Skip to comments.
Weapons of the World: Little Bullets (5.56) Lose Respect
Weapons of the World ^
| November 15, 2005
Posted on 11/15/2005 2:32:39 AM PST by holymoly
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-248 next last
To: river rat
The redeaming value, was that you could reach way out and put the deadly touch on Charlie - and one round properly placed was sufficient....out to better than 600 yards. Which sounds like an argument for the M1903 Springfield.
I read somewhere that the VC typically carried a very low ammo load -- 30 or 60 rounds or so. Any truth to that? And they dropped their packs in a rear area before walking in, which our guys didn't do. Gave them a terrific weight/fatigue advantage.
To: CrawDaddyCA
I LOVE my M1, but I have to agree. It isn't the optimal choice for a combat rifle in the modern world, due to the relatively low capacity 8-round en bloc clip system (which an alert enemy can hear unloading itself, signifying that you're temporarily disarmed). God, it's a hoot to shoot, though.
To: holymoly; All
FN SCAR-H / Mk.17 rifle prototype in CQC (Close Quarter Combat, short barrel) configuration, 7.62x51 mm NATO version
23
posted on
11/15/2005 3:38:07 AM PST
by
Flavius
(Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum")
To: Lauretij2; Knitebane
The reason we went to 5.56 was more ammo-per bag, and lighter weight. Roger the lighter weight, but I recall reading long, long ago that the 5.56 caliber and the M-16 itself were designed around the concept of jungle warfare and the containment mission, with recent experience in the Philippines and Malaya in mind. You might say the M-16 was designed for "one, two, many Vietnams", and not for the European or Korean theaters at all.
To: Flavius
Yeah.....like that. Or the AR-10.
One advantage of FN is that they're guaranteed to be drop-resistant.
To: holymoly
M14 bump ...
Truth comes out, eventually.
26
posted on
11/15/2005 3:43:43 AM PST
by
Tarpon
To: CrawDaddyCA
While the Garand is a fine rifle, I prefer the M14Agree. It doesn't have to be fired until empty, and can be topped off with loose rounds, stripper clip, or simply swap magazines.
27
posted on
11/15/2005 3:46:17 AM PST
by
labette
(In the beginning, God...)
To: holymoly
I suppose talking about the 55 grain vs 62 grain, 14, 12 and 7 twists per barrel, steel vs lead, tumbling vs stable, 11 vs 20 inch and the needed 2,700 fps needed to start tumbling is a waste of time on the anti 5.56mm round crowd.
28
posted on
11/15/2005 3:47:57 AM PST
by
PeteB570
(Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
To: holymoly
bump for later. thanks for the post.
29
posted on
11/15/2005 3:49:48 AM PST
by
the crow
(I'm from the government. I'm here to help.)
To: lentulusgracchus
You might say the M-16 was designed for "one, two, many Vietnams", and not for the European or Korean theaters at all. Well, it's not doing so well in the desert or urban environments.
It seems to me that a small caliber round is good for a squad weapon that's used in the full auto role often. Smaller equals less weight per round, so the SAW operator can carry more rounds. Meanwhile, the average infantryman should be carrying a larger round for more precise, and more lethal, shooting.
30
posted on
11/15/2005 3:55:41 AM PST
by
Knitebane
(Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
To: river rat
When I was in boot camp, I had an M-14. Loved that rifle and what it could do. Then I got to ITR and they gave us M-16s. How I hated that thing.
Now I have a Chinese SKS. Put some decent sights on it and that is one nifty weapon.
31
posted on
11/15/2005 3:57:12 AM PST
by
Past Your Eyes
(Hey, getta your tootsi frootsi ice cream.)
To: Knitebane
I am not a ballistics expert but will give you the boiled down version from memory.
The 55 grain 5.56mm round was designed to do it's damage from tumbling and round fragmentation due to stress as it started to tumble after hitting the body.
The 62 grain "Green Tip" ammo was designed to produce the same effect at a longer range. To make the round stable out to longer ranges it needed more spin and that lead to the 1:7 twist on barrels.
To make the tumbling effect the round needed to be going 2,700 fps or faster. The Green Tip actually has better knock down power and penetration than the 7.62 round at longer distances because of it's speed.
The problem is using the Green Tip in the shorter M-4 barrels. They are too short to allow the Green Tip round to reach the 2,700 fps required for tumbling/knock down.
No round or weapon is perfect at all ranges or under all conditions. A squad can not be armed with 6 different weapons. A soldier can not carry different ammo in each ammo pouch and be expected to get the "right" one while in a fire fight.
There is a difference between assault rifles, machine guns, machine pistols (old term) and the infantry rifle.
32
posted on
11/15/2005 4:13:27 AM PST
by
PeteB570
(Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
To: lentulusgracchus
Now, now. Dieudonne Saive was an acolyte of John Moses Browning through the FN Herstal connection. The FAL is a fine piece of hardware with a great pedigree. Ask the Brit paras who took the Falklands, the Selous Scouts, and any number of other serious soldiers.
33
posted on
11/15/2005 4:14:01 AM PST
by
FreedomPoster
(Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
To: SLB
I have never been in combat, but I do think there are a few reasons to stay where we're at. The first is your typical field belt caries 3 to 5 magazine pouches...that would be 270 to 450 rounds in 5.56. I do not know how many rounds a practical carry would be in 7X62...
The other is the wound factor. It is a fact that if there is a wounded soldier, it takes two or three others out of action to take care on them...one of the reasons 5.56 was created. The other is close quarter combat. A 16 to 20 inch barrel would be preferred I think...
Again, I have never been in combat so I cannot voice strongly on the need for more "knock down" power. If one does change what they shoot, this has it's pros and cons as well...meaning if they enemy gets yer gun, his bullets will fit into it...
34
posted on
11/15/2005 4:14:49 AM PST
by
sit-rep
(If you acquire, hit it again to verify...)
To: PeteB570
A squad can not be armed with 6 different weapons. The standard armament for a WWII era rifle squad was:
1 BAR (Squad Auto weapon)
Everyone else, M1 Garand
There were usually exceptions, ie non-coms and radio operators with a Tommy gun or M1 Carbine, but this was the basic layout.
It seemed to work well, except for the BAR shooter having to carry so much ammo.
Seems to me that if you replaced the BAR (and it hurts to consider that, but let's face it, the dern thing is heavy and so is all of that .30-06 ammo) with a 5.56 squad weapon, you'd have the same basic layout with the advantage of the auto gunner being able to pack more ammo.
The Garand is big and heavy too, but we would want to decrease the weight of the weapon, not the caliber.
35
posted on
11/15/2005 4:40:53 AM PST
by
Knitebane
(Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
To: sit-rep
36
posted on
11/15/2005 4:42:13 AM PST
by
PeteB570
(Confirmed fan of the "Black Rifle".)
To: The Red Zone
Great Britain also felt the need to replace both Sten submachine guns and SMLE No.4 bolt-action rifles with more modern equipment. The research and experience clearly showed that it is entirely possible to replace both of these weapons with single new weapon, with effective range of fire of no more than 1000 yards and with selective-fire capability. This weapon, of cause, required a new cartridge, which was developed after extensive research and development. This cartridge, an "ideal" from British point of view, was of .280 caliber (7mm) and had a bottlenecked case 43 mm long. The pointed bullet weighted 9.08 g (140 grains) and had muzzle velocity of about 745 m/s (2445 fps). The rough comparison of this round against other most common modern cartridges can be found in the table below. Basically, this cartridge offered significant advantage in effective range and penetration against not only 9x19mm Luger pistol cartridge, but also against 7.92x33mm Kurz German and 7.62x39mm Soviet intermediate cartridges, producing slightly more recoil, which was still significantly less than of .303 British rifle cartridge or latter 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge.
Enfield EM-2 / Rifle, Automatic, caliber .280, Number 9 Mark 1 (Great Britain)
EM-2 assault rifle, officially adopted in Britain as Rifle, Automatic, No.9 Mk.1 but never put into service
Note that the backup sights are in raised position.
from let to right: British experimental .280 (7x43mm) cartridge for EM-2; Soviet 7.62x39mm M43; US/NATO 5.56x45mm (.223 Rem); US/NATO 7.62x51mm (.308 Win)
Caliber: 7x43 mm (.280 British)
Action: Gas operated
Overall length: 889 mm
Barrel length: 623 mm
Weight: 3.41 kg with empty magazine
Rate of fire: 450 - 600 rounds per minute (depends on source)
Magazine capacity: 20 rounds
comparison table: British .280 caliber intermediate cartridge vs. most common modern military cartridges
ballistic data is estimated using Norma ballistic calculator and Sierra Bullets data on ballistic coefficients.
|
5.56x45mm NATO |
7x43mm EM-2 |
7.6x39mm M43 |
7.62x51mm NATO |
bullet weight |
4.01 g (62 gr) |
9.08 g (140 gr) |
7.9 g (122 gr) |
9.72 g (150 gr) |
bullet velocity, at muzzle |
921 m/s |
745 m/s |
710 m/s |
860 m/s |
bullet velocity, at 300 yards (273 meters) |
585 m/s |
570 m/s |
470 m/s |
674 m/s |
bullet velocity, at 550 yards (500 meters) |
385 m/s |
450 m/s |
341 m/s |
516 m/s |
bullet energy, at muzzle |
1700 J |
2519 J |
1991 J |
3594 J |
bullet energy, at 300 yards (273 meters) |
686 J |
1475 J |
872 J |
2207 J |
bullet energy, at 550 yards (500 meters) |
297 J |
919 J |
460 J |
1294 J |
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as59-e.htm
To: Knitebane
The 5.56 mm 62 grain "Green Tip", when fired from a 20" barrel with 1:7 twist has better knock down power and penetration than the standard 7.62 NATO round when fired from a standard western rifle at longer ranges.
Fire the same round from the shorter M-4 barrel and you do not get the same results. The mix I was referring to. SAWs, M16s, M4s, throw in a sniper rifle and maybe something a little more exotic and the "average" squad has a little to much "mixing" going on.
38
posted on
11/15/2005 4:50:15 AM PST
by
PeteB570
(Confirmed fan of the "Black Rifle".)
To: shekkian
I was talking to a colleague who was in Vietnam, and handled both the M14 and M16. He told me the M14 was a far better weapon. He called the M16 "Mattel" from all the plastic.
I carried an M-14 for a time, but prefer the M-16 due to weight and the amount of ammo one can carry.
39
posted on
11/15/2005 4:51:38 AM PST
by
GarySpFc
(Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
To: Knitebane
"Troops in Iraq regularly report that while shooting at cars that run checkpoints that 5.56 rounds fail to penetrate sufficiently to stop the car."
That's what a 25mm Bushmaster cannon is for :)
40
posted on
11/15/2005 4:53:16 AM PST
by
BeHoldAPaleHorse
(MORE COWBELL! MORE COWBELL! (CLANK-CLANK-CLANK))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-248 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson