when regular maintenance can't be kept up (such as in prolonged firefights). For civillian use, it's a fine gun.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Again, like I've said and you so gloriously ignored, the round does a GREAT job of wounding a soldier.  However, it does not Incapacitate a soldier.  Minus a vital organ shot (brain, heart, lungs) the soldier is still capable of fighting back.  Or at least, fighting back at that moment.  The number one thing you care about on a battlefield, is not how many guys you shot, but how many guys are shooting at you.  If you shoot a guy, and he's still shooting at you, you're in trouble.

The goal of a battle is to:
1) Get the enemy to surrender.
2) Kill as much of the enemy if they won't surrender. Take in the prisoners of those who've survived.

It's a shoot to kill, not shoot to wound. Killing your enemy is the most sure way of taking them out of the fight.

Originally posted by lasersailor184
And do not give me that bull**** about shooting one soldier effectively removes from the battlefield two more.  It is complete and utter crap.  It only applies to civilized armies.  The last time we fought a civilized country, it was during WW2.  And ironically, the other country we fought WAS NOT civilized.  Every single war since then we have fought people who fight with extreme zealotry that wounding a comrade does not stop their warriors.

I agree with you, it is "bull****", but then you're addressing the wrong person here as I've not (until now) addressed the issue. BTW WWII was not "civilized".

For the record as to how I see the terms:
Assault rifle: M16, AK47, AK74, Galil AR 223,etc (intermediate catridge)
Battle rifle: M14, FN FAL, Galil Ar 308, etc ("real" rifle cartridge)

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Dago
This is your answer:





This combo is currently in service with US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  SAGE stock can be had with 3 differant shoulder stock choices including the M4 collapsable version.

It can't possibly be used there by our own forces as the 5.56 is...just...so...capable. I mean how will they possibly survive 'cause they just can't carry as much ammo as the 5.56mm guys? (sarcasm).

What's the overall weight of the weapon w/the EOTech?
Man, that's sweet.
If I didn't have my L1A1 congo mod, I'd go for one of those (drool).

!!!Warning!!!
Check that EOTech sight for paralax error. I found 3 samples defective before I found a good one.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Brenjen
Snip~The major difference in the two bullets being the air pocket the Soviets designed into the round behind the head of the bullet instead of a hollow-point. The 5.56x45 round will impact & create cavitation similar to a hollow point but fly like a FMJ. The U.S. thinking was penetration, thus the steel core SS 109's for going through body armor/flak vests, light skinned vehicles etc. The U.S. was trying to get the best of both worlds so to speak & the Russians saw the high velocity round as a chance to blow off peoples arms & legs:lol

The air pocket behind the enclosed tip is nothing new. The 168 grain HPBT match has been used for our snipers for decades. It's more for the shape of the bullet for the given weight that dictates that air pocket.

The original 55 grain M193 round was such an underperformer. The first instances of firing the 62 grain SS109 round resulted in tumbling in the air. They then gave up the "controlled" tumbling concept and wanted to stabilize the bullet to increase its consistency. Introduced the 1 in 7" rifling. great stability but found severe wear to be the result (as little as 3000 rounds fired, the barrels lost a lot of accuracy). They then switched to their happy medium of 1 in 9" twist.
Ah gotta love the compromise (sarcasm).

I don't know of any army that teaches their troops to not aim center mass (excluding snipers of course). The results of hitting arms or legs is due to poor marksmanship. Shoot to kill, not shoot to wound.