Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on June 09, 2006, 01:35:05 PM
-
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060607.aspx
"The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away."
Sure, tell a guy to "aim better" when he is under immediate threat of violant death. Why not just provide a heavier bullet that would drop bad guys straight to the dirt with even a grazing shot, like a .308 or 30-06. What the hell are they thinking anyway...this 5.56 round has been a problem since 1965 :mad:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060607.aspx
"The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away."
Sure, tell a guy to "aim better" when he is under immediate threat of violant death. Why not just provide a heavier bullet that would drop bad guys straight to the dirt with even a grazing shot, like a .308 or 30-06. What the hell are they thinking anyway...this 5.56 round has been a problem since 1965 :mad:
It's all symptomatic of the shift away from the 'marksmanship' skills that were a very large part of infantry training up to about 30 years ago. Now, it's volume of fire and manuver skills that are focused on. Individual long range rifle skills are no longer given much attention in basic or 11B AIT.
EDIT: which is a shame.. the M-16 IS an accurate weapon and can hit reliably at 300-500 yards if the shooter knows how to shoot. I don't think much of it's penetration capability relative to battlefield cover.. but it CAN hit out there.
-
My only complaint about the m16 is that you have to keep it very clean otherwise it's prone to jamming...
-
The 5.56mm is a pansy round and always has been. Hit someone with a 7.62mm round and they tend to stay still for a while afterwards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from the article:
"The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment."
Really?
Cool!
What fires a 6.8mm round?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1137109117_20029211530-0-swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
What fires a 6.8mm round?
A 6.8mm gun. :D
The U.S. Army is pretty serious about adopting a new caliber bullet for its infantry weapons. Now is the time to do it, as a new infantry rifle, the XM-8, is moving quickly through field testing. The proposed new caliber is 6.8mm (also known as .270). Officially, it's the 6.8mm Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) Special Forces troops were the first to use 6.8mm ammo in combat, and they were impressed with it's better (than 5.56mm bullets) ability to take down enemy troops. This should be no surprise, as the 6.8mm round is based on the 19th century 30-30 round. The 6.8mm round is a modified 30-30 caliber round based on the Remington 30 cartridge (first introduced in 1906). The 30-30 is a rimless round first designed for lever action rifles. Most of those lever action rifles you see in cowboy movies are 30-30s. The 30-30 round is still popular with deer hunters because of its ability to bring down deer (of up to about 400 pounds) or wild pigs (up to 300 pounds) at common hunting ranges (100-150 meters) without producing a lot of recoil, or requiring a heavy rifle. The 6.8mm round has a bullet that's about 40 percent lighter than 30-30 rounds, but about twice as heavy as the current 5.56mm bullet. The superior hitting power can be seen in comparing muzzle energy (1158 foot pounds for the 5.56mm bullet versus 1793 for the 6.8mm round.) At 500 meters it's 338 versus 600 foot pounds. This means that, out to about 600 meters, the 6.8mm round has about the same impact as the heavier 7.62mm round used in sniper rifles and medium machine-guns.
-
grandpa always said ""no lead out no meat in"" bigger is always better :aok
-
Dago,
If memory serves, those muzzle energy stats you just quoted for the 6.8mm round are virtually identical to the century old 6.5mm Swedish cartridge.
That cartridge size has always made a ton of sense, and was adopted in various forms by the military forces of many nations around the world. Low recoil enhances the shooter's ability to hit his target with a cartridge that is already inherently more accurate than the vast majority of cartridges in use around the world.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I had been thinking that a round based on either the .270 or the .243 with a smaller case similar to the 5.56mm would be a good compromise. It would allow better ballistics, better penetration and still allow a good ammunition load to be carried by the troops. Extreme range isn't the main focus for the individual rifleman. Much has been said about it but maintaining a high rate of supression fire allows maneuver against the enemy. Slow fire, even accurate slow fire doesn't get the job done which is why modern armies went to a multishot rifle. If the job could be done with slow fire, the old sharps with a smokeless load would be the premier arm.
-
So far in my experience, the 5.56mm(.223) round is a very good round for an assault rifle. All in all it is superior to the 7.62x39 round and would be superior to the 7.62x51(.308) round for an assault weapon application. Remember, a controlled rate of fire is important to these weapons.
While a .308 would certainly be better at long range, an M16 isnt made to reach out 600 yrds and touch someone. The article mentioned something about 100m long shots, but thats not even a particularly long shot for my SKS, which is not nearly as accurate at ranged shots as an AR15.
I go out shooting with my friend all the time. My 7.62 vs his 5.56 leaves me wishing I had the 800 bucks for a bushmaster. The 5.56 carries better at longer ranges and does not start to tumble as quickly. It has a higher muzzle velocity, possibly why the smaller round is carrying clear through soft tissue. The recomendation that troops aim higher is to get them to impact organs or bone so that the round will fragment. Aside from a fluke round passing through someones half eaten sandwich, the 5.56 fragments nicely, and combined with the added velocity will shred someone better than a 7.62. My hollow points do kick up a little more dirt when the impact at closer ranges than my friends FMJ, but its not a lot of difference.
Something else important is weight. The 5.56 round is WAY lighter than a 7.62 round, and carrying a full load of ammunition is much less a burdon. The 5.56 is also cheaper in this country right now, but that is partly due to import restrictions and customs hassles. Also both these rounds have gone up in price due to how much of both are being fired all over the middle east now.
Im sorry, but giving our troops a .308 rifle to raid houses with would be overkill and a tactically unsound decision. There would be much more collateral damage from wall penetrations and our troops might get into close quarters trouble without a decent rate of fire. I'd rather have an M16 to clear a room than a M14. Snipers need a .308 or equivalent round, but going back to the M14 or something else like it would be like issuing the 12" barrel bushmaster pistols to our troops in place of a 9mm side arm. Remember that many of the long rifles of WW1 were actually unsuited to the battlefield, being designed to fire at much longer ranges than the troops ever encountered. It was conventional thinking on the part of those in offices that ordered the equipment. The result in arms development was the use of a combat version of the winchester 1897 and the invention of the Thompson, followed by the development of semi automatic rifles and assault weapons leading up to and during WW2 (amongst other developments).
Im not a member of the military, nor do I play one on TV. These are my humble thoughts, but I wonder, what do our troops think? I havn't personally heard them complaining about the 5.56 round or the M16, though I know it is a ***** to keep clean, and have seen how easily it will jam or misload when not properly cleaned and lubed. Also, I think there are plenty of dead people across the world that can testify that this round is capable.
So what do you think?
-
I still think there is room for an improvement in the ammunition. I think a slightly heavier round will do the job better and still have the advantages of larger ammunition load and velocity.
The idea that troops aim higher seems a bit bogus. The tendency is for troops to fire to high already. Double taps are fine.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
So far in my experience, the 5.56mm(.223) round is a very good round for an assault rifle. All in all it is superior to the 7.62x39 round and would be superior to the 7.62x51(.308) round for an assault weapon application. Remember, a controlled rate of fire is important to these weapons.
While a .308 would certainly be better at long range, an M16 isnt made to reach out 600 yrds and touch someone. The article mentioned something about 100m long shots, but thats not even a particularly long shot for my SKS, which is not nearly as accurate at ranged shots as an AR15.
I go out shooting with my friend all the time. My 7.62 vs his 5.56 leaves me wishing I had the 800 bucks for a bushmaster. The 5.56 carries better at longer ranges and does not start to tumble as quickly.
What is the groove and twist count of your .308 barrel? That can have a lot to do with your round carrying accurately to range, and loosing stability, as can the bullet weight and load.
-
Here is the essential problem:
Armies fight in all terrains. Desert, Jungle, Forest, Scrub, in winter, summer, spring and fall. They fight in urban and rural areas. They fight other armies, terrorists, and other organisations large and small. They fight all out wars, counter-insurgency, anti drug raids, they conduct occupation and security duty, ect, ect, ect.
They deploy airborne and armor forces, light infantry, heliborne infantry, commandos, naval forces (marines), security troops...
....now find a rifle/caliber that will work the best in ALL those situations.
Good luck. It hasnt been done since gunpowder was invented, and it never will be. Finding a "middle ground" will never silence the critics over whatever you chose, 7.62 x 39, 5.56, .308, whatever.
-
LOL!
Here we go again.
We were at the 200 yard posts about a month back. We hauled out some sierra mist 2L bottles filled with water. I had my STG58C (FAL), the other two guys were equipped with bushmasters. Nice little mouse guns. All of us shooting mil surp FMJ. Two of the bottles were placed in front of the telephone pole that was laid out on the ground across the target frame bases. The other two I put behind the phone pole 'for later'. We stapled up some 9" targets to 'zero', then the guys were gonna shoot the bottles.
I put a coupla mags through my paper target to settle in.. the other two guys did the same then happily popped their sierra mist bottles. The first hits were kinda neet.. the big gout of spray was unmistakeable. One skittered sideways, and he kept poppin it till it went over the pole.
Then I said "My Turn". They said.. 'well.. lets get the other two out from.. '
"CARUMP*CARUMP*
Two big splashes. Nailed the two full ones... right through the pole.
I pulled the FAL down to rest and smiled. "Ain't no hiding from a .308 Battle Rifle.... but those lil mouseguns sure look like fun. Do yer girfriends like 'em?'
hehehehhehhe. I love being a miserable old salamander. :)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
LOL!
Here we go again.
We were at the 200 yard posts about a month back. We hauled out some sierra mist 2L bottles filled with water. I had my STG58C (FAL), the other two guys were equipped with bushmasters. Nice little mouse guns. All of us shooting mil surp FMJ. Two of the bottles were placed in front of the telephone pole that was laid out on the ground across the target frame bases. The other two I put behind the phone pole 'for later'. We stapled up some 9" targets to 'zero', then the guys were gonna shoot the bottles.
I put a coupla mags through my paper target to settle in.. the other two guys did the same then happily popped their sierra mist bottles. The first hits were kinda neet.. the big gout of spray was unmistakeable. One skittered sideways, and he kept poppin it till it went over the pole.
Then I said "My Turn". They said.. 'well.. lets get the other two out from.. '
"CARUMP*CARUMP*
Two big splashes. Nailed the two full ones... right through the pole.
I pulled the FAL down to rest and smiled. "Ain't no hiding from a .308 Battle Rifle.... but those lil mouseguns sure look like fun. Do yer girfriends like 'em?'
hehehehhehhe. I love being a miserable old salamander. :)
LOL , you show off.
Hang, what milsurp you shooting now?
I have plenty Port and Aussie left, and a grand of Belgian, but thinking about picking up some of the SA on the market. Supply of milsurp 7.62 is drying up.
-
What are the relative bullet weights? With standard powder loads, what is the difference in weight between a thousand of each of the calibers?
Just a thought, wonder if there might be an extra datapoint to this. If the smaller caliber works fine in a single shot 80% of the time and there's a 30% reduction in weight, then you can carry more effective firepower for the equivalent weight.
A thought...
-
Most military people I know who are dedicated to the craft of weapons usage do not like the M-16 nor do they like the 5.56 NATO round.
Your SKS will never be as accurate as any M-16/AR=15 derivative, it was never designed to be. It has NOTHING to do with 5.56 vs. 7.62. It has EVERYTHING to do with both rifle design and manufacture.
If you do not need 3-5 rounds per target you do not need to carry as much ammunition. Meaning if the 7.62 rifle will hit and drop a target with fewer rounds, you don't need to carry as many.
-
There would be much more collateral damage from wall penetrations and our troops might get into close quarters trouble without a decent rate of fire.
The US Army and US Marines still utilize the M16. These aren't automatic weapons, just semi-auto and 3 round burst. The M4 Carbines lose velocity past 50 meters, so the bullets dont fragment well or at all.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Most military people I know who are dedicated to the craft of weapons usage do not like the M-16 nor do they like the 5.56 NATO round.
Your SKS will never be as accurate as any M-16/AR=15 derivative, it was never designed to be. It has NOTHING to do with 5.56 vs. 7.62. It has EVERYTHING to do with both rifle design and manufacture.
If you do not need 3-5 rounds per target you do not need to carry as much ammunition. Meaning if the 7.62 rifle will hit and drop a target with fewer rounds, you don't need to carry as many.
nailed it. perfectly.
:aok
-
Yeah you're right. No SKS will ever be as accurate as a good bushmaster. There are so many factors involved, but its not just the ammo. So would a 7.62 chambered ar15 be more or less accurate than a 5.56 chambered one? Probably not, especially out over 300m. Still, a lot of it comes down to the skills and training of the individual shooter.
I dissagree strongly thought that a bullet being inherently more lethal means you need to carry less of them. Soldiers need to be prepared for whatever comes at them, which includes carrying enough ammo so they won't run out. Also tactics such as covering fire (or the prospect of a miss) would seem to indicated that it is wise to carry more ammo than you think you will need. The weight of the total loadout is more of a secondary concern, but is a factor.
I realize we could do better than the m16 and 5.56 round, but all in all at least the round is a good middle ground, multi role solution. No tool is made for every job. The same holds true for firearms.
-
Originally posted by Dago
LOL , you show off.
Hang, what milsurp you shooting now?
I have plenty Port and Aussie left, and a grand of Belgian, but thinking about picking up some of the SA on the market. Supply of milsurp 7.62 is drying up.
I've been buying 1280 round cans of the 150g 'battle packed' South African. It ain't as accurate as 168g lake city.. but it's cheap; relaible and the 120 round sealed battle pack 'bandoliers' it's stored in will hold up for many, many years. Hope to give it all to the kids. Been buying a can a month for the last 6 months.
-
"Something else important is weight. The 5.56 round is WAY lighter than a 7.62 round, and carrying a full load of ammunition is much less a burdon"
Thats a myth that has been disproved countless times. There is no weight savings. Infantry soldiers typically carry 100 lbs of gear wether they have 308 or 556 rifles. I have heard the "weight saving" thing before, its bunk.
"Im sorry, but giving our troops a .308 rifle to raid houses with would be overkill and a tactically unsound decision. There would be much more collateral damage from wall penetrations and our troops might get into close quarters trouble without a decent rate of fire. I'd rather have an M16 to clear a room than a M14."
Again, I have to disagree. For starters, you dont issue rifles to your troops to reduce collateral casualties. That sounds unfeeling, but their job on the battlefield is not to be nice. Its to kill the enemy. Period.
As for rate of fire, you can clear rooms with M14s, grenades and pistols, just as you can clear rooms with M16s, grenades, and pistols. Also, troops have supporting Squad Automatic Weapons, like light machine guns, ect. You would not want to be an insurgent in Iraq when a section of infantry came in with 6 M14s, and 2 M249s, and grenades, with the intent to send you to the afterlife.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Yeah you're right. No SKS will ever be as accurate as a good bushmaster. There are so many factors involved, but its not just the ammo. So would a 7.62 chambered ar15 be more or less accurate than a 5.56 chambered one? Probably not, especially out over 300m. Still, a lot of it comes down to the skills and training of the individual shooter.
I dissagree strongly thought that a bullet being inherently more lethal means you need to carry less of them. Soldiers need to be prepared for whatever comes at them, which includes carrying enough ammo so they won't run out. Also tactics such as covering fire (or the prospect of a miss) would seem to indicated that it is wise to carry more ammo than you think you will need. The weight of the total loadout is more of a secondary concern, but is a factor.
I realize we could do better than the m16 and 5.56 round, but all in all at least the round is a good middle ground, multi role solution. No tool is made for every job. The same holds true for firearms.
The Stoner designed AR-10 is VERY accurate... it's the "7.62mm M-16". The carbine length version is an outstanding urban weapon, chews through cinder block like it was butter. The 22" 'target' barrel will take the pips outta a Ace at 1000 yards then punch a hole clear through the truck it's taped to.
Sadly, it suffers from the same finicky operating faults that the m-16 has. The best 7.62 battle rifles I've ever played with are the FAL and the M-14.. and the FAL, IF the sights are upgraded and an Israli forward assist is added edges out the M-14 as the better of the two.
IMHO.. ;)
-
One more thing, when considering a weapon to carry in the field, upon which I'll depend for my survival, adequate is NOT what I'm looking for, VASTLY SUPERIOR and EXCEPTIONALLY EFFECTIVE are more the terms I'd seek. And the M-16/5.56 NATO combination is neither.
-
Did not the 2 Delta guys (who essentially volunteered for a suicide mission in Mogadishu) both carry Vietnam-era M-14's for the same reason? (One was Shugart, can't remember the other brave soul's name)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
What fires a 6.8mm round?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1137109117_20029211530-0-swoop.gif) [/B]
Wasn't the 6.8mm SPC developed by the SOCOM types?
Barrett M468 (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html)
-
Originally posted by Squire
...but their job on the battlefield is not to be nice. Its to kill the enemy. Period...
Winning a battle or a war is not neccessarily accomplished by just outright killing the enemy, but by reducing the enemy's capability to fight. It is my understanding, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, that the smaller round was chosen partially for its ability to cause casuallties and not just dead people.
If you kill a man, you take one man off the line; if you wound a man, you take him and the soldiers that help him off the line. In addition, you have a man screaming and writhing in pain and this may unnerve his comrades.
...now, that may not be of much use when fighting a bunch of guys that just don't give a crap.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The M4 Carbines lose velocity past 50 meters, so the bullets dont fragment well or at all.
umm all bullets lose velocity immediately. The FMJ bullets fragment just fine if they hit something. There is no meaningful difference between the m4 and m16 in ballistics.
-
If you kill a man, you take one man off the line; if you wound a man, you take him and the soldiers that help him off the line. In addition, you have a man screaming and writhing in pain and this may unnerve his comrades.
Actually that wasn't a consideration in the design of the M-16, just an inadverant benefit.
The main factor in the design of the M-16 was the study done after World War II that showed that the side who fired more bullets got more hits. Thusly, a rifle with lightweight ammunition and capable of automatic fire was designed.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
umm all bullets lose velocity immediately. The FMJ bullets fragment just fine if they hit something. There is no meaningful difference between the m4 and m16 in ballistics.
Please cite a source of information for this. All I've seen and read is to the contrary.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Yeah you're right. No SKS will ever be as accurate as a good bushmaster. There are so many factors involved, but its not just the ammo. So would a 7.62 chambered ar15 be more or less accurate than a 5.56 chambered one? Probably not, especially out over 300m. Still, a lot of it comes down to the skills and training of the individual shooter.
I dissagree strongly thought that a bullet being inherently more lethal means you need to carry less of them. Soldiers need to be prepared for whatever comes at them, which includes carrying enough ammo so they won't run out. Also tactics such as covering fire (or the prospect of a miss) would seem to indicated that it is wise to carry more ammo than you think you will need. The weight of the total loadout is more of a secondary concern, but is a factor.
I realize we could do better than the m16 and 5.56 round, but all in all at least the round is a good middle ground, multi role solution. No tool is made for every job. The same holds true for firearms.
Do not confuse the 7.62 x 39 mm with the 7.62 x 51mm.
-
Youre right, and in my posts, other than when noted I reffer to the 7.62x39 that is fired by the AK and SKS, amongst others. I think this is a better comparison than the .223 vs .308. The .308 just wasn't designed as an assault rifle round. Still, I am no expert.
I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to equip soldiers with ammunition intended to wound rather than kill. Anyone would have to be foolish to think that they could create such a round. Now, I'm not arguing that we give our troops frangable ammunition, but it seems to me that the penetration power of a .308 could prove to be a liability in some tactical situations. No tool is perfect.
.308 is better for longer range, penetration or where you really need the power to drop someone.
7.62x39 has been a good round for carbines and assault rifles for a long time, but it's old and better things have been developed more recently. I suppose it could be reworked with better powder or something, but it does what it's supposed to do. If flies cheeply and relatively reliably across the third world.
.223 is all around a pretty decent round, but accells at nothing specifically. The army wanted a jack of all trades and got it. Could possibly be better, but it could be a laser rifle too.
I think it's important here to think about the army's invested interest in the .223 round with regard to the article at the top of this thread. If the army declared it infereor, it would have to replace all that ammo and all those weapons. The logistics is staggering. When they can't even get our troops the stuff they need, like batteries and enough water, the last thing we need to do is yank their rifles out of their hands. Something about a cluster comes to mind....Still, this could be a big reason for the Army liking it so much.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Actually that wasn't a consideration in the design of the M-16, just an inadverant benefit.
The main factor in the design of the M-16 was the study done after World War II that showed that the side who fired more bullets got more hits. Thusly, a rifle with lightweight ammunition and capable of automatic fire was designed.
....they also missed a hell of a lot more.
Did they take into account snipers?
BTW the M16 started out as the Armalite AR15 impressing an Air Force General (yeah, a REAL authority on weapons) by blowing up some watermelons.
Was supposed to be a survival rifle. Then McNamara got into the act and wanted all services to use the same weapon.
Original barrel twist was 1 in 14" but they found the 55grain bullet tumbling in the dense winter air. Tightened it to 1 in 12" to stabilize it but resulted in inconsistent tumbling after striking the "target".
The 5.56 x 45mm is a compromise at best. I don't like it all that much.
My fave all time is the Galil AR308. Very accurate, comfortable, and balanced. Above all, RELIABLE and simple. The spent gasses never contaminate the bolt assembly.
-
68Hawk,
Don't confuse my liking the 308 as somehow saying it is okay for an "assault" rifle for it is not. It just does better for consistant damage for a far longer range than the 5.56mm.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Please cite a source of information for this. All I've seen and read is to the contrary.
Its the same mechanisms and cartridge. The only difference is the length of the barrel 14.5 inches vs 20 inches which reduces the muzzle velocity slightly.
-
BTW the M16 started out as the Armalite AR15 impressing an Air Force General (yeah, a REAL authority on weapons) by blowing up some watermelons.
Sort of. It started out as the AR-10, lost the competition to the M14, was recalibered in 5.56mm for survival rifle, then turned into the M-16
-
The belgians designed the FAL for a .280 cartrige in the late 40s..
But someone wouldnt go for the round so...
-
I think the 7.62x51 is a fine round for an assault rifle. Not an expert either but the cartridge excels at everything. It would be the length of the M14 that makes it a less than perfect assault weapon. In the Sage stock, it is a great assault weapon with the power to knock down with a less than perfectly placed round, and the ability to shoot through many barriers to take an enemy out. Additionally I believe the 168gr bullet to be less disturbed by light brush than a 5.56.
It is not a great round for hand held rapid fire, but most hand held rapid fire is notoriously inaccurate with any weapon in the excitement of combat.
If we really wanted one shot kills more often, we could switch to frangible bullets.
Bullet placement is key if your cartridge isn't a great stopper.
-
"that the smaller round was chosen partially for its ability to cause casuallties and not just dead people"
I have never heard of this being the reason, perhaps the "556 fan club" has in retrospect, trotted that out... when the Germans went with the Mp44 Assault Rifle in 1944 (using a cut down 7.92 rnd) it had nothing to do with that, nor did the Soviets or NATO move to intermediate rounds to do that. Its simply about firepower and usage issues, for the kind of fighting they were expecting to have to do. Most infantry casualties are caused by artillery and mortars anyways, and that has been the case since at least WW1.
Myself im not "anti 556" I just know some of the things stated like "weight savings" are just subderfuge. Both 308 and 556 have their good points and applications.
-
"Myself im not "anti 556" I just know some of the things stated like "weight savings" are just subderfuge. Both 308 and 556 have their good points and applications."
killing people and plinking respectivly.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Youre right, and in my posts, other than when noted I reffer to the 7.62x39 that is fired by the AK and SKS, amongst others. I think this is a better comparison than the .223 vs .308. The .308 just wasn't designed as an assault rifle round. Still, I am no expert.
I beg to differ. that's precisely what it was designed for.. the first 'assault rifle' was the Russian SVT-40.. firing the massive 7.62x54 round. Hard to find one with a barrell that's not shot our these days. ;) When the Germans began capturing them in 1940, they sent 'em back for evaluation. The troops, meanwhile; kept a fair number themselves and they employed it as a sniper weapon... a testament to it's accuracy and the ability to shoot multiple times (10 round mag) without any body movement as required with a bolt action.. sniper position isn't given away.
meanwhile, back at the arms factory, the germans used the gas operating system from the SVT in developing the MP43. Unfortunately, the Russians were unable to capitalize on their SVT-40's.. the troops just failed miserably at keeping the complicated SVT's operating. Peasants. ;) In the intrest of developing an automatic assault rifle for urban conflct they changed horses and introduced the PPSh.. the Gemans got the Mp43's in service first. Both the the german and the new russian weapon used a smaller cartridge.. and this is where the development of the modern 'assault carbine' split of from the companion development of the Assault RIFLE.
While all this was going on John Garand was building and refining the most competent battle rifle in history.. an outsanding companion to the worlds best SAW.. the Browning Automatic Rifle. It's no coincidence they were both firing 30-06 slugs; and they dominated on the battlefield.. fitting Savages's description of VASTLY SUPERIOR & EXCEPTIONALLY EFFECTIVE perfectly.
Postwar, the East went with refinements of the SMG/PPSh path, developing first the SKS, and shortly thereafter, the AK47. While the Allies and the Axis slugged it out in Europe, the weapons guru's at FN hauled butt to england with thier prototype Assault RIFLE.. and post war they offered it to NATO and the US.. we damn near bought it.. but John Garand got a look at it and the folks at Springfield trotted out a competing rifle... what became the M-14.. arguably the best Battle/Assault Rifle ever issued to an American Soldier. Meanwile, FN continued their development.. and the rest of the free world came to know it as the FAL. Also, arguably, the finest assault RIFLE ever issued in the free world. Both the M-14 and the FAL use the 7.62x51 NATO round... aka, the .308
For 25 years, the three players in the Assault Rifle world were the AK47, the M-14 and The FN/FAL... and there is no doubt in anybodys mind as to which weapons were superior on the battlefield.. The Russians developed the legendary Druganov (7.62x54) to counter the range and punch advantage posed by the M-14 and FAL. Thanks to AF General Curtiss LeMay, politics and contracts the M-14 was replaced by the M-16. NATO was brought to heel eventually.. with most NATO forces downgrading to 5.56 weapons soon after.
It would seem the biggest gripe of the large caliber Assault (full auto) Rifle was control of the weapon in auto mode. At this time, marksmanship skills were a large part of infantry training.. and Full Auto was reserved for appropriate circumstances while accuracy and controlled AIMED fire was empathsized for fire and manuver. This quickly gave way to 'indirect & mass fire' doctrine with the advent of the M-16... using the weapons percieved strengths. percieved, because the damn thing would jam if you looked at it funny... No kidding. Some doofus REMF general decided to use ball powder, which caulked the M-16 real quick. In my day the M-16 was roundly despised, the M-14 was a prized possession, worth any number of cigarettes or bottles of Jack. ;)
*sigh*
Time and again.. as our troops have re-defined the battlefield with new adversarys, the need for the M-14/FAL type Assault RIFLE has reared it's head.. and they find their way to the front as the most trusted, competent and as Savage said " VASTLY SUPERIOR & EXCEPTIONALLY EFFECTIVE" weapons for our troops when compared to the enemy's AK's and their own lil mousegun carbines.
In closing.. yes there will always be a place in the modern force for an assault carbine... it's what we've been using for the last 35 years and the russians have been using for the last 56 years. There is also a pressing need for an Assualt RIFLE.. which is why they keep revisting the 'large caliber' round concept.
I rest my case.
;)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Sort of. It started out as the AR-10, lost the competition to the M14, was recalibered in 5.56mm for survival rifle, then turned into the M-16
The AR-10 wasn't helped when one of them with a fancy titanium barrel blew-up during trials the US Army conducted with the rifle.
The initial trials between the AR-15 and M-14 were rigged in favour of the M-14. The AR-15 won out in the end but the US Army didn't want to give up their Springfield baby to an outside competitors rifle. At least that's what I've read.
Excel
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I beg to differ. that's precisely what it was designed for.. the first 'assault rifle' was the Russian SVT-40.. firing the massive 7.62x54 round. Hard to find one with a barrell that's not shot our these days. ;) When the Germans began capturing them in 1940, they sent 'em back for evaluation. The troops, meanwhile; kept a fair number themselves and they employed it as a sniper weapon... a testament to it's accuracy and the ability to shoot multiple times (10 round mag) without any body movement as required with a bolt action.. sniper position isn't given away.
But does it qualify as an assualt rifle? Does it have the selective fire feature? I was of the belief that Hitler himself coined the term 'assault rifle', or 'sturmgewehr' for the MP44--which featured the shortened 7.92 x 31 round, as opposed to the full size Soviet 7.62 x 54.
The selective fire, coupled with the high capacity magazine and the smaller round, I'd always thought, were the prerequisites for a proper assault rifle. Everything else is just a self-loading rifle, including the M1.
Right?
-
Yup. The SVT was an auto-loading rifle.. like the Garand. Unlike the Garand, the Russians took the development further, and faster... and released the AVT (full auto version) by 1943. There is a lineage connection between the SVT/AVT-40 and the legendary german SMG.
http://www.answers.com/topic/svt-40
-
Originally posted by Neubob
But does it qualify as an assualt rifle? Does it have the selective fire feature? I was of the belief that Hitler himself coined the term 'assault rifle', or 'sturmgewehr' for the MP44--which featured the shortened 7.92 x 31 round, as opposed to the full size Soviet 7.62 x 54.
The selective fire, coupled with the high capacity magazine and the smaller round, I'd always thought, were the prerequisites for a proper assault rifle. Everything else is just a self-loading rifle, including the M1.
Right?
