ZigZagMarquis 8 #1 June 29, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/06/02/military-tech-action/?test=latestnews#slide=1 I thought there was talk of going to a 10mm rifle round? I also thought I heard talk of the Army re-issuing more M-14 style rifles at the squad / platoon level to get more 7.62 NATO (.308) lead downrange, with its greater stopping power, in a fire fight? I hadn't heard about this new round for the M-4 / M-16. Hopefully the Army doesn't repeat their mistakes of the early days in Vietnam with the introduction of the M-16 and the "good idea" they had about the same time to tweak the round in use then. Something to do with the type of powder Mcnamera (sp?) and bunch decided to go with vs. what the mfgr recommended? Where's John Rich with the 411 when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #2 June 29, 2010 Welcome to Speaker's CornerYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 June 29, 2010 QuoteWelcome to Speaker's Corner DUUUUUUUUUDE 3 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #4 June 29, 2010 QuoteWelcome to Speaker's Corner LOL, Kind-a what I figured too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #5 June 29, 2010 Baaah! Speakers Corner... Bonfire... same thing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 June 29, 2010 Quote http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/06/02/military-tech-action/?test=latestnews#slide=1 I thought there was talk of going to a 10mm rifle round? I also thought I heard talk of the Army re-issuing more M-14 style rifles at the squad / platoon level to get more 7.62 NATO (.308) lead downrange, with its greater stopping power, in a fire fight? I hadn't heard about this new round for the M-4 / M-16. Hopefully the Army doesn't repeat their mistakes of the early days in Vietnam with the introduction of the M-16 and the "good idea" they had about the same time to tweak the round in use then. Something to do with the type of powder Mcnamera (sp?) and bunch decided to go with vs. what the mfgr recommended? Where's John Rich with the 411 when you need him? It's still a NATO 5.56 round, just "enhanced". The Army has issued M14 7.62 rifles to "designated" marksmen, but that's typically one or two per squad, if that. People love to poo-poo on the M4, but it's a hammer. It can drop a target well beyond 600m in the right hands. One would be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn with an AK47 past 200m...piece of junk. I'll take an M4 or M16A4 any day.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #7 June 30, 2010 Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/06/02/military-tech-action/?test=latestnews#slide=1 I thought there was talk of going to a 10mm rifle round? I also thought I heard talk of the Army re-issuing more M-14 style rifles at the squad / platoon level to get more 7.62 NATO (.308) lead downrange, with its greater stopping power, in a fire fight? I hadn't heard about this new round for the M-4 / M-16. Hopefully the Army doesn't repeat their mistakes of the early days in Vietnam with the introduction of the M-16 and the "good idea" they had about the same time to tweak the round in use then. Something to do with the type of powder Mcnamera (sp?) and bunch decided to go with vs. what the mfgr recommended? Where's John Rich with the 411 when you need him? It's still a NATO 5.56 round, just "enhanced". The Army has issued M14 7.62 rifles to "designated" marksmen, but that's typically one or two per squad, if that. People love to poo-poo on the M4, but it's a hammer. It can drop a target well beyond 600m in the right hands. One would be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn with an AK47 past 200m...piece of junk. I'll take an M4 or M16A4 any day. The 5.56x45 round is inappropriate for antipersonnel use, any way you cut it. The 7.62x39 is a better choice for military application. The 7.62x51 round is possessed of a superb balance of accuracy, range and effectiveness. The AKM/AKS has a variety of fundamental advantages over any variant of the AR-15. Direct-impingement gas systems are strictly third-world - think Hakim. Despite the limitations of the M-60 (full auto only, frame mounted rear sight, fixed gas port, etc.), it is worth schlepping the extra 18 pounds to avoid having to rely on some wretched variant on the AR theme in a pinch. I would certainly take a semiauto M-14 over anybody's full-auto AR-15 any day. People who tout the AR/5.56 combo generally know squat about internal/external/termainal ballistics. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #8 June 30, 2010 QuotePeople who tout the AR/5.56 combo generally know squat about internal/external/termainal ballistics. Perhaps, but they might know a little about military logistics. The weight of the ammunition and the weapon used to fire it is a factor in unit movement range and ammunition supply. Quote...it is worth schlepping the extra 18 pounds... Worth it for you? I'll concede that. It's a less easy decision to enforce that on entire batallions, and factor in the cascading effect of the logistics that would change. "Dont worry guys, we can rise and advance. They only got a SAW, it won't be so bad if it hits you..." In the role of "suppressing fire"; few people will doubt that an M60 is more deadly than a M249 when it hits a target, but it's also more than possible that an LMG chambered for the 5.56 is still keeping enemy heads down after an M60 has spent it's last round. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #9 June 30, 2010 QuoteQuotePeople who tout the AR/5.56 combo generally know squat about internal/external/termainal ballistics. Perhaps, but they might know a little about military logistics in general. The weight of the ammunition and the weapon used to fire it is a factor in the logistics of unit movements and ammunition supply. Quote...it is worth schlepping the extra 18 pounds... Worth it for you? I'll concede that. It's a less easy decision to enforce that on entire batallions, and factor in the cascading effect of the logistics that would change. "Dont worry guys, we can rise and advance. They only got a SAW, it won't be so bad if it hits you..." In the role of "suppressing fire"; few people will doubt that an M60 is more deadly than a M249 when it hits a target, but it's also quite possible that an LMG chambered for the 5.56 may still be keeping enemy heads down after the M60 has spent it's last round. Okay, so "suppressing fire," or expending ammunition without the expectation of hitting anything, is a desirable thing. Interesting. One thing (among many) I always found offensive about "The A-Team" was that these were supposedly Special Forces types, but they went through about a case of ammunition every show and NEVER hit anything. The Soviet Army was the first major power to fully adopt the "spray and pray" approach to combat, adopting the Shpagin, commonly known as the "burp gun," in calibre 7.62x25. This worked well for teeming hordes of Ivans swarming through and blasting everything in sight. What do you say we cut to the chase and give the "suppressing fire" folks full auto .22LR firearms? You could then include the odd 7.62x51 long arm for the one-shot-one-kill members of the team. I have always preferred the kind of suppressing fire used by the Finns against the Soviets. All a Red soldier had to do was to show his face in a window, with no threats visible within 300 metres, and there was all too great a likelihood that a bullet would pass through it. From a logistical standpoint, it takes less resources to supply a force that makes every shot count with .577 Nitro Express ammo than it does to supply a force that never hits anything with BBs. Also, if every time you hear a boom someone nearby is dispatched by a 750 grain bullet, the urge to peek gets reduced greatly. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #10 June 30, 2010 QuoteOkay, so "suppressing fire," or expending ammunition without the expectation of hitting anything, is a desirable thing. Interesting. It's often an inevitable thing, you are familiar with the tactical purpose of suppressing fire ? QuoteWhat do you say we cut to the chase and give the "suppressing fire" folks full auto .22LR firearms? ... ...every shot count with .577 Nitro Express ammo... Is this how you debate? By stretching the calibers to either extreme and suggest that I was advocating either one? At least be pragmatic. QuoteThe Soviet Army was the first major power to fully adopt the "spray and pray" approach to combat, adopting the Shpagin... The concept of suppressing fire has been around since the bow and arrow, and quite possibly even before that. Quote I have always preferred the kind of suppressing fire used by the Finns against the Soviets. All a Red soldier had to do was to show his face in a window, with no threats visible within 300 metres, and there was all too great a likelihood that a bullet would pass through it. From a logistical standpoint, it takes less resources to supply a force that makes every shot count with .577 Nitro Express ammo than it does to supply a force that never hits anything with BBs. Just to clarify; Do you believe that it is both practical and possible for a modern army to field a company of marksmen with sniper rifles to mount a ground assault where infantry with M16s and SAW's would fail ? If so, then you should discuss your thesis with POTUS. A vacancy has recently opened in the Afghanistan command. You might just get the nod. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeJD 0 #11 June 30, 2010 QuotePeople love to poo-poo on the M4, but it's a hammer. The M4 is a fine weapon, although I've recently switched to the SCAR-H. I have hundreds of kills with both. Oh, wait. We're not talking about MW2? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #12 June 30, 2010 Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2010/06/02/military-tech-action/?test=latestnews#slide=1 I thought there was talk of going to a 10mm rifle round? I also thought I heard talk of the Army re-issuing more M-14 style rifles at the squad / platoon level to get more 7.62 NATO (.308) lead downrange, with its greater stopping power, in a fire fight? I hadn't heard about this new round for the M-4 / M-16. Hopefully the Army doesn't repeat their mistakes of the early days in Vietnam with the introduction of the M-16 and the "good idea" they had about the same time to tweak the round in use then. Something to do with the type of powder Mcnamera (sp?) and bunch decided to go with vs. what the mfgr recommended? Where's John Rich with the 411 when you need him? It's still a NATO 5.56 round, just "enhanced". The Army has issued M14 7.62 rifles to "designated" marksmen, but that's typically one or two per squad, if that. People love to poo-poo on the M4, but it's a hammer. It can drop a target well beyond 600m in the right hands. One would be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn with an AK47 past 200m...piece of junk. I'll take an M4 or M16A4 any day. The 5.56x45 round is inappropriate for antipersonnel use, any way you cut it. The statement alone does not make it true. Maximum effective range for an M4 on a point target is rated at 550m. Beyond that, it's still got plenty of punch, easily out to 800m. Can it blow through wall? No, but that's also not its design. If you need to blow through a wall, you use something to blow through a wall. Certainly, the 7.62 round has its application, or else they wouldn't be used as much as they are. They're an excellent choice for many applications. Quote Despite the limitations of the M-60 (full auto only, frame mounted rear sight, fixed gas port, etc.), it is worth schlepping the extra 18 pounds to avoid having to rely on some wretched variant on the AR theme in a pinch. I would certainly take a semiauto M-14 over anybody's full-auto AR-15 any day. I never got to use the M-60, only its successor, the 240B. Both are pigs, but lay down the business. The M249 is an absolutely amazing piece of equipment, despite its faults. Very accurate, and very tough overall, even in high-heat conditions. Quote People who tout the AR/5.56 combo generally know squat about internal/external/termainal ballistics. I am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #13 June 30, 2010 QuoteThe concept of suppressing fire has been around since the bow and arrow, and quite possibly even before that. I've done it with snowballs. I'm just saying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #14 June 30, 2010 The 5.56x45 round is inappropriate for antipersonnel use, any way you cut it.Quote The statement alone does not make it true. Maximum effective range for an M4 on a point target is rated at 550m. Beyond that, it's still got plenty of punch, easily out to 800m. Can it blow through wall? No, but that's also not its design. If you need to blow through a wall, you use something to blow through a wall. Certainly, the 7.62 round has its application, or else they wouldn't be used as much as they are. They're an excellent choice for many applications.Quote I am unaware of any location where a .22 of any description is legal for Whitetail hunting, and most of the people you might wish to engage in combat are significantly bigger and tougher than your average Bambi. "Plenty of punch?!," you have to be kidding. The atrocious ballistic coefficient of anybody's .224" FMJBT render its energy way below that of a .22LR well before it reaches 800m. The killing power of a nearby slingshot is much greater than that of a 5.56x45 at 800m; this is by no means true of the 7.62x51. Despite the limitations of the M-60 (full auto only, frame mounted rear sight, fixed gas port, etc.), it is worth schlepping the extra 18 pounds to avoid having to rely on some wretched variant on the AR theme in a pinch. I would certainly take a semiauto M-14 over anybody's full-auto AR-15 any day.Quote I never got to use the M-60, only its successor, the 240B. Both are pigs, but lay down the business. The M249 is an absolutely amazing piece of equipment, despite its faults. Very accurate, and very tough overall, even in high-heat conditions. People who tout the AR/5.56 combo generally know squat about internal/external/termainal ballistics.Quote I am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. Gee, I guess the use of hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition from .22 Short up to 106mm constitutes "text book." It is, of course, axiomatic that a solid hit from a .22LR is infinitely better than six misses from a .44RM. OTOH, when going up against charismatic megafauna, a .22LR is likely to piss it off more than slow it down, and the whole idea is to stop said creature. As Townsend Whelan noted, an inaccurate rifle is uninteresting. We may thus limit our discussion to firearms capable of satisfactory accuracy at operational ranges. The 7.62x39 is a fundamentally accurate cartridge - it shares a common case configuration with the PPC family of cartridges. The .22PPC, 6mmPPC and .308Win (7.62x51) are the three most common benchrest cartridges in use. The problem with the Russian Short cartridge is bullet drop past 200m. My Type 56S and SKS are both good for MOA accuracy, and anything beyond 200m is a non-issue for my purposes. An M-14 is vastly superior to any variant of the AR-15 for range and knockdown. Then again, I'd take my M-1 Garand (National Match) over an AR-15 for anything other than spray and pray. Someone whose "personal experience" with food consists of having eaten more McWhoppers than anyone else hardly qualifies as a gourmet, and the AR-15 is the firearm equivalent of junk food. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #15 July 1, 2010 QuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites metalslug 31 #16 July 1, 2010 QuoteAfter the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. Gawain was responding to winsor's post, as below: Quote The 7.62x39 is a better choice for military application. The 7.62x51 round is possessed of a superb balance of accuracy, range and effectiveness. Gawain was refering to the 7.62x39 as used in the AK47 (amongst other weapons), as per his comment "I'll take the M4 over an AK any day." The 308/7.62 as used at Camp Perry was almost certainly the 7.62x51 and I am therefore sure that Gawain was not disputing the merits of that caliber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dgskydive 0 #17 July 1, 2010 QuoteM4 or M16A4 any day. I think I agree with that. My pecker just moved thinking about firing an M16 again.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #18 July 1, 2010 Quote Quote M4 or M16A4 any day. I think I agree with that. My pecker just moved thinking about firing an M16 again. You should let that guy who "handled" a MAGNUM once know about that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #19 July 1, 2010 Given that expansion (I was going solely by what was in Gawain's post and not winsor's post that he quoted from), I agree with him in regards to accuracy at longer ranges. However, given that 11 Boom-booms can break an anvil in a sandbox, the AK wins in the toughness category. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #20 July 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 July 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere. Assuming a reasonably trained shooter, a peep sight will generally be more accurate than a leaf sight. There's advantages and disadvantages to both. I agree with your general statement, however, we're still talking 'minute-of-torso'. I recall reading that the M16 was originally designed to shoot within about 3-4 MOA, but I'm unsure about any similar claim to the AK. The AK wasn't designed for long-range shooting but to be as reliable as possible regarding operation. The AK will take abuse that would deadline an AR and keep firing. But 11B's can still break an anvil in a sandbox. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 187 #22 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere. Inasmuch as I can keep my Type 56S on a 1" TargDot at 100 metres all day long with ChiCom ammo, it does not seem that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system from where I sit (not to worry, I am Expert with the poodle-shooter as well). I suspect your prejudices against stem from a lack of familiarity, just as my postjudices against the Armalite offering stem from an excess of familiarity. The ascendancy of the 5.56 in the AR-15 is a case in point of mediocrity becoming a virtue. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #23 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere. Inasmuch as I can keep my Type 56S on a 1" TargDot at 100 metres all day long with ChiCom ammo, it does not seem that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system from where I sit (not to worry, I am Expert with the poodle-shooter as well). I suspect your prejudices against stem from a lack of familiarity, just as my postjudices against the Armalite offering stem from an excess of familiarity. The ascendancy of the 5.56 in the AR-15 is a case in point of mediocrity becoming a virtue. BSBD, Winsor Not lack of familiarity, when guys were shooting at me with AKs, I noticed quickly that they either had to walk rounds in to even be near me or when I saw Iraqi Special Police shooting we could see erratic firing even on "near" targets (<200m). My M4 took a beating. My M249 took a beating. For the short time I was there, I didn't suffer any failures. The M4 is a hammer and the SAW is lethal.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #24 July 2, 2010 Quote Quote The concept of suppressing fire has been around since the bow and arrow, and quite possibly even before that. I've done it with snowballs. I'm just saying. LOLWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 187 #25 July 2, 2010 Inasmuch as I can keep my Type 56S on a 1" TargDot at 100 metres all day long with ChiCom ammo, it does not seem that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system from where I sit (not to worry, I am Expert with the poodle-shooter as well). I suspect your prejudices against stem from a lack of familiarity, just as my postjudices against the Armalite offering stem from an excess of familiarity. The ascendancy of the 5.56 in the AR-15 is a case in point of mediocrity becoming a virtue. BSBD, Winsor Not lack of familiarity, when guys were shooting at me with AKs, I noticed quickly that they either had to walk rounds in to even be near me or when I saw Iraqi Special Police shooting we could see erratic firing even on "near" targets (<200m). My M4 took a beating. My M249 took a beating. For the short time I was there, I didn't suffer any failures. The M4 is a hammer and the SAW is lethal. Okay, here we have it. Brigadier James M. Gavin, in his book "On to Berlin," noted that the Germans against which he fought were comparatively lousy marksmen. After a while, if they came under fire from a location over 300 metres they would not even duck. Now, assuming that the inaccuracy of the marksmen was due to the fundamental limitations of the 7.92x57 cartridge or the K98 Mauser would be a bad guess. Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock used a rifle functionally indistinguishable from the German offering as his rifle of choice. The "Iraqi Death Blossom" is not a function of the AK so much as the mentality of the practitioner. Give these same people AR-15s (full-auto, not burst-fire) and you will have pretty much the same results. Put another way, if every time you put one of these guys behind the wheel of a Ferrari they drove it into a wall, you would draw the wrong conclusion to think that Ferraris are impossible to drive without crashing. Again, my personal experience with Kalashnikovs and Armalites involves putting an awful lot of ammunition downrange, both semi and full auto. I am not citing what I read or what I watched someone else do. Like it or not, the Kalashnikov is a superior design. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 July 1, 2010 QuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #16 July 1, 2010 QuoteAfter the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. Gawain was responding to winsor's post, as below: Quote The 7.62x39 is a better choice for military application. The 7.62x51 round is possessed of a superb balance of accuracy, range and effectiveness. Gawain was refering to the 7.62x39 as used in the AK47 (amongst other weapons), as per his comment "I'll take the M4 over an AK any day." The 308/7.62 as used at Camp Perry was almost certainly the 7.62x51 and I am therefore sure that Gawain was not disputing the merits of that caliber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #17 July 1, 2010 QuoteM4 or M16A4 any day. I think I agree with that. My pecker just moved thinking about firing an M16 again.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #18 July 1, 2010 Quote Quote M4 or M16A4 any day. I think I agree with that. My pecker just moved thinking about firing an M16 again. You should let that guy who "handled" a MAGNUM once know about that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 July 1, 2010 Given that expansion (I was going solely by what was in Gawain's post and not winsor's post that he quoted from), I agree with him in regards to accuracy at longer ranges. However, given that 11 Boom-booms can break an anvil in a sandbox, the AK wins in the toughness category. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #20 July 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 July 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere. Assuming a reasonably trained shooter, a peep sight will generally be more accurate than a leaf sight. There's advantages and disadvantages to both. I agree with your general statement, however, we're still talking 'minute-of-torso'. I recall reading that the M16 was originally designed to shoot within about 3-4 MOA, but I'm unsure about any similar claim to the AK. The AK wasn't designed for long-range shooting but to be as reliable as possible regarding operation. The AK will take abuse that would deadline an AR and keep firing. But 11B's can still break an anvil in a sandbox. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #22 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere. Inasmuch as I can keep my Type 56S on a 1" TargDot at 100 metres all day long with ChiCom ammo, it does not seem that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system from where I sit (not to worry, I am Expert with the poodle-shooter as well). I suspect your prejudices against stem from a lack of familiarity, just as my postjudices against the Armalite offering stem from an excess of familiarity. The ascendancy of the 5.56 in the AR-15 is a case in point of mediocrity becoming a virtue. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #23 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI am touting practical experience. You can throw a text book around all you want, an accurate 5.56 round is infinitely more lethal than an inaccurate 7.62 as far as its target is concerned. I'll take the M4 over an AK any day. After the 7.62 was adopted, people using the 7.62 at Camp Perry were routinely outscoring higher-ranked shooters. While the 30-06 was grouping around 1 MOA, the 308/7.62 was grouping 0.5-0.75 MOA. There are many reasons why the 5.56 was adopted, but inaccuracy of the 7.62 *wasn't* one of them. I wasn't talking about the accuracy of the round, I was talking about the equipment used to fire them. It all depends on the choice of equipment doesn't it. I'll take the iron sights on an M4 or M16A4 versus the iron sights on any AK-47 variant out there any time, anywhere. Inasmuch as I can keep my Type 56S on a 1" TargDot at 100 metres all day long with ChiCom ammo, it does not seem that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system from where I sit (not to worry, I am Expert with the poodle-shooter as well). I suspect your prejudices against stem from a lack of familiarity, just as my postjudices against the Armalite offering stem from an excess of familiarity. The ascendancy of the 5.56 in the AR-15 is a case in point of mediocrity becoming a virtue. BSBD, Winsor Not lack of familiarity, when guys were shooting at me with AKs, I noticed quickly that they either had to walk rounds in to even be near me or when I saw Iraqi Special Police shooting we could see erratic firing even on "near" targets (<200m). My M4 took a beating. My M249 took a beating. For the short time I was there, I didn't suffer any failures. The M4 is a hammer and the SAW is lethal.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #24 July 2, 2010 Quote Quote The concept of suppressing fire has been around since the bow and arrow, and quite possibly even before that. I've done it with snowballs. I'm just saying. LOLWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #25 July 2, 2010 Inasmuch as I can keep my Type 56S on a 1" TargDot at 100 metres all day long with ChiCom ammo, it does not seem that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the system from where I sit (not to worry, I am Expert with the poodle-shooter as well). I suspect your prejudices against stem from a lack of familiarity, just as my postjudices against the Armalite offering stem from an excess of familiarity. The ascendancy of the 5.56 in the AR-15 is a case in point of mediocrity becoming a virtue. BSBD, Winsor Not lack of familiarity, when guys were shooting at me with AKs, I noticed quickly that they either had to walk rounds in to even be near me or when I saw Iraqi Special Police shooting we could see erratic firing even on "near" targets (<200m). My M4 took a beating. My M249 took a beating. For the short time I was there, I didn't suffer any failures. The M4 is a hammer and the SAW is lethal. Okay, here we have it. Brigadier James M. Gavin, in his book "On to Berlin," noted that the Germans against which he fought were comparatively lousy marksmen. After a while, if they came under fire from a location over 300 metres they would not even duck. Now, assuming that the inaccuracy of the marksmen was due to the fundamental limitations of the 7.92x57 cartridge or the K98 Mauser would be a bad guess. Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock used a rifle functionally indistinguishable from the German offering as his rifle of choice. The "Iraqi Death Blossom" is not a function of the AK so much as the mentality of the practitioner. Give these same people AR-15s (full-auto, not burst-fire) and you will have pretty much the same results. Put another way, if every time you put one of these guys behind the wheel of a Ferrari they drove it into a wall, you would draw the wrong conclusion to think that Ferraris are impossible to drive without crashing. Again, my personal experience with Kalashnikovs and Armalites involves putting an awful lot of ammunition downrange, both semi and full auto. I am not citing what I read or what I watched someone else do. Like it or not, the Kalashnikov is a superior design. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
