Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Another story of how the 5.56 can't stop em' -- WE NEED A NEW ROUND
HYPOCENTER    2/10/2007 4:52:49 PM
Not sure if anyone has read this story; http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/gates-of-fire.htm But, a terrorist took 4 point plank shots from an M4 and kept on fighting. It is yet another example of why 5.56 sucks and CAN'T STOP EM. It makes me angry. QUOTE: A man came forward, trying to shoot Kurilla with a pistol, apparently realizing his only escape was by fighting his way out, or dying in the process. Kurilla was aiming at the doorway waiting for him to come out. Had Prosser not come at that precise moment, who knows what the outcome might have been. Prosser shot the man at least four times with his M4 rifle. But the American M4 rifles are weak - after Prosser landed three nearly point blank shots in the man’s abdomen, splattering a testicle with a fourth, the man just staggered back, regrouped and tried to shoot Prosser. Then Prosser’s M4 went “black” (no more bullets). A shooter inside was also having problems with his pistol, but there was no time to reload. Prosser threw down his empty M4, ran into the shop and tackled the man.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
ChdNorm       4/26/2007 7:40:05 AM
"GROOOAAANNN.   And if I wanted a new weapon it should be able to shoot down aircraft, penetrate heavy armor, yet not over penetrate the target.  It would be capable of select fire in bursts to be determined by the shooter, with finned bullets to steer toward the target, and around corners." Zerbrechen
 
You left out can opener, leather awl, little tweezers, and a built in tooth-pick. Of course, a simple little white plastic toothpick wouldn't be "tactical" enough. I'm thinking any built in tooth-pick for the US's next rifle would have to be in some of that snazzy new digital camo!
 
One other thought ... Would there be a way to use an electrical ignition source for caseless ammo, and have it power the can opener as well?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       4/26/2007 7:50:37 AM

One other thought ... Would there be a way to use an electrical ignition source for caseless ammo, and have it power the can opener as well?

Does this electrical-ignition gun get its power from the armored exo-skeletal battle suit our Stormtrooper soldier will wear (powered by a Back to theFuture Mr Fusion garbage-fed power generator)?
'Cause otherwise, god forbid a soldier can't fight because his weapon's batteries died.
 
...or do we put some kind of cranky wind up thing on it so's he can generate his own power (the more cranks, the more power).
Kind of like one of those rayguns from Futurama.

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    JFK Murder has a "Cult" status   4/26/2007 11:07:24 AM


 



3. The explosive head wound is not consistent with the relatively low velocity of the 6.5 Carcano. It is, however, pretty damn consistent with getting hit with a .223.


I don't really buy that.  We are only talking about a distance of around 100m's.  The 6.5mm bullet at that distance would make just as nasty a wound as .223.

 

What gets me about the whole assassination issue, is how obvious I would have thought it would be as to what weapon killed him, as a result of the bullets recovered (I'm assuming they were recovered).

 

6.5mm Italian is a very distinctive round.  The case is unique and not common, and the bullet is round nosed (rare for a military rifle round of the period).  If only these bullets and cases were recovered, this is obviously what killed JFK.  The sabot theory is interesting, but reasonable possible.  You use a sabot to acheive a higher velocity, and as such you would not use a round nosed bullet in combination with a sabot.

 

In my brief readings I saw a number of bogus firearm theories mentioned.  It really does make me wonder what "experts" were consulted for the trial.  One bogus report I read was trying to say how the 6.5mm Carcano round was infamous for being unreliable, and so no assassin would choose to use it.  This was shown to be incorrect by tests with the assassination rifle and ammunition from the same Winchester batch as those used.  Another bogus myth, was someone stating that such an old rifle (given that it was even that old at the time of the assassination) would leave a powder burn on the shooters cheek.  This is utter rubbish, as there is no reason why any rifle should leak explosive gasses out of the breech of the weapon - the spent case seals the chamber through residue pressure from the shot.

 

What happened to Oswald, he didn't last until trial did he?

 


Your comments are spot on Yimmy but, people who believe in the conspiracy have developed a weird cult about the most investigated homicide in history. Logic will not break their faith.
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    Zerbrechen   4/26/2007 11:10:16 AM
Sorry for the intrusion into a realm of study in which you are clearly the master.  Next time I spitball I'll post a finalized spec, level 3 drawings, and of course a full and approved test report.
 
But seriously the 5.56 was chosen by the Gen. LeMay (an Air Force General) on the basis on how well it killed water mellons and ground hogs (kept the commie b@$t@rd$ out of his garden real good, I guess).  While it turned out not as bad a decision as was originally thought  (high velocity rounds) it was still not the optimum round for all Army and Marine Corps missions and the forced adoption of the round caused a gross degree of hate, disconnect, and reallignment of the logistical tail all threw the ground services.  To this day we really have never settled on a trully well thought out round for the contingencies our forces face.  Since the earths populations are moving more and more in to urbanized settings a requirement for being able go thru massonry walls and having well trained marksmen being able to isolate particular blocks in which conflict is occuring, I don't think is a bad requirement.  On the other hand most indications are we don't want to give up the optuon of going full auto if nescessary so a full power round is probably out of the question.  A 5.56 maybe abl;e to go threw massonry walls if fired multiple times but this forces our people to dwell in one place where they have given away thier position in close quarters, not a good idea.
 
There has to be a happy medium between light weight high velocity rounds and penetration/ long range and that is what I was attempting to stimulate conversation on.
 
Plastic rounds I've read can have a tendency stick to the inner chamber surface around the neck if the hemispheres are designed intelligently then it may be possible to still maintain the inner surface of the cartiridge wall will still be greater than the part making less contact with the chamber wall around the neck and therefor the gass seal will be maintained.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    another question(s)...   4/26/2007 12:38:20 PM

  On the other hand most indications are we don't want to give up the optuon of going full auto if nescessary so a full power round is probably out of the question.  A 5.56 maybe abl;e to go threw massonry walls if fired multiple times but this forces our people to dwell in one place where they have given away thier position in close quarters, not a good idea.

 

There has to be a happy medium between light weight high velocity rounds and penetration/ long range and that is what I was attempting to stimulate conversation on.

Ahh, but don't a good many current ARs substitute 3-round burst in place of full auto fire?
 
And especially in CQB, don't entry troops aim & fire with the weapon close in to their face to allow quicker target acquisition, rather than firing from the hip in "spray and pray" mode?
 
And with controlled pairs seeming to becoming the popular mode of fire of choice for CQB engagements, does a higher power round than current ARs (but not as powerful as something like 7.62x51) have more merit, meaning will prolonged firing of two shots of 6-7mm really kill your shoulder and forearm more than firing 2 rounds of 5.56?
Or will we see some tactically-sound-but-logically-weak attempt at developing ammo specifically intended as controlled pair use, offering reduced shooter strain, and most likely as a result a reduced on-target energy?
 
With controlled pairs becoming popular, will the next ARs even have a 3-round burst option?
 
As to that happy medium, no matter the end result, we're still going to see some trade offs: what's ideal at CQB is not necessarily ideal at the occasional 400m+ range, and vice versa.
As a result, we will most likely, yet again, end up with another "adequate enough" solution to cover all categories that is deficient in one form or another to prevent mastery in any (logistical economics currently outweighs tactical supremacy).
Rather than get yet another half-@ssed solution at greatly over-inflated prices that offers little improvement, I understand why so many people are against a change to begin with.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/26/2007 2:32:36 PM
One thing ChdNorm, but I don't really dispute anything else you say without further reading (which I doubt I will ever get round too!)
 
The 6.5mm round will not have been going at 2200fps.  A .357 magnum from a rifle will go that fast.  We are talking about speeds more like 2700fps, only around 300fps slower than the .223.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       4/26/2007 9:46:39 PM

 
Ahh, but don't a good many current ARs substitute 3-round burst in place of full auto fire?