Now come on, the liberal gun grabbers have identified anything that holds more than 10 rounds as an assault weapon. Don't forget the abominable items like flash hider (oh so dangerous), the bayonet lug (an integral requirement for drive-by bayonetting) and the large capacity magazine (scarey looking thing). :D
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I've been buying 1280 round cans of the 150g 'battle packed' South African. It ain't as accurate as 168g lake city.. but it's cheap; relaible and the 120 round sealed battle pack 'bandoliers' it's stored in will hold up for many, many years. Hope to give it all to the kids. Been buying a can a month for the last 6 months.
The battlepacks have "bandoliers" in them? I have a couple thousand rounds of Aussie in bandoliers.
Good plan on the stock up, if not just for future events planning, it is a good investment plus the milsurp will be continuing to dry up I fear. Cheap shooting is the best shooting.
I might start buying a few cans, but the wife gonna crap when more ammo starts arriving. She is never to happy when a big heavy box or two arrives at the door. :)
I do appreciate ammo in battlepacks for the hermetic storage factor.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
The AR-10 wasn't helped when one of them with a fancy titanium barrel blew-up during trials the US Army conducted with the rifle.
Are you serious? Titanium barrel?! Incredible... Is it possible to find any details about the alloy they used?
Titanium is a "fashionable" word, nothing more, as a construction material it has so many drawbacks that in most of the cases steel or aluminium alloys perform better and usually make lighter parts.
-
Wasn't titanium tremendously difficult for the Soviet Union to get? I recall reading something about the USSR importing massive amounts of white paint to process the titanium oxide out of, but I'm not motivated enough to go and look in the intarweb right now because my dough machine just finished and it's time to make pizzas.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wasn't titanium tremendously difficult for the Soviet Union to get? I recall reading something about the USSR importing massive amounts of white paint to process the titanium oxide out of, but I'm not motivated enough to go and look in the intarweb right now because my dough machine just finished and it's time to make pizzas.
No, actually it was the U.S. that had a hard time getting it. If memory serves correct, the CIA got the stuff from Russia via the back door in order to let Lockheed have it for the SR-71.
-
See, now I just knew that I'd say something dumb if I didn't take a second to look it up first. From Wikipedia:
In 1950–1960s the Soviet Union attempted to corner the world titanium market as a tactic in the Cold War to prevent the American military from utilizing it. In spite of these efforts, the U.S. obtained large quantities of titanium when a European company set up a front for the U.S. foreign intelligence agencies to purchase it. Indeed, titanium for the highly successful U.S. SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft was acquired from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.
Thanks Virgil! I wonder where I heard the paint story...
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wasn't titanium tremendously difficult for the Soviet Union to get? I recall reading something about the USSR importing massive amounts of white paint to process the titanium oxide out of, but I'm not motivated enough to go and look in the intarweb right now because my dough machine just finished and it's time to make pizzas.
You are definetly wrong. Only here you can get such incredible things like titanium showels. It's what titanium is really good for ;)
After USSR broke apart - titanum was one of the tastiest things to export. Laws in the early-90s taxed or prohibited exporting of strategic raw materials, but allowed to export manufactured goods made of them, so my former boss managed to list titanium slabs in the customs role as "lifting crane counterweights". When asked why anyone needs such expensive counterweights - he said that it's for harsh humid and hot weather conditions where ordinary counterweights corrode :D This thing was already a joke in 1994 when I worked for him. He also was famous for exporting a train-load of natural honey, selling like 400 tons of natural Uzbek honey, plus 20 tons of food-grade aluminuim alloys (canisters)... and a ton of food-grade rubber (canister insulating rings) :D
-
In 1950–1960s the Soviet Union attempted to corner the world titanium market as a tactic in the Cold War to prevent the American military from utilizing it. In spite of these efforts, the U.S. obtained large quantities of titanium when a European company set up a front for the U.S. foreign intelligence agencies to purchase it. Indeed, titanium for the highly successful U.S. SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft was acquired from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.
LOL!!! :D
reminds me of how our institute got Convex supercomputes that were banned for export into "communist" countries by COCOM. Hijacked a truck crane, loaded them into the building through the windows at night...
We dimantled this supercomputers last year, i still have 2 dozens of 120mm fans from them, we strapped them of everythig usefull... 2xC1, one C2... Bought through Finland IIRC... My firend who works for Hewlet-Packard was stunned when he saw this monsters...
-
Remember when I posted a long time ago that I thought that the 270 winchester would make a good military rifle round?
Well.. IN YOUR FACE FLANDERS!
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
....they also missed a hell of a lot more.
Did they take into account snipers?
BTW the M16 started out as the Armalite AR15 impressing an Air Force General (yeah, a REAL authority on weapons) by blowing up some watermelons.
.
Gen. LeMay. He was impressed with it at the BBQ they showed the weapon at that he immediately placed an order as the new rifle for the AF security troops.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Are you serious? Titanium barrel?! Incredible... Is it possible to find any details about the alloy they used?
Titanium is a "fashionable" word, nothing more, as a construction material it has so many drawbacks that in most of the cases steel or aluminium alloys perform better and usually make lighter parts.
How about the new AK that you Reds made a few years back? Whatever happened to that weapon?
ack-ack
-
Wow, a lot of information is just plain out wrong.
First, we'll start with the decision to switch to 5.56. It was originally made after army trials. The 5.56 was designed to shatter upon impact. This created a nasty wound. They theorized that a single round was just as or more deadly then a .308 round. Thus, you can carry more rounds for less weight and be more effective soldier.
A couple of problems existed with this (we'll get to the m-16 itself later). The first is that the 5.56 does make a nasty wound (if it's moving fast enough to shatter), however it does not incapacitate. It takes anywhere from 1-5 bullets to incapacitate your target. Thus, based on the shear amount of bullets alone, the standard soldier is LESS effective carrying less weight, but more bullets.
Next, the AR-15 is a pretty fine weapon. It is the reason why the M-16 was chosen as the main rifle. However the M-16 was changed significantly from the AR-15 so that the gun can be made cheaper. Mainly, there were no cleaning kits, the rifling twist was changed to be absolutely wrong for the standard bullets given, and the insides were prone to jamming.
Now, shot for shot, it is debatable whether or not a perfect M16 is the equal of the M14. Most people would say it's not even close, but it's still up for debate. But the M16 wasn't used like the m14 was used. The m16 was used as a full auto gun. It was rare for it to fire a single shot (excepting when it jammed after a single shot). So the same amount of bullets of 5.56 is not equal to the same amount of bullets of .308
Next, clarification of terms. Assault Rifles are guns that carry intermediate bullets. Bullets which are more powerful then a pistol round, but less powerful then a full rifle round. Examples, M-16, Ak47, L85... A battle Rifle is a gun which shoots a full rifle round. Being able to shoot full auto is not a requisite. Examples, Galil, M14, FNFAL...
I beg to differ. that's precisely what it was designed for.. the first 'assault rifle' was the Russian SVT-40.. firing the massive 7.62x54 round. Hard to find one with a barrell that's not shot our these days. When the Germans began capturing them in 1940, they sent 'em back for evaluation. The troops, meanwhile; kept a fair number themselves and they employed it as a sniper weapon... a testament to it's accuracy and the ability to shoot multiple times (10 round mag) without any body movement as required with a bolt action.. sniper position isn't given away.
Absolutely wrong. The first assault rifle was a russian weapon from around the end of WW1 (I always forget the name of it). But if we were to ignore this gun, the first assault rifle is the M1 Carbine. If you analyze it, you realize that it really is the first assault rifle. Intermediate Cartridge, large magazine capacities, ease of fire, ease of aim, a decent range for such a small cartridge, and mostly it's ability to be altered to Full Auto. A good number of M1 Carbines had the sear pins filed down to make it full auto. At the end of WW2 the gun makers analyzed this practice, and just started to issue M2 Carbines. They were the same thing, except that they had selective fire.
Anyway, I personally think the problem is not the 5.56 round, but the "One for All" mentality. I believe that the mixed weapon squads of WW2 and Korea (especially on the american side) are the real answer to the problem. The mismatching of ammo is not as much of a problem as some people would have you think. If I had control of a squad of 12 guys, I'd do this: 4 M16's, 3 M14's, 1 DMR, 1 SAW, 3 UMP45's. And then I'd split extra MG ammo between the SMG's.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
How about the new AK that you Reds made a few years back? Whatever happened to that weapon?
ack-ack
Is this the one of which you speak?
reciprocating barrel, AN 94 (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_AN94,,00.html)
I'm assuming that it fell by the wayside for the same reasons that everything else of potential value does in that country... Not enough promise of immediate profit, not enough development capital, not enough cash to grease all the necessary wheels on the way up the long and inefficient chain of command.
Sorry Boroda. Capitalism really did a number on the Rodina.
-
http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.html
I think this shows why the military or whoever is in charge of what size bullet we use, thinks 5.56 is better..
Honestly, it dosn't matter what size bullet you use, it's still gonna be debated.
You use a smaller round, you get quicker, more accurate shots...
But you need to hit a meaty/mass area to do any damage.
You use a heavier round, you get slower, more need for post shot adjusting, extremely accurate shots, that dropem from the soundwave alone..
:aok
Yes I'm a 7.62 fan..
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Anyway, I personally think the problem is not the 5.56 round, but the "One for All" mentality. I believe that the mixed weapon squads of WW2 and Korea (especially on the american side) are the real answer to the problem. The mismatching of ammo is not as much of a problem as some people would have you think. If I had control of a squad of 12 guys, I'd do this: 4 M16's, 3 M14's, 1 DMR, 1 SAW, 3 UMP45's. And then I'd split extra MG ammo between the SMG's.
I've got to second that..
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Is this the one of which you speak?
reciprocating barrel, AN 94 (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_AN94,,00.html)
I'm assuming that it fell by the wayside for the same reasons that everything else of potential value does in that country... Not enough promise of immediate profit, not enough development capital, not enough cash to grease all the necessary wheels on the way up the long and inefficient chain of command.
Sorry Boroda. Capitalism really did a number on the Rodina.
Yeah, that's the one.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Are you serious? Titanium barrel?! Incredible... Is it possible to find any details about the alloy they used?
Titanium is a "fashionable" word, nothing more, as a construction material it has so many drawbacks that in most of the cases steel or aluminium alloys perform better and usually make lighter parts.
Good call Boroda,
I did some checking. I was wrong about the titanium barrel. The barrel was aluminium with a steel sleeve and titanium muzzle brake. Sorry for the bum steer.
Excel
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If I had control of a squad of 12 guys, I'd do this: 4 M16's, 3 M14's, 1 DMR, 1 SAW, 3 UMP45's. And then I'd split extra MG ammo between the SMG's.
I'd dump the SMG's. I wouldn't want to be 3 guns short at ranges longer than short. Disregarding country restrictions I'd go for 1 MG3, 2 G3, 5 G36C, 4 G36E.. although I could just as well change the country to Germany. MG3 could be swapped for MG36 if the weight becomes an issue and also swap one G36C for one more G3.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Absolutely wrong. The first assault rifle was a russian weapon from around the end of WW1 (I always forget the name of it). But if we were to ignore this gun, the first assault rifle is the M1 Carbine. If you analyze it, you realize that it really is the first assault rifle. Intermediate Cartridge, large magazine capacities, ease of fire, ease of aim, a decent range for such a small cartridge, and mostly it's ability to be altered to Full Auto. A good number of M1 Carbines had the sear pins filed down to make it full auto. At the end of WW2 the gun makers analyzed this practice, and just started to issue M2 Carbines. They were the same thing, except that they had selective fire.
Well.. lets start with the Federov Avtomat you mentioned.. the 1907 version was chambered for 7.64x54.. and pounded itself to pieces.They re-chambered it on a intermediate sized Jap cartridge at 6.5mm, but it never made it beyond very limited production (3,000 total), never went to fully automatic and was about as reliably functional as a Chau-Chau. It should be noted that at this time, the BAR hit the trenches.. and since we're now arguing semantics, you can certainaly call it a true 'Assault Rifle'.. designed and deployed as a walking machine gun nest.
Next.. yer premise of calling the M1 carbine a freaking assault rifle. What.. you file the sear of a carbine and it's suddenly a freaking RIFLE? LOL!
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Next, clarification of terms. Assault Rifles are guns that carry intermediate bullets. Bullets which are more powerful then a pistol round, but less powerful then a full rifle round. Examples, M-16, Ak47, L85... A battle Rifle is a gun which shoots a full rifle round. Being able to shoot full auto is not a requisite. Examples, Galil, M14, FNFAL...
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'.
This is an Assault Rifle:
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Belgique/Armes/FAL/FAL_FN_Belgium_02.jpg)
This is an Assault Carbine:
(http://www.abc.se/~m8100/mp6-t.gif)
;)
-
"Assault RIFLES fire Rifle caliber and case rounds"
The fact of the matter is, its up to the armies involved to classify them, I give you some definitions from the web:
* "This term is an English translation from the German sturmgewehr, which means "storm rifle.'' It is distinct from a "high-powered'' rifle because it is chambered for a less powerful cartridge."
* "A military rifle intended purely for one-man operation and equipped to provide both semiautomatic or full-automatic fire by means of a selector switch or other fire-control device."
* "any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use"
* "Assault rifles are selective fire intermediate-power rifles."
All 4 defs are slightly different.
As far as "Assault Carbine" its a term used for shortened version of an assault rifle (usually), like the various shortened versions of the M-16, like the M-4.
http://www.bushmaster.com/le/weapons/bushmaster_xm15_e2s_m4a2_carbine.htm
-
Not to show too much favor to the homeland of my distant childhood, but I think the Russians have pretty much raised the science of assault rifle developement to an art. The aforementioned AN-94 seems to be the pinnacle of development, combining both relative simplicity and ingenious battlefield functionality. It's not pretty, and it's not high-tech for the sake of high-tech, like some of these new, caseless wonders, but it does what it needs to do and with minimal fuss. It also introduces at least a couple innovations that have yet to paralleled anywhere.
Here's a good article (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=581)
Of course, as mentioned earlier, the Russian penchant for squealing up everything good and worthwhile has taken a bite out of this weapon. Developed and fielded in limited numbers, it's unlikely to gain the recognition of the Ak or the ARs.
-
Major point in this thread:
The people who declare it "adequate" are not the people carrying the damned thing and being shot at by people it won't kill quickly and easily.
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.
Maybe that's what they need to do now. Issue the M-16 to people who can't shoot a real rifle. And then issue the real rifles to people who can shoot them.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Major point in this thread:
The people who declare it "adequate" are not the people carrying the damned thing and being shot at by people it won't kill quickly and easily.
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.
Maybe that's what they need to do now. Issue the M-16 to people who can't shoot a real rifle. And then issue the real rifles to people who can shoot them.
Hooahh!
-
the BAR hit the trenches.. and since we're now arguing semantics, you can certainaly call it a true 'Assault Rifle'.. designed and deployed as a walking machine gun nest.
Unfortunately, even though the BAR should have been the first assault rifle, it was deployed wrong. The U.S. Army used it as a machine gun, in which it fell very short of the competition. Heck, it only had a 20 round magazine.
I think that the Marines in the Pacific used it in the assault rifle role for a bit though.
-
Keep in mind that in any conflict, especially one that is prtracted, logistics can play a critical role. Multiple types and particularly calibers of weapons screws up the supply chain and opens vulerabilities in operations. Once snuffy has fired off a part of his basic load he must be resupplied. Someone has to go back and get "x" amount of ammunition that has to be brought forward. Trying to maintain an inventory at a forward supply point is going to be difficult if there is a demand for 4 or 5 different small arms ammunitions. Mixing and matching weapons systems may look sexy on paper but it's a recipe for major problems in the field. It also means that cross leveling ammunition after a fire fight will be far more difficult if there are 3 or more seperate types of weapons / ammunition in a squad.
This calls for a definate situation of the "kiss" principle.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Unfortunately, even though the BAR should have been the first assault rifle, it was deployed wrong. The U.S. Army used it as a machine gun, in which it fell very short of the competition. Heck, it only had a 20 round magazine.
I think that the Marines in the Pacific used it in the assault rifle role for a bit though.
I was used as the SAW long before the term was invented or the role defined. It was carried and deployed in WWII and Korea in that role.. every squad had one, the 'big guy' carried it.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Keep in mind that in any conflict, especially one that is prtracted, logistics can play a critical role. Multiple types and particularly calibers of weapons screws up the supply chain and opens vulerabilities in operations. Once snuffy has fired off a part of his basic load he must be resupplied. Someone has to go back and get "x" amount of ammunition that has to be brought forward. Trying to maintain an inventory at a forward supply point is going to be difficult if there is a demand for 4 or 5 different small arms ammunitions. Mixing and matching weapons systems may look sexy on paper but it's a recipe for major problems in the field. It also means that cross leveling ammunition after a fire fight will be far more difficult if there are 3 or more seperate types of weapons / ammunition in a squad.
This calls for a definate situation of the "kiss" principle.
7.62x51 is already TOE.. and in theatre in numbers. The SAW and LMG should have a common genre ammo (the 7.62x51). That puts two calibers of ammo at the squad level.. same as always.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I was used as the SAW long before the term was invented or the role defined. It was carried and deployed in WWII and Korea in that role.. every squad had one, the 'big guy' carried it.
Kirby carried it in the TV show "Combat", but he wasn't the big guy, Littlejohn was. :D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Major point in this thread:
The people who declare it "adequate" are not the people carrying the damned thing and being shot at by people it won't kill quickly and easily.
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.
Maybe that's what they need to do now. Issue the M-16 to people who can't shoot a real rifle. And then issue the real rifles to people who can shoot them.
Bingo.
That or increase the training of our soldiers to shoot the 'real' rifles.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
snip~The 5.56 was designed to shatter upon impact. ~snip
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.
I'd rather we just went back to the .308 and better training rather than trying to overcompensate with the inferior quantity. We can design less felt recoil into the rifles for those soldiers that are recoil sensitive.
The Galil AR308 has so much going for it, accuracy, reliability, rugged, second set of night sights (tritium), folding stock, simple toolless breakdown for cleaning (K.I.S.S.), comfortable to shoot, very good human engineering, and well balanced. It is the epitome of the Kalisnikov design.
For second choice would be the FN FAL Para.
-
I have two M-4 Bushmasters & an M-14 sniper rifle retired from the Israeli army & a couple of AK's & an SKS.
They all shine in one area or another. My SKS is my whitetail deer slayer, it was inexpensive, semiautomatic & short enough to be a good brush rifle. It is the replacement for my model 94 winchester 30-30 & fills the roll perfectly. Deer I have shot with a mini-14 (.223) have run off & had to be tracked, but not with the 30-30 or the 7.62x39.
I found the .223 to be a poor brush rifle, if it hits a vine or twig (or a bug in flight) it sends the round tumbling off or it explodes in mid air even with the heavier 64 grain bullet. The .30 cal rounds go forward despite obstacles. Of course so will buckshot from a 12 gauge for a few yards lol.
I think our military is likely to continue to give the spec-war men the option of what weapon to use given the particular mission & continue to issue the lighter round/weapon combination for the cookie cutter troops in the field, it just makes sense.
I also have a feeling they are going to continue with the "which is better" arguement for years to come. Maybe someday they will design a battlesuit that negates weight & recoil then all soldiers will be armed with multi-barreled miniguns & this particular debate will evolve.
-
Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.
(http://www.snipercountry.com/photogallery/USMC_DCM_Baghdad_2004.jpg)
Here's the M-14, in Baghdad; June last year. Courtesy of LCpl Swendsen.
50 years old... that kids Dad may have carried that rifle. Still doin the fine job it's designed to do.. reach out and touch. HARD. FAST. OFTEN. RELIABLY. ACCURATELY.
No need to re-invent the wheel. Redesign the stock and handguard for the new lasers, lights and reflex scopes. Wallah.
Hard to beat proven perfection.
-
That looks exactly like my M-14 right down to the harris bipod & flip-up lens covers.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:D
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is your answer:
(http://www.cpinternet.com/~tlong1//gray21.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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)
-
Originally posted by Dago
This is your answer:
(http://www.cpinternet.com/~tlong1//gray21.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
Ok, this should be the "end all" link for the discussion
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
This site discusses wound characteristics of the M16 bullets compared to AK-47s, AK-74s, US and German 7.62mm rounds.
In short, the M-16 only produces massive wounds in its victims out to 170 yards. CAR-15s (carbine version) were unable to produce massive wounds even at short ranges. A velocity of at least 900m/s was needed for good bullet fragmentation. Bullet rotation (1 in 7 twist vs 1 in 12 twist) had no diminishing effect on round fragmentation. Rounds that tumbled in the air produced larger than normal wounds.
The German 7.62mm round far surpasses the U.S. 7.62mm round. The German round fragments and causes a massive wound. The U.S. 7.62mm doesn't.
-
Saburo, How did you determine paralax error on those sights? Just curious as I am interested in an optical sight for a couple of my rifles.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Saburo, How did you determine paralax error on those sights? Just curious as I am interested in an optical sight for a couple of my rifles.
I set mine up by 'zeroing' the iron sights. Then I bench clamp the rifle with the optical sight, and set point of aim for the sight the same for the optics as the sight. Then I set my head up in the usual position and observe clarity of field of focus. Often, when the optics are correctly adjusted for point of aim, the field of view is blurry or 'double imaged' even when focus is transited to extreme limits of adjustment... parallax problem.
Of course, I could be totally wrong.. never bothered much with reflex optics.. not my cup of tea. On the ones I've played with, I've found the reflex sights decent up to about 75 yards.. beyond that, no better than good iron battle sights... worse even, since the damn things usually pull your head up from a decent cheek weld. I prefer a large diamater red dot (52-54mm) 2x scope for carbines, particulary in 'scout' configuration.
Of course, a decent RIFLE deserves a decent scope. ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Saburo, How did you determine paralax error on those sights? Just curious as I am interested in an optical sight for a couple of my rifles.
Look at the linked example of no paralax error:
aimpoint (http://www.swfa.com/c-11-aimpoint-red-dot-sights.aspx)
If your gun is sighted, that target dot should stay on target and not creep around. Simple way of testing in the store is just put the sight on a solid surface and pick a target about 100 yards out. Make sure you have well defined edges so you can gauge any straying off target as you move your head/eyes left/right, up/down, and diagonally. Make sure the sight does not move at all while doing this. Make sure you use both eyes (your binocular vision) and focus on the target! The key to this type of speed sight is quick sight aquisition. It's second to none in this regard.
Now try that test with the cheap sights to see the difference.
