|
|
Post by Erick on Oct 21, 2015 19:47:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Oct 21, 2015 20:44:18 GMT -5
Much as I love 5.56, a mid-6mm is probably what NATO should have adopted when the British first proposed it way back when.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on Oct 22, 2015 19:45:33 GMT -5
556 is fine, and i can carry mo' of it.
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479 
|
Post by winter on Oct 24, 2015 15:22:16 GMT -5
I agree that a larger caliber would be better for Afghanistan.  |
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Oct 24, 2015 16:54:46 GMT -5
What shouldn't surprise me but often does, is why are they now contradicting years' worth of previous studies?
I've read various US studies that say M855 can penetrate both sides of a steel helmet at like 600 yds (800 in some tellings) and one side at 1200 yds? I mean, that's enough for me, I have a hard head but it's not "steel helmet" hard... If I got shot in the head at 1200 meters/yards/furlongs and the bullet lodged there, I wouldn't be able to prosecute the fight very well, so I'm calling that a pretty effective shot even if it doesn't turn the Lightswitch O'Life off on me.
Makes me wonder which of these studies are hand picked and which are legit?
|
|
Dave R
Junior Member
Posts: 460
|
Post by Dave R on Oct 24, 2015 17:57:28 GMT -5
Russia got it right with their 5.45, some very nasty wound patterns. Fascinating round in my opinion. The main goal when thinking of fighting a conventional war was not to necessarily always kill, but to wound. A wounded solider requires his buddys to carry him out, vehicles to transport him, doctors to fix him, nurses to aide him. All of which cost $$$ and personnel. I'm sure that was a thought when NATO was picking out rounds.
"556 is fine, and i can carry mo' of it." +1
|
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Oct 24, 2015 18:20:26 GMT -5
What shouldn't surprise me but often does, is why are they now contradicting years' worth of previous studies? I've read various US studies that say M855 can penetrate both sides of a steel helmet at like 600 yds (800 in some tellings) and one side at 1200 yds? I mean, that's enough for me, I have a hard head but it's not "steel helmet" hard... If I got shot in the head at 1200 meters/yards/furlongs and the bullet lodged there, I wouldn't be able to prosecute the fight very well, so I'm calling that a pretty effective shot even if it doesn't turn the Lightswitch O'Life off on me. Makes me wonder which of these studies are hand picked and which are legit? Which one is 'enough', for most situations and cheapest? Likely the reason for defence of 5.56! |
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Oct 31, 2015 13:09:05 GMT -5
I'm no expert.........but I'm not buying what they're selling. All of their intermediate options land very close to the 7.62x39/.300 BLK. Looking at the stadia lines on scopes with compensating reticles in those calibers, you're talking 400m effective range (with the DC scope) at best. So you gain nothing, and at least in the hands of the USMC, they still train to 500m with the M16A4.
The biggest problem with the 5.56mm is the SS109 bullet. I think it's funny that it was Europeans who demanded the SS109 bullet for them to adopt the 5.56, because they wanted to pierce Russian steel helmets at 800m with a MINIMI, and thought the M193 did too much damage and violated the Hague accords. Now, Europeans are saying it needs to be replaced because it's not effective. LOL, should have kept "the meat axe" I guess.
I've asked returning soldiers and Marines what they thought about intermediate cartridges (between the 5.56 and 7.62), and they didn't think you got much for the effort. Most of the time the only people scoring hits at much over 300m were machine gunners and snipers anyway, even thought the M16 (both A2 and A4s carried) could hit to 500-600m. At that range, they said, you really want the 7.62x51, or .50 BMG -- intermediate cartridges, they thought, would not improve accuracy, or impact on target enough to justify it.
Stop pretending it's 1899, and field a 69-77 grain 5.56 OTM bullet, and an improved 7.62x51 bullet. Then the only real change is projectiles and powder. No new tooling or logistics required. Phase the new ammunition in to active units first and shift the older stuff to units not currently engaged in combat operations, reserves, and surplus stores.
|
|