And especially in CQB, don't entry troops aim & fire with the weapon close in to their face to allow quicker target acquisition, rather than firing from the hip in "spray and pray" mode?

With controlled pairs becoming popular, will the next ARs even have a 3-round burst option?
 
Yeah, the three round burst setting weas a technological fix to the Vietnam era tendency to unload a whole magazine in the general direction of a target.  Training would have been a viable alternative when the M16A2 was adopted, but I guess the powers that be were still thinking in terms of a draftee army and such.
 
I suspect you're correct that whatever replaces the M16A2 and M4 will be set up for full automatic instead of burst.
 
And with controlled pairs seeming to becoming the popular mode of fire of choice for CQB engagements, does a higher power round than current ARs (but not as powerful as something like 7.62x51) have more merit, meaning will prolonged firing of two shots of 6-7mm really kill your shoulder and forearm more than firing 2 rounds of 5.56?
 
Having played around with 6.8 Rem SPC a good deal, I'm of the opinion that you don't lose much in terms of speed versus 5.56mm.  Recoil is a little stiffer (but that is with a standard AR buffer and buffer spring -- playing with that might mellow out the recoil) but not by much, and is still less notable than even something like an AK in 7.62x39.  (I imagine Grendel is largely similar.)  I think the greater thump would justify the slight reduction in handling speed, personally.
 
The smaller magazine and smaller basic load of ammo for the same weight is a bigger issue, I think, but still 25/26 rounds versus 30 in a 5.56mm AR is not a horrible trade off, and one troops could probably work with.  The 25/26 rounds in the gun still gives you a decent suppressive fire sort of load.  (Or just drop the existing M16/M4 mag pouch dimensions and build 30 round 6.5 or 6.8 mags -- they'd probably be no more bulky than the 35 round Galil mags the Israelis used to use.)
 
The question I'd see with all this is how the bigger bullet approach would stack up against general issue of Mk 262 ammo (or maybe a version of the round that incorporates a green-tip type steel penetrator).  The 77 grain bullet seems to have beaten out the 6.8mm Rem SPC round when 5th Group trialed them downrange, though logistical issues were a concern there as well, which a hypothetical clean slate would ignore.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle       4/27/2007 4:38:40 PM
Actualley I think my post of 4/25/2007 5:05:19 PM was a quite modest proposal, nothing in it hasn't been done before save for the modifications to the plastic case.  The Stoner 63 accomplish most of what I said about 44 years ago but today I think you could make a weapon accomplishing as much as the Stoner 63 but much simpler.  As I said the Shrike is not that far right now. 
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm       4/27/2007 6:04:55 PM
"The 6.5mm round will not have been going at 2200fps.  A .357 magnum from a rifle will go that fast.  We are talking about speeds more like 2700fps, only around 300fps slower than the .223." Yimmy
 
The 6.5 Carcano leaves the muzzle of the rifle at approximately 2250FPS and has slowed down to about 1950FPS at 100 yards. That's out of the rifle, I would expect a little less out of the carbine model that was actually used. That's why I called it 2200 (in all likelihood it's probably closer to 2100 or 2150). The 6.5 Carcano is a pretty anemic round to start out with, and launching heavy round nosed bullets dose nothing for its down range performance. Even the new production Hornady and Norma commercial rounds don't begin to approach 2700FPS ... the Norma load (which is loaded hot in the spirit of the "light magnum") tops out at 2400FPS at the muzzle. Hornady stayed with the industry standard 2250FPS. Launching a lighter bullet (down in the 123gr nieghborhood) the Carcano starts to approach 2600 FPS ... but we have to remember that the loads we're interesting in are the 158-160 gr class.

Also, you're overestimating the .357 Magnum out of a rifle by a couple of hundred feet per second as well. You've got to drop down the 110gr class to start seeing anything approaching 2200 FPS. The 158 grainers see more like 1800FPS with fairly hot loads.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/27/2007 6:37:35 PM
I am about 200fps out with the .357, but 6.5mm Carcano can't be -that- bad.  .30-30 does 2400 at the muzzle.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics