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: The truth about the 5.56mm round
TriggaFingaz    1/24/2004 1:51:19 PM
To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man? Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration. Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
Shooter    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   11/9/2004 2:39:20 PM
This is the most ignorant thing I've seen posted on this board. 1. The M-14 shoots 7.62x51 mm and will not fire any type of ex-commi ammo. 2. The reason that M-14's were requested in the 'stans, was that they are uniformly regarded as the finest long range battle rifle on the planet. ( 6 FTF's per 100,000 rounds compaired to the AK-47 at four/100K. Typical accuracy of <2" per 100 M. A highly leathal and large variety of ammunition to chose from.) 3. The various "Match" types will out shoot most Bolt and specialty sniper guns from the European manufacturers. ( See the "National Matches" results lists, were M-14 and civilian M-1A versions out number all other types combined by a three or four to one ratio. In addition, at the longer range matches over 600 yards, they predominate by ten to one. In European international service matches, we out shoot them by a five or six to one ratio.)
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   11/9/2004 7:54:09 PM
"In European international service matches, we out shoot them by a five or six to one ratio." Thats funny; in a recent competition held in the UK, America came last. The winners as a side note, were SO19..
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   11/10/2004 1:09:01 AM
What match? Who was in it? What quallifications and weapons? In what senario were the contestants graded and how? In my seven years spent in Europe, I shot five to eight matches a year and we, the US Army teams won all but one or two a year, every year. Going from the general to the specific, as you did, does not change the results, only that that one match was won by that particular team on that day against those competiters. It does not change the facts that either American rifle will out shoot it's forign competiters with ease under average conditions with average shooters with service ammo, in any contest type or venue. When special purpose rifles are used the gap narrows but does not dissapier. My standard, off the rack, arms room M-14 from '72 to 75 inclusive shot better than all most all of the "Special" sniper rifles that I tried as swaps from the loosers in most of those matches. Typicaly 3/4" groupes at 100 M. Try that with a $5,000 PSG-1 using service ammo! My friends SR-25 will put five Hornandy/Sierra MK-168's into 1/4" at 100 yards or about 91 M. Hows that for a $2,000 gun? Go to Camp Perry for the National Matches and count the guns. You can fire any "service rifle" on the planet if you want and there is big money at stake. You would think that the average competiter would bring a gun that would maximise his chance to win, wouldn't you? Concidering that many of the forign guns are much more expencive than some of the most pricy American types. ( The Springfield Armory's M-1A super Match M-14 clone at <$2,400 is much less than half as expencive as H&K's PSG-1.) You would think that they would be better represented would you not? Yet cheaper versions of either American gun out number the forign types twenty or fifty to one and win more medals than any forign gun. Why is that? In fact, in a quick search, I can not find a forign winner in the last fifty years. If they were that good, you would have thought that at least one would have won in that time fraim?
 
Quote    Reply

andyf    oil.. dependency..   11/10/2004 8:39:25 AM
one word,, bio-diesel let em herd sand and KEEP the bloody oil
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:oil.. dependency..   11/10/2004 11:21:03 AM
"What match? Who was in it? What quallifications and weapons? In what senario were the contestants graded and how?" I can't give you any more info I am affraid, its in the last issue of Soldier mag, the website has updated. I don't believe for one second however all this trollop you spout about American rifles being best; I doubt your M4 could out shoot an SA-80..
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   11/10/2004 12:01:38 PM
( 6 FTF's per 100,000 rounds compaired to the AK-47 at four/100K. not to impair your enthusiasm shooter but according to these numbers the M14 has a 50% higher FTF rate than the ak47.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:oil.. dependency..   11/10/2004 12:09:51 PM
i doubt there is a whole lot of difference tween properly set up long guns in terms of mechanical performance. Perhaps shooter should consider the "comfort" factor in the choice of weapons. people shoot what they are happy and comfortable with which for americans would be american made guns. throw in the fact that you can get an american made high performance long gun for a lot less than the european rifles and at least some of the results mentioned are accounted for. you may account for some of the rest by noting that shooting in any form is a far more common hobby in the states than europe.
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:oil.. dependency..   11/10/2004 12:24:54 PM
I have fired the SA-80 before it was fixed by H&K Inc. It's defects are; 1. Bull pup design. Makes it compact but brings the muzle blast back closer to the shooter. Muzle blast is very dificult to overcome for new shooters and makes learning how to use the weapon harder. Not impossable just harder. Therefore, for any given training sylabus, a group of 1,000 shooters with a longer gun will, on average, shoot higher total scores than with the SA-80. 2. Cost is more than the various M-16s and it's clones. 3. While the optical sight is nice for quick point shooting, the reticle lacks the fine discrimination required for precision shooting. 4. The SA-80's 1 in 9 twist rate barrel precludes shooting bullets heavier than 4 grams, while the Colt/Barretta's 1 in 7 twist BBL lets you shoot bullets up to 5.2 grams. This translates into a balistic quotient of .420 or 50% more BC than the SS-109 fired by the SA-80. That's twice the remaining energy at 600 M. 5. The bull pup trigger with it's long draw bar is less precise than the A-2 3 shot burst trigger of the M-16, which is it self noth well thought of. The origional selectfire trigger group or on of the newer "Match" trigger groups is amaising when compaired back to back. This make precision shooting more difficult. 6. Before H&K fixed it, the SA-80 was notoriusly un-reliable! Much worse than Viet Nam era M-16s. Since none of the publushed get well H&K contract specifcations called for repair or replacement of the trigger group, I must assume that it is still as bad as ever. All of the above contribute to pore effectivness. I have heard rummers that in the recent fighting in Iraq, that the ammunition expenditure of British Forces was more than twice as high as that of the Americans and in less intence fighting. That is really what this is all about. If you have to fire twice as many shots to kill your asailent it give him twice as long to try to kill you. What was the body count ratio of the British force in Iraq? I would really like to know as that IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF COMBAT EFFECTIVNESS!
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    P.S.   11/10/2004 12:29:07 PM
If the Brits ever release the SA-80 for sale to civilians, I will buy one of the light support vartiant for my collection. Because I like the concept, know a supirior gunsmith who can fix the trigger and prefer the longer barrel. Which I will replace if the gun does not shoot up to my expectations. SFD.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:P.S.   11/10/2004 1:30:44 PM
How did you come to your conclusions may I ask? Most of them make no sense, given that the weapons are fine fireing NATO ammunition, that the trigger pull is fine, and there is no muzzle flash issue etc etc... You sound like someone who has shot it once, read a lot of theory, and come to the wrong conclusions..
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics