Better bullets also will help, experts say

Stars and Stripes ^ | 20 December 2002 | Mark Oliva

[RLK]

I'm getting to the point where my eyes are deteriorating to the point I seldom shoot any more. I used to shoot combat Pistol at 100 yards. I'm down to 100 feet. I loved the Garand. The ammunition was bulky, but at 300 yards it was a gem. The Carbine was a good jungle rifle, maybe the best that ever existed, but few people were trained on it. I would prefer it's stock be an inch or so longer. Hit someone in the gut with it and it will blow their spine out.

[semaj]

For those intimate moments:

• .308 FAL w 20 rd mag. Yeah babieee!

When you want to reach out and touch someone:

• Scoped bolt action .308. Say cheese!

[Shooter 2.5]

bump

[Centurion2000]

.308 or 5.56 - you make the call!

454 ... 308 in a pinch for me.

[BenLurkin]

"The 5.56 mm round shot — a bullet equivalent to that marketed in the States to shoot small vermin . . ."

But , but the media said the D.C. shooter was using the .223 "sniper" rifle!

[Vinnie_Vidi_Vici]

The M-14's should never have been produced with a selector switch! Full auto is a waste unless you are within "spittin'" distance or are firing in enfilade. They have brought back some of the M-14's with match barrels, as semi-auto sniper rifles for Afghanistan and are considered to be very effective.

[Eaker]

Ya'll have had better luck with M1 Garands than I have. I never care to shoot one ever again.

Stay safe; stay armed.

[cryptical]

I'm guessing that it won't be for general issue, at least at first. Probably special ops only, for missions that require it.

If they do go to the caliber as general issue, there would have to be a huge retooling on the part of ammo manufacturers. Rather than changing barrels for general issue, I'd guess it might be easier to buy new, or swap weapons with a depot that's set up to do the job full time.

[weaponeer]

. I used to shoot combat Pistol at 100 yards.

Just curious, but why? 100 yd is certainly beyond effective pistol range for 99.9% of shooters. Why not transition to rifle?

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"biplex (2 bullets per cartridge) could be created for the .308"

Duplex bullets were in fact developed for the M14 in NATO 7.62 caliber. I used to have some- probably illegal to own now.

[RLK]

As a matter of personal opinion I think a person should be able to shoot 100 yars pistol standing up unsupported free style. A pistol is easy to carry and is effective at that range. Today, I have lost all eye accommodation and can't see the sights and target simultaneously.

[RLK]

Some people apparently don't get along with the Garand. I have an acquaintance who shoots one at 12 inch targets at 600-800 yards. I never liked the 1911 45. I had a friend in the army who could write his name with one at 50 feet, gold cup model. The pistol just fit him.

[RLK]

Combat ussually won't occur in the open where you can easily shoot the enemy.

--------------------------

It dependens upon terrain and type of operation. In heavy jungle 300 yard emphasis is foolish. In clearer areas with sniping and suppresive fire it's a different world.

You may remember a post here last spring where Taliban were laughing and throwing rocks at our ground troups in defiance from about a couple hundred yards. Try that with someone thoroughly trained with an M1 Garand and the next time they bend over to pick up a rock they'll get a second asshole. From accounts I've read of recent operations, our people simply can't shoot and don't have the equipment to do it. What I'm seeing is dependence upon air strikes and fancy technology to handle what any good country boy used to be able to do with a decent rifle. What I'm seeing is pitiful.

[RLK]

They have brought back some of the M-14's with match barrels, as semi-auto sniper rifles for Afghanistan and are considered to be very effective.

--------------------

A high school kid whose name was Schuster was shooting in matchs with them at 1,000 yards and hitting.

[Vinnie]

I don't really know anything about them but they look to be about 16". If so that is 4" shorter than a regular M16.

I think you are right about the barrel length being the problem.
I'm pretty sure the M4 barrel is 14.5 " w/ a flash eliminator that takes it to approx 16".

From what I've read, the SS109 is effective, breaks into 3 pieces, at around 3000 fps and above. The 20" barrel develops enough velocity to give an effective range of 150+ yds. but the 14.5" barrel cuts that range down to 50 - 75 yds .
As velocity drops much below 3000 fps the SS109 just drills a 1/4" hole

[IronJack]

Admittedly, but these efforts are not undertaken lightly. I don't expect to see this materialize.

[Buffalo Head]

"Secondly, I have always questioned the use of hardball ammo for combat."

The Hague Convention. We don't use nerve gas either.

[Buffalo Head]

The M16 and M16A1 had a 1:12" twist. The 55 grain M193 bullet was just barely stablized. That is why it tumbled upon the change of density in the media in which it traveled. (VC versus air)

The M16A2 and M4 have a 1:7" twist. They had to be that fast to stablize the M856 Tracer round which is even longer than the M855 Penetrator round. The M855 is essentially over-stablized during its flight to the enemy, but is still stable while passing through them. It leaves a much smaller permanent cavity than did the M193 round when it went unstable and sideways while passing through VC in Vietnam.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Didn't Oswald use a 6.5mm?

What about a 6.35mm so as to come out exactly 1/4"?

[Buffalo Head]

"That theory was developed during the Cold War"

No, it was a spewcific basis in the design criteria of the 30 M1 Carbine round developed early in WWII.