Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cthulhu on July 04, 2014, 07:43:55 AM
-
Anybody wanna say "I told you so?"
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/ (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/)
-
Anybody wanna say "I told you so?"
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/ (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/)
Bound to happen, British army replaced it's Browning Hi-Power's with Sig p226's, which seemed like an absolute waste of money to me, to go from a proven and hard wearing, solid design for another 9mm, followed by the Glock 17, also in 9mm :bhead
-
The entire issue is kinda silly. Using ball ammo, most of all, the differences between the various pistol calibers are so small we shouldnt even be thinking of a change. Even with high end ammo handguns are pretty poor stoppers. You either hit the guy in the boiler room or you dont, and even then, handguns are not very effecient.
Better off sticking with the 9mm.
-
Not disputing the calibre in the slightest, I took the Browning to 3 Brigade Pistol Championship wins. Never got on with the Sig at all and the Glock is truly horrible. My point was the waste of money. Pistols are rarely issued, and see even rarer usage in combat environments. I believe that a sniper from 5th Anglian regiment got a couple of kills with one in Afghan a few years ago. I agree that the differences in pistol calibres available in military terms currently are insignificant. Until the military decide to go with a round that has a much higher energy transfer, the question of calibre is a waste of time. :old:
-
I figured this would provoke a lot of opinions. :D This debate goes all the way back to the Miami FBI shootout. I always thought the military standardized on the 9 for two reasons... NATO commonality and performance against armor. Since shot placement is key with a low energy pistol rd, it seems prudent to go with a low to medium caliber, higher energy rd like 357 Sig or one of the rds specifically made to defeat armor. You guys remember the .224 BOZ? That cartridge looks like a paint can necked down to seat a straight pin. :)
-
How many times has the Army tried to replace the M-16 and failed? This is just going to be a huge waste of money. Lets just all make out checks to the Department of Defense for about $1000 and tell them to spend it however they want.
-
Not disputing the calibre in the slightest, I took the Browning to 3 Brigade Pistol Championship wins. Never got on with the Sig at all and the Glock is truly horrible. My point was the waste of money. Pistols are rarely issued, and see even rarer usage in combat environments. I believe that a sniper from 5th Anglian regiment got a couple of kills with one in Afghan a few years ago. I agree that the differences in pistol calibres available in military terms currently are insignificant. Until the military decide to go with a round that has a much higher energy transfer, the question of calibre is a waste of time. :old:
The Glock is truly horrible at what?
-
The Glock is truly horrible at what?
The 17 9milly feels horrible to shoot, I am talking from only my experience but from the get go it it felt less workmanlike compared to the nicely hewn hunk of Browning. I could never manage the same results with the 17 as I did with other handguns, always felt it was somehow twisting in my hand between shots and was never quite as intuitive to shoot comfortably.
-
Anybody wanna say "I told you so?"
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/ (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/07/03/army-wants-harder-hitting-pistol/)
Strangely coincidental timing with HK's VP9 release.
-
The article itself makes the point that going to a bigger round doesn't necessarily make it better. When you have to use a pistol it's going to be close in and you're going to have fire more than once no matter what the calibre. Is it better to have more ammo or more killing power?
I fired the Browning hi power in the military. I found it very accurate and we were trained to fire it one handed only. It could take 13 rounds in the magazine. The comparable M1911 only took 7 rounds. I know which one I'd prefer.
-
The 17 9milly feels horrible to shoot, I am talking from only my experience but from the get go it it felt less workmanlike compared to the nicely hewn hunk of Browning. I could never manage the same results with the 17 as I did with other handguns, always felt it was somehow twisting in my hand between shots and was never quite as intuitive to shoot comfortably.
If you learned to shoot with the HP and used it for a long time, then transitioning to a Glock will naturally result in worse performance for quite some time. Especially since the Glock is a natural pointer (like the Luger) while the HP and Sig are not. Your whole arm posture changes.
-
If you learned to shoot with the HP and used it for a long time, then transitioning to a Glock will naturally result in worse performance for quite some time. Especially since the Glock is a natural pointer (like the Luger) while the HP and Sig are not. Your whole arm posture changes.
Though we all have our personal preferences, I tend to agree. I've shot a Glock 21 now for 20 yrs or so. It's as easy as pointing your finger.
-
I wonder if they will come up with a .40 or .45 short, similar to the 9mm & 380.
-
The pistol's use in the military, or most anyplace else, is typically as a defensive weapon, or a secondary weapon that is faster to transition to during an emergency reload/stoppage with your rifle during CQB. Reliability and longevity are the two most important factors IMO and pretty much anyone who ever taught me who was somebody of note said the same- the calibers most common to combat pistols are all within pretty close parameters in terms of stopping power, although the 357 Sig does have pretty good results with the Air Marshalls (pretty much a 100% kill ratio), shot placement and training is a major factor in that statistic IMO, as their training and continuous skill maintenance (at least used to) ensure pretty high hit ratios.
Danny, the trigger possibly in the Glock you were using was either a factory 8 lb or worse, even 12lb or New York triggers are known to get into the military pistols. If you tried one with a 3.5lb discon/trigger that was tuned up, it would have shot a lot better for you I would wager. I shot a BHP for years as well, and worked for Sig Saeur Academy for many years, shooting many different types of pistols. For me the Sig 226, our flagship, shoots and points badly for me due to the high sightline and general shape - it just points very uninstinctively for me, and I have to hunt for the sights constantly. Sig 220 or 1911s, no problem with that at all. Everybody has different body mechanics, so the best bet for the military is go with something that is as common as possible, and reliable as possible.
The 92F/M9 always has had reliability issues, and rarely get to that 20k service life count without some sort of failure. Locking lugs shearing off being a big one, among many others. Talk to any Beretta armorer and you'll get the same story almost verbatim. Other pistols have issues as well, polymer framed pistols tend to be outlasted by steel frame, but there is cost and weight penalties with that as well. IMO the US military would be best served by a pistol with ammo already in common usage (9mm or .45) and made with a steel frame. After that, just pick the ones that get through the tests with the highest round count, and best/simplest controls and manufacture combined.
When I did PSD work our company bought G19s, and they worked well enough, and we also had the option to carry what we wanted, so I sometimes used a 1911 as I've shot them for years and just prefer them, plus working for a company that was run by mainly x US Army guys who had shot nothing BUT 1911 for years, it was very common.
The talk about a "harder hitting" pistol though, I just don't see it. Not unless you want to get into specialized ammunition. It's out there. 10 years ago I had 75gr +++p frangible stuff doing warp speed out of a G19 barrel, we're talking going through both panels of older 2a vests we hung on the range. Also very very hard on plastic framed guns, 2000 round service life expectancy with a Glock pistol, however it WAS very lethal compared to most pistol ammo. You just can't have it both ways IMO, you either have a lot of noise, recoil, flash, and wear to go with that lethality, or you don't, and have common ammo. Common ammo is probably the only way the regular units can go in the military. Large frame revolvers are built strong to take those 357 and 44 mag and even higher loads. Put those into an auto though - well, I've seen Desert Eagles, AMT and Automags discombubulate with great frequency on the range, with not a lot of rounds put through them. The nature of the semi auto pistol with that huge load tends to break things, ask any range that rents out such pistols how long they last, and the answer is not long.
The new VP9 HK pistol was mentioned, however in my experience few if any polymer framed guns last much longer than that 20k service life expectancy from the factory. Glocks, Sigs, HKs, you name it, if it has a plastic frame, typically some sort of malfunction, often catastrophic or at least very expensive and time consuming to repair is in the near future around 20k. This is unacceptable IMO for a military general service pistol. There is no reason that number can't be doubled or even tripled, and a steel frame pistol built to be reliable and long lasting is a capability many manufacturers do posses. It's time the US military chose one, or put out a competition for builders to make one.
edit - Smoe, the 45 GAP and other various calibers already exist, but IMO to go to a non standard round would be too expensive for such a large batch of pistols. 9mm or 45 will likely end up being the caliber of choice in this spending environment with defense.
-
I was thinking a short .40 or .45 cal with a shorter length, reduced powder charge/bullet weight/recoil/velocity/noise/flash could be a solution.
The .45 is known as a man stopper because it has a large diameter and lower velocity, so it has a significant punch when hitting a human target. The 9mm on the other hand is faster and a smaller round, so it can zip through flesh without a person feeling like they have been hit, especially when the adrenalin is pumping.
I am thinking of a .45 in a 130-150 gr weight mainly for reduced recoil. Keep it subsonic so it is felt by the target and don't worry so much about penetration. Although, I am wondering if police like the 9mm round for it ability to go through car doors and windows. Since the person which they may be shooting at will more than likely try to escape in car. However, the military has different set of conditions for which they would require a man stopper bullet.
The .45 GAP was made to be shorter length (about .2" or 5mm shorter) than a .45 ACP, but with similar performance. The .45 GAP was probably designed to have a double stack magazine with a compacted grip than what a .45 ACP would require.
Just my 2 cents.
-
I'm a big proponent of the 10mm Auto round. Good stopping power; where I've seen 9mm rounds just bounce off a Grizzly's skull, 10mm just seems to punch through quick and easy.
1mm bigger, so you still have the higher capacity magazines.
Recoil is nice and controllable.
I just love it.
-
Orange, have you personally shot any bears and seen that result? If you look at the test data done by the military and the FBI, 10mm isn't really putting THAT much more energy into the target than any of the other usual suspects caliber wise.
I shoot 10mm as well, I have a Delta Colt 10mm and a couple Smith 1006's, and I like it as well, prior to the 357 sig coming around, it was THE high velocity auto cartridge to shoot IMO. That said, again, it isn't leaps and bounds better than anything else, not a single caliber from 9 to 40, 45 357 etc has an edge larger than 10-20 percent over anything else. If that with premium ammo. 10mm with good loads moving at 1250 will usually be over 600 ft/lbs, compared to around 400 with really good 9mm ammo. This still isn't anything to write home over IMO. Many people consider 556 to be a poodle shooter, yet a typical NATO round has 1700 ft/lbs of energy. See what I mean?
Velocity is the most important factor, followed by bullet weight, then caliber/size/etc. Having a 130 gr low velocity, ie subsonic 45 round would be a terribly poor performer. 850 ish feet per second with 130gr bullet, it doesn't matter if it's 9, 45, or 75 caliber, it won't put enough energy into the target. A 115 9mm going typical defense load velocity will hit harder, far harder than that will. I get your idea smoe, but it's physics, unless you use some sort of expanding or exploding round, velocity is the critical component to lethality. The 5.7 which is essentially a .22 bullet going warp speed is one way to go, the opposite way to what you're suggesting, high high velocity with light weight projectile, and it tends to be more lethal than very low speed mid weight rounds. There is tons of data out there for certain to look at.
-
I personally haven't shot a grizzly with a pistol, but I have seen the results. My dad and I were up on a fishing trip in Alaska with our uncle Tom from the kenai Peninsula, abs my friend Ifeanyi. We got dumb and left the cooler out on day 3, and a grizzly wandered into our camp.
The damn things are huge. 15 year old me almost pissed himself.
-
If you want a pistol that is significantly different than the M9 or Glock or whatever, then the ammunition is key. Something like the FN Five-Seven or a similar modern pistol round with body-armor defeating performance. Once you accept the fact that no pistol calibre is going to kill anyone quickly without careful shot placement, the real issue becomes penetration.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/FN5701.jpg)
The 5.7x28mm FN round even has 30% less recoil than a typical 9mm.
-
Anybody wanna say "I told you so?"
I may be wrong, but I don't remember anyone ever saying that the .45 ACP lacked stopping power. Ball, soft point, hollow point, whatever.
Downsizing to the Euro cartridge was a mistake. Most US shooters knew it at the time (except for the 9 mm big-magazine fans). Glad they're taking steps to rectify the error.
- oldman
-
Not really a big deal since it really only matters to operators and MPs :)
Infantry doesn't use them except for gunners for close quarter when their 240 is down.
How many times has the Army tried to replace the M-16 and failed? This is just going to be a huge waste of money. Lets just all make out checks to the Department of Defense for about $1000 and tell them to spend it however they want.
I haven't used an M16 since I was at Sand Hill.....most non combat units don't even use M16s anymore.....
In fact they just told us we are getting the full auto M4s sometime in the next FY....Don't worry man we try to maintain our weapons even to the point where they are almost combat in effective so you don't have to waste your tax money.(Hell had to spray paint my M4 so it didn't shine in the light anymore...)
-
Here's a nice, practical choice with stopping power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7yK7pW6VuE
-
If you want a pistol that is significantly different than the M9 or Glock or whatever, then the ammunition is key. Something like the FN Five-Seven or a similar modern pistol round with body-armor defeating performance. Once you accept the fact that no pistol calibre is going to kill anyone quickly without careful shot placement, the real issue becomes penetration.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/FN5701.jpg)
The 5.7x28mm FN round even has 30% less recoil than a typical 9mm.