If you get some error, do not buy/use that sight as you'll probably be missing your target.
Also do the above test where you'll have your eyes distance from the sight the equivilent from shooting from a rifle and offhand from a pistol.
I chose the EOTech as it passed the Army's tough standards (beware some defective units out there though) and because if the shape of the targeting ring/dot combo. My second choice was going to be Aimpoint's M2 or M3. It's all about preference.
When real close though all will show some type of error. Guessing it might have to do with the distance between the left and right eyes and using our binocular vision (just a guess as I've not researched it though).
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Of course, I could be totally wrong.. never bothered much with reflex optics.. not my cup of tea. On the ones I've played with, I've found the reflex sights decent up to about 75 yards.. beyond that, no better than good iron battle sights... worse even, since the damn things usually pull your head up from a decent cheek weld. I prefer a large diamater red dot (52-54mm) 2x scope for carbines, particulary in 'scout' configuration.
Of course, a decent RIFLE deserves a decent scope. ;)
Hangtime,
You deserve a good reflex sight! You gotta try out the EOTech or Aimpoint. Different systems but once you get used to the idea of focusing on the target with both eyes and not the sight, you'll be a convert :D
Just zero it for where you expect to be shooting it. If you know your ballistics, you'll be able to compensate. Like most scopes, you'll need to get a cheek pad if you're not getting a proper cheek weld.
Red dot and reflex sights are unlike scopes and iron sights. the virtue of its design allows a much faster sight aquisition. Having an accurate/error free one will asure you're on target everytime (provided you do your marksmanship part).
In every instance, everytime I saw my opponents in Sat's games, I shot them before they shot me. Everytime. There were 3 instances where I got sloppy and didn't hit them on my first try, my fault, not the sight's. I ended up getting them on the followup though.
Keep in mind this was my very first day playing Airsoft. My 37 years experience of shooting paid off. All of my opponents were almost half my age.
We "old" guys have a game we can actually compete in using tactics and marksmanship :D
-
I really like my EOtech site, I shoot better with it on, but then again I am a ****y rifle shot.
I do want to get a real scout scope for it the M1A as well.
I get my M1 Garand back this weekend from the X along with all my other guns!
I only have to drive to Grants Pass OR to do it.
-
Sub
You in the bay area? Where did you do the Airsoft?
-
Thanks Saburo :aok
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Hangtime,
You deserve a good reflex sight! You gotta try out the EOTech or Aimpoint. Different systems but once you get used to the idea of focusing on the target with both eyes and not the sight, you'll be a convert :D
Just zero it for where you expect to be shooting it. If you know your ballistics, you'll be able to compensate. Like most scopes, you'll need to get a cheek pad if you're not getting a proper cheek weld.
Red dot and reflex sights are unlike scopes and iron sights. the virtue of its design allows a much faster sight aquisition. Having an accurate/error free one will asure you're on target everytime (provided you do your marksmanship part).
In every instance, everytime I saw my opponents in Sat's games, I shot them before they shot me. Everytime. There were 3 instances where I got sloppy and didn't hit them on my first try, my fault, not the sight's. I ended up getting them on the followup though.
Keep in mind this was my very first day playing Airsoft. My 37 years experience of shooting paid off. All of my opponents were almost half my age.
We "old" guys have a game we can actually compete in using tactics and marksmanship :D
Yup! Good points.. and I'll get around to playing with them 'seriously' for the kids's carbines.. the SKS's and the AK's. I have a very nice scout (pistol) red dot on my carbine length enfield.. I like it. I've taught myself to work ALL my scopes 'both eyes open'.. still not 'automatic' but my accuracy hasn't suffered a bit. Works VERY well on the red dot.. and that enfield is one heluva fast boltie. I'm up to being able to shoot and cycle the bolt with out taking the rifle down from my cheek... and with the 12 round mag, I can lay extremly accurate fire at damn near the same rate as a semi-auto.
Thanks for the parallax detail.. I learned something good today.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
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).
Weight is about 11lbs 1 oz with fully loaded magazine. Add about 3 pounds with forward grip and bipod.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
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.
You're preaching to the choir.
Edit: A buddy of mine used to complain about the M-16's "sh**ing where it eats" LOL. I really have to hand it to the nazis Sturmgewehr 44 & Kalashnikov's AK design; the AK is brutally simple & an old favorite of mine but I love my M-14 more. I'm not worried about a long term survival situation, I have enough reliable weapons & I can only use one at a time;)
-
The 5.56 is quite adequate....on coyotes.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sub
You in the bay area? Where did you do the Airsoft?
I live in San Jose now.
I played at Operation Paintball (they have an indoor Airsoft field) in Hayward.
-
Originally posted by Dago
This is your answer:
(http://www.cpinternet.com/~tlong1//gray21.jpg)
My next rifle build I think will be this one, just for fun.
I think I would take a normal M14 over the pimped one.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I think I would take a normal M14 over the pimped one.
I think the point of the rifle is to be used as tool. As opposed to being masturbated on.
-
Damn, Pongo. I miss you. One line a month is not enough. ;)
BTW, how yah been?
-
neat discussion....
First of all.. I am happy with anything that will shoot but I like my M1 garand and like the 14 The 16 will do in a pinch. It won't do the things I want it to tho.
The M1 carbine was a..... carbine... but so is the m16 in my opinion.. the M1 carbine used a totaly new round that had never been used in anything before much less a pistol... It was also not a pistol caliber at all... it was a .308 It was a handy gun. I would use it in a pinch too. it hits about like a .357 mag. the first carbines were tested using winchester .358 self loader ammo. This was a round used in "rifles" for hunting and many lament that it was not adopted for the carbine...
In a lot of cases... I would just as soon have a good semi auto or pump shotgun with 00 or #4 buck and a big revolver for backup. Any place I can see a long ways (over 50 yards) I want a garand or 14 or something semi auto in ought six or .308.
The BAR was an amazing gun... with a small mag.
And... when it comes right down to it.... Only about 10% of the people in a fight will even fire their weapons. only a few are really comfortable with guns... those few will make a BAR or bolt action mauser work really well... most won't... most are better off with the pissant rounds. Some kind of hit or lead in the air is better than nothing.
Also.. a lot of guys who are really good with guns are not team players anyway so you don't want to design your weapons systems around them... You need to do that around the average soldier and let the guys with a lot of skill use specialty weapons and specialty missions.
We are probly doing it about right at this time... some slight increase in caliber to say .243/257 would probly be OK tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Of course, as mentioned earlier, the Russian penchant for squealing up everything good and worthwhile has taken a bite out of this weapon. Developed and fielded in limited numbers, it's unlikely to gain the recognition of the Ak or the ARs.
I never saw an "Abakan" myself.
Frankly speaking I doubt that it will ever be a significant improvement in infantry weapons.
Accuracy is not an issue. Reliability is. I doubt that any design can beat good old Kalash in this field.
For special forces - Nikonov's automat may be a good thing, but for ordinary infantry - i doubt it. Anyway we have one SVD for every 10 infantry men.
-
Yup.. that SVD is a competent weapon. Kinda odd that it's limited to a 10 round mag. The Romanian version is a hair less accurate, every bit as reliable... and has the same 10 round mag limit. Wierd. They are WAAAAY over priced here. Must be the 'cachet' of unusual appearance and reputation.
Given a choice between the SVD and an m-14.. close call. The M-14 is more versitile, better ammo loadout. SVD can reach further, has a good optics system (standard) and is every bit as reliable as an AK. I guess it would depend on terrain and mission.. I'd select the SVD for sniper work. As an Infantry weapon, the M-14 is more versitile.