Search this Topic:
Apr 7 17 3:29 AM
Apr 7 17 3:31 AM
mhansen2 wrote:US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATOhttp://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-army-considers-7-62-interim-battle-rifle/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=EBB%204.6.17&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief
Apr 7 17 4:28 AM
Rebcop wrote:With glass I got 1.5 moa from my M-4 in Baghdad. Definitely more than 150 meter weapon.
Apr 7 17 5:59 AM
Cody2 wrote:I don't think precision is the measurement that determines the effective range of a rifle. Or at least not the only one. I've seem MOA 22LR that could achieve sub MOA precision. Not that I'd ever suggest that someone use that as a battle weapon on purpose. I was under the impression that the M4 had trouble with wounding effect, penetration, and trajectory because of it's lowered muzzle velocity compared to the M16. The lower mv of the M4 has it's bullet doing at ~200 yards what the M16's bullet does at ~300 yards in terms of penetration or wounding effect. And the M16's bullet tended to suffer in wound effect and penetration over 300 yards compared to the "full power" rounds like the 7.62NATO.
Apr 9 17 7:49 PM
sergeante wrote:Cody2 wrote:I don't think precision is the measurement that determines the effective range of a rifle. Or at least not the only one. I've seem MOA 22LR that could achieve sub MOA precision. Not that I'd ever suggest that someone use that as a battle weapon on purpose. I was under the impression that the M4 had trouble with wounding effect, penetration, and trajectory because of it's lowered muzzle velocity compared to the M16. The lower mv of the M4 has it's bullet doing at ~200 yards what the M16's bullet does at ~300 yards in terms of penetration or wounding effect. And the M16's bullet tended to suffer in wound effect and penetration over 300 yards compared to the "full power" rounds like the 7.62NATO.Ya gotta stay away from the gun mags and blogs. They're full of shills trying to sell you product, and cranks trying to sell you nonsense. The ground forces are concerned about engagements beyond 300 m. That should tell you what they think their carbines can do under that range.
Apr 10 17 4:16 AM
Cody2 wrote:Eh, my personal opinion is that this is something that it's far to easy to get wrapped up in, and over spec. Sometimes I just feel the need to over-spec it however.
I strongly suspect that the limit at trying to hit enemy troops at 300 yards isn't the capabilities of rifle in question, but that the enemy just won't stand still in the open. Or even run in a straight line in the open. So pick a rifle. Make sure it goes "bang" when it's suppose to. Keep the ammunition flowing to it. Pick out some sort of automatic weapon for the squad, and do the same. And then go worry about something else more important, cause I'm sure there are many many other more important problems. Only issue with this statement is that like me, people tend to like to over-spec this kind of stuff.
Apr 10 17 4:18 AM
Apr 10 17 8:12 AM
Apr 10 17 10:12 AM
Apr 10 17 2:01 PM
Apr 10 17 2:36 PM
Apr 10 17 3:48 PM
Apr 10 17 3:57 PM
Apr 10 17 4:21 PM
Apr 10 17 4:26 PM
A G Williams wrote:Until phasers take over we're going to be using MGs, and it makes sense to use the best in terms of effectiveness for any given weight, does it not?
Apr 10 17 4:45 PM
IcelofAngeln wrote:This is an interesting study; however, unless I'm mistaken the British today only use 7.62 in GPMGs, which are inherently more fear-inducing than any battle rifle. IIRC the Brits don't use the 5.56 Minimi (SAW).
Sort of. We only use 7.62mm in GPMG yes, but we do have our version of the Minimi as a section level LMG. One per fire team and IMO crap. Makes a lot of noise, hits FA, appeals to the most impressionable soldiers and is easy to pick out and target the user. Could be Darwinian at war.
I also have to question the conclusion that 7.62 Soviet is twice as effective in suppression as 5.56; it's a bigger bullet, true, but moves much more slowly. And that's even before we bring up AK accuracy issues, since suppression does seem to be an effect of how close you get to him.The comments flying around after firing AKs are usually something like, forget it over 150m. That does assume that over 150m is an option which it certainly wasn't meant to be in the good ol' NATO days, they weren't going to dismount anything like that far away unless we forced them to and if that happened we'd be getting a lot of arty until well after they'd passed that range.Assessing suppression is a matter of taste. Some troops are more easily suppressed than others; a German MG gunner's account I've read states that he was issued 75% wooden bulleted blanks in Normandy and told that neither the Tommies nor the Amis were up to Russian standards so once their heads were down all you needed to keep them there was those blanks. I've also read the account of a British soldier who realised that he was being fired on with wooden bullets, up until then he'd not believed his own int that the Germans were using them. Both sides used bulleted blanks for MGs, MG34 / 42 obviously and Bren I know. They lasted long enough with the Bren to be issued for cadets in the '70s when my brother and his mates shot rabbits with them from Lee Enfields.Today there's a comparison to be made in how you would best use a GPMG in war and how they get used on blank firing exercises, the former from a distance on the sustained fire tripod, the latter close and loud.There is a new, much quieter, blank barrel. They tend not to be used at all as rifles are louder. Exercise conclusions are not necessarily true for war.Same deal with snipers. A single blank fired 300m away? Ignore that, pay attention to what you're doing and get on with it.
Apr 10 17 5:06 PM
IcelofAngeln wrote:But there's the rub: it's not a given weight. An M240 weighs more than a SAW weighs more than an M27.
Apr 10 17 9:24 PM
Apr 10 17 9:39 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.