The issue with the U.S. forces is the budget. Given the amount of ammunition the Services expend for training, the price tag for that 5.7x28mm would send the policy makers into cardiac arrest.
-
Ammo, speaking of new calibers, have you heard anything about the 6.5mm Grendel round?
Apparently armed forces were to trial it with the SCAR-equipped units in 2013, but I haven't heard anything further.
-
If you learned to shoot with the HP and used it for a long time, then transitioning to a Glock will naturally result in worse performance for quite some time. Especially since the Glock is a natural pointer (like the Luger) while the HP and Sig are not. Your whole arm posture changes.
I didn't find that. I always got strange looks for my unorthodox shooting stance, I have hands like spades and always managed to shoot the Hi-power more intuitively than either the Sig or Glock.
Still managed tight groups from 25m kneeling and sitting, and standing snap shooting from 10m
-
The issue with the U.S. forces is the budget. Given the amount of ammunition the Services expend for training, the price tag for that 5.7x28mm would send the policy makers into cardiac arrest.
This is where things are screwed up. The individual 5.7 rounds should cost less to manufacture, they're less brass/powder/etc than a 9mm round. If it's a licensing issue the military should just come up with their own new/similar round and make it 5.67mm and call it the 5-6-7 :lol
I agree with the direction of this thread. For a pistol change to be meaningful, I think it needs to be a modern high velocity, high penetration round like the five-seven. We've already explored too many ways to do 9mm and 45ACP IMO.
-
It's not the brass, primers, and propellant that is expensive. It's that high terminal performance projectile that sends the price way up.
However, the military services could use ball ammo for training only and use the premium stuff for combat service
-
Thanks for the write up Gman. Being a Sigarms instructor I always wondered what your take was on the 357sig round. I have one in the 239 and really like it a lot
When it first came out years ago I was working at a gunshop/indoor range and always had access to the latest and greatest firearms/calibers and was usually left very unimpressed. It was the exact opposite with the 357sig. I will say that I am a bit biased as I love every Sig I own, my favorite (and primary ccw) being my 225.
I've always found the 40 cal unpleasant to shoot myself. A bit to snappy for my liking and can't seem to re-squire a decent sight picture (I'll admit I do do a lot of close quarters front sight shooting) and even doing that find it unpleasant. I've shot it in most all the brands out there and the only one I found to be decent was the Kimber 1911 in 40cal. I equate that to the weight, stiff spring and long slide travel
-
It's not the brass, primers, and propellant that is expensive. It's that high terminal performance projectile that sends the price way up.
However, the military services could use ball ammo for training only and use the premium stuff for combat service
And perhaps a lighter load to increase service life. Might need a lighter recoil spring for that though in a gun like the Five Seven. When I was in the army we used a very weak Israeli made 9mm training round; it was barely powerful enough to cycle the Glock. It also increased malfunctions of course, but that's a good thing to train on anyway.
In our army we still use the Glock in 9mm, but we have replaced the venerable MP-5 with the MP-7 in 4.7x30mm as the defensive weapon of vehicle crews and other personnel who needs a compact defense weapon.
(http://forsvaret.no/sites/artikkelbilder/PublishingImages/ole-sverre_haugli_skyttere_ladere.jpg)
-
As I was saying, for now with the tech we have, velocity is the primary factor. If there is ever a move towards some sort of higher performing projectile, for example exploding rounds or a new spin on the blended metal ideas, we're stuck with the current method really.
A combination of both would be perfect for smaller weapons - something that is moving fast enough to penetrate light body armor and other barriers, but also delivers some sort of explosive force once inside the target. A larger diameter and sized round might be helpful in that regard, in order to have more of a charge inside of it, possibly. IMO a 357 sig type round, that sort of size, a 115 to 147 gr bullet moving at say 13 or 1400 fps with a technology that has bullets exploding once they penetrate a ways - that IMO would be the most effective type of round out there for a pistol sized weapon. There would never again be worries, charts, and talk of the "lethality" or terminal ballistics, since the temporary and permanent wound channel would be the same thing - a huge hole formed almost instantly - after a kaboom inside the target, and a hit anywhere on the T line or the torso, within 6 inches of the cone of vulnerability in the human body would pretty much always be almost instantly fatal.
I realize there are treaties about such rounds, but there is always ways around that, and the world we live in now nobody seems to follow or care about promises made on paper anyway. IMO this is the direction that should be taken in the next decade or two for all types of projectile small arms weapons, and I know there are people working on these ideas already.
-
If you want a pistol that is significantly different than the M9 or Glock or whatever, then the ammunition is key. Something like the FN Five-Seven or a similar modern pistol round with body-armor defeating performance. Once you accept the fact that no pistol calibre is going to kill anyone quickly without careful shot placement, the real issue becomes penetration.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/FN5701.jpg)
The 5.7x28mm FN round even has 30% less recoil than a typical 9mm.
Exactly!
-
As I was saying, for now with the tech we have, velocity is the primary factor. If there is ever a move towards some sort of higher performing projectile, for example exploding rounds or a new spin on the blended metal ideas, we're stuck with the current method really.
A combination of both would be perfect for smaller weapons - something that is moving fast enough to penetrate light body armor and other barriers, but also delivers some sort of explosive force once inside the target. A larger diameter and sized round might be helpful in that regard, in order to have more of a charge inside of it, possibly. IMO a 357 sig type round, that sort of size, a 115 to 147 gr bullet moving at say 13 or 1400 fps with a technology that has bullets exploding once they penetrate a ways - that IMO would be the most effective type of round out there for a pistol sized weapon. There would never again be worries, charts, and talk of the "lethality" or terminal ballistics, since the temporary and permanent wound channel would be the same thing - a huge hole formed almost instantly - after a kaboom inside the target, and a hit anywhere on the T line or the torso, within 6 inches of the cone of vulnerability in the human body would pretty much always be almost instantly fatal.
I realize there are treaties about such rounds, but there is always ways around that, and the world we live in now nobody seems to follow or care about promises made on paper anyway. IMO this is the direction that should be taken in the next decade or two for all types of projectile small arms weapons, and I know there are people working on these ideas already.
What you're describing is very much like the old B Mark VI rd the Brit's developed for their .303's. Assuming manufacturing costs weren't too high, it would probably be a viable solution. The lower density (and hence mass) of the explosive core would give the higher velocity (Energy) you need to penetrate light armor, and the terminal effects would be lethal like you described.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't remember anyone ever saying that the .45 ACP lacked stopping power. Ball, soft point, hollow point, whatever.
Downsizing to the Euro cartridge was a mistake. Most US shooters knew it at the time (except for the 9 mm big-magazine fans). Glad they're taking steps to rectify the error.
- oldman
The .45 ACP lacks stopping power. Handguns in general lack stopping power. The one possible exception Ive seen has been a .357 mag wheelgun with 125 grn JHPs. The copper put the barrel of it to a armed robbers chest and literally blew chunks of his heart out his back.
But was it the caliber? The gun? The pressures of the magnum up against the target? The ammo type? And does it matter? No handgun is very efficient at stopping anyone unless the rounds are very well placed. Even then Ive seen criminals do some prolific things after getting shot even after good shot placement. Magnify all this when you combine combat conditions with it. Something has already gone seriously wrong if you have a handgun in your hand in a war.
No possible alternative to the 9mm will give you a cost effective edge if your shot placement is off. If your shot placement is on then you dont need anything but a 9mm. A higher pressure round will cost more both in terms of ammo and training and in unit replacement due to higher pressures. A 9mm is a gun EVERYONE can shoot. We have a lot of females and kids less familiar with guns joining up then many of you are. Just cause a lot of you can shoot the .357 SIG well doesnt mean it would be easy to train up tens of thousands of troops in just a few weeks with the round. Or the 10mm. "The 10mm"?
Had a 17 kid shot in the lung with a .40 once. He ran 2 blocks before he dropped and he lost his blood pressure in the ambulance. I figure he's History right? So who do I see on the corner 3 weeks later minus a lung? Handguns just arent very efficient. We've had to many "fire 2/watch the BG drop/admire you shots" incidents where the bad guy doesnt do what he is supposed to which isnt very admirable. One guy we shot 19 times with a 9mm, numerous in the chest, and he still lived and fired back. The guy is alive today.
Starting with 9mm/.38 cal shot placement becomes everything. As does shooting until the BG goes down or you hear "click". The 9mm is a perfectly adequate self defense round when your trained up to be accurate. I carry it almost everyday. Im surprised the Military is even having this discussion.
Because the best way to win a gun fight is to bring a long gun.
-
... Or a gunship.
-
One of the first real training classes I ever took was from Jeff Cooper long ago. He told us that the worst handgun in the world is still 10x better than the next defensive easy to carry option down the list, ie a knife, pepper spray, baton, whatever. He was right. He also said it still sucked as an offensive weapon, and for anything other than an easy to carry and conceal emergency defensive weapon. He was right again.
Like I said earlier and Rich was alluding to as well, the difference between all the major semi auto calibers that are simple and easy enough for all average joe's and women in the military to actually shoot and control is negligible. A couple hundred foot lbs here or there. Yes, the magnum revolvers due to their high pressure and high velocity loads will carry the day a lot more often than a semi auto 9, 45, 357, 40, or whatever.
I agree that the whole premise of the article, to find a "harder hitting" handgun is a ridiculous waste of money. A more reliable and long lasting handgun, sure, valid reason and direction to proceed. I can't think of a single person who has been in a gunfight who would raise there hand and say they would choose to take a pistol into another fight if they could have a rifle, or other shoulder supported type weapon. That isn't to say a pistol isn't important, or doesn't have a place, it does, but only as an emergency backup system, or at best, like Jeff Cooper told me long ago, a "better than nothing, or other options" defensive system to carry about your person. It beats no firearm, that's for certain, but spending piles of time and money to find solutions that just don't exist - well, pretty typical of the defense contractor and procurement system nowadays I guess.
-
Well Gman... There are some issues that can be addressed. While "legacy" pistol calibres are still effective against terrorists/insurgents/rebels/freedom fighters/whatever since they're mostly unarmored, modern armies are carrying more and better body armor. Even second rate and third world armies are armoring up. Penetration is perhaps the most important factor in selecting a new pistol calibre, or else we're quickly facing the reality that we'll need to shoot the enemy in the face to have any real chance at a kill shot.
(http://img.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/9/medium/2130.jpg)
-
Penetration is perhaps the most important factor in selecting a new pistol calibre, or else we're quickly facing the reality that we'll need to shoot the enemy in the face to have any real chance at a kill shot.
Ok, but these troops getting armor - even the best penetrating pistol round available in a service type pistol, the 5.7, will NOT go through level 4 armor, or any of the plates/carrier systems being used now, and is only marginal at best vs soft armor 3a or better (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/10/16/5-7x28mm-body-armor/). Like I said, the whole "harder hitting handgun" round thing is fellatios IMO, as even that argument, that future soldiers will be more armored doesn't matter when even rifle rounds will have a tough time penetrating - what hope does any pistol round have vs that? None really, for now with current tech being used. Penetration vs hard armor systems from a pistol velocity round is NOT going to happen, it just can't right now.
These nations aren't putting soft 3 or 3a armor on their troops, it's almost all in the 4 class, with ceramics and steel plates in use. Every year my company used to send me to the armor vs ammo thing that was held at the former Blackwater range. I've seen 5.7 shred cockpit doors and all sorts of soft armor, but the stuff like Paracleet, DragonScale, and the dozens of others that even small nations are putting on their troops - no pistol round, and few rifle rounds, are getting through that any longer. Even AP 308 will be stopped by even the cheaper ceramic plate systems now. This being the case, expecting a pistol to defeat it is impossible.
Don't get me wrong, 5.7 isn't a bad way to go IMO as it does give you the ability to get through other barriers that 9/45/40/etc can't, like lower class soft armor, other barriers like vehicle doors, and the like. Against well equipped enemy troops with the armor you're talking about G, it's just as ineffective as the above calibers.
I still think exploding ammo for small arms will be the future, and your armor point is part of the reason I believe this to be true. Standard rounds won't be very effective anymore due to the armor. Exploding rounds are another matter, they may not penetrate the plate systems, but the effects from the kaboom will deal damage all over the exposed body. I know there are treaties like I said, but nobody says boo when an AH64 kills swarms of Taliban with 30mm exploding ammo, do they. It's only a matter of time due to the race between armor and ammo that we end up going to really advanced projectiles that will either be able to get through the plates (less likely), or do enough blast damage that they don't really matter. It's already being worked on, a lot.
The data from Iraq and Afghanistan proves this out IMO. The number of troops killed by direct small arms enemy fire took a huge nose dive compared to past wars due to the armor systems being worn by many NATO troops. Many that were killed were by IED/blast weapons like VBEDS, IEDS, and RPGs, and other such things, not small arms rounds, and although it did happen, it was far, far less than previous fights as I said. Well, what is the west to do when the enemy starts wearing the same armor we are? That means our lethality from projectile small arms weapons is going to take a big nose dive as well, right? What is the solution to that - are we going to start using vbeds and ieds and rpgs as our primary way of killing the enemy? Unlikely. Explosive ammo is really the only solution short of some sort of directed energy weapon, or some wonder projectile that is fast and hard enough to bust through level 4 plates. Which is in the realm of the possible right now?
-
I think you underestimate the 5.7 and similar modern cartridges. According to FN the 5.7 is capable of penetrating the kevlar vest fielded by the US Army at 300 meters and the US PASGT kevlar helmet at a range of 240 meters. Mind you I have no personal experience with this round, I only go by what I read.
-
Maybe US armor is sheit though... That German helmet sure held up very well!
-
With all this said, where do you guys think they'll end up. Considering they're stuck with ball ammo in the short term I'm guessing they'll go back to the 45, maybe an HK or P220?
-
Depends... Who has the most money to spend on brib... I mean "lobbying" ?
-
I've fired thousands of 5.7 rounds vs all kinds of barriers, I don't underestimate or mis-estimate it at all. You understand what lvl 4 armor is, right? Ceramic or steel plates, often with soft armor combined into the carrier systems now - again, even AP 5.7 from pistol length bbls at that velocity will NOT get through the plate armor, nor the 3a armor with any regularity. I've seen many tests from the manufacturers at THE armor vs ammo show every year for 5 years straight where it was put up against everything but the kitchen sink.
American troops, especially special mission units, aren't using the armor you're talking about, and neither are the Chinese or other potential threats - they're using lvl 4 carrier systems and often have soft armor integrated into the gaps. And like I said, and showed in just one link of dozens out there, even soft 3a craploa cheap vests will stop AP 5.7 from a pistol length barrel. Junky would be a great guy to ask about regular infantry forces and how widespread the newer plate systems are that are rated to stop AP 308 rounds, but I know in the near future it will be very widespread. The USMC has tens of thousands of systems that will stop 30 cal armor piercing, and plans on buying another 80,000 sets in the next couple years. China is going great guns with armor like this as well. Again, lvl 4 rating like this means no chance of 5.7 or any handgun caliber outside of maybe some crazy .50 cal AP stuff - and even then I doubt it - ever defeating it.
-
You understand what lvl 4 armor is, right?
Yeah, I wore it for about a year in Bosnia. Mine had ceramic plates front and rear, but they only covered a rather small area of the center mass. Everything else was just level 2. Perhaps level 3 where the layers overlapped. Also, once that ceramic plate takes a hit it shatters (that's how it absorbs the energy) and doesn't offer much resistance to subsequent hits.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/616519165.jpg)
-
damz you's ugliez.. :angel:
-
Don't I know it! And that's 20 years ago! :uhoh
-
My co worker was struck by 3 rounds of AP Russian steel core from a PK at close range in his paracleet armor, and it stopped all of them on the same plate insert even though they were in very, very close proximity. There are many, many cases out there in google land of the plates absorbing multiple hits. They don't shatter into pieces, not at all.
I've got some vids I'll put up from BW's armor vs ammo shoot in 2006 or so, you can see various AP rounds being defeated by the plates, and many were tested with multiple hits.
Like I said, 5.7 or any pistol round for that matter has no chance of defeating most modern armor, and even older 3a level stuff it usually won't defeat with any regularity. Soft armor of the 2 to 3 class, yes, it'll defeat it, but so will 9mm 75 gr RUAG frangible going 1600 fps, both front and back panels.
Making a decision to buy 5.7 if the expectation or reasoning like you first were saying is to defeat the modern hard armor the Chinese and virtually every other army is trying to equip its troops with is a fail, as it can't, no pistol round can. Like I said, it will breech other barriers that many common pistol rounds can't, but vs lvl 4 armor - not a chance.
There are piles of vids of cheap 200$ or less plates taking multiple 30 cal rifle hits at point blank range and still stopping them all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HRGpQ6-rz8 is just a single example, there are dozens out there. In this vid 2 308 rounds are fired into the exact same hole - the plate still stops the 2nd round. And this is cheap stuff compared to Dragon scale or Paracleet systems. When you say I underestimate 5.7, I think you're way overestimating it. 762 Nato will vastly outperform 5.7 in every measurable way in terms of penetration, yet even cheap plates will stop it, so how does 5.7 have a prayer out of a pistol barrel at that limited velocity? Even from a P90 or rifle, 57 is no better than an SS109 556 Nato round in terms of penetrating power. All 5.7 was designed to do was defeat light soft body armor that was designed to stop 9,40,and 45 from a pistol or short barrel shoulder supported weapon. And that's it, it is no wonder round with some special AP component that will blast through lvl 4 armor. Again, it can't even defeat 3a soft armor with the AP round, and has no chance with the standard FMJ projectile.
-
I'll take your word for it. Our armor back in the '90s were rated to stop a 7.62 N ball at 100 metres. Closer than that it would penetrate the ceramic plate and kevlar. The rest of the vest would only stop typical pistol calibres and shrapnel.
-
The .45 ACP lacks stopping power. Handguns in general lack stopping power. The one possible exception Ive seen has been a .357 mag wheelgun with 125 grn JHPs. The copper put the barrel of it to a armed robbers chest and literally blew chunks of his heart out his back.
But was it the caliber? The gun? The pressures of the magnum up against the target? The ammo type? And does it matter? No handgun is very efficient at stopping anyone unless the rounds are very well placed. Even then Ive seen criminals do some prolific things after getting shot even after good shot placement. Magnify all this when you combine combat conditions with it. Something has already gone seriously wrong if you have a handgun in your hand in a war.
No possible alternative to the 9mm will give you a cost effective edge if your shot placement is off. If your shot placement is on then you dont need anything but a 9mm. A higher pressure round will cost more both in terms of ammo and training and in unit replacement due to higher pressures. A 9mm is a gun EVERYONE can shoot. We have a lot of females and kids less familiar with guns joining up then many of you are. Just cause a lot of you can shoot the .357 SIG well doesnt mean it would be easy to train up tens of thousands of troops in just a few weeks with the round. Or the 10mm. "The 10mm"?
Had a 17 kid shot in the lung with a .40 once. He ran 2 blocks before he dropped and he lost his blood pressure in the ambulance. I figure he's History right? So who do I see on the corner 3 weeks later minus a lung? Handguns just arent very efficient. We've had to many "fire 2/watch the BG drop/admire you shots" incidents where the bad guy doesnt do what he is supposed to which isnt very admirable. One guy we shot 19 times with a 9mm, numerous in the chest, and he still lived and fired back. The guy is alive today.
Starting with 9mm/.38 cal shot placement becomes everything. As does shooting until the BG goes down or you hear "click". The 9mm is a perfectly adequate self defense round when your trained up to be accurate. I carry it almost everyday. Im surprised the Military is even having this discussion.
Because the best way to win a gun fight is to bring a long gun.
Not long after it was accepted by the FBI, I had a chance to put several hundred rounds through a 10mm S&W. Stout recoil, such that frames and slides were failing in the field. It is an effective round, but not much fun to shoot. Shooting 10mm in an MP5/10, it was a delight. My preferred handgun cartridge is .357 Magnum. Tied with the .44 Magnum for 97% one hit effectiveness (when hit in center of mass). In the mid 1980s, I bought a Rossi made Winchester 1892 clone, specifically chambered in .357 Mag. With hand loads (21 grains of W296 under a 125 grain JHP), it generates just over 2,000 ft/sec MV out of a 16" barrel. That's not very far behind my Win '94 in .30-30. That '92 lever gun is a great home defense rifle. Short, light, fast action and far more lethal than any common handgun. It's backed up with a 12 ga. Remington 870 tactical shotgun.
Since before the Civil War, the US Army has suffered through the endless debate over caliber and power of hand guns. A cap and ball 1860 Colt New Model Army is still quite lethal. It shoots a 144 grain or 230 grain ball or conical. With the ball, it can generate over 1,200 fps with a .451 diameter lead ball with 35 grains of FFF powder. A Colt Walker, loaded with 60 grains, can push that same ball to over 1,600 fps. The .38 Colt round was a failure when it replaced the venerable .45 Long Colt. For about 70 years, the .45 ACP was the choice of the US military, and it served well. Then came the M9 and it arrived to mixed reviews. I tested the Beretta 96D (.40 cal) for the INS in the late 1990s. I never cared for the large frame Berettas. I didn't like the ergonomics, and I managed to break every 96D I ran through reliability testing. Glocks are alright, with a decent trigger. SIGs are very nice too. I really like the balance of the Colt single action .45 "Peacemaker", with 7.5" barrel. The old .45 Long Colt was the deadliest handgun round of its day. It's still lethal enough, with the right bullet. These days, you can buy a high quality clone in .357 Magnum, but the frontier style single action types are really just hobby guns nowadays.
You are right, of course... Whenever possible, bring a rifle to the handgun fight.
-
What do the Hague and Geneva conventions say about exploding ammunition for use against personnel?
-
What do the Hague and Geneva conventions say about exploding ammunition for use against personnel?
They say it's not really cricket :old:
Mind you this was written before brainwashed and drugged up Jihadi's were rushing around the place being unpleasant :old:
-
They say it's not really cricket :old:
Mind you this was written before brainwashed and drugged up Jihadi's were rushing around the place being unpleasant :old:
I've been working on a Paradigm shift rubber bullet concept. If you get hit it makes you completely change your mind about everything. I tested it on Zack and now he likes leather shorts and knockwurst. I last saw him flying away in a Bf109 singing the Deutschlandlied. :old:
-
I've been working on a Paradigm shift rubber bullet concept. If you get hit it makes you completely change your mind about everything. I tested it on Zack and now he likes leather shorts and knockwurst. I last saw him flying away in a Bf109 singing the Deutschlandlied. :old:
I employed a few "rubber bullets" in Northern Ireland, they made the impactee completely change their minds about everything. Sorry Shida, appears to have already been invented. :old:
-
I employed a few "rubber bullets" in Northern Ireland, they made the impactee completely change their minds about everything. Sorry Shida, appears to have already been invented. :old:
:rofl :rofl I can imagine. What do the Hague and Geneva conventions say about targeting rubber bullets at the goonads?
-
The military hand gun need only be powerful enough to execute the insubordinate enlisted man.
-
:rofl :rofl I can imagine. What do the Hague and Geneva conventions say about targeting rubber bullets at the goonads?
Never happened, we targeted the road 5 feet in front of them. That the rounds bounced unpredictably into their knackers was purely coincidental :old:
-
If penetration is as big of a concern for all calibers as you're predicting, Gman, I'd put my money on tungsten sabo rounds. Or knowing the US, perhaps we use DU.
At least, as you said, until the US says screw the convention, and stops using ball ammo.
Of note though, direct energy weapons may not be impossibly far off. The Navy is set to deploy the first combat lazer system next year. I hear a mach-6 capable rail gun firing a 5kg slug may be deployed by 2018.
-
The standard beretta currently in use is easy to shoot and reliable in .40. They wouldn't have to re-train or anything if they changed to the beretta in .40, just start swapping out the guns and ammo. It has a slight increase in recoil but the gun is so heavy that it's still quite easy to shoot. I taught my wife to shoot using my beretta 92FS, and I train with it before each USAF qualifying shoot so when I go to qualify with the 9mm, and I usually easily shoot expert. So that would be a very easy and cost-effective way to swap. The guns would cost about the same, the training would remain exactly the same with no re-training required, so they'd just pay a bit more for ammo to get a more effective round. And many law enforcement agencies use .40 so it isn't exactly a rare type. Might even drive down .40 ammo prices for the rest of us, like it did for 9mm.
-
The standard beretta currently in use is easy to shoot and reliable in .40. They wouldn't have to re-train or anything if they changed to the beretta in .40, just start swapping out the guns and ammo. It has a slight increase in recoil but the gun is so heavy that it's still quite easy to shoot. I taught my wife to shoot using my beretta 92FS, and I train with it before each USAF qualifying shoot so when I go to qualify with the 9mm, and I usually easily shoot expert. So that would be a very easy and cost-effective way to swap. The guns would cost about the same, the training would remain exactly the same with no re-training required, so they'd just pay a bit more for ammo to get a more effective round. And many law enforcement agencies use .40 so it isn't exactly a rare type. Might even drive down .40 ammo prices for the rest of us, like it did for 9mm.
You assume that the powers that be are concerned with cost and minimal retraining when re-equipping, rather than with backhanded brown envelopes and heavily greased palms.
Hence the British Army transition to the L85-A1/2 rather than re-equipping with the FN FNC in 5.56, an almost exact product to the FN SLR 7.62 that the Brits already had ample and successful experience with :old:
-
If penetration is as big of a concern for all calibers as you're predicting, Gman, I'd put my money on tungsten sabo rounds. Or knowing the US, perhaps we use DU.
At least, as you said, until the US says screw the convention, and stops using ball ammo.
Of note though, direct energy weapons may not be impossibly far off. The Navy is set to deploy the first combat lazer system next year. I hear a mach-6 capable rail gun firing a 5kg slug may be deployed by 2018.
Would make the handgun rather unweildy and limit amount of ammunition you could carry, though the 5kg round would have ample stopping power :old:
-
Would make the handgun rather unweildy and limit amount of ammunition you could carry, though the 5kg round would have ample stopping power :old:
But the mach-6 velocity would be cool for a handgun? This 5kg round would probably need to have a super sharp tipped AP to get through the latest armor.
-
But the mach-6 velocity would be cool for a handgun? This 5kg round would probably need to have a super sharp tipped AP to get through the latest armor.
Ridiculous, if it was spiky it would make it too long to fit in ammo pouches :banana:
-
Yeah, I wore it for about a year in Bosnia. Mine had ceramic plates front and rear, but they only covered a rather small area of the center mass. Everything else was just level 2. Perhaps level 3 where the layers overlapped. Also, once that ceramic plate takes a hit it shatters (that's how it absorbs the energy) and doesn't offer much resistance to subsequent hits.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/616519165.jpg)
I knew it, this picture proves that you are the guy in the avatar wearing a nazi uniform :).
semp
-
Never happened, we targeted the road 5 feet in front of them. That the rounds bounced unpredictably into their knackers was purely coincidental :old:
Hmm hmmmm :lol
At least, as you said, until the US says screw the convention,
Then what are you fighting for?
-
Well I say just buy a bunch of new 9mms from a company that employs all Americans and stick with the plan. The needs of the Police are different then the needs of combat soldiers, "besides the difference between the calibers is very small anyways". A soldier is usually with his squad/unit and I cant remember the last time I even worked with a partner.
Besides even we have gone to 5.56mm nowadays anyways. I never leave home without it. A soldier is geared up for very intensive violence and what troop would want to put themselves into a situation where they need to pull a handgun? Even if your rifle stokes up your squad should be covering you while you clear it. I just see this entire thing as a nonexistant problem looking for an answer that doesnt exist.
Want to use that extra money better? Increase 9mm range time and also give these troops more $$ on the 1st and 16th.
-
Hence the British Army transition to the L85-A1/2 rather than re-equipping with the FN FNC in 5.56, an almost exact product to the FN SLR 7.62 that the Brits already had ample and successful experience with :old:
See now.....I would say the SLR is a better rifle than an L85Aanything. Calibre is king. Same goes for pistols. I second what Eagl said, .40 is perfectly acceptable for an emergency defensive weapon.
Udie told me a story once about a time he was working in a gun store in Texas, a old fella came in with his son to buy the lad his first pistol. They looked at a lot of weapons but the son finally whittled it down to a choice between a 92F 9mm and a 1911 .45.....the father solved the dilemma by saying "Son, I never had to shoot a man twice with a .45".
-
But the mach-6 velocity would be cool for a handgun? This 5kg round would probably need to have a super sharp tipped AP to get through the latest armor.
Once they develop the tech enough to scale it down, rail guns are the future of projectile weapons. Imagine a 31gr 5.7AP round traveling at 6700ft/s.
Right now though, I think the plan is to use them to replace the Mk 110, and a smaller 2kg model with higher velocity as an experimental City. Even just clip an inbound missile with 4lbs going mach 8 or 9, and no more missile.
-
See now.....I would say the SLR is a better rifle than an L85Aanything. Calibre is king. Same goes for pistols. I second what Eagl said, .40 is perfectly acceptable for an emergency defensive weapon.
Udie told me a story once about a time he was working in a gun store in Texas, a old fella came in with his son to buy the lad his first pistol. They looked at a lot of weapons but the son finally whittled it down to a choice between a 92F 9mm and a 1911 .45.....the father solved the dilemma by saying "Son, I never had to shoot a man twice with a .45".
Hence why I recommended a .45 ACP short.
-
See now.....I would say the SLR is a better rifle than an L85Aanything. Calibre is king. Same goes for pistols. I second what Eagl said, .40 is perfectly acceptable for an emergency defensive weapon.
Udie told me a story once about a time he was working in a gun store in Texas, a old fella came in with his son to buy the lad his first pistol. They looked at a lot of weapons but the son finally whittled it down to a choice between a 92F 9mm and a 1911 .45.....the father solved the dilemma by saying "Son, I never had to shoot a man twice with a .45".
I dont think its a good idea to steer millions of dollars and the safety of hundreds of thousands of troops based on some Texas gun store story that may or may not have actually happened. Let alone the reality "gun store tales"?. They are all "perfectly legitimate" as long as you put the bullet in the boiler room. Caliber isnt King. Bullet placement is both King and Queen because the idea isnt to kill the enemy its to do so before he kills you.
I'd be willing to bet this goes nowhere. Tho if it does the .40 is about the only one that makes any kind of sense. And even that load doesnt make enough sense to turn the super freighter in another direction. Do you have any idea what is involved to change calibers/loads/gun types for such a large Military machine and the costs involved?
-
Because the best way to win a gun fight is to bring a long gun.
Of course. But that isn't the issue. If a handgun is all that's available, I'd like it to be the one best able to save me. Saying that all handguns are less powerful than all rifles is nearly correct, but beside the point. If someone is in a difficult situation, I would think he/she would rather have a .45 ACP than a .25 ACP. There are significant differences in between those extremes, as the FBI testing showed.
- oldman
-
Skyyrr, brags about being American, Flys a European plane.
-
I knew it, this picture proves that you are the guy in the avatar wearing a nazi uniform :).
semp
:lol
Yeah, I always had a smirk like that on my face when my squad and I were out flying. Hopping around in helicopters is probably the one thing I miss the most from my army days.
-
Discussions and debates such as this constantly make me go :bhead with all the hear-say, assumptions, and armchair commando commentary.
Combat handguns and the FMJ calibers they fire have differences enough that there is no "best" for all situations.
As most of us know, accuracy is first and foremost the most important thing. If the user of the X sidearm is unable to get rounds on target than it makes no difference what the gun or caliber is. Likewise, if slider can be too far one way and the caliber becomes too daft to get the job done (think .22 rimfire or .25 ACP), then it is time to start thinking more oomph.
I think the US military should keep the 9mm NATO as their caliber of choice for a sidearm and when the situation calls for it (SPECOPS, etc), issue the sidearm and caliber of choice. This whole "1 size fits all" theory is for fools. I think there are a number of 9mm sidearms that have **proved** themselves over the years that would qualify for military duty (Sig226, Beretta92FS, HKx, Gluck17/19, FNx, etc).
There are so many factors in the debate that when someone is screaming 1 or 2 points they forget the other 9 that need to be dealt with.
-
A couple of relevant videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQE0e-9rCjM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZDrgoRprVo
-
I wonder if they will come up with a .40 or .45 short, similar to the 9mm & 380.
The .40 S&W already is a "short". 10mm short or 10mm FBI.
The 17 9milly feels horrible to shoot, I am talking from only my experience but from the get go it it felt less workmanlike compared to the nicely hewn hunk of Browning. I could never manage the same results with the 17 as I did with other handguns, always felt it was somehow twisting in my hand between shots and was never quite as intuitive to shoot comfortably.
Understand, thankfully I don't suffer but I know a lot of people that don't care for the feel of them.
-
Caliber isnt King.
Yes it is.
-
I've been working on a Paradigm shift rubber bullet concept. If you get hit it makes you completely change your mind about everything. I tested it on Zack and now he likes leather shorts and knockwurst. I last saw him flying away in a Bf109 singing the Deutschlandlied.
I hope you got all those rubber bullets back. No telling what Zack might do with them. :lol
-
There are piles of vids of cheap 200$ or less plates taking multiple 30 cal rifle hits at point blank range and still stopping them all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HRGpQ6-rz8
I just watched that video you linked to, and as I said the ceramic plate shatters; creating large cavities where the rounds hit that are vulnerable to subsequent hits (which also inadvertently happened in the video resulting in a penetration). And that was my point: With a typical pistol round you might eventually, after many rounds, shatter and penetrate the plate, but you won't penetrate the level 2 or 3a kevlar underneath it. With the 5.7 or similar modern round in a close quarters situation you could put several rounds into the plate and achieve penetration. After the plate has been defeated subsequent hits in the same area can penetrate the kevlar. It's not a miracle round... It is still very underpowered for military applications, but it is decidedly better than legacy calibres. Or?
-
I really dislike this guy as a presenter, but the performance of the MP-7 is undeniable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7TmgyiLoY4
-
Five-Seven with subsonic ammo vs level 3a armor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A65bLxWH3kc
This is an awesome pistol calibre.
-
We're essentially in agreement, all I've been saying is your original statement that 5.7 would be effective for countering modern armor nations like China that you linked pics to wasn't correct. 5.7 is easily the best penetration performing pistol round of standard manufacture and availability, however it still is no match for the cheapest ceramic plate systems, including what the Chinese are and will be using. Yes the 193 round penetrated that 3a shoulder piece. The SS190 AP will usually get through 3a. Again, against the best soft 3a armor you can get, the ball 5.7 doesn't always penetrate, hence DIJ giving it a marginal rating for penetration vs 3a. The reality is if the military used it, it WOULD be using the illegal for civilians in the USA to own SS190, which would be most times effective vs soft 3a. This isn't the point, or the one which you initially brought up, that choosing 5.7 because it would be effective vs modern infantry ceramic armor systems. It isn't.
Most nations are equipping their troops with lvl 4, again, which 5.7 will NOT get through. Multiple shots in the same place? That's your plan? How likely or possible do you think that is? How many rounds would it take in precisely the same spot to defeat a cheap ceramic plate with 5.7 - I'm wagering double digits, since 762x54 steel core Russian AP will be stopped even with multiple hits on a decent plate. Again, in that vid I posted, of which there are many, 762 Nato WILL stop several rounds in the plate from point blank range with the cheapest 140$ plates you can get. High end systems like Paracleet, Scale, etc, can and have stopped multiple hits from various 30 cal rifle rounds, AR500 plates will stop rounds in the same place, there are tests and videos of it taking over 10 hits and not failing. How many rounds do you think 5.7 will need? It's ridiculous trying to defend your original supposition by now saying all that's needed is a ton of multiple hits in the precise same spot, and now you're correct, 5.7 will beat a plate armor system. Is 5.7 the best penetrating standard handgun round out there - yes, probably. Is it one of the better options - again, probably. Will it defeat the armor which nearly all potential enemies will be wearing in the next 1/2 decade - no.
Believe me, I know how capable it is, I've seen it when it was first coming around being demo'd by the factory reps. At BW in 2004 they had a new cockpit door that the manufacturer rated against all kinds of pistol ammunition, and they were very surprised when 5.7 defeated it in front of hundreds of people. It still will not make any difference versus lvl 4 ceramic plate - none. It is very effective for what it is designed for, beating threats wearing soft armor or getting through other light barriers. In Canada we don't have a law forbidding the use of SS190 ammo, and I've shot thousands of rounds of it through both the 5.7 FN pistol and the P90 semi auto carbine with a longer barrel than the typical subgun. I have an AR upper that uses it as well. It has very controllable recoil, limited flash, excellent accuracy, and amazing penetration. The controls are awful on the pistol, and IMO a steel framed pistol is what the military needs for longevity and service life - a simple DA/SA 20 round steel framed pistol with standard controls and decocker would be perfect for a "new" military pistol in 5.7 IMO.
http://www.guns.com/review/2013/12/03/ar500-armor-part-ii-will-defeat-video/
The above plates are cheap, and only lvl 3, and look what it takes to defeat it - 50 cal 750 gr Amax barely broke through, and this is 10 year old tech. In another decade, our potential threats will have this and more.
-
Skyyrr, brags about being American, Flys a European plane.
(Wrong thread dude).
-
I hope you got all those rubber bullets back. No telling what Zack might do with them. :lol
Probably make a pie :old:
Multiple shots in the same place? That's your plan?
I should have thought they'd have a sit down behind cover after the first hit to think things through.
-
Gman, in that video you posted they fired five rounds from the CETME. One skirted the top of the plate and penetrated. Another shot hit the weakened part of the plate (from the two previous shots) and penetrated... Despite the best efforts of the shooter five shots resulted in two accidental penetrations.
And I have never made the claim you're attributing to me. I have never claimed the 5.7 will defeat level 4 armor in a single shot, so let's just leave it at that.
-
Yes, and the other plate took several shots and didn't fail. And those are cheap plates. Even decent lvl 3 AR500 will take dozens of hits from 762 AP and not fail.
While "legacy" pistol calibres are still effective against terrorists/insurgents/rebels/freedom fighters/whatever since they're mostly unarmored, modern armies are carrying more and better body armor. Even second rate and third world armies are armoring up. Penetration is perhaps the most important factor in selecting a new pistol caliber, or else we're quickly facing the reality that we'll need to shoot the enemy in the face to have any real chance at a kill shot.
I think you underestimate the 5.7 and similar modern cartridges. According to FN the 5.7 is capable of penetrating the kevlar vest fielded by the US Army at 300 meters and the US PASGT kevlar helmet at a range of 240 meters.
The previous posts when you were talking about the 5.7, and then saying this - my point the entire discussion is that THIS point is invalid, as penetration doesn't mean anything with all combat pistol caliber including 5.7, and even many rifle calibers, versus the very armor you brought up. Again, even the cheapest, crappiest ceramic armor will stop multiple shots per plate before failure in most cases, and decent armor will stop multiple hits in the same spot, as shown in that last video, again, just one of dozens of examples out there. I agree, even the poorest nations are beginning to armor up, and every serious threat is well on there way and then some. All I disagreed with is that the primary factor of penetration regarding a pistol caliber is relevant when considering the armor issue, as even AP 30 cal rifle fire is defeated by average to decent armor, which means no pistol caliber is a threat against it, regardless of how well it penetrates and performs.
With the 5.7 or similar modern round in a close quarters situation you could put several rounds into the plate and achieve penetration
- No, it can't, not versus anything of decent quality. If lvl 3 AR500 plates are stopping dozens of 3000fps 150+ gr rifle rounds, and almost stopping a 750gr Amax round after all of that - 5.7 hasn't a prayer, regardless of how many rounds are put into the plate.
Again, it isn't a bad option, but vs modern armored threats, it'll be no more effective than any other pistol round, as soft unarmored areas of the target will have to be struck, and as many others here have stated as well, the existing calibers like 9/40/45/etc will be similarly effective then anyway, as the variance in performance isn't all that much between them.
-
How likely do you actually see the possibility that US military has to shoot armored combatants in close quarter fights with secondary armament?
I think it is pretty convincing if the FBI went to .40 S&W (shortened version of .40 auto but not proportionally weaker) and I recall "Tales from the Morque" or what ever it was called that the person, from his experience, preferred 357 Mag or .40 since many people ending in the morque had those projectiles in them, and not many/person.
In turn small, fast projectile will defeat bodyarmor and start rotating thus creating a painful wound, but small projectiles are not really made to kill but to wound, and thus create more emotional stress and logistic problem to enemy by having to move the wounded out of the combat area ASAP. 1 person gets hit and it takes two or three guys out of combat.
So the point seems to be whether or not the opposing combatants will be wearing bodyarmour. In law enforcement branch the choice of .40 is thus pretty obvious but what about military?
-C+
Ed. Found it: http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm
-
Maybe this is a good thread to ask:
I've been through a NRA safety course and have gone to the local range several times but admit to being a novice with firearms. I'm considering perchasing a gun, mostly for fun but also home protection. So far I've shot a variety of 9mm pistols of various makes (Glock, Sig, etc) but am not sure which way to go. I will say I did not enjoy the Glock (no offense to anyone...just seemed clunky to me).
So...suggestions? Keep in mind this will be my first weapon, but likely not the last one I purchase as I am also considering becoming a collector. Thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
-
I would suggest the most important thing to do is to get to a level whereby you are no longer a "novice with firearms".
We are not allowed privately owned handguns in the UK, and I wouldn't presume to tell you which type of weapong would be best for what you want, suffice to say that for fun it would probably be best looking at weapons with cheaper and readily available ammunition.
In terms of home defense I would suggest little says "get off my property" better than the sound of a 12 gauge pump being racked :old:
Coupled with the hitting power of a shotgun I would suggest it would outperform even the very newest handguns in every field bar concealability :old:
-
I would suggest the most important thing to do is to get to a level whereby you are no longer a "novice with firearms".
We are not allowed privately owned handguns in the UK, and I wouldn't presume to tell you which type of weapong would be best for what you want, suffice to say that for fun it would probably be best looking at weapons with cheaper and readily available ammunition.
In terms of home defense I would suggest little says "get off my property" better than the sound of a 12 gauge pump being racked :old:
Coupled with the hitting power of a shotgun I would suggest it would outperform even the very newest handguns in every field bar concealability :old:
Having once had the sound of a 12 gauge pump being racked AT me (long story, but suffice it to say it was a mistake and no one was injured), I agree with you! My wife, however, might not! :old: :D
As for the rest...working on not being a novice i.e. taking classes at the local range, etc. :aok
Sorry about the privately owned weapons in the UK stuff....that kinda sucks. I have my own opinions on that topic, but understand the attiude of (some) US citizens differs greatly from that of others in the world. I also don't want to offend anyone who might have a different opinion. :salute and thanks for the suggestions!
-
Once they develop the tech enough to scale it down, rail guns are the future of projectile weapons. Imagine a 31gr 5.7AP round traveling at 6700ft/s.
Right now though, I think the plan is to use them to replace the Mk 110, and a smaller 2kg model with higher velocity as an experimental City. Even just clip an inbound missile with 4lbs going mach 8 or 9, and no more missile.
You're not going to see man-portable rail guns anytime soon. The energy requirements are immense. Remember that conventional ammo brings it's energy with it, so unless you're planning on shooting the bad guy with some weird thermal battery penetrator....
Also, you don't need to clip a missile at Mach 8 to take it out. Our PAC-3 does the same job kinetically only going Mach 3+ just fine.
Finally, all this hyper velocity stuff is not a cure all. Remember that the atmosphere is taking away all that hyper velocity kinetic energy at a prodigious rate. Beyond a certain range, larger slower projectiles retain their energy far better.
-
Maybe this is a good thread to ask:
I've been through a NRA safety course and have gone to the local range several times but admit to being a novice with firearms. I'm considering perchasing a gun, mostly for fun but also home protection. So far I've shot a variety of 9mm pistols of various makes (Glock, Sig, etc) but am not sure which way to go. I will say I did not enjoy the Glock (no offense to anyone...just seemed clunky to me).
So...suggestions? Keep in mind this will be my first weapon, but likely not the last one I purchase as I am also considering becoming a collector. Thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
As Danny said, get to where you're not a novice with firearms.
After that, go look for a good 12ga pump. They're reliable, hard hitting, and intimidating.
Also, in a home defense situation, you want to be able to hit him once, and have there be absolutely zero chance he gets back up. You pray you don't have to take anyone down, but when it comes down to it, is the safety of you and your family.
-
As Danny said, get to where you're not a novice with firearms.
After that, go look for a good 12ga pump. They're reliable, hard hitting, and intimidating.
Also, in a home defense situation, you want to be able to hit him once, and have there be absolutely zero chance he gets back up. You pray you don't have to take anyone down, but when it comes down to it, is the safety of you and your family.
Absolutely. If you're thinking home protection, nothing says you're serious like a 12 ga. And you can have one for less than the cost of a good pistol.
You'll still end up buying a pistol because well, you will. Shooting is addictive and fun as Hell. Take everybody's recommendations with a grain of salt, and then go buy whatever makes you smile the most when you shoot it. :)
-
Would it not be more logical and economical for the US Army to do away with the pistol altogether and lump the money towards a new ambidextrous bullpup assault rifle with varying barrel lengths but sharing the same mechanism and cartridge?
-
Would it not be more logical and economical for the US Army to do away with the pistol altogether and lump the money towards a new ambidextrous bullpup assault rifle with varying barrel lengths but sharing the same mechanism and cartridge?
That's a thought. Some of the really short-barreled M4's are practically there already. Carriage (holster?) could be an issue though. Maybe something like the P90?
-
That's a thought. Some of the really short-barreled M4's are practically there already. Carriage (holster?) could be an issue though. Maybe something like the P90?
The shortest one of these doesn't seem a lot longer than the thingie Gscholz posted. All 5.56-mm with mostly common parts:
(http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu246/mamoo0692/SAA_L85_1_L.jpg)
If you designed it properly you could change out the barrels like the Steyr AUG in about 45 seconds. So if the day's work involved urban house clearing...
Just a thought anyway.
-
US military doesn't like bullpups for some reason.
-
The shortest one of these doesn't seem a lot longer than the thingie Gscholz posted.
Only about twice as long.
-
Would it not be more logical and economical for the US Army to do away with the pistol altogether and lump the money towards a new ambidextrous bullpup assault rifle with varying barrel lengths but sharing the same mechanism and cartridge?
The pistol is there as a backup in case your main weapon malfunctions or is out of action for other reasons.
-
Only about twice as long.
I was thinking the maximum length simply had to be comparable to a pistol shooter using the Weaver Stance.
The pistol is there as a backup in case your main weapon malfunctions or is out of action for other reasons.
I thought that was what your squaddies was for :D
-
The shortest one of these doesn't seem a lot longer than the thingie Gscholz posted. All 5.56-mm with mostly common parts:
(http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu246/mamoo0692/SAA_L85_1_L.jpg)
If you designed it properly you could change out the barrels like the Steyr AUG in about 45 seconds. So if the day's work involved urban house clearing...
Just a thought anyway.
Pretty sure the P90 is smaller than any of those.
-
The previous posts when you were talking about the 5.7, and then saying this - my point the entire discussion is that THIS point is invalid, as penetration doesn't mean anything with all combat pistol caliber including 5.7, and even many rifle calibers, versus the very armor you brought up.
The armor I brought up, the US PASGT armor is not level 4. The helmet is rated at 3a and has been penetrated in demonstrations by both the 5.7x28 and the 4.6x30. The PASGT kevlar vest is only rated at level 2... and please note that I specify the kevlar vest just like i did in my previous posts, not the ISAPO plate carrier that was added later... I have not "brought up" or even hinted at any level 4 armor.
For reference here's your AR500 plate:
(http://blog.beezcombatsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Low-profile-Plae-Carrier-for-AR500-Omega-armor.jpg)
And here's the complete Interceptor armor system in use by US forces now:
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/interceptor-deltoid-image1.jpg)
Now... What does a level 4 plate protect... It protects the heart, lungs, liver and upper intestines. It does not protect the torso flanks, lower abdomen, hips, gonads, shoulders, upper arms, throat, or head. All these areas have a maximum of level 3a protection and can be penetrated by the 5.7 or 4.6. in one shot. With a 9mm or .45 you're down to the unprotected face, lower arms and legs only. The rest is pretty much impregnable to legacy pistol calibres. And that is what I meant with my original post.
You can keep quoting on me all you like, but you will never find a quote where I say or even hint at the 5.7 being able to defeat level 4 armor in one shot.
-
I was thinking the maximum length simply had to be comparable to a pistol shooter using the Weaver Stance.
The size of a backup weapon is not that important when you're actually using it. The size and weigh is important when you're not using it. Lugging around what is in effect a second assault rifle is contrary to the whole idea of a backup gun. It should be light and not cumbersome.
I thought that was what your squaddies was for :D
They could be out of action too. ;)
-
The size of a backup weapon is not that important when you're actually using it. The size and weigh is important when you're not using it. Lugging around what is in effect a second assault rifle is contrary to the whole idea of a backup gun. It should be light and not cumbersome.
Yes I understood that. I wasn't suggesting it as a secondary weapon. I was thinking if you had a short-barreled variant then those that wouldn't normally be armed with a rifle could carry the short one. The L22 is carried by helicopter pilots in the British Army I understood. This was just prompted by the suggested ineffectiveness of a pistol, the unlikelihood of needing it in squad-based operation but primarily the cost and logistics: one platform, one cartridge, one magazine type...
The Bullpup suggestion was about overall length / barrel length ratio in restricted spaces. The M16/4 platform being pretty long also because of the buffer tube location.
Does the Norwegian army issue pistols to regular infantry?
-
One of the major concerns regarding issuing soldiers with pistol's is the likelihood of them shooting themselves outweighs the likelihood of them being in a situation where they would have to resort to a back up weapon.
For whatever reason soldiers seem to want to play with handguns.
The Brits seem averse to handing them out except to snipers as a backup and to officers to make them feel important.
Other than in competition shooting I rarely even laid eyes on a pistol other than the ones carried in holsters by officer types. Apparently because their little arms were too weak to hoist a big heavy rifle about the place :bhead
-
US military doesn't like bullpups for some reason.
It has probably been swayed by the early experiences with the bullpup design in other armed forces.
The FAMAS for example is truly horrible.
I had the dubious honour of using the L85-A1 and frankly it was a fairly shocking piece of crap.
It was rattly and unnecessarily heavy, the cheek pad melted in contact with Army issue insect repellant and repellant containing cam-cream. It was possible to load two rounds, one behind the other, because the extractor in the bolt head would hold onto the first round, when fired the front round would head off down range, the rearmost round would more often than not come out of the top of the receiver, with potentially fatal results.
Field stripping took a good amount of time, parts like the firing pin retaining pin were tiny and easily lost. Failing to place the rear trigger mechanism housing locking pin exactly in the correct place would result in the main spring and guide shooting out into a bush or up your nose, and the gas plug could get permanently jammed if re-inserted at the wrong angle.
