Posted on 02/02/2007 12:23:59 PM PST by John Jorsett
All you guys are off a bit...the "Generals" who took the original rifle for testing didn't like the cyclic rate which was a bit slower than what they wanted, plus they liked doing business with their old buddies who manufactured the powder they liked, so they changed the powder to up the rate of fire and used a specific powder that jammed the works.
The original AR-15 used by the early Special Forces working as advisors worked like a charm and was as effective as the AK-47 in adverse conditions.
The jamming was fixed by chrome plating and the handle was installed because some nit wit General wanted one. They didn't want to admit that they had screwed up a beautifully designed and effective weapon.
I, um, did a little work years ago on these toys.
I understand it is a very nasty round, wound wise.
Isn't the SS109 round designed to break into 3 parts? But the velocity has to be up around 2800fps.
The short barrels on the M4 reduce the range that that velocity can be maintained. Less than 100 yds.
The longer barreled M16 16-20") increase the lethal range.
Think that's what I've read.
The tumbling caused the round to fragment at the cannelure, which is the primary wounding mechanism. If the round retained its mass in one package, it wouldn't be nearly as efficient.
Don't think so, as I recall (we know how that works when you get older) the SS109 was designed to better penetrate helmets. Apparently the older 5.56 round had a tendency to bounce off at extended range, no surprise there.
Yes, the SKS is a nice rifle!
The M855 62gr FMJ has the SS109-type bullet, but is designed to fragment very similar to the older M193 55gr FMJ. As the velocity drops, both rounds fragments less and less. The M855 round starts off a few hundred FPS slower than the older M193 round, so it's not as good of a round close in. However, the heavier round holds its range better.
The "Black Tip" M995 round is the true armor piercing round, with several components combined into the bullet. It's designed to penetrate armor and not specifically fragment like the standard rounds. It's an expensive round and rarely issued.
Here is a GREAT site on 5.56mm ammo.:
www.ammo-oracle.com
M855/ss109 was designed to be heavier (longer range) without adding bullet length. They just added a steal insert which weighed more than an equal volume of lead. No specific AP properties.
yes, it was brought up then.
Not only that, but the ostensible reason they went toa smaller round in the first place was so the troops could carry more rounds with less weight.
Now, with this new order, they will have to carry twice as many rounds for the same firepower.
Go figure.
??? Lead (Pb) is about 4x denser than steel (mostly iron, Fe) so if they did add a steel insert, it was not to add weight! Suspect that was the penetration issue I read many moons ago that got the insert in there.
Great thread..........
They can all be deflected. I saw a photo of a .30 caliber cutting a playing card in half. The path of the bullet was deflected upward. I also saw the video, "Dangerous Weapons". It showed a .50BMG round deflected by a one inch tree branch.
SS-109 is Fabrique Nationale's (FN's) name for their 61.5 grain bullet with the steel penetrator in the nose and what they call rounds loaded with this bullet.
No mention of the intent to be heavier with no size increase (which is not possible trading lead for steel) but to add a penetrator.
Ah now I get it. Let's bring back the old anti-tank rifles.
That rifle fires a .22 cal. bullet. That's suitable for human enemies no taller than three feet when standing up.
Time to issue AK-47's so our troops don't have to either buy or use battlefield recovered AK's.
From the superior guns (for their day) of Colt, Browning, Remington, and Winchester, America seems to now have a bunch of "prancers & dancers" as Col. Hackworth called 'em who are making our small arms decisions.
If the purpose of a firearm is to actually kill the enemy, heavier is better. If the purpose is to keep the enemy out of your line of fire, lighter is just as good.
Were it not for the logistical difficulties of having to deal with separate calibers, I would think it might be interesting to have a firearm with separate "suppressive fire" and "targeted fire" functions (probably two barrels, fed from separate magazines). I'm sure the weight and complexity would render the idea impractical, but there would be some appeal to the idea of having 100+ rounds of .22lr ready at hand.
What a crock of cranberry crap! Give them weapons, not massage sticks!
Don't know if its true or not but I recall something about the 'old' proof of a military round (30.40, .303, 30'06, etc.) was ability to punch through a helmet at 100 yards...?
We need to design a better bullet. For example, how about a tungsten penetrator core surrounded by lightweight blades covered by a plastic shell that opens when the target is struck? Kinda like the mechanical broadheads that archers use for game. That way you get penetration of armor by the tungsten dart in the core and max tissue damage by the blades. For Pete's sake, its the 21st century! Oh yeah, and how about having it plant a locator chip with a sound transmitter in the target's flesh? Use nano-sized fishhooks so they can't take it out. Let's get creative!
I've also seen the argument that more, lighter rounds are better because a lighter round is more likely to wound or maim than kill outright. A dead soldier can't fight, but won't do anything to slow the rest of them down. A wounded soldier can't fight, and may force the enemy to expend time and resources taking care of him.
I've read that argument frequently, and don't buy it so much. If a round is actually aimed at the enemy, heavier is better. On the other hand, if a round isn't going to hit the enemy, any weight is wasted.
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.