New Combat Rifle.
- Thread starter MKalashnikov
- Start date
- Status
US_Marine_CPL_0311
Active Member
Not really. I agree with that SomeDude guy(whatever his name was). I don't think it would be very seasable.Cjwinnit said:
Upvote
0
Entering on the 5.56mm debate, i used to post on sf.net and we had some good weapon discussions there, one guy posted info on calibres.
He posted some interesting pics of the wounds created by 5.56mm rounds.
I must say that whoever says 5.56 is not a 'good' or 'effective' round then they have no idea what they are talking about. A 5.56mm bullet is effective up to 600m. Most modern engagements happen below this distance, giving 5.56 a distinct edge over the 7.62's overkill at 800m. (Not to mention that a skilled marksman can hit with 5.56 at 800m with a suitable rifle.)
A 5.56mm bullet to a vital artery or organ will incapacitate or kill any enemy not wearing body armour. A 7.62 bullet will do the same but it will not pierce modern body armour so there is no point in using 7.62 in standard Assault Rifles.
The Russian AK-47 rounds were designed in 1947 when the weapon itself was accepted for service. They cannot peirce modern body armour or Kevlar helments and an AK-47 may be reliable but if you don't have to clean it then accuracy with such a weapon degrades. A serious amount of training is required to fire a Russian Model AK-47 because the kick is so large (the chinese models are cheaper and use smaller caliber ammo and do not need similar training).
The Russians realised their faults with such a calibered weapon and brought out the AK-74 with a smaller round, essentially 5.56 only slightly out from the NATO standard. However, the Russians being the Russians designed this new caliber of weapon and bullet to 'tumble' upon impact, essentially when the bullet hits skin is shudders widly until it exits the body creating massive damage to internal organs, of course this caliber was banned by the Geneva Convention, but then again so were Snipers!
He posted some interesting pics of the wounds created by 5.56mm rounds.
I must say that whoever says 5.56 is not a 'good' or 'effective' round then they have no idea what they are talking about. A 5.56mm bullet is effective up to 600m. Most modern engagements happen below this distance, giving 5.56 a distinct edge over the 7.62's overkill at 800m. (Not to mention that a skilled marksman can hit with 5.56 at 800m with a suitable rifle.)
A 5.56mm bullet to a vital artery or organ will incapacitate or kill any enemy not wearing body armour. A 7.62 bullet will do the same but it will not pierce modern body armour so there is no point in using 7.62 in standard Assault Rifles.
The Russian AK-47 rounds were designed in 1947 when the weapon itself was accepted for service. They cannot peirce modern body armour or Kevlar helments and an AK-47 may be reliable but if you don't have to clean it then accuracy with such a weapon degrades. A serious amount of training is required to fire a Russian Model AK-47 because the kick is so large (the chinese models are cheaper and use smaller caliber ammo and do not need similar training).
The Russians realised their faults with such a calibered weapon and brought out the AK-74 with a smaller round, essentially 5.56 only slightly out from the NATO standard. However, the Russians being the Russians designed this new caliber of weapon and bullet to 'tumble' upon impact, essentially when the bullet hits skin is shudders widly until it exits the body creating massive damage to internal organs, of course this caliber was banned by the Geneva Convention, but then again so were Snipers!
Upvote
0
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
Karl (NI):
"sf.net"
I too, am a fan of Sourceforge. But what does an "Open Source software development website" have to say about ammunition?
===
He posted some interesting pics of the wounds created by 5.56mm rounds.
Laboratory conditions and ballistic gelatin are interesting, but they are hardly definitive.
===
I must say that whoever says 5.56 is not a 'good' or 'effective' round then they have no idea what they are talking about.
If it were only so simple.
===
A 5.56mm bullet is effective up to 600m.
Which 5.56mm bullet are you talking about. There are only several hundred types. What weapon is this bullet fired out of? What barrel length? What is the twist? What are the conditions? You really should qualify such a statement.
SS109 (M855 Ball) bullets fired out of a 20 barrel are effective up to 600m. However, most everyone uses the M4 now. The M4s shortened barrel does not generate enough twist or velocity.
===
Most modern engagements happen below this distance, giving 5.56 a distinct edge over the 7.62's overkill at 800m.
The problem is the soldier does not have typically have a choice between loads and weapons when given a particular environment.
The M-16A* is a good battle rifle (all apologies to the true Great Battle Rifles of history). Originally, there were range issues with the 5.56mm ammunition used. The military developed the steel-core M855 Ball based on the SS109 bullet which extended the effective range of the M-16A* to about 600 meters. However, the high velocity round was not an effective man-stopper. It would zip through close range targets, which typically required up to five shots to drop.
This problem was exacerbated when the military began a wide-scale adoption of the Dead Sexy [TM] M4. Now the M4 is a great jungle and urban carbine. But the SS109 bullet is a terrible match for the rifle. The short barrel limits velocity and difference in twist means that the bullet does not achieve stability for long-range target. This has cut effective range to about 360 meters. Mix this with the close range over-penetration of unarmored targets and you have a problem.
*cough*7.62*cough*
Personally, I would rather drop a target in one shot as opposed to five. Overkill, what, as opposed to under-kill?
===
(Not to mention that a skilled marksman can hit with 5.56 at 800m with a suitable rifle.)
The operative phrase being suitable rifle.
===
A 5.56mm bullet to a vital artery or organ will incapacitate or kill any enemy not wearing body armour.
So will any bullet.
===
A 7.62 bullet will do the same but it will not pierce modern body armour so there is no point in using 7.62 in standard Assault Rifles.
It will not pierce modern body armor? Surely you jest.
What about the M993 round: The 7.62 AP round penetrates 15 mm armor plate at 300 m. It also penetrates 120 mm Plexiglas helicopter protection and is highly effective on brick and concrete walls and causes no barrel wear.
===
The Russian AK-47
Why do you bring up the AK-47 in a discussion regarding 7.62 vs. 5.56? You do know that there is a huge difference between 7.62x39 and 7.62x51?
===
[The Russian AK-47] cannot peirce modern body armour or Kevlar helments
Not true.
===
A serious amount of training is required to fire a Russian Model AK-47 because the kick is so large,
I have fired automatic rifles in both 5.56 and 7.62x39. The recoil is very manageable. Now, .30-06, that is real kick.
===
(the chinese models are cheaper and use smaller caliber ammo and do not need similar training).
They do not use smaller caliber ammo. All AK-47s are chambered in 7.62 X 39 ammo.
===
However, the Russians being the Russians designed this new caliber of weapon and bullet to 'tumble' upon impact
5.56 and 5.45 both tumble.
===
this caliber was banned by the Geneva Convention
No it was not.
"sf.net"
I too, am a fan of Sourceforge. But what does an "Open Source software development website" have to say about ammunition?
===
He posted some interesting pics of the wounds created by 5.56mm rounds.
Laboratory conditions and ballistic gelatin are interesting, but they are hardly definitive.
===
I must say that whoever says 5.56 is not a 'good' or 'effective' round then they have no idea what they are talking about.
If it were only so simple.
===
A 5.56mm bullet is effective up to 600m.
Which 5.56mm bullet are you talking about. There are only several hundred types. What weapon is this bullet fired out of? What barrel length? What is the twist? What are the conditions? You really should qualify such a statement.
SS109 (M855 Ball) bullets fired out of a 20 barrel are effective up to 600m. However, most everyone uses the M4 now. The M4s shortened barrel does not generate enough twist or velocity.
===
Most modern engagements happen below this distance, giving 5.56 a distinct edge over the 7.62's overkill at 800m.
The problem is the soldier does not have typically have a choice between loads and weapons when given a particular environment.
The M-16A* is a good battle rifle (all apologies to the true Great Battle Rifles of history). Originally, there were range issues with the 5.56mm ammunition used. The military developed the steel-core M855 Ball based on the SS109 bullet which extended the effective range of the M-16A* to about 600 meters. However, the high velocity round was not an effective man-stopper. It would zip through close range targets, which typically required up to five shots to drop.
This problem was exacerbated when the military began a wide-scale adoption of the Dead Sexy [TM] M4. Now the M4 is a great jungle and urban carbine. But the SS109 bullet is a terrible match for the rifle. The short barrel limits velocity and difference in twist means that the bullet does not achieve stability for long-range target. This has cut effective range to about 360 meters. Mix this with the close range over-penetration of unarmored targets and you have a problem.
*cough*7.62*cough*
Personally, I would rather drop a target in one shot as opposed to five. Overkill, what, as opposed to under-kill?
===
(Not to mention that a skilled marksman can hit with 5.56 at 800m with a suitable rifle.)
The operative phrase being suitable rifle.
===
A 5.56mm bullet to a vital artery or organ will incapacitate or kill any enemy not wearing body armour.
So will any bullet.
===
A 7.62 bullet will do the same but it will not pierce modern body armour so there is no point in using 7.62 in standard Assault Rifles.
It will not pierce modern body armor? Surely you jest.
What about the M993 round: The 7.62 AP round penetrates 15 mm armor plate at 300 m. It also penetrates 120 mm Plexiglas helicopter protection and is highly effective on brick and concrete walls and causes no barrel wear.
===
The Russian AK-47
Why do you bring up the AK-47 in a discussion regarding 7.62 vs. 5.56? You do know that there is a huge difference between 7.62x39 and 7.62x51?
===
[The Russian AK-47] cannot peirce modern body armour or Kevlar helments
Not true.
===
A serious amount of training is required to fire a Russian Model AK-47 because the kick is so large,
I have fired automatic rifles in both 5.56 and 7.62x39. The recoil is very manageable. Now, .30-06, that is real kick.
===
(the chinese models are cheaper and use smaller caliber ammo and do not need similar training).
They do not use smaller caliber ammo. All AK-47s are chambered in 7.62 X 39 ammo.
===
However, the Russians being the Russians designed this new caliber of weapon and bullet to 'tumble' upon impact
5.56 and 5.45 both tumble.
===
this caliber was banned by the Geneva Convention
No it was not.
Upvote
0
Lol, i expected this attitude, those who think you know it all.
The people i talked to on the website are BTDT's, i.e Been There Done That, they would take you to town on what you just rebuked me with, and by the way, 5.45 Soviet AK-74 Standard Ammo WAS in fact banned by the Geneva Convention, if you took the liberty to find out you would know. They considered it to be a moder manufacturable 'Dum-dum' round, and thus it was banned.
The reason i didn't state as to what types of ammo, is because i use NATO measurements and i expected those of you who post here to jump to that conclusion when reading, because an M16, funnily enough, as well as the M4, fires NATO standard 5.56x45mm rounds, the SS descriptions i don't use as it is pointless when you can just say NATO Standard, or Warsaw Pact Standard.
The reason i mentioned the AK ammo was because i wanted to highlight the differences between western thinking and Soviet thinking on Assault Rifle calibre.
Also, 5.56 IS a more effective munition because 7.62 is too hard to configure to an assault rifle, the M14 was designed to fire full-auto but was only accurate in Semi-auto as it was extremely hard to control when on full auto.
In fact, the British saw this problem and purchased the FN made SLR, it didn't fire full-auto because they knew the implications. A 7.62 round should only be fired from a suitable barrel, such as that of a weighty LMG or sniper rifle.
