| Author |
Message |
    
GregH
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:42 am: | 
|
A little off the usual subject matter(but this IS General-Non Tech) and since there seems to be a few military and ex-military people on this board...Has anyone else read the article I recently read about the lack of stopping power of the 5.56 in Afghanistan? Admittedly I'm biased towards the ole 7.62 (fan of Eugene Stoner's original design). They supposedly issued old M-14's to certain troops in Afghanistan due to complaints. Anybody have direct or indirect knowledge of this?
An alternative is going the Russian route (ala 5.45) with fully jacketed rounds with a "hollow" front bullet section that promotes cavitation and helps prevent overpenetration. That still doesn't address hitting targets at 400+m with sufficient ballistic weight and velocity.
I think I read it in Small Arms Review or other mag...can't remember. Anybody? |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 08:03 am: |
|
No, I haven't, but, I'm partially questioning it.
Yes, the .308 is better at the longer ranges, but a good marksman can keep the .223 on target on out there past 500yds.... I was only an average shot for a jarhead, and I could keep hittin' headshots from the prone at 500 yards... it's a really accurate round, and does the job well if you have good shot-placement.
Thing is, for an equal amount of weight, you can carry a good bit more ammo in .223 than for a .308... definitely a good thing.
However, desert environments do stretch your engagement range moreso than urban/wooded environments. And, yes, the .223 was adopted to be an all-round general-purpose round for all environments.... maybe it isn't holding itself out in more windy conditions over longer ranges.... most competition marksmen have gone to it, but, they have controlled conditions in which to estimate windspeed over known distances.....
Anyway, I haven't read it, and there may be a kernel of truth to it, but I don't think that it is a huge deal.... I'd be comfortable w/ a M-16 again, but, if they wanted to hand me an M-14 variant, I'd take it, too.....
IMHO, FWIW, YMMV.....
-L |
Jake Hartley (Jake)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:29 am: |
|
Navy Seal Teams and certain parts of Army SPECOPS (Special Forces and Delta Force) can choose to carry M-14 as assigned weapon. It is mission dependant. M-14s are heavy and ammo is heavier too, but it will really reach out and touch someone. Not a very good weapon on full auto, but we have the M60 and its variants for that. |
Dana Giles (Dana_G)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 10:38 am: |
|
The .223 was certainly designed to be a multi-purpose round. It lacks the initial punch of a .308 for takedown purposes, but the wound profile of the .223 is devastating;
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg
For close to mid-range, I'll take the .223 any day but I'd much rather go with the .308 when you start talking about 500 yard shots.
Let's not even talk about what they make us flyboy types carry for a sidearm though. Switching from the .45 to the worthless M-9 was a BAD move. Of course if I ever end up in a situation where I need to use it that'll be the least of my concerns  |
Peter Matusov (Pmatusov)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 01:13 pm: |
|
Greg,
i can only say that an AK-74 (as opposed to AK47 or AKM) with 5.45 ammo is a beauty to hold in hands. the rounds had offset c.g.
peter |
Paul D. Morgan (V22guy)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 01:21 pm: |
|
I never got to shoot the M-16A2 at anything other than paper when I was a jarhead. However, I did get to shoot the hell out of the XM-218 .50 cal machine gun mounted on the side of my helo. Man oh man, that thing could damage some stuff. |
Jake Hartley (Jake)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 01:29 pm: |
|
Pete:
I have an AK-74 (semi auto) and it is a beaut to shoot. Never done any long range with it, but it has great accuracy out around 300 meters. NO recoil (my nine year old can & does shoot it) and no a bang report. |
John Lee
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 06:33 pm: |
|
Ooooh, gun talk.
I'm not sure Stoner's design was originally chambered in 7.62. Certainly there was the AR10 and its variants, but I believe these came after the original AR15 designs. I think Stoner's original design was chambered in .222 Remington if my memory serves.
These war stories come up again and again about the 5.56's inadequacy. The 5.56 does indeed have inferior wound ballistics to the 7.62, especially at ranges past 300 meters where the velocity of the SS109 and M193 bullets have dropped enough that both designs will not fragment in soft tissue. But that is not to say that the 5.56 is an inferior round, for there is certainly more to selecting a service round than terminal ballistics. The 5.56 is easier to shoot and cuts training time with soldiers. The ammunition is fully half the weight of the 7.62 rounds and the weapons themselves are small, lighter, and handier than 7.62 weapons. The new SS109 bullet has superior armor-piercing capability to standard 7.62 M80 ball (150-grain FMB boat-tail @ 2700 f/s) at all ranges. 5.56 also gives controllable select fire capability, something that is impossible or nearly impossible with the 7.62 rifle. All of these lessons were learned more than 50 years by the Wehrmacht when they formulated the MP44 and StG45. Also, modern small arms are not designed to kill but rather to wound and maim, as the enemy's time and efforts are more depleted tending to its wounded personnel than by bagging their dead.
The 5.45 actually has inferior terminal ballistics to the 5.56. The 5.45's bullet doesn't fragment and makes a very small hole. With the small bores, the primary method of wounding is fragmentation. The empty cavity in the 5.45 was designed to simply production only, and has zero effect on the bullet's terminal ballistics. The empty cavity is not designed to deform, and it does not violate the Hague Convention.
