Author Topic: The Great Firearms-Thread  (Read 35063 times)

Online VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #75 on: 17-10-2012, 03:10:04 »
He was an infantry captain during invasion of baghdad.

Also, considering we're having to issue them out in A-stan to cope with long range at 2 per squad, I seriously doubt that it is "useless."  And it isn't just my Major friend who would agree.  I've had this conversation with other buddies of mine in army and marines, and all reached the same conclusion in A-stan, that the M4 is simply unsuitable to ranged combat, and only ok at short range.

Offline Rabbit032

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • By all means necessary.
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #76 on: 17-10-2012, 04:10:03 »
He was an infantry captain during invasion of baghdad.

Also, considering we're having to issue them out in A-stan to cope with long range at 2 per squad, I seriously doubt that it is "useless."  And it isn't just my Major friend who would agree.  I've had this conversation with other buddies of mine in army and marines, and all reached the same conclusion in A-stan, that the M4 is simply unsuitable to ranged combat, and only ok at short range.
He was an infantry captain during invasion of baghdad.

Also, considering we're having to issue them out in A-stan to cope with long range at 2 per squad, I seriously doubt that it is "useless."  And it isn't just my Major friend who would agree.  I've had this conversation with other buddies of mine in army and marines, and all reached the same conclusion in A-stan, that the M4 is simply unsuitable to ranged combat, and only ok at short range.
I still believe an O-3 still doesn't have the same knowlage that E5,6 or 7you actually doing the work has. Again, we have 2 snipers with xm2010s and a Barret in a M-ATV, we had motars with us and several 240's. You can put down much more effective fire with a 105% 240 than a m14. We had 2 qualified snipers and CAS. Hell the SEALs we worked with didn't even use there's because it was stupid to bring them. Why waste a seat in a truck with someone you don't really need or a weapon that you don't need. Honesty I say cut them and just sell them to the public.
Pipe Hitters Union

Online VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #77 on: 17-10-2012, 06:10:28 »
<cough>  My other friends are all between Specialist and various NCO ranks.  And duh a 240 puts down more effective fire than a M14...who was arguing it doesn't?  Indeed, a M14 doesn't replace any of those.  It replaces a M4 carbine with a much more effective rifle.  The other things stay.  Hell, I still remember my marine buddy telling me how they only ever used the burst on their M4's to fuck around, and ONLY used semi in combat.  When you're only using semi, why not have a gun that takes down a guy in one shot?
« Last Edit: 17-10-2012, 06:10:46 by VonMudra »

Offline Tuco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 423
  • FH lurker since 2005
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #78 on: 17-10-2012, 06:10:57 »
<cough>  My other friends are all between Specialist and various NCO ranks.  And duh a 240 puts down more effective fire than a M14...who was arguing it doesn't?  Indeed, a M14 doesn't replace any of those.  It replaces a M4 carbine with a much more effective rifle.  The other things stay.  Hell, I still remember my marine buddy telling me how they only ever used the burst on their M4's to fuck around, and ONLY used semi in combat.  When you're only using semi, why not have a gun that takes down a guy in one shot?

This. At the moment there simply isnt anything better for stopping power and the fact that we have large stocks of them laying around makes it a no brainer. It aint worth a shit in full auto but in the DM roll it's been excellent.   
« Last Edit: 17-10-2012, 06:10:42 by Tuco »
If you have to shoot, shoot, dont talk.

Online VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.248
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #79 on: 17-10-2012, 07:10:09 »
And as I noted, full auto is being used less and less with the M4/M16's, especially in A-stan with the long ranges.  I have heard nothing but complaints back from my friends, as well as other vets, that they simply can't hit enemies at range because the bullets are so utterly weak, and that the burst is just a  play thing not taken seriously.

I'm not saying the M14 is a perfect solution, but it's a good stop gap until the army's generals can get their collective heads out of their asses and come up with a new rifle that is 7.62 capable.  Then again, these are the same guys who keep trying to prolong the horrible ACU experiment.

Offline |7th|Nighthawk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.278
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #80 on: 17-10-2012, 08:10:37 »
Maybe you could explain this to a military noob like me: Is this ACU thing the MARPAT thing and if yes, what is wrong with it? Thanks for replying.
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that..."

Offline Comrade Roe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 328
  • Achtung panzer!
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #81 on: 17-10-2012, 14:10:55 »
ACU is the desert digital camo pattern the U.S. Army uses in Afghanistan at the moment. MARPAT is what the USMC use nowadays, I think.

Offline PanzerKnacker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.912
  • Tommyjäger
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #82 on: 17-10-2012, 16:10:40 »
ACU, the Anti-Camouflage Uniform  ;D
He was not wrong. Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #83 on: 17-10-2012, 17:10:58 »
From afghanistan to Iraq, numorous soldiers have complained about the weak stopping and penetrating power of the 5.56x45. Its a great round for jungle warfare where the range is often only 150 meters. But beyond 125 meters, the 5.56x45 drastically reduces in power.

My cousin was trained with the FNC. He quite liked the rifle....untill in germany he got his hands on a G3. The first thing he asked when he came back in belgium, was to try out the FAL. In our army, automatic fire with the FNC is extremely rare because it is considerd a "Waste of ammo". And the few soldiers who did tried  automatic fire, only find this to be effective at close ranges. There are future plannes to replace the FNC. Well alot of folks have been asking for a .308 chamberd battle rifle again. Both old soldiers as new ones
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline hOMEr_jAy

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.808
  • Lannister Loyalist
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #84 on: 17-10-2012, 18:10:17 »
But beyond 125 meters, the 5.56x45 drastically reduces in power.
I beg to differ. Fired the G36 on way longer ranges than 125 metres and only at around 300m I experienced problems with side winds and a certain loss of accuracy.
But then, it´s probably also an illusion to think that in a combat situation every shot fired actually hits its target. Lots of ammo is being consumed by supressive fire and it´s just simple math that a soldier can carry more 5.56 than 7.62 rounds.

There´s gonna be a problem when a squads firepower soleley consists of 5.56 weapons. If you have larger calibres in a squad, too longer ranges won´t be a problem, as the heavier weapons can provide cover fire while the rest moves into closer range to engage the enemy. The closer you are to the enemy, the better, to paraphrase a Sergeant Major of my former company.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #85 on: 17-10-2012, 18:10:36 »
But beyond 125 meters, the 5.56x45 drastically reduces in power.
I beg to differ. Fired the G36 on way longer ranges than 125 metres and only at around 300m I experienced problems with side winds and a certain loss of accuracy.

I said power..Not accuracy. the 5.56x45 is actually a pretty darn accurate round, but when it comes to FIREPOWER as in penetrating object, tumbeling in human flesh(aka stopping power) then the 5.56x45 has proven to be very ineffective beyond 125 meters.

I have fired a Civilian G36 at the gunrange. And very nifty guns  ;D    But so much plastic! But atleast the plastic feels hard and strong unlike the Matell M16
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline hOMEr_jAy

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.808
  • Lannister Loyalist
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #86 on: 17-10-2012, 18:10:27 »
I said power..Not accuracy. the 5.56x45 is actually a pretty darn accurate round, but when it comes to FIREPOWER as in penetrating object, tumbeling in human flesh(aka stopping power) then the 5.56x45 has proven to be very ineffective beyond 125 meters.

Is that even physically possible? I´m by no means good at physics, but I just can´t imagine that an object loses so much energy over such a short distance, simply because of air resistance.
You make it sound like the 5.56 is a BB gun. Got any reliable sources for such claims? 125m is actually a really short distance for a bullet to travel and I´ve actually never heard such complaints.
English Wiki says that standard NATO Ball 5.56 rounds penetrate 3mm of steel at a distance of 600m and , so your 125m claim sounds really, really unrealistic.

And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.

Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.861
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #87 on: 17-10-2012, 18:10:39 »
Problem is, 5,56mm ammo was designed with conventional WW3 in mind. Conventional as in WW2, just with modern weapons, in similar environments and engagement ranges, against a similarly equipped enemy. Its main purpose was to wound, because wounding takes more soldiers out from action than killing outright. Nobody certainly expected in the future an extended asymmetric (because guerilla is apparently a four-letter word, as seems to be counterinsurgency) war that is fought in barren terrain with little cover and thus extending engagement ranges to many times greater than those typically found in Europe or Pacific (or Southeast Asia, for that matter). Also, it is considerably more difficult to stop a fanatic who's actually willing to die (preferably taking some enemies with him) for a cause, as opposed to someone who is just "doing his job" and actually trying to survive: while the Soviet economy might have been in shambles, even the average Soviet of the Cold War era had a lot more to lose by dying than the average Taliban of today.

However, one thing has not changed from WW2 is that on average 200 000 (two hundred thousand) bullets are still fired in anger in order to cause one enemy KIA (the main killers being arty, air strikes, tanks, infantry support weapons, hand grenades, and only at the very bottom of the food chain, rifle bullets). The effects of aiming are still negligible, no matter what you are told in basic training: hitting the bullseye "easily" on rifle range (as many are prone to say), or even on manoeuvers in terrain, is very different to a situation where shit just got real, when your heart beats 180bpm, bullets are whistling by your ears, there is an awful lot of noise, explosions, flying dust and debris obscuring the targets, and the enemies are moving, dodging, and taking cover, etc. All that training is just to ensure that when in that 1 in 200 000 situation you are able to take the shot, at other times it's mostly for your own reassurance (plus bullets aimed at the general direction of the enemy are more likely to keep their heads down than those fired into the sky). What really matters is the volume of fire. So having 200 5,56mm shots heading downrange is better than 100 7,62mm shots, the rest is just statistics. Which makes the accuracy and stopping power of 5,56mm round at range rather irrelevant as long as dedicated marksmen and snipers, who are the only ones actually supposed to hit at a distance, have something heavier. Also, just about anyone can reach high ROF with a (semi)automatic weapon, even if taking breaks to let the barrel cool down, whereas the "mad minute" with bolt-action rifles takes lots of drilling and still won't be an easy feat (and the time used to learn this skill, which is made redundant by technology, could be used to learn other skills).

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.842
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #88 on: 17-10-2012, 18:10:33 »
The problem with the 5.56x45 round is that it significantly reduces its "Tumbeling and fragment" effect beyond 125 meters. So when it hits a person, it just goes straight trough it. But causes a mere flesh wound if it does not hit any major organs/bones.

This is the same problem The japanese and italians had in WW1/WW2 with there 6.5x50mm rounds.

And the Mujahideen nicknamed the AK 74 the "painfull sting". Because at long ranges the 5.45x39 mere caused a small fleshwound upon impact. It hurted, but it was not threathing if no organ was hit.


Quote
here has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation.[19] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[19] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.
Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.
This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants.
Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag's papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11–28, Winter 2001) also describes this problem.
—[19]
Despite complaints that the 5.56 round lacks stopping power, others contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56 mm round is more damaging, due to the post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues.[20] The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm was more a matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.


Its ability to penetrate surfaces has also been a major issue. SOCOM was so tired of it, they developed the 6.8 Remington SPC together with remington. This round has already been combat tested. It was found to have only slighty more recoil, but much much more stopping power then the 5.56. The 6.8 SPC delivers double the punch of a 5.56 with also increased accuracy.

And you have a big point Kelmola. But US troops got there asses first kicked in vietnam because they sprayed there entire supply of ammo into the jungle when contact was made. They quickly ran out of ammo and barely hitting anything


Volume of fire is very important.  But i think the germans demonstrated the big effect the 7.92x33 had versus conventional Machine pistols. A 7.92x33 could deliver volume of fire, and when it hitted, it hitted hard. A soldier being wounded by a 7.92x33 Kurz and a soldier being wounded by a 7.62x25 tokarev is a huge diffrence



-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline hOMEr_jAy

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.808
  • Lannister Loyalist
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Firearms-Thread
« Reply #89 on: 17-10-2012, 19:10:48 »
Quote
Despite complaints that the 5.56 round lacks stopping power, others contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56 mm round is more damaging, due to the post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues.[20] The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm was more a matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.
From your own source.

You mix up different factors that might influence terminal balistic, like too short barrels or "bad" shot placement.

As you said, the smaller rounds cause smaller wounds on soft tissues, but as your own source says, if you hit bones or vital organs the story is quite different.

In the end it´s a simple compromise: More rounds available per man but the chance of smaller wounds on extremities or less rounds per man, but larger wounds on extremities?

And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.