The effectiveness of the 5.56 round should be clearly visible, because the Russians saw it, and decided on a smaller round of their own, and now most AR's have that calibre, except of course the French who can use either 5.56 or 6mm for their FAMAS. The further proof of effectiveness of 5.56 ammo in the support fire role is the M249 SAW, or the FN-Minimi (same basic model).
The truth is that 5.56 is the most used and most effective ammo in the world, even FN's 5.7x28mm round for the P-90 flopped because it was considered too hard to manufacture and the difference between it and Kinetic 5.56 was negligeble.
The people i talked to on the website are BTDT's, i.e Been There Done That, they would take you to town on what you just rebuked me with, and by the way, 5.45 Soviet AK-74 Standard Ammo WAS in fact banned by the Geneva Convention, if you took the liberty to find out you would know. They considered it to be a moder manufacturable 'Dum-dum' round, and thus it was banned.
The reason i didn't state as to what types of ammo, is because i use NATO measurements and i expected those of you who post here to jump to that conclusion when reading, because an M16, funnily enough, as well as the M4, fires NATO standard 5.56x45mm rounds, the SS descriptions i don't use as it is pointless when you can just say NATO Standard, or Warsaw Pact Standard.
The reason i mentioned the AK ammo was because i wanted to highlight the differences between western thinking and Soviet thinking on Assault Rifle calibre.
Also, 5.56 IS a more effective munition because 7.62 is too hard to configure to an assault rifle, the M14 was designed to fire full-auto but was only accurate in Semi-auto as it was extremely hard to control when on full auto.
In fact, the British saw this problem and purchased the FN made SLR, it didn't fire full-auto because they knew the implications. A 7.62 round should only be fired from a suitable barrel, such as that of a weighty LMG or sniper rifle.
The effectiveness of the 5.56 round should be clearly visible, because the Russians saw it, and decided on a smaller round of their own, and now most AR's have that calibre, except of course the French who can use either 5.56 or 6mm for their FAMAS. The further proof of effectiveness of 5.56 ammo in the support fire role is the M249 SAW, or the FN-Minimi (same basic model).
The truth is that 5.56 is the most used and most effective ammo in the world, even FN's 5.7x28mm round for the P-90 flopped because it was considered too hard to manufacture and the difference between it and Kinetic 5.56 was negligeble.
Upvote
0
US_Marine_CPL_0311
Active Member
They have a nice M14 Sopmod now. Its a nice little weapon. Mainly used by SOF and SF troops. (Special Operation Forces=SEALs, Rangers, Force Recon Marines)Peiper said:
(Special Forces=Delta Force, Green Berets)
Upvote
0
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
Karl (NI):
"...those who think you know it all."
Look who is talking. I only addressed your inaccuracies and vagaries.
"The people i talked to on the website are BTDT's"
BTDTs are overrated and appeal to authority if a logical fallacy. Try following the definitive http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/
You will find some of the best forums such as AK-47.NET and AR15.GunsNet
"5.45 Soviet AK-74 Standard Ammo WAS in fact banned by the Geneva Convention"
It was not. In fact the convention only speaks about "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." If you can substantiate your claim, please do.
Myths associated with the draft: http://www.monix.net/Open Tip Ammo.txt
"i use NATO measurements and i expected those of you who post here to jump to that conclusion"
I do not make assumptions. I expect an author to mean what they write.
"Also, 5.56 IS a more effective munition because 7.62 is too hard to configure to an assault rifle, the M14 was designed to fire full-auto but was only accurate in Semi-auto as it was extremely hard to control when on full auto."
And you accuse me of being a "know it all?" You unequivocally state that 5.56mm is superior to the 7.62x51mm round SIMPLY because an M-14 is "hard to control" on fully automatic fire! Do you realize how ridiculous this assertion is? Can you not think of other M-14 configurations (bipod) that might make the weapon more stable or other select fire weapons platforms that have successfully used the ammunition for decades (European FAL variants)? Or what about the current use of the M60 with a forward pistol grip? Come on!
"In fact, the British saw this problem and purchased the FN made SLR, it didn't fire full-auto because they knew the implications."
Yet:
The nature of warfare in close jungle, however, made the absence of a selective fire capability a disadvantage in some instances and some temporary but unofficial methods were devised to rectify this problem! Officially, sixty LIAI rifles were modified for selective fire capability, specifically for use by the SAS. In addition to the ability to fire bursts of fully automatic fire, the modified SAS rifles had both sling swivels and the flash eliminator removed, and the back sight permanently raised. In contrast to the relieving infantry units who carried their individual weapons into South Vietnam at the time of their deployment, the modified rifles remained in South Vietnam and were handed on to the relieving SAS squadron at each deployment.
[source: http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/weapons/SLR1.htm]
"A 7.62 round should only be fired from a suitable barrel, such as that of a weighty LMG or sniper rifle."
Heavy barrels are always desirable as all barrels over-heat. The M4 has this problem in spades.
"The effectiveness of the 5.56 round should be clearly visible..."
I never asserted that it was not effective. I simply asserted that it is important to qualify such statements with conditions.
"The truth is that 5.56 is the most used and most effective ammo in the world..."
No bullet is perfect. Did you ever think to consider that NATO had anything to do with the adoption of the caliber?
"...those who think you know it all."
Look who is talking. I only addressed your inaccuracies and vagaries.
"The people i talked to on the website are BTDT's"
BTDTs are overrated and appeal to authority if a logical fallacy. Try following the definitive http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/
You will find some of the best forums such as AK-47.NET and AR15.GunsNet
"5.45 Soviet AK-74 Standard Ammo WAS in fact banned by the Geneva Convention"
It was not. In fact the convention only speaks about "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." If you can substantiate your claim, please do.
Myths associated with the draft: http://www.monix.net/Open Tip Ammo.txt
"i use NATO measurements and i expected those of you who post here to jump to that conclusion"
I do not make assumptions. I expect an author to mean what they write.
"Also, 5.56 IS a more effective munition because 7.62 is too hard to configure to an assault rifle, the M14 was designed to fire full-auto but was only accurate in Semi-auto as it was extremely hard to control when on full auto."
And you accuse me of being a "know it all?" You unequivocally state that 5.56mm is superior to the 7.62x51mm round SIMPLY because an M-14 is "hard to control" on fully automatic fire! Do you realize how ridiculous this assertion is? Can you not think of other M-14 configurations (bipod) that might make the weapon more stable or other select fire weapons platforms that have successfully used the ammunition for decades (European FAL variants)? Or what about the current use of the M60 with a forward pistol grip? Come on!
"In fact, the British saw this problem and purchased the FN made SLR, it didn't fire full-auto because they knew the implications."
Yet:
The nature of warfare in close jungle, however, made the absence of a selective fire capability a disadvantage in some instances and some temporary but unofficial methods were devised to rectify this problem! Officially, sixty LIAI rifles were modified for selective fire capability, specifically for use by the SAS. In addition to the ability to fire bursts of fully automatic fire, the modified SAS rifles had both sling swivels and the flash eliminator removed, and the back sight permanently raised. In contrast to the relieving infantry units who carried their individual weapons into South Vietnam at the time of their deployment, the modified rifles remained in South Vietnam and were handed on to the relieving SAS squadron at each deployment.
[source: http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/weapons/SLR1.htm]
"A 7.62 round should only be fired from a suitable barrel, such as that of a weighty LMG or sniper rifle."
Heavy barrels are always desirable as all barrels over-heat. The M4 has this problem in spades.
"The effectiveness of the 5.56 round should be clearly visible..."
I never asserted that it was not effective. I simply asserted that it is important to qualify such statements with conditions.
"The truth is that 5.56 is the most used and most effective ammo in the world..."
No bullet is perfect. Did you ever think to consider that NATO had anything to do with the adoption of the caliber?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
US_Marine_CPL_0311:
"They have a nice M14 Sopmod now."
Yeah it rocks. Kudos to Troy Industries. I read that it is capable of a 3-4 inch group at 800m. Outstanding for a 16" barrel! It also has redesigned gas system. The new M14 has basically no muzzle flip!
I hope that there is more of this kind of thinking in the future!
Too bad it is $2,500 to get your pre-ban M1A converted.
Here are some fun pics to drool over:
/\ 10" barreled (!) M16 Carbine with the stock collapsed (top) and 16" barreled SOPMOD M-14
"They have a nice M14 Sopmod now."
Yeah it rocks. Kudos to Troy Industries. I read that it is capable of a 3-4 inch group at 800m. Outstanding for a 16" barrel! It also has redesigned gas system. The new M14 has basically no muzzle flip!
I hope that there is more of this kind of thinking in the future!
Too bad it is $2,500 to get your pre-ban M1A converted.
Here are some fun pics to drool over:
/\ 10" barreled (!) M16 Carbine with the stock collapsed (top) and 16" barreled SOPMOD M-14
Upvote
0
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
US_Marine_CPL_0311:
"Thank you for calling me overrated."
I never called you overrated. Why did you apply this comment to yourself?
Do not take offense by the statement. None was meant. It certainly was not a generalization to military experience. There is a difference between having experience and using that experience as a trumpcard in a debate ("BTDT").
I have found that most "BTDTs" are online braggarts with questionable real-life experience. Most of the real "BTDTs" I have ever met (read: experts) will never brag or use their experience as a nightstick in a debate. Even still, personal experience is not the best support for something anyway.
"Thank you for calling me overrated."
I never called you overrated. Why did you apply this comment to yourself?
Do not take offense by the statement. None was meant. It certainly was not a generalization to military experience. There is a difference between having experience and using that experience as a trumpcard in a debate ("BTDT").
I have found that most "BTDTs" are online braggarts with questionable real-life experience. Most of the real "BTDTs" I have ever met (read: experts) will never brag or use their experience as a nightstick in a debate. Even still, personal experience is not the best support for something anyway.
Upvote
0
To argue that personal experience is not the best measurement would either come from someone who doesn't like BTDT's because of some personal dislike or because they are hateful of the military. Or maybe its because u are not a military man (neither am i for that matter but i hope to be, and i respect Veterans BTDT's because they really have been there and done that).
The fact is BTDT's have fired the weapons and have made assumptions.
These assumptions i consider correct as it is not simply from a textbook, but from first hand experience. I would guarantee if you ask any serving soldier in a Western Army-'Is the 5.56mm round accurate and useful?' The answer would definetly be yes, it is.
In referance to the M14 being hard to control, you missed the fact that i was making the statement that 7.62 calibre assault rifles are hard to control on full auto without such niceties as Bipods which the standard M14 was without. Therefore my statement strengthened my argument that Full-auto firing assault rifles are suited to the 5.56 round, making it a superior calibre in that sense.
And about the Geneva convention, i don't read anything about it, i don't care to know much about it apart from what is normally known. I did not read in the Geneva convention that these bullets were banned, but i know Dum-Dum and assorted ammo are banned in war and i read the statement in a Gun Manual, possibly Janes 2002 although i don't think it was. It may have been James Marchington's 'The Enclyclopedia of Handheld Weapons' or Chris McNab's Small Arms manual.
And of course no bullet is perfect, what i am trying to clarify is that 5.56 is a more widely used munition and, due to technology, has become a more effective round that the larger 7.62 NATO standard.
The fact is BTDT's have fired the weapons and have made assumptions.
These assumptions i consider correct as it is not simply from a textbook, but from first hand experience. I would guarantee if you ask any serving soldier in a Western Army-'Is the 5.56mm round accurate and useful?' The answer would definetly be yes, it is.
In referance to the M14 being hard to control, you missed the fact that i was making the statement that 7.62 calibre assault rifles are hard to control on full auto without such niceties as Bipods which the standard M14 was without. Therefore my statement strengthened my argument that Full-auto firing assault rifles are suited to the 5.56 round, making it a superior calibre in that sense.
And about the Geneva convention, i don't read anything about it, i don't care to know much about it apart from what is normally known. I did not read in the Geneva convention that these bullets were banned, but i know Dum-Dum and assorted ammo are banned in war and i read the statement in a Gun Manual, possibly Janes 2002 although i don't think it was. It may have been James Marchington's 'The Enclyclopedia of Handheld Weapons' or Chris McNab's Small Arms manual.
And of course no bullet is perfect, what i am trying to clarify is that 5.56 is a more widely used munition and, due to technology, has become a more effective round that the larger 7.62 NATO standard.
Upvote
0
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
"To argue that personal experience is not the best measurement would either come from someone who doesn't like BTDT's because of some personal dislike or because they are hateful of the military."
Absolutely ridiculus.
"The fact is BTDT's have fired the weapons and have made assumptions."
Simply firing a weapon does not make you an expert on that weapon.
"I would guarantee if you ask any serving soldier in a Western Army-'Is the 5.56mm round accurate and useful?' The answer would definetly be yes, it is."
Broaden your sources of information. There are many examples of soldiers complaining about the round and the weapons platform. I provided one earlier in the thread.
"...5.56 is a more widely used munition and, due to technology..."
Or, maybe due to politics.
"[5.56 is] a more effective round that the larger 7.62 NATO standard."
Anyone remotely familiar with long arms and ammunition would never make this claim. 5.56mm has particular applications that it excels in and 7.62 has particular applications that it excels in. 7.62x51mm has not been made obsolete by 5.56x45mm.
Absolutely ridiculus.
"The fact is BTDT's have fired the weapons and have made assumptions."
Simply firing a weapon does not make you an expert on that weapon.
"I would guarantee if you ask any serving soldier in a Western Army-'Is the 5.56mm round accurate and useful?' The answer would definetly be yes, it is."
Broaden your sources of information. There are many examples of soldiers complaining about the round and the weapons platform. I provided one earlier in the thread.
"...5.56 is a more widely used munition and, due to technology..."
Or, maybe due to politics.
"[5.56 is] a more effective round that the larger 7.62 NATO standard."
Anyone remotely familiar with long arms and ammunition would never make this claim. 5.56mm has particular applications that it excels in and 7.62 has particular applications that it excels in. 7.62x51mm has not been made obsolete by 5.56x45mm.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ok, i never said 7.62x51 was obsolete, i never really even hinted at it.
For a start its the mainstay of many LMG's in Western militaries, all M60's, all M240G's and Co-Ax weapons, the GPMG and countless others, they all use the 7.62 because it is a fearsome round when used through an accurate and fearsome machine gun.
However, what i am saying is that due to new assault rifles and the betterment of technology the 5.56 ammunition has become standard and is, on the most part, one of the most widely used and effective ammunitions, especially when talking about Squad based Support weapons and Assault Rifles.
For a start its the mainstay of many LMG's in Western militaries, all M60's, all M240G's and Co-Ax weapons, the GPMG and countless others, they all use the 7.62 because it is a fearsome round when used through an accurate and fearsome machine gun.
However, what i am saying is that due to new assault rifles and the betterment of technology the 5.56 ammunition has become standard and is, on the most part, one of the most widely used and effective ammunitions, especially when talking about Squad based Support weapons and Assault Rifles.
Upvote
0
Me still being in the millitary I like the M-16, the version we are using is reliable and is easy to maintain. I have used it in water and mud and it still shot great. Though even in Jesus' time he did not condem war. He knew nations would battle and he even helped the forces of GOD prevail, so loving thy neighbor and fighting in combat is like comparing apples and oranges.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