The magazine catch was positioned in such a way that with the correct sling position, it would bang against you chest and dump the mag.
The H+K revised A2 is an exemplary weapon however, which is accurate over iron sights out past 600m, the magazine change is intuitive and quick, the weapon itself is now pretty soldier proof.
I like the bullpup design, the only real issue with the bullpup that I can find is that I wouldn't fancy bayonet fencing with a weapon that short :old:
-
It has probably been swayed by the early experiences with the bullpup design in other armed forces.
The FAMAS for example is truly horrible.
I had the dubious honour of using the L85-A1 and frankly it was a fairly shocking piece of crap.
It was rattly and unnecessarily heavy, the cheek pad melted in contact with Army issue insect repellant and repellant containing cam-cream. It was possible to load two rounds, one behind the other, because the extractor in the bolt head would hold onto the first round, when fired the front round would head off down range, the rearmost round would more often than not come out of the top of the receiver, with potentially fatal results.
Field stripping took a good amount of time, parts like the firing pin retaining pin were tiny and easily lost. Failing to place the rear trigger mechanism housing locking pin exactly in the correct place would result in the main spring and guide shooting out into a bush or up your nose, and the gas plug could get permanently jammed if re-inserted at the wrong angle.
The magazine catch was positioned in such a way that with the correct sling position, it would bang against you chest and dump the mag.
The H+K revised A2 is an exemplary weapon however, which is accurate over iron sights out past 600m, the magazine change is intuitive and quick, the weapon itself is now pretty soldier proof.
I like the bullpup design, the only real issue with the bullpup that I can find is that I wouldn't fancy bayonet fencing with a weapon that short :old:
who were the useless anklehumpers that designed this lovely piece.. lol
-
Royal Enfield. :bhead
What began as a 4.85mm called the EM2, which was a nice little weapon that had great initial reviews.
The calibre performed better than expected, and had the potential to be a reasonable weapon, albeit no replacement for the FN SLR, but, things being what they are, the powers that be decided that we needed a smaller calibre weapon than 7.62mm NATO. The thinking being that NATO (read the US) had decided to change to a 5.56mm round so everyone had to follow suite.
Anyhoo, this called for rapid rearming of the whole UKAF, with the rushed and inadequate SA80 series (basically, a combat rifle, a light support weapon, a cadet target rifle and later on a few modified weapons for Armoured Vehicle crews and Artillery and whatnot, see Shida's post).
So then we had a weapon that jams unless scrupulously maintained, that used a 5.56mm cartridge that was incompatible with the M-16/FAMAS/Steyr AUG/R7 and so on.
It had a trigger that heated up during sustained fire (e.g AAAD) to the point it could not be touched.
Magazines were the cheapest pressed steel available, the springs weakened and the lips bent easily.
It has a dust cover over the rear of the working parts that does not prevent dust or water ingress, but does cut you knuckles every time you make ready.
It can only be used by right handed personnel, unless you enjoy being smacked in the face with the cocking handle and empty cases. Because of this, and at the time our deployment in NI, it made it very difficult to move around the streets of Belfast making only left hand turns.
The L85 A2 is a superb weapon, the orginal was a nasty piece of tat.
-
Unless American forces have changed very few regular troops get issued handguns anyways. Mostly they go to officers, snipers, or machine gunners. The only time I ever carried one is when I was lugging an M60 or doing Law Enforcement duties. Like patrol or working a gate. Even then I preferred a M16 carbine, which we called GAUs back then.
-
Same here Rich, in the military I only carried a sidearm on certain guard duties, and vehicle borne duties, and never had to use a sidearm in anger. Furthermore I wouldn't enjoy being in a situation where I was required to. In my experience people shot by high velocity rifle calibre rounds tend to stay shot.
When I joined the Police Service I made no attempt to have anything to do with firearms. In the hundreds of incidents that I attended I have only wanted for a firearm once, possibly twice, and never actually needed one. Had I been armed then there is no doubt that given the circumstances involved (guy with a knife/guy with a shotgun) there would have been shooting involved. Having seen training videos/youtube dashcam etc, I would be concerned about the efficacy of pistol rounds on either subject, both pretty high on various illegal substances.
I am an excellent pistol shot, especially when the opponent is a guy painted on a piece of paper. I am an average rifle marksman, however, it is my experience that it's considerably easier to place accurate, disabling shots on target when under stress, if you are holding a rifle.
-
Good posts Danny, reminds me a lot of my best friend and father, one of whom was a Canuck in 2 Para through the 90's and early 2000's and the 2003 Iraq invasion, the other who was a police officer for 37 years.
My friend Rob Semrau, the Canadian officer who was charged with murder after mercy killing a wounded Taliban soldier after Afghan National Army guys had tortured him for 2 hours before he got on scene, no morphine/medic left, and no evac given for the wounded enemy after several radio calls for it - he joined the British army in 1993, and was in 2 Para for 10 years. He did tours in Northern Ireland as wall as Iraq, and used both the early version and the upgraded one you're talking about of the L85 rifle. His description is identical to yours, the early rifle had terrible everything, it was incredulous to him that somebody would allow such a poorly functioning weapon to exist. The later one was excellent, after all the upgrades and political fiasco it took to get there.
My father was a cop in Canada, and with the RCMP was part of a nation wide hostage/ert response teem for years, but the other 25 years of his career, he often told me he thought along the same lines as you - the extra weight and discomfort of having a holstered handgun in a car is a giant PITA, and it is, I'm sure all L/E here like Rich and all will agree with that, and mainly the low threat level in Canada where he drew his firearm exactly twice in 37 years, made him wish he didn't have it issued most days. They had rifles, and shotguns, and later C8 carbines in their patrol units, and if you're going to a call or violence erupts, he just figured a rifle was far better than a pistol anyhow, and should be deployed instead. I'm not advocating no pistols for l/e in the USA, I know a lot of guys down there, and they often pull their pistols more than my father did in decades in a single day, it depends on the threat level and area IMO.
Having a shoulder supported weapon is always preferable to a handgun in virtually any situation except perhaps extremely close quarters, which you try to avoid obviously as much as possible (time - distance - cover, continuum of combat). The physiological effects of the startle response when violence or a threat of some kind happens, which includes ocular constriction, auditory exclusion, time compression, rapid increase in adrenaline which increases heart rate and has the effect of draining some of the regular blood flow to the extremities, which is the most important issue. When you hands and fingers numb out because of this, fine motor skills are greatly affected, and then operating a pistol is far more difficult than a shoulder supported weapon in such circumstances as well. Plus the stuff Danny, Rich, and others have mentioned regarding accuracy and lethality.
edit - And Gsholsz - yes, you never expressly said that 5.7 would defeat lvl 3 or 4 in a single shot, it just seemed you advocated it's acceptance due to your first statement that penetration was critical due to armor, and my point is that it's irrelevant regarding such armor, as it will defeat it - even when taking multiple hits, as you suggested as the option/alternative with it - I won't quote it again, but you know the post I'm talking about with the multiple shots in the same spot that you suggested. I agree with everything else you have and are saying, always respect your posts regarding most everything here. Regarding hits on unprotected areas, that's part of the entire issue to be considered, and there are rounds out there that do more damage than 5.7 in that regard, such as 357 Sig, so since neither 5.7 or 357 Sig or .45 is getting through hard armor, shouldn't the best performing round vs unarmored spots be the best option? I realize some, just some, of the armor systems out there have integrated 3a soft armor into spots and small attachment panels, and 5.7 would defeat those where other pistol calibers can't, but many, many nations and companies are replacing every single little attachment piece with lvl 3 or mostly 4 small armor panels. That being the case, it would make the entire area covered by armor rated high enough to stop 5.7 with great effectiveness. Then that being the case, we're back to what's going to perform best vs unarmored areas of the threat, right?
I know people working diligently on this specific issue, armor vs ammo, with a few of the larger companies of both, including Sig where I worked for many years, RUAG in Europe, and a few of the armor companies. Every point you've brought up G is being widely considered and worked on, I'm just parroting things I've heard from many of them, as I'm an end user, not a creator in any capacity. I know the guys at Sig who first came up with the 357 Sig round, and they are working on a blending of high velocity performance and penetration types of rounds like a marriage of 5.7 and .45 so to speak. Again, as I said earlier, everything is being considered, from extreme hardened penetraters, to explosive ammunition, blended metal technology regarding super cavitation - all kinds of neat stuff. All based on your original premise, which is correct, that most threats out there are becoming more and more protected vs not just pistol now, but high velocity AP rifle rounds.
I'll digress for one more paragraph, and then stfu, I promise. Tundra security is a company that formed in Canada from a guy I worked for who is a good friend, and became one of the largest private companies operating contractors in Afghanistan. They had the contract to provide security, sometimes with local ANA guys, IMO a terrible idea, but the US gov wanted it because they were trying to make things look like "we're all working together" using locals, right. One of these guys was a planted Taliban and got through security checks some how, and a few years ago used his weapon to attack American troops he was guarding and killed some and wounded many more. Due to the media/lawsuit, I won't go into specifics other than to say he was wearing lvl 4 armor provided to him, and after his initial attack on guys who were either unarmed or had unloaded weapons, it took a lot of shots to stop this guy, he wounded at least 3 more people and killed another AFTER being engaged and shot at many times once the US guys were able to regroup after seeking cover and engage this planted enemy threat. It's a perfect example of exactly what is being discussed, how up armored threats are going to be a lot harder to take on with this type of armor, and it certainly was in this case, as the armor kept this guy in the fight a lot longer than he otherwise would have been. You can google it and read about it yourself, many docs are online regarding this.
-
Yeah, I get that we mostly agree. We just get hung up on the details. That said I always enjoy our discussions, and I value your insight into a world I largely only observe from the comfort of a sofa these days. :salute
-
Does the Norwegian army issue pistols to regular infantry?
It depends on what you consider "regular infantry". We have three armies of sorts, we have the Home Guard which in pretty much the same as what the Swiss have. About 200,000 soldiers with all their gear at home. These days they are pretty much what's left of our land defense since our "regular" army has changed into a much smaller force geared more for international operations than defending the homeland. The Reserve Army is the third and consists of the bulk of our land forces. All in all we could mobilize about a million men, or half the male population if WWIII happened. Our nation cannot equip such a large force with a lot of shiny new kit, so it was just the basics. The lowest rung reservists even got surplus WWII gear like the K98 and MP-40.
These days the Home Guard is relatively unchanged, but the "regular" army (the conscripts currently serving) get a lot more gear that before.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Soldat_508053b.jpg)
The guy on the left is basically what we had at the end of the cold war. Very basic protection and kit. This is also basically what the Home Guard is issued now. The guy on the right is wearing what the regular army soldier gets today. About £15.000 worth of equipment per soldier, including a HK-416 and a P-80 Glock.
-
Caliber discussions are an endless topic amongst sportsmen/woman, soldiers, policeman and that will never change. I was actually kinda surprised at how little caliber mattered coming on this job, as long as they started at .38, with the exception being the magnums. And even they had to have the right load in them. And of course magnum revolvers arent possible for military service. Nor would the .357 SIG. Tho it would be very good the costs involved in fielding it, and training up inexperienced soldiers with it, are to high. And even with these guns you still have to hit them hard and smart.
So far this year in this place weve had 1039 people shot here in this town of which 176 died. We had about 70 shot last week end alone, 5 by the Police. We generally shoot 50 to 60 people a year here in self defense. If I remember right about 12 to 15 die. And these are with .38, .380, .9mm, .40, and .45 ACP weapons. Ive seen the hard data, if you dont hit them right you will continue to have a problem. The 9mm performed as good as any, Of course this is with +P JHPs. I know most of this happens kitty corner to a massive trauma unit but still 1in 6 or 1 in 7 odds isnt that good.
Im honestly surprised that with all the things our troops need anyone is even considering replacing the high cap 9mm. But I guess working here for 30 years you see a lot of people shot with handguns. The 9mm has always been a fine military caliber and continues to be.
-
Oh and the L85 A2 is still about twice as heavy as it should be. It weighs approximately the same as the FN FAL it replaced. Why you guys didn't just buy Steyr AUGs I don't know. Must have been political. The basic L85 A1 (SA80) was more expensive than a fully kitted out AUG.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Steyr_AUG_A3.jpg)
-
The initial AUG's had issues as well, not quite as bad as the L85, but still pretty serious. They fixed them pretty quickly, and it became an excellent rifle IMO, I have 2 myself that are upgraded to current standard and semi auto.
I still believe the Sig 550/PE90 to be the best out of the box factory main battle rifle in the world. My company brought in thousands to Canada in the last 15 years, and for the first 4 of that I handled every single one and observed the factory test targets. All 1 moa or better at 300m with NATO SS109 ammo. That includes the carbines, and I even saw some SBR 550's with less than 10" barrels put nearly all within the 1 MOA circle, which is pretty incredible. Also being responsible for repairing and sending out parts for all these rifles, I can say there is nothing out there in my experience which has better longevity and durability for a factory main battle rifle in 556. Great night and day sights, good built in bipod, excellent accuracy, and ever better reliability due to the action, which is sort of a blending or improvement of the AK action system in a way.
Rich - do you live in the Chicago area? I'm guessing from those crazy numbers that you do. Incredible how many people get shot there, in Canada we have 800 shot per year, 650 of which on average now are suicides. Amazing that in a couple weeks Chicago surpasses that number. Sad in so many ways, won't get into the politics but I suspect we're on the same page. I do believe your data and knowledge of how handgun calibers perform, especially when medical attention is close by so far as long term lethality, as well as short term stopping power. Nothing like live test subjects, which again, is a sad state of affairs. I'm sure super agent Ari Gold's brother will fix it all up, heh. I used to visit Chicago regularly in the 90s, a friend of mine Jeff Permluter owned a company called PMI that made paintball stuff for kids way back in the day, and he lived on the same block as Michael Jordan. Had a huge weapons collection including a lot of MGs nearby in a different jurisdiction as well. I love Chicago, feel bad for things now.
Norway and Canada had very close ties during the cold war. Canada was supposed to reenforce Norway during Reforger /Soviet attack and help protect Nato's northern flank. Many of my family and friends who were before my time operated with Norway's army during exercises in the 80's and before. The always had great things to say about Norway's troops and the people there.
-
Rich - do you live in the Chicago area?
Yes, Ive been a Policeman here for over 30 years.
-
Having fired the L98 which is the cadet rifle version of the mk1 sa80 (single shot variant with a longer cocking lever) and the LSW version of the First SA80 as a cadet in my teens i found them both cumbersome, easy to jam especially the LSW. I will say i found the L98 to be fairly accurate over 300 metre's, the LSW i only fired with Blanks and short range with live ammo. I agree with Danny they were both a nightmare to keep clean even after a few magazines of 30 rounds with the LSW firing blanks the gas parts were incredibly dirty and were annoying to clean in the field. I also hated the cocking lever arrangement on the LSW which required reaching over with your left hand to cock as it was highly possible to trap your fingers if u used your right hand, the bipods and longer barrel made them even more of a burden to carry the susat sight was an ok optic for its time though IMO.
EatG
-
Thank god the Brits never had to take the SA80 to the Falklands in it's early form. I know several Paras and my former boss, Alan Bell from Globe Risk, that was former SAS during the Falklands that told tales of night long gun fights and having to strip magazines from the wounded in order to fight on. Imagine that much ammo going through the SA80 at night back then - nightMARE big time.
-
Any weapon is going to be credibly dirty after firing blanks.
-
Oh and the L85 A2 is still about twice as heavy as it should be. It weighs approximately the same as the FN FAL it replaced. Why you guys didn't just buy Steyr AUGs I don't know. Must have been political. The basic L85 A1 (SA80) was more expensive than a fully kitted out AUG.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Steyr_AUG_A3.jpg)
It was absolutely politically motivated, the Government wanted this large contract to go to a British company, and as a result Royal Enfield ended up with the contract and produced a total dog, in its first incarnation.
We had been equipped with the FN SLR for decades, it had proven itself repeatedly and was much loved by troops. It was not so much an assault rifle as it was a Battle Rifle.
The argument that smaller high velocity rounds allow carriage of greater amounts of ammunition is valid, right up until you consider the number of rounds required to kill the enemy. With an accurate semi automatic combat rifle, there is little wastage of ammunition.
When the soldier is carrying many hundreds of rounds there is a tendency to use higher rates of fire ( in Vietnam, with US and ARVN equipped with M16A1's the ratio was in the order of 100'000 rounds per enemy casualty), this coupled with the requirement to land a number of hits on a charging adrenaline fuelled enemy to put him down, purely due to the failure of small calibre high velocity ammunition to transfer its energy to the target, and merely pass straight through. The injuries caused by 5.56mm are horrific, it simply does not have the shocking impact of larger rifle rounds, Its low weight also limits its effectiveness against soft skinned vehicles and structures, 7.62mm NATO will bring down trees, and smash brickwork and cinder block walls, and the baddie hiding behind them.
-
Thank god the Brits never had to take the SA80 to the Falklands in it's early form. I know several Paras and my former boss, Alan Bell from Globe Risk, that was former SAS during the Falklands that told tales of night long gun fights and having to strip magazines from the wounded in order to fight on. Imagine that much ammo going through the SA80 at night back then - nightMARE big time.
The Falklands campaign is one I have a great deal of interest in for a number of reasons. It included possible the last classic air to air dogfight, it had some of the most ballsy and well executed small unit actions of any campaign before or since. The weapons carried by both sides were essentially identical, albeit the Brits used a semi automatic version of the Argies FN FAL. Both sides used the FN MAG or GPMG, both sides used the Sterling sub machine gun.
All of these weapons are ultra reliable, especially in extreme conditions, I wouldn't like to have found out how the SA80 system would have measured up in its early incarnation in these conditions. I have had an L86 A1 (LSW) completely freeze up in UK winter (OK were were on top of the Pennines in February, but still).
After Op Granby (Gulf War 1) there was an official report in the equipment that was employed, including the SA80 system, which concluded that if the Iraqi armed forces had put up stiffer resistance, the British forces would have suffered considerable casualties, simply down to the fact that their weapon system did not work.
Troops were having to alter their entire Section Drills to cover the fact that 3 of the 8 soldiers in an infantry Section at any one time would be combat ineffective due solely to the fact that they were suffering repeated stoppages and magazine failures due to sand ingress.
-
in Vietnam, with US and ARVN equipped with M16A1's the ratio was in the order of 100'000 rounds per enemy casualty
What kind of sights were they using? :old:
-
What kind of sights were they using? :old:
Predominantly iron sights, but this was the result of giving guys who, no disprespect to them, were minimally trained conscripts, a lot of rounds and a fully automatic rifle. They had previously had the M14 but it was effectively uncontrollable on full auto. This coupled with the fact that the previous conflict in Korea had seen experienced combat vets with semi auto M1's.
Probably :old:
-
Danny, I have dozens of books and vids on the Falklands as well, my major interest of military history for many of the same reasons.
So much interesting stuff. The lack of a larger carrier with longer ranged fighters than the Harrier, and no proper AEW/AWACS capability meaning a determined air force was being engaged at very close range to the ships being defended being offset by the skill of the British pilots, the capability of the Harrier albeit having short range, and the incredible performance of the Aim9L, the first really decent all aspect IR missile for the Western nations used in combat.
Much bravery, on both sides at times, and like you said, some very vicious small unit actions in pretty daunting conditions. Amphibious landings and assaults, serious naval engagements of all kinds. The first use of a NATO/Western Nuc sub doing what it is built to do, sink threat ships and sea control. The Argies Sub San Luis possibly got in torpedo attacks but there was malfunctions with the weapons - some supposition and theories about this, but interesting info nonetheless.
My former boss Alan Bell told me about an assault by the SAS on a position garrisoned with very good Argentine troops. Their intel had missed a minefield, and they hit them in the dark, and ran right through it unknowingly, a large unit of SAS soldiers. To their surprise, the Argies incredibly ran up the white flag and surrendered before they closed to a distance where they had picked to engage them. Afterwards they asked the Argentine officer in command why he had chosen to give up so easily. He responded that he had heard many things about the SAS, but when he saw them run through the minefield and nobody blowing up, he then knew they must be supermen of some kind, and feared his men, of whom there were a great many more than the British, wouldn't stand a chance. Pure dumb luck that averted a lot of people dying on both sides that day.
I agree regarding a 30 cal rifle being a better option for troops in many cases. There is a constant discussion and argument about that, just like the constant argument about pistol calibers. The SCAR 762 rifle is working pretty well, I don't think we'll ever see the US or other forces go back to 30 cal as a primary issued rifle, but it would be nice if they did, and the SCAR with a bit more time and tweaks would be a perfectly acceptable way to go IMO.
-
Predominantly iron sights
:rofl No I was joking. Pretty much looking over your shoulder shooting backwards with a vanity mirror would have got a higher hit percentage. I assume a lot of it was mad minutes into the jungle.
-
Norway and Canada had very close ties during the cold war. Canada was supposed to reenforce Norway during Reforger /Soviet attack and help protect Nato's northern flank. Many of my family and friends who were before my time operated with Norway's army during exercises in the 80's and before. The always had great things to say about Norway's troops and the people there.
Yup... Our whole defense was designed to last three days against the Soviets. Just enough time for NATO reinforcements to arrive. This is from a NATO exercise in the late '70s or early '80s with US Marines playing the role of an attacking force:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioI7bV3Y1E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mNT34ylnMg
Despite the silly "White Death Ski Troops" title they're actually just reservists, having been mobilized for a two-week refresher exercise. Back then every able-bodied man was called back to service for an exercise every 2-5 years to refresh their basic soldier skills. I assure you that our English has significantly improved since then!
-
:rofl No I was joking. Pretty much looking over your shoulder shooting backwards with a vanity mirror would have got a higher hit percentage. I assume a lot of it was mad minutes into the jungle.
What consumes most of the ammunition in war is suppressive fire. A unit will suppress the enemy and pin them down by laying down heavy fire against their position, forcing them to take cover. This allows you to maneuver elements of your unit into flanking positions, or into safety if they were exposed to fire from the enemy unit you're suppressing. In WWII the US Army expended 12,000 rounds per enemy soldier killed, but the vast majority of that was never meant to kill, only to scare/suppress/pin down.
-
What consumes most of the ammunition in war is suppressive fire.
I know, I've watched Rambo! :old:
Actually 12,000 exceeded my expectation but 100,000 is incredible.
-
Not really...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/HH-3-minigun-vietnam-19681710.jpg)
-
Man, probably a fortune in all that spent brass :salute
-
I don't have time to post all the data, but the M-16's 5.56mm round explosively fragments inside the human body at up to 100 meters. It is a function of velocity. Basically the round enters the body, rotates vertically 90 degrees, goes from a round to a flat shape, then breaks apart. The reason the U.S. Army switched to the three round burst was a cost saving effort, and due to a study on the 5.56mm rounds lethality. It was found in Vietnam that it normally took 2 rounds to kill a target immediately. So, if two rounds will kill someone immediately, then three rounds must be even better. Thus the three round burst was invented.
-
I don't have time to post all the data, but the M-16's 5.56mm round explosively fragments inside the human body at up to 100 meters. It is a function of velocity. Basically the round enters the body, rotates vertically 90 degrees, goes from a round to a flat shape, then breaks apart. The reason the U.S. Army switched to the three round burst was a cost saving effort, and due to a study on the 5.56mm rounds lethality. It was found in Vietnam that it normally took 2 rounds to kill a target immediately. So, if two rounds will kill someone immediately, then three rounds must be even better. Thus the three round burst was invented.
Novel concept, in actual fact the implementation of the 3 round burst was purely because a burst of 3 rounds will have left the barrel and be en route before recoil has pushed the muzzle off target. Automatic fire is relatively pointless exercise when using modern assault weapons, an experienced operator will be easily capable of firing 2-3 round bursts with the weapon set to automatic, just not when under combat stress.
We used to used 'deliberate' rate of fire for most suppression, i.e 10rpm. That still amounts to a platoon putting down a few hundred aimed shots per minute, not including LSW's, SAW's, GPMG's and sniper rounds. Plenty to keep most people heads down.
Full auto has applications, as already mentioned, for suppressing fire, and for FIBUA/FISH, when we were searching structures I had my weapon set to automatic, but other than that, and above a range of about 10m it is a worthless waste of ammo, even with squad belt fed weapons the rounds are all over the shop from recoil at a couple of hundred yards, useless unless they are employed in an area role. GPMG's are mounted on a Sustained Fire Tripod purely for this reason. I have fired GPMG in what is laughably called the 'light role' on a sling from the hip. Anything over a 10-15 rnd burst is effectively uncontrollable and I'm not exactly lightweight, 50 rnd bursts look as cool as hell, but nevertheless are fairly pointless.
It may have taken 2 rounds to kill, very few would have been immediate, if they were then the first or last round was a fatal shot anyway. It also takes 1 round to inflict mortal injuries in a lot of cases, sometime 15 don't do it.
The 3 round burst selection is certainly to reduce ammunition expenditure, but also to increase first shot hits, because there are 3 relatively well aimed rounds going down range, as opposed to 3 well aimed rounds and 27 morale boosting spray and pray rounds.
-
You're right DaveBB, but it didn't work out that well.
Larry Vickers (x Delta, now has his own gun show on YouTube and Television) just did a segment last month on the Russian AN94 over in Russia. It fires 2 rounds impulse so quickly that the barrel essentially behaves like a single shot in terms of vibrations/accuracy etc. It's a far better option than 3 round burst, as at 100m round number 3 is usually a non factor. Unfortunately the system is very unreliable, even in the demo all the factory guns broke, and took several Russian factory armorers a long time to fix. Very typical apparently for the An94.