The 5.45's bullet doesn't have an eccentric center of gravity. It couldn't. The bullet wouldn't stabilize if it did. A 5.45mm bullet spins at something like 200,000 rpm. It it had an eccentric center of gravity, there would be no way it would stabilize. |
Matt (Doc175)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 08:51 pm: |
|
I have to admit, I do not know as much as some of you guys when it comes to bullistics but I can answer the initial question. NO. I was in Afghanistan and was dirct combat. The fact of the matter is that 99.9% of enemy KIA in Afghanistan is from indirect (CAS, high altitude bombing etc.) fire. There have not been enough direct combat kills for anyone to make that statement. I can say through personal experience that the 5.56mm did the job without problem or question. It has its drawbacks but for a light infantry man and not a crew served weapon, it is great. |
Phillip Perkinson (R0ver4x4)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:32 pm: |
|
000 buck shot |
Jack Quinlan (Jsq)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:07 am: |
|
Actually, while the Wermacht undoubtedly "invented" the sturmgewher (assault rifle) they definitely did not have the ballistics of an all purpose rifle figured out. They understood that their weapon did not have an intended range past 300 yds so they did not nead the velocity of a full rifle round but they could not leave the caliber traditions of the past. The 8mm kurz round has limited recoil but poor accuracy and ballistic range. It is an ineffective all purpose round and can be compared to the 7.62x39 AK-47 round as inferior. The 7.62x39 is certainly NOT a versitile round (hence the continued use of the 7.62x54 in Dragunov variants by the former eastern bloc nations) and is strictly for limited range use. However, Klashnikov himself did not believe in the small caliber round, believing the 7.62 could be further developed, but the Soviet high command insisted he follow the trend set by the Americans.
The discussion of combat effectiveness of various rounds is a more limited discussion than most people realize due to the restricitons imposed on projectiles by the geneva convention. All too often civilian experience with anti-personal loads provides irrelevant information in the arena of military conflict. With hollow points and nosler partition rounds 9mm and 5.56 become highly destructive. FMJ leaves them lacking knockdown or overpenetrating in some eyes.
Regardless, as others have already mentioned, this decision is based on one simple factor: ammunition capacity. Small caliber weapons hold more rounds and personel can tote more ammo. Goodbye M-14. Goodbye 1911. Combat kills aren't about what one single bullet will do. They are about base of fire and putting a volume or rounds on target. Kills result from putting yourself in a position to take shots. That means keeping the enemies head down and yours up and shooting. With less ammo and more recoil you are not as effective.
"One shot. One kill" is a mantra best left to the range and pop up targets that don't shoot back. |
Pugsly (Pugsly)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:16 am: |
|
See, that's why I hold on to my 9mm with a big magazine. That's why the Fed cut down magazine size not ammo size.
I'll take my 14 round 9mm magazines over 10mm mags any days - especially steel jacketed Eagle Claw hollow point!
Hypothetically speaking of course, not that I actually have anything like that... |
John Lee
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:12 am: |
|
Sorry Jack, but I think your history is a little iffy. If you're looking for a round that cover "all purposes[s]", it doesn't exist. It never has and it probably never well. A lot of these "universal" weapons and cartridges have been attempted and they have failed. History is full of such failures. The Wehrmacht not only invented the assault rifle, they invented the general-purpose machinegun in the MG34 and MG42. This weapon was designed to be light enough for squad use, but also heavy enough to be used for the sustained fire role when fitted with its buffered tripod and dial sight. Both were fine weapons, but they were suited for neither role, being too heavy for squad use and too lightweight for the sustained-fire role. Both the MG34 and MG42 were lighter than their contemporaries, but they were substantially heavier than today's SAW's and didn't have the sustained fired capability of older weapons like the Maxim and Vickers machineguns. (Strangely, the Allies universally adopted the GPMG concept after WWII and developed the MAG and M60. This attempt failed as well and today we have true squad automatic weapons like the Minimi, with the full-power machineguns being slated for the medium machinegun role.)
The Americans also tried this universal weapon concept and designed the M14 rifle to replace the Thompson Grease Gun machine pistols, the M1 Garand rifle, the M1 Carbine, and the BAR squad automatic weapon. Obviously, it was not a success.
We are currently nearing the zenith of small arms design, and we have yet to design a rifle round that has light recoil and light weight of an assault rifle cartridge like the 5.56, the short overall length of the 7.62 x 39, and the range and terminal ballistics of a full power rifle cartridge like the .308, 6.5 Swede, 7.5 Swiss, 7 x 57 Mauser, etc.
The Germans knew this when they designed the 7.92mm Kurz cartridge. It's not an attempt to replace the 7.92 x 57 Mauser cartridge, but rather to supplement it. In fact, one of the primary objctions to the Kurz round's adoption was that it would further complicate supply channels by adding another caliber to the inventory. Had the Kurz round been intended to replace the 7.92 Mauser round completely, this would not have been a concern. I don't think the Wehrmacht ever intended to chamber the MG34 or MG42 for the Kurz round. Even the Luftwaffe explicitly rejected the Kurz round and adopted their own FG42, which was chambered for the full-power Mauser cartridge and developed concurrently with the MKb42 designs from Walther and Haenel that were chambered for the Kurz cartridge.
Furthermore, every country that has embraced the assault rifle concept has yet to abandon its full-power rifle cartridge. If we use the Americans as an example, the Americans have not abandoned the 7.62 round and continues to use it in the M40, M21, M24, and SR25 sniper rifles, the M240 and M60 medium machineguns and all of their variants, the M14 rifle, and the various miniguns. The 5.56 is unsuited for the uses for which these weapons are employed today. That doesn't mean the 5.56 is a lousy cartridge or anything, for the 7.62 is unsuited for individual weapons like the M16, M4, M249, etc.
How the 7.92mm Kurz round has "poor accuracy" is beyond me. Certainly some rounds like the .222 Remington and 6mm PPC are so-called "inherently accurate" rounds, but the accuracy advantage of these rounds is measured in the thousandths of an inch in grouping ability. When manufactured to the same standards and fired in weapons of equivalent quality and intrinsic accuracy potentional, almost all rifle cartridges are just as accurate as one another, even for target work, let alone military use.
Incidentally, it's the Hague Convention that limits the design and manufacture of various military projectiles, not the Geneva convention. Just because there are certain prohibitions on bullet design, that does not mean that terminal ballistics discussions become irrelevant. There are many military projectile designs that comply fully with the Hague convention's mandates, but fragment readily in soft tissue. The 5.56, both in M193 and SS109 configurations, fragments in soft tissue at ranges under 300 yards. These two bullets have very thin copper jackets that rupture easily in soft tissue. The SS109 projectile has a hardened steel tip, which separates easily from the lead core of the bullet upon impact with soft tissue. Almost any European-made .308 ball ammunition will fragment violently in soft tissue because such ammunition is almost invariably made with brittle steel jackets instead of ductile copper jackets like American M80 ball ammunition. |
GregH
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:46 am: |
|
I'm not sure what the current M16 barrel twist is but the complaint I read is not probs with hitting targets but rather from overpenetration (through and through) at closer ranges and possibly lack of penetration at long range against heavily clothed combatants.
Yes, I know the design logic of lighter and more rounds and the modern battlefield logic of laying down a base of fire and the "wounding" multiplier logic as well. The assumption with this logic was you were fighting a modern well-equipped army. Not someone who had no medic or doctor to call for and was used to a hard life and had a fanatical reason to keep fighting. A hundred years ago we learned something in actual combat against drug-crazed Phillipine insurgents that proved the wisdom of the .45 Auto against the old .38 for a sidearm.
I know that on the range I have fired sub-MOA groups with scoped and accurized AR-15 variants (I believe with 1:9 barrels and hand loads or Black Hills match).
However, if we ever do face a modern well-equipped army they will probably be wearing body armor. What are the odds that our 5.56 AP use goes way up? Or in the event of an Arctic battlefront?
And Jack-I don't think the Marine Corp Sniper Instructors at Pendleton would agree with you. Otherwise, why limit the foot soldier to a three-round burst. Why not double the amount of minimi/SAWs per squad? The single, well-aimed bullet still has a place on the battlefield. One that I think will only become more important in the type of fighting our people will most likely see.
I'll keep my AR-10, thank you... |
Jake Hartley (Jake)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:27 am: |
|
Over-penetration of the SS 109 round was a problem in Somalia, where most of the killing was done by individual weapons and helicopter gunships. The SS 109 tended to go through the subject targets bodies at closer ranges. I don't know if that was due to the round or the twist in the barrel, but it was disconcerting to see someone take two or three supposedly fatal hits and keep moving. |
Randall Smith
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:51 am: |
|
Can't follow the conversation here. But I would like to kill something. All I have is a two old .22 rifles.
Randall |
GregH
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:45 am: |
|
Damn-my laptop screen keeps flickering and going blank unless I type like mad. I meant to say after describing accuracy of scoped 5.56 that not too many military snipers seem to want to switch to that caliber for obvious reasons. |
John Lee
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:18 pm: |
|
"I'm not sure what the current M16 barrel twist is but the complaint I read is not probs with hitting targets but rather from overpenetration (through and through) at closer ranges and possibly lack of penetration at long range against heavily clothed combatants."
The current M16A2 has a 1:7" barrel twist. SS109 is fully stablized with a 1:9" twist, but the 1:7" twist is designed to stablize the substantially longer M856 tracer round. Many weapons like the AUG come with a 1:9" barrel because tracer ammunition is rarely fired in service rifles.
The barrel twist does not affect the wound ballistics of the 5.56 round. The original barrel twist on the AR15 was 1:14". This was reduced to 1:12" when it was found that the M193 projectile de-stabilized in arctic environments. There was opposition to this change in barrel twist, because some believed that the 5.56's terminal ballistics came from the bullet's "tumbling" in soft targets. These same people protested when NATO standardized the SS109 projectile and the barrel twist was changed to 1:7" or 1:9". Many thought the SS109 projectile would not "tumble" and thus the terminal ballistics would be reduced substantially.
This is erroneous. The principle mechanism of wounding in both the M193 and SS109 projectiles comes from fragmentation. The fragmentation is not caused by high velocity, for the SS109 travels only slightly faster than the M80 ball round (which doesn't fragment at all). The fragmentation comes from the thin copper jackets used on the SS109 and M193 bullets. The SS109 also has a two-piece core with the tip being manufactured from hardened steel and the primary core being manufactured from lead. These two pieces are not bonded together and tend toward separation when the projectile hits a soft target and the jacket disrupts.
I don't know where these war stories of overpenetration at close range and underpenetration at long range come from, because the SS109 has less penetration at close range than the M80 ball round. I believe M80 ball penetrates over 25" of soft tissue, whereas the SS109 has about 12" of soft tissue penetration at close range (where the velocity of the bullet is high enough to disrupt the thin copper jacket of the SS109). For piercing helmets and body armor, the SS109 has superior armor penetration than the M80 ball round at all ranges.
"A hundred years ago we learned something in actual combat against drug-crazed Phillipine insurgents that proved the wisdom of the .45 Auto against the old .38 for a sidearm."
The Moro campaign involved the .45 Colt, and not the .45 ACP. (The .45 ACP round came into existence in 1911, well after the Moro campaign.) The American Army had retired the Colt Peacemaker chambered for .45 Colt and replaced with a double-action revolver with a swing-out cylinder chambered for the .38 Long Colt cartridge. The .38 Long Colt is a very feeble round, much weaker than the 9mm Parabellum and even the .38 Special. And these war stories are very anecdotal and not reliable. They are about as reliable as the stories about the 5.56 overpenetration at close range.
"And Jack-I don't think the Marine Corp Sniper Instructors at Pendleton would agree with you. Otherwise, why limit the foot soldier to a three-round burst. Why not double the amount of minimi/SAWs per squad? The single, well-aimed bullet still has a place on the battlefield. One that I think will only become more important in the type of fighting our people will most likely see.
On this we can all agree. A skilled rifleman firing a true, full-power rifle is a force to be reckoned with. He can reach out and kill personnel at ranges up to and past 1000 yards. His weapon is powerful enough that he can inflict serious damage on vehicles and parked aircraft, and shoot right through the walls of most dwellings. History is also full of accounts of skilled riflemen inflicting casualties and damage way beyond their numbers. For example, the Boer farmboys inflicted serious carnage on the British with their 7 x 57 Mausers. I doubt we'll see the end of the rifleman any time soon.
If only the armies of the world could be trained to shoot the full-power rifle skillfully, things would be very different from the way they are today. Jeff Cooper describes the rifle as the "Patrician Smallarm" because it is brilliantly accurate and powerful, enabling the skilled rifleman to shoot to his full potential. However, the rifle is also uselessly powerful for the man who cannot shoot. |
Peter Matusov (Pmatusov)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Jake,
I wish I shot some ammo outta the AK74 - the one i had to cling to for about 24 hours was issued when we were dispatched to guard something, with a strict and very inofficial warning never to use it.
The AK47/AKM has very noticeable recoil, although you get used to it after very few rounds. It is more difficult to control when you "let'em all loose," i've seen some really funny shit happening to people who tried to release all 30 rounds while standing up. If you use it just as a rifle, supposedly, it is accurate to 500m (and lethal up to 1500m).
John,
i understand this consideration, however, i was shown a bunch of photos of targets hit with off-center 5.45. My guess would be that given with their high spin rate, the c.g. only needs to be off by a very small distance. Speaking of stabilization, it will "stabilize" with any c.g. offset (that is, fly a straight line while rotating around the c.g.), but will lose speed very quickly. There should be some trade-off.
i'm no expert in ballistics, though, so i may be off by a lot.
peter |
John Lee
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:46 pm: |
|
I'm no physicist, but I believe it's impossible for a spinning projectile to have an eccentric center of gravity and yet be stablized in flight. Imagine a driveshaft or propeller or tire that is out of balance and spinning at 200,000 rpm. All will shake violently and want to depart from their axis of rotation. I don't see how a projectile that is out of balance and spinning that fast can maintain a true flight.
One of the first things that target shooters do when handloading their ammunition is to measure the concentricty of their bullets with a precision gauge and relegate to practice only the bullets that are not perfectly round. And the concentricty gauge can measure only the outer diameter of the bullets and cannot measure the concentrity of the weight of the bullet. There are variations in the weight distribution of a bullet because lead is heavier than copper and there are variations in the lead/copper distribution throughout the section of a bullet because the cores and jackets are not perfect in dimensions. This is why "one-piece" projectiles machined out of a single substance such as solid copper can sometimes produce superior accuracy in guns. That is, there is no lead/copper variance in such projectiles and the weight distribution of such projectiles is much more concentric than projectiles made from multiple materials. |
Peter Matusov (Pmatusov)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:43 pm: |
|
you're right, it will be a spiral rather than a straight path. the radius of the spiral should be more or less close to the distance between the "center of drag" to c.g.; it can be made small enough for the projectile to fly more or less straight (on average), and then, upon impact, something happens (like deformation or direction change or both) causing the spiral to increase in diameter.
by the way, just thought about it, a free rotating body will tend to acquire the mode of rotation when its moment of inertia is at the maximum. for a bullet, it would be not around its axis, but around a line perpendicular to its axis. it may be the reason for the offset c.g. bullets to produce more damage.
peter |
GregH
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 03:45 pm: |
|
Thanks John for the info and correction of my erroneous .45 info-
Historically, many of the best marksman started firearms training (safety and accuracy) at home as younsters. Both my girls (age 6 and 9) have CZ 452 youth .22's and we have a great time plinking targets.
The Swiss know what they're doing... |
Jack Quinlan (Jsq)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 03:47 pm: |
|
John,
If you think the fragmenting SS109 or the M80 will do as much damage as a nosler partition or even a JHP, you've never actually shot any soft tissue with either of them.
I never said that the Nazi German military were looking for an all purpose round. I just disagree with your comment that they had figured everything out. They hadn't even come up with a very good assault rifle round compared to 7.62x39.
Those snipers that everyone is so fond of work in teams. Guess what, they don't both carry sniper rifles. If you're out there alone with just a sniper rifle, you can score some hits, but your greatest aid isn't your weapon, it's your stealth. It's what puts you in position to take a shot and it's what let's you get away.
Whatismore, snipers have utility but what they use has no place in the discussion of a standardized infantry weapon. They are specialized and limited use weapons. This thread started about 5.56 as a standard issue weapon, not, "what is the greatest rifle round ever?" In addition, snipers score some hits, but no war is ever won just buy a bunch of snipers. From the American Revolution, to the Boer War to Vietnam wars in their entirety are won by serious attrition, significant tactical defeat or economic supply.
I'm not saying there's no room for improvement (keep the round, let's talk about the whole AR design!$#^) but the 5.56 has had a damn long run as modern rifle rounds go and for a lot of good reasons, all being discussed here. It's going to be around for a while longer too. |
Jake Hartley (Jake)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 05:50 pm: |
|
Peter;
"I wish I shot some ammo outta the AK74 - the one i had to cling to for about 24 hours was issued when we were dispatched to guard something, with a strict and very inofficial warning never to use it."
Interesting comment, what country issued you that weapon? I shot the AK-74 and 47 at Ft Bragg at the JFK Special Warfare Center as well as RPG and the heavy machine gun. It sounds like you must hae worked for a country that had the Kalishnakov as an issue weapon. That is pretty interesting, would love to hear about it. |
John Lee
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:12 pm: |
|
Jack,
So now you're claiming that a 9mm JHP will produce more damage against a human target than the SS109 or M193?
And just what it is about the 7.62 x 39 that makes it so demonstrably superior to the 7.92 Kurz? I'd like to hear that one as well. |
Jack Quinlan (Jsq)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:20 pm: |
|
read a little more carefully. I was talkin .223 and a carefully designed expansion round will do more damage then a fragment round (it's what I shoot coyotes with)
7.92 kurz has less velocity. it's the stubbiest little fat round I've ever seen. and that USED to be how I described 7.62x39.
Don't worry, I don't REALLY believe in such a thing as a practical round in usage or on paper (I love shooting .30 carbine!) |
Steve (Steve2)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:24 pm: |
|
my $0.08 worth of input on the 'ineffectiveness' of the 5.56mm in afganistan would go to individuals being issued the m4 / m4a1's trying to engage mid-long range (300-600m) targets - more than likely as a result of the terrain and being also issued the TA01nsn combat sight.
the 14.5" bbl is really only 'good' to about 100 meters - maybe slightly more. the m16a2 with the 20" has never had a 'problem' - even in somalia and the 'skinnies'.
with the 5.56mm weapons system you need bbl length..... stoner designed the ar15 with the 222 remington special (later renamed 223) with a 20" bbl for a reason....
ergo the advent of the spr - i don't think there have been any complaints with the spr and it's 18" bbl.
also with twist rates and round effectiveness - one thing i have found is the m16a2 style ar15 does just fine with 55gr m193 despite the 1:7 twist bbl.
one twist to all this is the bundeswehr issue ammo is a different specification to our ss109 and there have been no reports of problems in the g36e or k or c. acutally seals prefer the g36c over the m4/m4a1 for reliability and toughness.
with the advent of the oicsw (?) - we might very well have an americanized variant of the g36 family made the new rifle of the u.s. armed forces... however with the 6.8mm round looming - you never know. |
John Lee
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:56 pm: |
|
Jack,
I still don't know what you mean by "damage" when you claim a .223 JHP or Nosler Partition will do more "damage" than the SS109 or M193. Certainly, if you're talking about an animal like a deer, the Partition is the way to go for a more human kill because the Partition penetrates more deeply and is therefore more lethal. But if you're talking about prairie dogs, the super explosive bullets are going to provide more human and dramatic kills.
If you're talking strictly .223, and however you define "damage", I still don't agree with your statement that the SS109 and M193 bullets produce less "damage" than a Partition or JHP bullet. It is certainly true that bullets like the Nosler Partition will penetrate more deeply than bullets like the SS109, but all of the JHP bullets for the .223 are much more frangible than either the M193 or SS109 bullets. Both M193 and SS109 will penetrate an average of 12". The JHP loads were designed literally to explode on small varmints and are very frangible in construction. On soft tissue, they penetrate about 6-8". Many entry teams that have tested the varmint bullets for their .223 weapons have found they have inadequate penetration for service use.
So the 7.92 Kurz round is inferior because it has "less velocity"? That's very compelling. Is that the only reason? By your logic, does this mean that the 7mm Mauser is inferior to the 7mm Rem Mag because it has less velocity? Or the .30-06 is inferior to the .300 Win Mag because it has less velocity? Or the .470 Nitro is inferior to the .460 Weatherby because it has less velocity? More is not necessarily better.
Steve, please no more of the Bling Bling Tactical stuff. Mr. Butler and I are hitting the range again this Sunday. You have mail. |
Peter Matusov (Pmatusov)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:38 pm: |
|
Jake,
it was "the other country" that issued me that weapon
peter |
Jake Hartley (Jake)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:23 pm: |
|
Peter:
cool! welcome to the US from a former advisary. Would love to hear more at some time. |
Jack Quinlan (Jsq)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:09 am: |
|
John,
less velocity in what is already a short range weapon with a slow moving bullet. NOT a comparison of already high and higher velocity large rifle rounds. You created an argument I didn't make.
what the hell is this groundhog stuff? Again, a scenario I didn't even suggest. I used coyotes as an example because they are a larger mammal with a rib cage and lungs more comprable to a humans. I'm not talking about itsy bitsy little creatures. I didn't even suggest it. Have you ever seen any of the rounds you describe shoot any flesh or are you just repeating something you read? 12" doesn't sound like good penetration it sounds like over penetration, unless everybody you shoot is two feet thick. Unless it's fragmenting and creating a huge exit wound you don't want it coming out the back.
You go on and reciting and referencing various calibers as if I am going to be so awed by the range of your knowledge that I'll believe whatever you say. Trust me you haven't described a single, weapon, bullet or phenomenon I haven't heard a million times before. You don't even address my points, you create your own and attribute them to me. You argue semantics instead of making a point. Kind of like your spelling debate eh? Maybe I should say 7.92 Kurz like you instead of 8mm Kurz. Would that make me a poser or a poseur?
You stopped posting in Disco Tech because you embarassed yourself so thoroughly, are you about to do the same in General Non-Tech? |
Pugsly (Pugsly)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 01:14 am: |
|
For short range, notched & jacketed hollow points, that's what I'm talking about. and 9mm not 10mm because you can hold 50% more rounds in the magazine!
For long range, I have fond memories of the .50 cal Browning. Used to take it out on the range and chop down trees with it. Deuce mounted for minimal recoil, it was an ideal weapon - anything without armor was soft-n-easy! |
GregH
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 01:21 am: |
|
Steve-Are you sure about Stoner's original design caliber?
I've always understood that the AR-10 was designed to compete against the M-14 and FN FAL and HK G3 in 1956. (BTW I've also heard that FN actually won the comp but not the contract) There were some early design glitches as well bias amongst the military for Springfield Armory and against Armalite that precluded any contracts. However, Stoner was asked by the military to develop a smaller version and thus developed the AR-15 and resulting .223/5.56. I'd be interested if you have different info.
GregH |
John Lee
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:26 am: |
|
Take it easy Jack.
If you're pissed off that I corrected you about your statements that the assault rifle is an "all-purpose" weapon, that the 7.92mm Kurz round has "poor accuracy", that small arms projectile design is limited by the "geneva convention", that the SS109 will produce less damage than both a Nosler Partition and a .223 JHP.
So the 7.92 Kurz round is inferior because it has lower velocity? The Kurz round was designed to be an intermediate cartridge. When the Germans entered WWII, they did so with the k98 and various machine pistols. Later on, they discovered their blitzkrieg tactics resulted in fighting under very confused conditions at close range, that the k98's did not have the requisite rapidity of fire and was overly powerful for these conditions, and that the machine pistols lacked sufficient power for the same conditions. So they came up with a cartridge that was intermediate in power, less powerful than a rifle and more powerful than a pistol. You can say the Kurz round is inferior to the 7.62 x 39 because it has less velocity, but the Kurz round does exactly what it was designed to do.
I mention the groundhogs only as an example that your statement that "If you think the fragmenting SS109 or the M80 will do as much damage as a nosler partition or even a JHP, you've never actually shot any soft tissue with either of them" is fallacious. .22 centerfire JHP's are designed for use on groundhogs. They are extremely frangible bullets and designed literally to explode even on small animals such as groundhogs and prairie dogs. Any bullet that can turn a prairie dog into red mist is a very frangible bullet that will give inferior and inconsistent performance against human targets because of poor penetration.
The 12" of penetration for antipersonnel use is the minimum set by Martin Fackler, the world's foremost authority on wound ballistics as it pertains to gunshot wounds in humans. A bullet has to penetrate deeply enough to reach the vital organs of a human from almost any angle. One may have to shoot through an assailant's arms before the bullet penetrates into the torso. 12" of soft tissue penetration also does not equate to 12" of bodily penetration because the bullet may strike bone along its path. And overpenetration is not the serious concern it once was. Given that more than nine out of 10 shots in law enforcement gunfights miss the target, it seems a little silly to worry about that what that one bullet actually hitting will do after it exits the target only a small percentage of the time. In the military context, overpenetration is not a concern at all.
You bring up the "spelling debate". In that thread, spelling was actually an issue. Spelling was not in this thread, so I didn't even mention it. But now that you're making it an issue, both "8mm Kurz" and "7.92 Kurz" are correct. That doesn't make you either a poseur or a poser, but it does make you a crybaby. |
Steve (Steve2)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:54 pm: |
|
gregH
my ref is to the ar15 - not the ar10. yes i too have heard the fn won over the m14 - but horrors of horrors the rifle was not from springfield and that was just not done back then..... from all that i know the 223 is best utilized from a 18, 18.5" tube for velocity and handling. but then what do i know ?? LOL!
the fn-m14 subject reminds me when the m1 abrams fist came out and they used the L85 (?) 105mm main gun that was on the m60a1's. the 120 german made smooth bore was considered but dropped as it wasn't made 'here'. then after realizing how much better the 120mm was as the leopards were already using them (i love german armour) the brass finally gave in. the arguement that if there was a war in europe the tanks could not be made with the main gun installed....
to me the best tank is the leopard a4s, the best modern assault rifle the hk g36e.
john -
no more bling bling tactical ? does that include swat dolls with names ? ;-) - dude, i'm SO bummed...
steve |
John Lee
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 02:01 pm: |
|
I think the M60A1 has a rifled tube. The 105mm gun on the M1A1 is a smoothbore, as is the 120mm gun on the M1A2.
The Chobham armor on the M1, Leopard II, and Challenger tanks is a British design I believe. It's supposedly some kind of layering of various materials that will defeat most standard HEAT round, and its exact construction is still classified.
My favorite tank is the Challenger II. I have no idea if it's superior to the M1, but it looks bad ass. I think the Challenger II uses a 120mm rifled gun, but I'm not sure. |
Jack Quinlan (Jsq)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 02:35 pm: |
|
you didn't "correct" a damn thing. I said Geneva instead of Hague but my argument didn't exactly hinge on those words. Nosler still does more damage. The 8mm Kurz is still inaccurate for an assault round and 7.62x39, 5.45 and 5.56 still do the same job better(your claim that the germans had the assault round concept all figured out 50 yrs ago). But now you've resorted to your second favorite posting method (number one being irrelevant info barrage): name calling.
you've hurt my feelings and I don't want to play with you anymore.
sniff.
sniff.
i guess it's your sandbox anyways...
I hope you realize I'm not really worked up about any of this and I don't mean any genuine ill will. I'm relatively new to Dweb and as far as I could tell so far, this is the only style of discussion but on second thought I don't think it's as much fun as being civil. |
John Lee
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Yeah, whatever Jack.
We've seen your Geneva Convention argument fall its its face and now you claim that the name of the convention is irrelevant. You claimed that both the Partition and JHP bullets produced more damage than the SS109, even though this is self-contradictory. You know this is true (although you don't admit it) and you have you changed your argument to only the Partition being superior to the SS109.
And now we just heard your "I don't care" stage of this thread. Even though you're obviously heated and you want desperately to be right, you claim you're above all of this petty bickering and claim you don't give a shit. This is as credible as the rest of your statements.
All we need now are "You lost me as a customer" and "Get that dildo out of your mouth" and you'll be three for three on the Moron's Library Of Arguments To Use. |
GregH
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 06:43 pm: |
|
LOL Steve-It's funny cause I often tell my wife during frustrating moments working on the Rover that this must be how the Brits are getting us back for all those M4 Shermans we sent them under lend-lease.
Above comments are also interesting because I just was talking to one of my employees yesterday whose son is in the Marines and just deployed to Middle East. He is an M1A2 driver and I reassured her that in the event of battle that 120mm smoothbore and chobham armor would keep him safer than just about anything on the battlefield. I couldn't tell her much about Chobham armor other than that it was a classified British design that involved layers of metal and non-metal and that I believed it was an explosive-reactive design also possibly using depleted uranium. The M1A1 105 was a Rheinmetall unit and the 120 on the A2 is also but I believe they're manufactured under license in US. (could be wrong)
Anyway-I also am a fan of German armor but my knowledge is more WWII. However, I can't argue with anyone when they claim the T-34 was the all-around best tank of WWII. At least in terms of production simplicity, design (christie suspension, use of sloped armor)dependability, had a decent gun, etc. The German Tiger, King tiger, etc. may have been superior designs but definitely not as reliable and were more problematic to manufacture.
Jack-BTW I click on dweb for a quick stress relief from work(at least that's how I justify the wasted time LOL). Don't take it so seriously... |
GregH
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 06:52 pm: |
|
BTW Steve-the US military bias against "not developed here" definitely is not as prevalent now as in the 50's but it still amazes me that the US seems so biased against bullpup designs.
You mentioned the G36E-what about the G11?
GregH |
Jack Quinlan (Jsq)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:46 pm: |
|
geez john.
I'm letting it go so, everybody, John Lee won, he knows everyting about firearms and I only know how to shoot my red rider lever action bb carbine.
i was never headed down the road to either of those last two moron comments.
i know you're a big tough guy tactical retailer and you don't give a damn about anything or anyone but you sure are being a jerk (now you've reduced me to your name calling)
the end of my post wasn't "i don't care" it was "geez this is already a lot meaner than i'd like it to be and i don't want any hard feelings"
now you'll probably tell me how i'm even wrong about what I was trying to say and that my attempt at being peaceable was just because I want to order some surefire lights from you or something.
you're like a frickin mongoose. you just don't ever let go and you're never ready to stop fighting or stop being mad. it was a bit of a low blow on my part to reference the poseur thread but you did the same thing there that you are doing now. you just want to get the last word in no matter how ugly it gets or how mad you make people.
are you this constantly hostile in person? i'm not new to bulletin boards so i've seen people write like you before, i just wonder if i ever met you at a socal landy event that you'd start yelling at me about terminal ballistics to the point of chasing my truck around yelling about the wermacht and taking pot shots with your G3.
I hope you just type tough and that you are a nicer guy in reality. I ordered some suspension from you once and asked you about bumpers on the phone. You certainly had an opinion but you were a lot friendlier about giving it to me. I'd like to think that you don't take all this stuff as seriously as it seems on this board and since we both like rovers and firearms that we would get along face to face.
that's all i got.
i'm done. |
John Lee
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:56 pm: |
|
That's your idea of "letting it go"? |
JohnPlease!
| | Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:43 am: |
|
To bad John doesn't live in a free state.
A G3 is full auto and fun to own and shoot!
A M-16A2 11",14" & 22 tops suit different purposes. When people like john go out shooting dress for tea party in the desert, I love to shoot a hundred rounds of the 1928a and listen to the silence in the desert after. How many auto have you own John? Did you buy a book and dream about them. You probably have more safes than I do. You probably ran a better gun store than I did also. You well never know the Joy of owning and shooting legends. You probably drive to Nevada and rent the Full autos and I guess that make you an Expert. Sad, a man got to know his limitations and his guns. There truely is a gun for all reason and ocassions. John I really like shooting with pecker heads. As soon as the autos start firing, all the little birds stop chirping and know that the king still lives. Get a life |
Steve (Steve2)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:40 pm: |
|
gregH
i agree- being in a m1a1 or m1a2 is about the best place you can be (aslong as the nbc is working!!) i don't think the raqis have anything that can defeat it. aside from a lucky shot from heavy artillery (122mm?) direct hit on the roof i supose....the other downside the rumour that the dust from the depleted uranium rounds adding to the myth of the 'gulf war syndrome' - (diesel fuel / inoculation poisoning IMHO)
ww2 german armour? now we're cooking with gas! have to grudgingly admit to the t34's annoying toughness. have a soft spot for the pzkfw V, VI and the workhorse IV's and IIIs. also like the looks of the sdkfw 222 armoured car and of course - the coolest vehilce the schwimwagen! (got to see one painted panzer grey at the vw museum in wolfsburg along with a kettenrad.) the schwimwagen was mint condition -sans the mg34 or 42 ;-( and had a lovely smell of that vw hydraulic fluid.... will try to post some pics later.
steve |
GregH
| | Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:42 pm: |
|
What the hell is that about....?
GregH |
Steve (Steve2)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:51 pm: |
|
gregH
the g11? hmm- that was a gun way ahead of the time. not sure what the reason behind the caseless rounds. lighter combat load most likely but also 'green' in a sense - if war can ever be considered enviromentally friendly... having only seen the g11 in pics it does look somewhat bulky.
the trasitional gun to the g36e (formerly hk50) was the hk36 which used elements of the defunct g11 (apparently was too costly in a post berlin wall germany). absorbing the 3rd world east germany nearly made the federal republic go broke... still costing billions of DM's - rather euros now.
the g36 is not perfect - but significantly more reliable than a m16, though the m16 is pretty darn good (now).
the g36 family is a little bulky - larger dimmensionaly than a g3 even but much lighter. i've only handled a g36k and that was really cool. though the smaller guns are more bling bling commando sexy - i would take a full size e model for the ballistic factors. optic choice would be the std hensoldt 3x with a holosight stuck ontop - not perfect but good for all round use..
steve |
GregH
| | Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 05:06 pm: |
|
Steve-
My previous posting was directed towards "JohnPlease". I was writing as you were posting and I didn't see what you wrote.
Interesting-I'm a long-time VW fan but never made it to Wolfsburg (British Major Ivan Hirst was a distant relative-father's side). I did manage to get to the the BMW museum in Munich, however. Yeah, the Schwimmwagen was a neat vehicle. 4WD and amphibious too! I understand there are a few in US as well (haven't seen though). A surprising number were at a recent VW meet in Germany and a few were for sale as well.
GregH
Back to work... |
John Lee
| | Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 05:25 pm: |
|
Spoken like a true hero. "The king still lives"? Well, thanks for that.
BTW, I think I've seen you at the range before too. Aren't you the guy who goes to the local range dressed up in fatigues and loves to shoot bullets downrange just to make noise and thinks he makes a "hit" when the bullets hit the ground downrange? The guy who thinks the next gun show is the social event of the season? The guy at the range who's social life revolves around showing off your toys and rubbing elbows with the other guys at the range?
California gun laws do suck, but I live here because I like it here and, believe it or not, there is more to life than shooting. I know, I need to get a life. Whatever, king. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page