Posted on 03/11/2008 6:36:34 AM PDT by LSUfan
This 10-minute video contains a vivid comparison of the power difference between the 5.56mm NATO round and the 7.62 NATO round. It is DRAMATIC...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QTIiEGFbCQ
The M-60, in all it's forms is the first LMG to make an impact in the military. The M249 in 5.56 has a high rate of fire, ability to be carried by one guy with enough ammo to be effective in a close-in battle.
The weight of the weapon is not a significant factor. The weight of the ammo is. Unlike the M16A2, the M4, due to its shorter barrel, has experienced well documented reliability problems. Moreover, that short barrel also contributes to a lower velocity for the M855 round, which contributes to the stopping power problems documented with the 5.56mm M855 round.
The difference in weight between an AR-10 and a M16A2 is not all that great. Maybe 2-3 pounds at most, if that.
Carrying more rounds is not such a great thing if those rounds don’t drop the enemy when they hit him. And that has been a documented problem with the M855 5.56mm NATO round.
That’s why SOCOM asked for the Mk48 in the first place.
Some are. I fired an 9mm Uzi that stayed on target while expending a 30-round magazine in one burst. I think more potent calibers could be compensated also.
There is no comparison between a submachine gun, which fires a pistol round—an underpowered one at that in the case of the Uzi—and a rifle round.
Is this the 7.62 X 39 or the 7.62 X 51 ?
I remember reading about our people interviewing the Germans about the “abnormally” high rate of fire their machine guns had - something like 1,000 rounds per minute compared to our 600.
The Germans said, “You have never faced a Russian ‘Human Sea’ attack have you?”. A few years later in Korea, we saw the Chinese version - with 600 rpm machine guns.
7.62 X 51, aka 7.62 NATO
I find the SOCOM recoil almost indistinguishable from its big brother M1A.
Well, the immediate problem is that M855 is an anti-materiel round - not anti-personnel. Yaw & fragment is a key factor in 5.56 soft-target terminal ballistics ... and armor-piercing doesn't do that.
The M4, when used on soft targets, requires heavy (~77gr) ball ammo to work right. All too often, 55gr and 65gr (M855) is used - to predictably inadequate results (low velocity; high spin -> centrifugal self-destruction).
Use the wrong tool for the job, and don't be surprised if it doesn't get the job done. Mk262Mod1 ammo (77gr Match ball) reportedly works very well from the M4 - but it isn't being used much due to supply-chain momentum insisting on delivering light-round hard-target M855 instead.
Well - all things considered - I would have preferred the M-16 in the jungle...or on the long treks through the tall grass and paddys.
The long range and knock down superiority of the M-14 is indisputable -- but in our war, the enemy was closer and usually unseen until in your face -- so the greater maneuverability in close quarters of the M-16 and the ability to carry a LOT more rounds for the same weight are a serious advantage..
Unless a lot of drugs or adrenalin was involved - a double or triple tap in the torso would at least take the little guys down...for the duration of the firefight or eternity.
Yep. The .270 caliber has it all: high muzzle-velocity, flat-shooting, and good knock-down power.
7.62x39 is Soviet/Warsaw Pact, and not NATO.
The Navy uses M-4s now for boarding teams but still uses the M-14 for ship defense and for line throwing. I always liked the M-14 too-never shot anything but expert with it during scored quals. But I’m glad I didn’t have to lug one around all day.
The Swedes tried something similar in the 30’s-40’s. They chambered a Browning MG for a souped-up 8mm cartridge and converted a few K98 German Mausers to the same round for the MG crews. The Mausers had to have muzzle brakes, because they kicked the snot out of the shooter.
Mail call! LOL
....In the past I might have used a cartridge that had a white almost translucent plastic casing. Very light....I think costs was the limiting factor.
Now that I think about it, I've seen it once again in Florida but never could get a straight answer where these fellows got the ammo.
Nice!
I thought the M249 was chambered for 7.62. Or is it chambered for either/or?
The only one I’m familiar with is the 7.62X54R, for my Mosin.
The M249 SAW is 5.56x45
Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), M249 Light Machine Gun
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m249.htm
The M240 is 7.62x51
M240G Medium Machine Gun
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m240g.htm
Both are FN designs.
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.