Very close range CQB and room clearing where there is no friendlies in the rooms (hopefully) is where full auto has a good purpose for a shoulder supported weapon. Even the suppression capability of the full auto rifle some clamor on about is dubious at best in my experience. Like has been said, that is the purpose of the general purpose or squad belt fed weapons. We used the Belgian made 249s that were highly modified with shorter barrels for use in vehicles, as well as usually a FN Mag58/240 from the rear of our trucks. Using them dismounted on the range, I found using the "son-of-a-bish" mental count off while firing bursts, hitting typical figure 11 targets, I could get much of that burst on target, on the range, again, supported with a bipod. They are a 3 MOA accurate belt fed at best in my experience shooting them, and I agree with Danny regarding the effectiveness of even these weapons with silly long bursts.
Ohio Ord in the USA is making a single shot trigger group for their accurized M240/Mag58s. They shoot 1 MOA groups out to 300 and beyond on single, and hold that accuracy pretty well with proper bursts as well. Using the Canadian made Elcan long eye relief optic, putting good bursts into point targets out to 3, 400, and even beyond is in the realm of the very possible for well trained troops with it. A huge advancement in belt fed infantry weapons IMO in terms of capability when not being used in a fire beaten zone or the oft quoted "suppression" mode of firing.
-
Hmmmm, I always thought the 3 round burst was cause nobody could hit a dang thing spraying the rifle. I know I couldnt on full auto, tho I had enough sense to fire short bursts. But I'll never forget when they lined us up on targets about 25 yards away and told us to burn thru the 30 rnd mag anyway we wanted. Well a bunch of John Waynes let em rip, all 30, and not one of us boneheads hit a target. :lol
Tho Ive carried them for years in both military and police Ive never used or seen used the M16 system. Ive only seen a few people shot by rifles so my only experience is with hunting where Ive shot many, many animals with different rounds. If a bullet doesnt hit something solid it isnt going to break apart, including a 5.56mm. What makes the round so lethal is its high velocity that displaces a massive amount of tissue causing so much trauma putting the victim in shock quickly.
Are the better MBR rounds? Probably. But when you look at the big picture are there really a better MBR round? Probably not. I know quite a few co-workers who have used it in defense, mostly military but we have used it on the street too. I wouldnt want to get hit by the damn thing. Mine is a Springfield I went all Historical with and basically turned it into an A1 we used in USAF. It has a 20" barrel, is extremely accurate, and follow up shots with the 5.56mm are a dream compared even to a 7.62x39.
Im no expert with the system but there must be some reason its been used longer then any MBR in our History.
-
I was going to reply about 556 fragmentation but didn't, and that's essentially correct. There is a great table I can link that shows even with 20" barrel AR platform rifles, the odds of the 556 fragmenting at ranges of 100m or greater without striking something very hard like bone is pretty low. If IRCC even at 60 yards the 14.5" and shorter barrel velocity makes fragmentation unlikely in the same circumstances.
What makes the round so lethal is its high velocity that displaces a massive amount of tissue causing so much trauma putting the victim in shock quickly.
This is absolutely correct, the high velocity cavitation and hydrostatic shock inside of body of tissue is usually what causes damage, and it is a function of mostly velocity, and lesser so the bullet size/weight/composition/etc. The size of the round will form a permanent wound channel slightly larger than the actual projectile diameter depending on a few factors, but the temporary wound/stretch cavity is caused by that cavitation from the hydrostatic shock. Like all things related to this as Rich pointed out earlier about handgun rounds lethality, there is much debate about what causes more damage or likelyhood of a "stop" to the threat, temp wound cavity or permanent wound channel, and IMO both play a part and have a factor, and has been stated, gunshot wounds are often pretty unpredictable by nature in many respects.
In fact, regarding 556, the most common NATO round being the SS109, and others like it, have a hardened steel penetrater that makes up a significant portion of the internal part of the bullet, and it is so hard that getting it to fragment would require hitting very hard steel plate, and even then...
That's not to say other parts of the round won't come apart under certain circumstances, but the idea often stated that 556 always, or even often, fragments when hitting soft tissue targets, isn't correct.
556 is still an excellent round when expectations are understood, most times in war, at least until a lot of the recent fights in the mountains in Afghanistan, the data the military has put out there is the engagement ranges are typically are less than 200 yards, even closer, like 100. Ask Junky or anyone else that has seen it perform in action and you'll get an accurate accounting of it, same as with Rich and the handgun wounds that are often seen in his city. Is there more effective rounds? Of course, there is always something more lethal, but how does it balance vs a ton of other factors. I prefer 762 myself, but never feel underequipped with a 5.56 rifle either.
-
Rich, you said if a bullet doesn't hit something, it doesn't break apart? I just told you exactly how the 5.56mm breaks apart in soft tissue.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/JC_Denton/4cb181ba.jpg)
Danny76, the 3 round burst came about exactly like I said. Source: "Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War" by James F. Dunnigan, Albert A. Nofi. They cite the study in the book.
-
Dr Fackler's chart, recognize it anywhere.
What you fail to state is the range that data is taken from. Can you answer that?
Of course 556 can fragment vs soft tissue strikes at close range. There is a great table and a ton of valid confirmed info over at ar15.com regarding all the different Marks of 556 rounds from Mk262 right on down to 55gr stuff, even lighter. It's all been tested with various velocities and barrel length, which has a huge effect on the velocity of the round. Twist rates, manufacturer of the ammunition, there are many factors at play, but the bottom line is velocity regarding fragmentation, and the range it can be achieved. You won't find many rounds outside of the highest velocity 77 grain bullets moving at 3000fps or so out of a barrel at least 20" long that will fragment at anything greater than 150 yards. Most common lengths like 16"(civilian non class whatever in the USA) are around 100 yards for any type of ammo in 556.
For 14.5 and 10.5 and such length SBR's, 75 then 60 yards is the typical range one can expect at least some reliable fragmentation.
So, velocity and range are the primary factors regarding lethality in the fragmentation conversation around 556, and it isn't predictable 100% as I've stated. Ranges past 100 with typical NATO ammo and barrel lengths = fragmentation less likely.
-
I specifically stated the M-16. Not the M-4, not an AR-15. Lethal fragmentation occurs slightly past 100 yards with the standard 20" barrel. As I stated before, it is a function of velocity. The mass of the 5.56mm x 45mm round is in the rear, causing the extreme yaw and G-forces on it when entering soft tissue.
Don't try to drag this off topic with some crazy AR-15 load or low velocity M-4.
-
I missed that part of your posts were you said 100m and the M16 during Vietnam specifically, I just read the posts after it, my bad, we're in agreement obviously. The mass of almost every rifle round is in the rear, and the yaw and flight path destabilization which you're talking about that puts the increased torque and forces on the round causing it to begin to fragment and break apart are directly related to the velocity and cavitation forces caused by the hydrostatic shock - again, I think we're in complete agreement.
History (ie the Vietnam war) is one thing, the rounds today - completely different even with a 20" barrel rifle, and completely different even 20 years ago with the common ammo in use then. M855/SS109 ammo with the internal AP hardened penetrater is a heavier 62 gr round designed to penetrate light barriers more than previous rounds like the M193 which will fragment more easily and often and similar ranges. The 77 gr bullets in common military use now with certain rifles behave differently yet again, with entirely different terminal effects and possible fragmentation data numbers.
Again, regarding the original M16 and the typical ammunition used when it was first introduced until years later, I'm in complete agreement with the ~100 yards and closer fragmentation data.
-
Hmmmm, I always thought the 3 round burst was cause nobody could hit a dang thing spraying the rifle. I know I couldnt on full auto, tho I had enough sense to fire short bursts. But I'll never forget when they lined us up on targets about 25 yards away and told us to burn thru the 30 rnd mag anyway we wanted. Well a bunch of John Waynes let em rip, all 30, and not one of us boneheads hit a target. :lol
when I joined the marines in 89 one of the drill instructions told us that the change to the 3 round burst was because during vietnam too many people would just lift their rifles over the head while hiding and shoot full auto. the 3 round burst was supposed to force people to actually aim.
they showed us a movie of several soldiers lining up their magazines next to them then fire full auto one after the other without really aiming at anything.
semp
-
Danny76, the 3 round burst came about exactly like I said. Source: "Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War" by James F. Dunnigan, Albert A. Nofi. They cite the study in the book.
I understood that this study concluded that "three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy and firepower" and also led to development and testing of the "duplex" round for use in combat rifles during the Army's ACR competition in the '90'
The H+K G11 specifically cited it's 3 round burst function, stating the third round would have left the barrel by the time the recoil had caused significant effect on accuracy, and simply gave a spread of rounds better ensuring a first shot hit.
I was unaware that there was any reasoning as to the number of rounds required to kill the enemy, which at best is vague, and has too many contributing factors to be pared down to the difference between one and 3 rounds.
How far away was the enemy? was he behind cover? was he wearing body armour? did his equipment contribute to either causing greater injury? (e.g grenade detonation), or offering protection (cigarette case from wife over heart chestnut) where were the bullet strikes? was he in a vehicle? what were the weather conditions? did the wounded soldier have access to immediate first aid.
Of course, if you can get 2 or 3 rounds onto target, you stand a better chance of putting the guy down than with just one hit, or with no hits in the case of full auto spraying, but I would suggest that was the point I was making in my previous post :salute
-
Rich, you said if a bullet doesn't hit something, it doesn't break apart? I just told you exactly how the 5.56mm breaks apart in soft tissue.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/JC_Denton/4cb181ba.jpg)
Dave I know what happens with a 20" 1 in 12 barrel and 55 grn bullets at shorter ranges, which is why I carry it. But isnt the standard issue a M4 with a 14" barrel and a 62 grn NATO round out of a 1 in 7 twist? And have there not been issues with the round NOT busting up unless it hits something?
Again Im no expert with the thing but feel free to correct me if Im wrong. I lug around a 20" barrel for the same reason all my hunting rifles are 28" barrels. Im a believer in higher velocity's.
OK, sorry but I just read the entire thread and G-man has already said, essentially, what I said. Again its by no mistake I carry a Vietnam era barrel with a Vietnam era load.
-
Dave I know what happens with a 20" 1 in 12 barrel and 55 grn bullets at shorter ranges, which is why I carry it. But isnt the standard issue a M4 with a 14" barrel and a 62 grn NATO round out of a 1 in 7 twist? And have there not been issues with the round NOT busting up unless it hits something?
Presumably the higher the gradient of rifling the greater the reduction of muzzle velocity?
-
Dave I know what happens with a 20" 1 in 12 barrel and 55 grn bullets at shorter ranges, which is why I carry it. But isnt the standard issue a M4 with a 14" barrel and a 62 grn NATO round out of a 1 in 7 twist? And have there not been issues with the round NOT busting up unless it hits something?
The standard M4 barrel is 14.5". Effective fragmentation range of M855 ball (65gr penetrator green-tip) ammo is ~150 yards. The issue is the round's velocity combined with the range that the round enters the target. Under 100yds, the round will reliably fragment. Between 100-200yds is where the velocity drops to a point where fragmentation is not reliable. Past 200yds, the round usually loses enough velocity that hits on soft targets are clean-through.
-
Presumably the higher the gradient of rifling the greater the reduction of muzzle velocity?
Different twist rates, or rifling, stabilizes different size and weight bullets better. When NATO went to the heavier bullet they made the twist rate faster, to 1 in 7 I believe, to stabilize the bullets better for long range accuracy. Tho I would hazard a guess you right in that a better stabilized bullet will have better velocity. For sure it will be more accurate and retain more energy.
But velocity is more dependent on powder charge and type, length of barrel, and type of projectile and weight.
The handloader whittles the perfect combination of load to rifle down to a single grain of powder, the perfect seat of bullet and primer, the perfect bullet for the particular barrel, seated in case lots weighed and trimmed to be clones of each other. Down to minutia, all looking for that perfect group in that individual rifle.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/outdoors/shoot-1.jpg)
Man this old timer can tag silhouette center all day long at 300 yrds with this baby.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/workrifle_zps699f6e89.jpg)
I wonder if the youngins with all their fancy doo-dads on their M4s can say the same? :D
-
Nice, Rich! Good shooting!
I don't have any photos of targets on this computer to show, but she'll do about a 3-4" group at 500yds. 16" stainless 1/7 barrel, Geissele SD-E trigger, Navy contract-overrun Nightforce 2.5-10x24 scope.
(http://i.imgur.com/eepEPsUl.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/eepEPsU.jpg)
-
Congrats on a very fine rifle. :salute
-
Fine shooting Rich. I love the cleanness of your rifle.
-
Fine shooting Rich. I love the cleanness of your rifle.
Thanks but bench shooting reflects more the accuracy of the rifle/load then it does the shooter. I can take my game cleanly but am not a great rifle shooter.