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
Rasputin       4/7/2007 1:34:28 AM

Why would you want the bullet to be light?

You want the bullet to be as heavy as possible for its given size, so that it retains its momentum and energy down range.



Well if you do not want the bullet to be light, then leave it as it is, but perhaps the cratridge case may be lightened with non metallic materials to bring down the weight of the cartridge. ( After all, even nuclear missile fuselages are made of Kevlar)

Current conventional light bullet designs loose velocity quickly, perhaps there is a way to improve the ballistic design of the bullet tip or the entire bullet to improve it's flight charecteristics ( like the way Gerald Bull did to improve the design of his base bleed artillery shells) so with special cuts, bleeds or fins, the larger but lighter plastic/polymer/kevlar bullet head could still have the same flight charecteristics of conventional full metal jacketed lead bullets, while at the same time be used to lighten the overall weight of bullets.
 
Quote    Reply

Zerbrechen       4/7/2007 2:24:37 AM




Please explain how the size of the round determines whether the gun jams?




It does.

The larger the round, the more powder and the heavier the bullet, and so the more power and inertia to work the operating system.  The components also tend to be larger and heaveir, and so are less impacted by dirt and fouling.
 
 
     Perhaps I'm being a little too literal here, but isn't that then attributed to the weapon design?  If you design the action around the cartridge, it isn't the cartridge that makes the weapon less prone to jamming. 
 
     I agree that if you have more mass in the bolt, it'll be able to plow through more grime than a bolt with less mass, but there are ways around that.  For example, look at the M16.  The bolt carrier has a good running start before the bolt unlocks so it has a lot of momentum to aid it.
 
     Another point to be made is that unless you are using a straight blowback action, the larger bullet theory doesn't work.  Pressure is what makes the action work (in gas operated actions).  With that in mind, compare the pressure of a .30-06 with that of a .308 WIN.
 
     Point number three.  Not all powders are created equal.  Some burn slower than others, etc.  The powders for the 223Rems are a bit faster than what you'd want to use in a larger round (unless you want excessive pressures). 
 
     Zerbrechen
 
Quote    Reply

Zerbrechen    Aluminum rounds   4/7/2007 2:26:44 AM

What Yimmy said, though a light construction, super high velocity round would have some merits inside, say, 100-150 meters or so (that is, essentially, what the FN 5.7mm round is, for instance).  You bleed off energy rapidly with a light bullet, though, so it would probably not work for a 0-300 or 0-500 meter sort of cartridge for a service rifle/carbine.



     I recall some years ago that someone was looking into aluminum rounds for a self defense round.  Less collateral damage that way. 
 
     Zerbrechen
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       4/7/2007 4:30:50 AM

Why would you want the bullet to be light?

You want the bullet to be as heavy as possible for its given size, so that it retains its momentum and energy down range.



Well if you do not want the bullet to be light, then leave it as it is, but perhaps the cratridge case may be lightened with non metallic materials to bring down the weight of the cartridge. ( After all, even nuclear missile fuselages are made of Kevlar)

Current conventional light bullet designs loose velocity quickly, perhaps there is a way to improve the ballistic design of the bullet tip or the entire bullet to improve it's flight charecteristics ( like the way Gerald Bull did to improve the design of his base bleed artillery shells) so with special cuts, bleeds or fins, the larger but lighter plastic/polymer/kevlar bullet head could still have the same flight charecteristics of conventional full metal jacketed lead bullets, while at the same time be used to lighten the overall weight of bullets.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/7/2007 4:55:05 AM
I doubt that any missiles use kevlar composites as a primary structure. It really isn't suitable for that sort of thing.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       4/7/2007 6:00:23 AM
Well it could have been carbon fibre, but I really do remember a news report of soviet protests, as during the missle reduction treaties, there were a number of missiles that were to be stripped of war heads and destroyed by crushing,
Well after the crusher came down on the missile and went back up, the missile fuselage also popped back up again. Another method of destrution was carried out.

 
Quote    Reply

historynut       4/7/2007 11:57:09 AM








 


That is a more complicated equation, but it still runs into the fundamental point that, with current technology, we're just pushing around pluses and minuses.  I'd have to wonder that if every life saved by throwing a bigger bullet would not have a corresponding life lost because the shooter only had 25 or 26 rounds in the gun (or a smaller basic load carried overall), or was slightly slower transitioning to new targets due to recoil, and such.


 I'm not saying you lose one for reason B for everyone you save for reason A, but just that "bigger/heavier bullet" does not carry zero liabilities along with the plus of more thump on the bad guys.



I think that the recommendations that we keep what we've got as long as we're shooting cased cartridges makes sense (and I say that as enough of a fan of 6.8mm Rem SPC that I own a 6.8mm AR).  If/when (and it looks more like a 'when' at this point) we see the technology jump from conventional cartridges to caseless or cased telescoping ammunition, I'd hope we take a hard look at formulating an ideal small arms round, the hits an optimal balance of bullet weight, caliber, recoil, muzzle energy and the like.  It may be that 5.56mm puts in a good showing (caseless or CTA lets might allow use of heavy 90 grain rounds which currently are tricky to get to feed through an AR magwell), or it may be that something else seems preferable.  I personally suspect that we won't see anything smaller/lighter than 62 grain 5.56mm selected, but it would be interesting to see what a blank slate, with no logistical tail or existing stocks of weapons and ammo to contend with, would result in.





It all comes down to how much better the bigger round is. If you can carry a 1/3 less rounds but only need 1/2 as many then you come out ahead. But if the larger round is less likely to jam that's something to think about too.




Please explain how the size of the round determines whether the gun jams?


I think maybe because of the larger bore, but I don't know for sure. Just going by what I've seen. Rifles and pistols of the same design being cleaned at the same rate (before going out and just after coming back) the larger bores seem to have less jams. Asking your C/O if you can stop to clean your rifle/pistol in the middle on a mission may not always be the best idea. Having to clean your rifle during a mission because it will jam because of the dirt/dust is not good. Taking your weapon out of action during a mission may not be a good idea.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       4/8/2007 5:19:13 PM
The next generation of US ammunition (LSAT) will use either a plastic case or a caseless round. The goal is caseless but plastic cases are being developed as a fallback plan. The caseless rounds will actually be a form of plastic themselves, rather than fused powder as previous caseless rounds were. The material is being called an energetic thermoplastic elastomer. The plastic materials that are being experimented with are stronger than brass and don't melt.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/8/2007 5:59:48 PM
They may not melt, but what is stopping them from "cooking-off"?


 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       4/9/2007 7:20:56 AM
Well then the plastic bullet is essentially  a super RDX or  super C4 shaped charge with a bullet head stuck in front.

You might be able to heat up coffee with it but you can't cook the round.

Probably detonates by some kind of electrical charge or primer, therefore you might have to bring some batteries for your new fangled rifle!!

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics