-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm ball
- Thread starter singveld
- Start date
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
by talking about head shot, prove that you do not know what is stopping power. War is not like computer game, chance of hitting the head much lower than torso.
5.56 or 7.62 or even a .22
the stopping power of the round depends on where the bullet lands.
give it a head shot, it's complete stoppage in almost an instant
by talking about head shot, prove that you do not know what is stopping power. War is not like computer game, chance of hitting the head much lower than torso.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
you know what is stopping power, can you explain to the so call expert in singapore. I tried but all i got is hot air back.
you know what is stopping power, can you explain to the so call expert in singapore. I tried but all i got is hot air back.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
yeah i know what is MG42, but i just love that bullet, i love to touch it, caress it, it is just so beautiful. so much better looking than the NATO 7.62 and warsaw 7.62. I love the nazi 7.62 MG version. I know no assault rifle exist to fire that, but they should have. It is a beautiful ammo.
SAF should issue body armor, full one, the one issue to so call middle east allies of USA. We should have those too.
yeah i know what is MG42, but i just love that bullet, i love to touch it, caress it, it is just so beautiful. so much better looking than the NATO 7.62 and warsaw 7.62. I love the nazi 7.62 MG version. I know no assault rifle exist to fire that, but they should have. It is a beautiful ammo.
SAF should issue body armor, full one, the one issue to so call middle east allies of USA. We should have those too.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
That is an benefit too, we have more stopping power and less logistic problem, we can train our troop to shoot with care, they carry less ammo, but the ammo will be more efficient.
That is an benefit too, we have more stopping power and less logistic problem, we can train our troop to shoot with care, they carry less ammo, but the ammo will be more efficient.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
you need to carry an extra barrel if you want a rifle that shoot both ammo. would that be easier to just carry just one ammo.
you need to carry an extra barrel if you want a rifle that shoot both ammo. would that be easier to just carry just one ammo.
credit you for quoting that link. it's extremely informative plus the comments that follow the article. you see, when you're serious and not spewing vulgarities, you're a helpful forummer.
in afghanistan, u.s. and nato forces are out-ranged, not necessarily out-gunned. since bigger caliber translates to more mass, more mass with more projectile power affects range and accuracy. and there's no denying that the taliban is elusive due to effective use of terrain and tactics based on long range sniping. agree that it's cumbersome to carry both 5.56mm and 7.62mm in the "golfbag". 6mm and 6.5mm caliber prototypes are undergoing rigorous tests as we post. question is whether the 7mm has legs. the more innovative alternative is an adaptive weapon that can fire both 5.56 and 7.62 rounds, or all kinds of rounds from 5.56 to 7.62.
the terrain in and around sg, ml and indon is different from afghanistan. for anyone to suggest changing munitions by the billions to fight a perceived enemy based on u.s. shortcomings in the gulf and afghan conditions blindly without considering home and neighboring terrain is nuts. just because the u.s. get real hand data from wars in that part of the world should not trigger (pun intended) an overhaul in the already budget-bloated wayang kulit ns system of the saf.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
improvement in design of the assault rifle have made it possible to get accurate shot from 7.62 NATO, it has better range and better stopping power than 5.56. recoil is not a problem.
improvement in design of the assault rifle have made it possible to get accurate shot from 7.62 NATO, it has better range and better stopping power than 5.56. recoil is not a problem.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
that is not very practical to talk about 20mm canon for hand held weapon.
that is not very practical to talk about 20mm canon for hand held weapon.
Why bother with 5.56 or 7.62 or even 20mm depleted uranium?
Chuck them one of this and no more fucking arguments.
Even if they wear full body Kevlar, they will not argue back.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The Next Generation.htm
PROBLEMS WITH 5.56mm AMMUNITION
British foot patrols were initially equipped only with 5.56 guns; the L85A2 rifle, L86A2 Light Support Weapon, and L110A1 Minimi Para light machine gun. These fire the standard NATO ball ammunition, designated SS109 (M855 in US service). However, this ammunition has proved inadequate at long range. Whatever performance they may demonstrate on a firing range, a combination of battle experience and the testing of ammunition terminal effectiveness has led to a judgment that the rifle is effective only up to about 300 metres, the light machine gun only 200-300 metres because of its short barrel. What this means is that more than half the small-arms engagements take place beyond the effective range of the standard British infantry rifle, and about 70% of the engagements are beyond the effective range of short-barrelled carbines like the M4.
The second problem with 5.56 ammunition is its lack of suppressive effect. On most occasions when British foot patrols have come under fire, they never saw their attackers; the Taliban are skilled at selecting concealed positions for ambush. So the soldiers returned fire in the hope of pinning down the enemy long enough for heavier weapons to be brought to bear. Field testing has revealed that the suppressive effect of a small-arms bullet is directly proportional to the loudness of the sonic bang it generates, and in turn that is directly proportional to its size. 5.56 bullets have only half the suppressive radius of 7.62 fire, exacerbated by the fact that the little bullets are more affected by wind drift and therefore less likely to get close to the target at long range. This is supported by battlefield reports that the Taliban take little notice of 5.56 suppressive fire.
This lack of effective range and suppressive effect are the two major concerns with 5.56 ammunition which have been reported by the British Army, but there have also been complaints about two other issues which have long been highlighted in the USA and widely reported: erratic terminal effectiveness, even within its effective range, and poor barrier penetration. Erratic terminal effectiveness is mainly due to the fact that, while the M855 bullet is capable of inflicting incapacitating injuries at shorter ranges, it frequently does not yaw rapidly on impact but may instead pass through most of the body point-first. When this happens, it will inflict a relatively minor injury unless it hits a vital organ and will potentially continue on its course to strike innocent bystanders. There is anecdotal evidence aplenty of erratic effectiveness in combat (for example in an article in early 2011 in the Royal Marines' magazine, Globe and Laurel, which commented that it could take up to 15 hits to stop an attacker at close range), and this has been confirmed by laboratory testing, which reveals that 85% of the bullets do not start to yaw until they have penetrated at least 120mm - which could take them most of the way through a body. Problems with penetrating intermediate barriers such as walls or car doors and even windscreens have also been confirmed in laboratory testing. THIS 2008 presentation by Dr Roberts detailed these problems and illustrated the results of laboratory testing. The commander of the German troops in Afghanistan made similar complaints in 2009 about the poor effectiveness and barrier penetration of 5.56 ammunition. Interestingly, the British Army recently adopted a semi-automatic shotgun to provide more reliable close-range effectiveness than 5.56 weapons.
A 2009 analysis by Major Thomas P. Ehrhart, United States Army, of the performance of US Army small arms in Afghanistan makes similar points to the British studies concerning typical engagement ranges and the limited effective range of 5.56mm weapons, and also stresses the importance of marksmanship training. In 2010 the US Army's Soldier Weapons Assessment Team carried out interviews with soldiers in theatre to discover any issues. The need for their carbines to be effective beyond 500 metres was one of the key requests from troops. The 7.62 M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle is proving so popular that the troops want it to be an organic part of squad equipment. And the 7.62 MK48 light machine gun is increasingly being carried instead of the 5.56 M249: as the Team put it; "lethality trumps weight reduction when extended ranges are required".
Not everyone agrees that 5.56mm weapons have such a short effective range: some proponents argue that in good conditions they can be effective to 500m in the hands of well-trained soldiers - although the ballistic graphs later in this article demonstrate that they will have a much harder job hitting targets than with larger-calibre weapons.. However, there are indications that the engagement ranges in Afghanistan are if anything becoming longer: THIS article in the American Rifleman states that: "U.S. Army data....reveals that more than half of the war’s small arms engagements are now beyond 500 meters, with the enemy employing heavier weapons and then withdrawing before air support or artillery fire can arrive".
These shortcomings mean that British foot patrols now carry 7.62mm weapons in place of some of their 5.56 guns; the very effective L7A2 GPMG (similar to the US Army's M240) and the new L129A1 sharpshooter rifle, of which 440 were purchased early in 2010 as an Urgent Operational Requirement specifically to overcome the lack of range of 5.56mm weapons (more have since been purchased). The problem with the GPMG is that both the gun and its ammunition are very heavy; most unwelcome given that reducing the burden of around 60 kg (132 lbs) worn and borne by the infantryman in patrol order is one of the top equipment priorities of the British Army. The Army is therefore planning to adopt lighter 7.62 machine guns for at least some purposes - the 7.62mm version of the FN MINIMI having been selected - which will match the characteristics of the Russian PKM. Little can be done for now about the weight of the ammunition, however; a key issue with belt-fed machine guns.
US forces have recently adopted new 5.56mm ammunition with the aim of replacing the M855. In mid-2010 the US Army started to field the M855A1 EPR (Enhanced Performance Round, previously known as the LFS - Lead Free Slug), while the USMC selected in early 2010 the MK318 Mod 0 SOST (Special Operations Science & Technology). Both rounds are claimed to offer better performance from short-barrelled carbines, improved barrier penetration and more reliable terminal effectiveness. The M855A1 also penetrates more armour and contains no lead. While final verdicts must await combat experience, these new rounds may resolve the M855's penetration and effectiveness issues, but as their exterior ballistics more or less match the M855 they will not eliminate the need for larger-calibre small arms to cover the longer ranges.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The Next Generation.htm
PROBLEMS WITH 5.56mm AMMUNITION
British foot patrols were initially equipped only with 5.56 guns; the L85A2 rifle, L86A2 Light Support Weapon, and L110A1 Minimi Para light machine gun. These fire the standard NATO ball ammunition, designated SS109 (M855 in US service). However, this ammunition has proved inadequate at long range. Whatever performance they may demonstrate on a firing range, a combination of battle experience and the testing of ammunition terminal effectiveness has led to a judgment that the rifle is effective only up to about 300 metres, the light machine gun only 200-300 metres because of its short barrel. What this means is that more than half the small-arms engagements take place beyond the effective range of the standard British infantry rifle, and about 70% of the engagements are beyond the effective range of short-barrelled carbines like the M4.
The second problem with 5.56 ammunition is its lack of suppressive effect. On most occasions when British foot patrols have come under fire, they never saw their attackers; the Taliban are skilled at selecting concealed positions for ambush. So the soldiers returned fire in the hope of pinning down the enemy long enough for heavier weapons to be brought to bear. Field testing has revealed that the suppressive effect of a small-arms bullet is directly proportional to the loudness of the sonic bang it generates, and in turn that is directly proportional to its size. 5.56 bullets have only half the suppressive radius of 7.62 fire, exacerbated by the fact that the little bullets are more affected by wind drift and therefore less likely to get close to the target at long range. This is supported by battlefield reports that the Taliban take little notice of 5.56 suppressive fire.
This lack of effective range and suppressive effect are the two major concerns with 5.56 ammunition which have been reported by the British Army, but there have also been complaints about two other issues which have long been highlighted in the USA and widely reported: erratic terminal effectiveness, even within its effective range, and poor barrier penetration. Erratic terminal effectiveness is mainly due to the fact that, while the M855 bullet is capable of inflicting incapacitating injuries at shorter ranges, it frequently does not yaw rapidly on impact but may instead pass through most of the body point-first. When this happens, it will inflict a relatively minor injury unless it hits a vital organ and will potentially continue on its course to strike innocent bystanders. There is anecdotal evidence aplenty of erratic effectiveness in combat (for example in an article in early 2011 in the Royal Marines' magazine, Globe and Laurel, which commented that it could take up to 15 hits to stop an attacker at close range), and this has been confirmed by laboratory testing, which reveals that 85% of the bullets do not start to yaw until they have penetrated at least 120mm - which could take them most of the way through a body. Problems with penetrating intermediate barriers such as walls or car doors and even windscreens have also been confirmed in laboratory testing. THIS 2008 presentation by Dr Roberts detailed these problems and illustrated the results of laboratory testing. The commander of the German troops in Afghanistan made similar complaints in 2009 about the poor effectiveness and barrier penetration of 5.56 ammunition. Interestingly, the British Army recently adopted a semi-automatic shotgun to provide more reliable close-range effectiveness than 5.56 weapons.
A 2009 analysis by Major Thomas P. Ehrhart, United States Army, of the performance of US Army small arms in Afghanistan makes similar points to the British studies concerning typical engagement ranges and the limited effective range of 5.56mm weapons, and also stresses the importance of marksmanship training. In 2010 the US Army's Soldier Weapons Assessment Team carried out interviews with soldiers in theatre to discover any issues. The need for their carbines to be effective beyond 500 metres was one of the key requests from troops. The 7.62 M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle is proving so popular that the troops want it to be an organic part of squad equipment. And the 7.62 MK48 light machine gun is increasingly being carried instead of the 5.56 M249: as the Team put it; "lethality trumps weight reduction when extended ranges are required".
Not everyone agrees that 5.56mm weapons have such a short effective range: some proponents argue that in good conditions they can be effective to 500m in the hands of well-trained soldiers - although the ballistic graphs later in this article demonstrate that they will have a much harder job hitting targets than with larger-calibre weapons.. However, there are indications that the engagement ranges in Afghanistan are if anything becoming longer: THIS article in the American Rifleman states that: "U.S. Army data....reveals that more than half of the war’s small arms engagements are now beyond 500 meters, with the enemy employing heavier weapons and then withdrawing before air support or artillery fire can arrive".
These shortcomings mean that British foot patrols now carry 7.62mm weapons in place of some of their 5.56 guns; the very effective L7A2 GPMG (similar to the US Army's M240) and the new L129A1 sharpshooter rifle, of which 440 were purchased early in 2010 as an Urgent Operational Requirement specifically to overcome the lack of range of 5.56mm weapons (more have since been purchased). The problem with the GPMG is that both the gun and its ammunition are very heavy; most unwelcome given that reducing the burden of around 60 kg (132 lbs) worn and borne by the infantryman in patrol order is one of the top equipment priorities of the British Army. The Army is therefore planning to adopt lighter 7.62 machine guns for at least some purposes - the 7.62mm version of the FN MINIMI having been selected - which will match the characteristics of the Russian PKM. Little can be done for now about the weight of the ammunition, however; a key issue with belt-fed machine guns.
US forces have recently adopted new 5.56mm ammunition with the aim of replacing the M855. In mid-2010 the US Army started to field the M855A1 EPR (Enhanced Performance Round, previously known as the LFS - Lead Free Slug), while the USMC selected in early 2010 the MK318 Mod 0 SOST (Special Operations Science & Technology). Both rounds are claimed to offer better performance from short-barrelled carbines, improved barrier penetration and more reliable terminal effectiveness. The M855A1 also penetrates more armour and contains no lead. While final verdicts must await combat experience, these new rounds may resolve the M855's penetration and effectiveness issues, but as their exterior ballistics more or less match the M855 they will not eliminate the need for larger-calibre small arms to cover the longer ranges.
Last edited:
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
I am no firearms expert but I do own and shoot super soakers and Nerf guns
. There's actually a little bit of reading required (scientific mumbo jumbo, evidence) regarding this one shot magic bullet theory, if you have the time. But its worth knowing.
The one-shot stopping power of bullet caliber was famously put forth by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow in their book. Because of this, a lot of law enforcement agencies and the miltary changed to larger caliber firearms. But a lot of people disputed Marshall and Sanow's One Shot Stop Statistics. And eventually, their findings were discredited. http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm
Dr. Martin L. Fackler is a retired Colonel in the US Army's Medical Corps, he was a battlefield surgeon, and the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the US Army’s Medical Training Center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler
This is his study and report. http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.pdf
All things being equal, bullet caliber is not really important. Multiple rounds on target makes more of a difference in bringing a target down than a single shot from a larger caliber.
I am no firearms expert but I do own and shoot super soakers and Nerf guns
. There's actually a little bit of reading required (scientific mumbo jumbo, evidence) regarding this one shot magic bullet theory, if you have the time. But its worth knowing.The one-shot stopping power of bullet caliber was famously put forth by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow in their book. Because of this, a lot of law enforcement agencies and the miltary changed to larger caliber firearms. But a lot of people disputed Marshall and Sanow's One Shot Stop Statistics. And eventually, their findings were discredited. http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm and http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm
Dr. Martin L. Fackler is a retired Colonel in the US Army's Medical Corps, he was a battlefield surgeon, and the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the US Army’s Medical Training Center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler
This is his study and report. http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.pdf
All things being equal, bullet caliber is not really important. Multiple rounds on target makes more of a difference in bringing a target down than a single shot from a larger caliber.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
What conclusions can we draw from all this?
One conclusion as a result of recent combat experience is that the 5.56mm weapons are most effective in short-range combat. That was satisfactory in Iraq which mainly saw urban fighting, but was revealed as a major deficiency in the much longer ranges common in Afghanistan. The British and US Armies both found that the 300-400m maximum effective range of 5.56mm weapons was inadequate when foot patrols were engaged by small groups of Taleban, using 7.62x54R SVD rifles and PKM LMGs at ranges of up to 900m. As a result, 7.62mm rifles and MGs have made a comeback at section level in the foot patrols.
In addition, performance of the small-calibre, high-velocity rounds (especially the 5.56mm NATO) is erratic; sometimes they work well, sometimes they don't, depending on their impact velocity, the precise manufacturing details and the angle at which they strike the target. There is more on the subject of small-arms terminal effectiveness HERE. The 7.62mm weapons are more reliably effective but are much heavier (both guns and ammunition), and the recoil of the rifles is also heavy, making automatic fire uncontrollable.
A larger-calibre, more powerful cartridge than the 5.56mm, but still significantly lighter than 7.62mm and generating light enough recoil to permit controllable automatic rifle fire when required, might also deliver another substantial benefit: its performance could be close enough to that of the 7.62mm NATO to permit the new cartridge to replace both existing 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds, providing considerable benefits in reducing the weight of MG ammunition plus the costs of small-arms acquisition, training and support. The August 2011 report by the US Army's PEO Soldier report titled Soldier Battlefield Effectiveness includes a number of points in favour of general-purpose weapons and ammunition, summarised concisely in this:
"Ultimately, Army service rifles must be general purpose in nature and embody a series of tradeoffs that balance optimum performance for a wide range of possible missions in a range of operating environments. With global missions taking Soldiers from islands to mountains and jungles to deserts, the Army can’t buy 1.1 million new service rifles every time it’s called upon to operate in a different environment."
Is it possible to achieve a suitable general-purpose cartridge? The evidence suggests strongly that it is. A 2010 investigation into rifle calibres by the US Army's ARDEC compared cartridges in 5.56mm, 6mm, 6.35mm, 6.8mm and 7.62mm calibres and determined that, when considered across a range of criteria, the 6.8mm offered the best compromise with the 6.35mm following closely behind, both of these being clearly ahead of the others. In 2012 the US Army's Marksmanship unit (AMU) carried out its own investigations into the optimum cartridge for future military rifles and concluded in favour of 6.5mm.
The British aimed for this with the 7x43 cartridge half a century ago, and by all accounts succeeded admirably. This gives us an upper calibre limit. It seems unlikely that a cartridge with the long-range performance to replace the 7.62mm can be achieved with anything smaller than 6.5mm calibre, which gives us the lower limit. We need to specify a bullet sectional density ratio of at least .230 and preferably .250 in order to retain velocity better than the 7.62mm (whose 9.33g bullet has an SDR of 0.217 - the 5.56mm SS109 bullet has an SDR of 0.174,and the new 5.0g Mk 262 is 0.220) and thereby deliver the long-range performance we want. We also need a muzzle energy of no more than 2,500 joules to provide the right balance of power and recoil. This works out as the following range of choices with minimum bullet weights in common calibres:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
What conclusions can we draw from all this?
One conclusion as a result of recent combat experience is that the 5.56mm weapons are most effective in short-range combat. That was satisfactory in Iraq which mainly saw urban fighting, but was revealed as a major deficiency in the much longer ranges common in Afghanistan. The British and US Armies both found that the 300-400m maximum effective range of 5.56mm weapons was inadequate when foot patrols were engaged by small groups of Taleban, using 7.62x54R SVD rifles and PKM LMGs at ranges of up to 900m. As a result, 7.62mm rifles and MGs have made a comeback at section level in the foot patrols.
In addition, performance of the small-calibre, high-velocity rounds (especially the 5.56mm NATO) is erratic; sometimes they work well, sometimes they don't, depending on their impact velocity, the precise manufacturing details and the angle at which they strike the target. There is more on the subject of small-arms terminal effectiveness HERE. The 7.62mm weapons are more reliably effective but are much heavier (both guns and ammunition), and the recoil of the rifles is also heavy, making automatic fire uncontrollable.
A larger-calibre, more powerful cartridge than the 5.56mm, but still significantly lighter than 7.62mm and generating light enough recoil to permit controllable automatic rifle fire when required, might also deliver another substantial benefit: its performance could be close enough to that of the 7.62mm NATO to permit the new cartridge to replace both existing 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds, providing considerable benefits in reducing the weight of MG ammunition plus the costs of small-arms acquisition, training and support. The August 2011 report by the US Army's PEO Soldier report titled Soldier Battlefield Effectiveness includes a number of points in favour of general-purpose weapons and ammunition, summarised concisely in this:
"Ultimately, Army service rifles must be general purpose in nature and embody a series of tradeoffs that balance optimum performance for a wide range of possible missions in a range of operating environments. With global missions taking Soldiers from islands to mountains and jungles to deserts, the Army can’t buy 1.1 million new service rifles every time it’s called upon to operate in a different environment."
Is it possible to achieve a suitable general-purpose cartridge? The evidence suggests strongly that it is. A 2010 investigation into rifle calibres by the US Army's ARDEC compared cartridges in 5.56mm, 6mm, 6.35mm, 6.8mm and 7.62mm calibres and determined that, when considered across a range of criteria, the 6.8mm offered the best compromise with the 6.35mm following closely behind, both of these being clearly ahead of the others. In 2012 the US Army's Marksmanship unit (AMU) carried out its own investigations into the optimum cartridge for future military rifles and concluded in favour of 6.5mm.
The British aimed for this with the 7x43 cartridge half a century ago, and by all accounts succeeded admirably. This gives us an upper calibre limit. It seems unlikely that a cartridge with the long-range performance to replace the 7.62mm can be achieved with anything smaller than 6.5mm calibre, which gives us the lower limit. We need to specify a bullet sectional density ratio of at least .230 and preferably .250 in order to retain velocity better than the 7.62mm (whose 9.33g bullet has an SDR of 0.217 - the 5.56mm SS109 bullet has an SDR of 0.174,and the new 5.0g Mk 262 is 0.220) and thereby deliver the long-range performance we want. We also need a muzzle energy of no more than 2,500 joules to provide the right balance of power and recoil. This works out as the following range of choices with minimum bullet weights in common calibres:
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
Of course the lethality of 7.62mm cannot be denied. But end of the day it depend on the shooter itself.
Of course the lethality of 7.62mm cannot be denied. But end of the day it depend on the shooter itself.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
Bigger round = bigger recoil.
If you're carrying a large supply of rounds it will be heavier too.
5.66mm is good enough. No one is going to hold one GPMG on each hand and go Rambo mode on an armoured vehicle.
Bigger round = bigger recoil.
If you're carrying a large supply of rounds it will be heavier too.
5.66mm is good enough. No one is going to hold one GPMG on each hand and go Rambo mode on an armoured vehicle.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
That's why i mention that it depend on the shooter.Even you give 7.62mm to a bobo shooter, he will hit shit..
Bigger round = bigger recoil.
If you're carrying a large supply of rounds it will be heavier too.
5.66mm is good enough. No one is going to hold one GPMG on each hand and go Rambo mode on an armoured vehicle.
That's why i mention that it depend on the shooter.Even you give 7.62mm to a bobo shooter, he will hit shit..
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
it is hard to hit an target, but when you do, you want to make it count. enagement now seem to be further away than the ww2 era. by looking at recent conflicts in iraqi, afghanistan, libya and syria. Not just the desert fighting, also the urban fighting, singapore is a urban.
it is hard to hit an target, but when you do, you want to make it count. enagement now seem to be further away than the ww2 era. by looking at recent conflicts in iraqi, afghanistan, libya and syria. Not just the desert fighting, also the urban fighting, singapore is a urban.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
More bullets or more power on target? - Age old argument which i will not go into since i prefer large caliber bullets downrange myself. Same reason why i drilled my whole family on the .45 first and then the down to .38 Spl/9mm to finally the .22 (i know i started them the other way)
Stopping power was not the point i was discussing but accuracy as well as logistics. The accuracy of the round in semi auto weapons or even bolt action ones (think M40A3) was never in doubt since it has many useful applications, even in law enforcement and popular as a tactical sniping round.
Once you get it to full auto though, with the heavier recoil it starts to get dicey in terms of accuracy especially for the longer range engagements and multi-target suppression. It is also more taxing on the soldier who has to battle the additional fatigue from handling/lugging around the weapon and the ammunition.
It is ok for professional or special forces but for an army that is composed mainly of conscripts, it takes much more training and effort to master sufficient accuracy unless one is doing fighting in enclosed or built up areas where accuracy may be slightly compromised.
Of course undeniably, having better penetration through cover (walls) is still sometimes preferred in a military scenario where its different from a police action and when collateral damage is unavoidable.
Unlike an MG which is good for suppression or area denial, most of such assault weapons in this caliber can realistically carry only up to 20 to 25 rounds per mag which means more reloading. "Changing mags" isn't a popular term in the midst of a battlefield and so is indenting ammunition when a country is under seige.
More bullets or more power on target? - Age old argument which i will not go into since i prefer large caliber bullets downrange myself. Same reason why i drilled my whole family on the .45 first and then the down to .38 Spl/9mm to finally the .22 (i know i started them the other way)
Stopping power was not the point i was discussing but accuracy as well as logistics. The accuracy of the round in semi auto weapons or even bolt action ones (think M40A3) was never in doubt since it has many useful applications, even in law enforcement and popular as a tactical sniping round.
Once you get it to full auto though, with the heavier recoil it starts to get dicey in terms of accuracy especially for the longer range engagements and multi-target suppression. It is also more taxing on the soldier who has to battle the additional fatigue from handling/lugging around the weapon and the ammunition.
It is ok for professional or special forces but for an army that is composed mainly of conscripts, it takes much more training and effort to master sufficient accuracy unless one is doing fighting in enclosed or built up areas where accuracy may be slightly compromised.
Of course undeniably, having better penetration through cover (walls) is still sometimes preferred in a military scenario where its different from a police action and when collateral damage is unavoidable.
Unlike an MG which is good for suppression or area denial, most of such assault weapons in this caliber can realistically carry only up to 20 to 25 rounds per mag which means more reloading. "Changing mags" isn't a popular term in the midst of a battlefield and so is indenting ammunition when a country is under seige.
Last edited:
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
Btw, the APS in the poster is a special weapon that was forgotten by many:
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles/aps-underwater-rifle/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-P578pnctU
Btw, the APS in the poster is a special weapon that was forgotten by many:
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles/aps-underwater-rifle/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-P578pnctU
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
that is one sick weapon.
that is one sick weapon.
Re: 5.56mm ball is not enough for muslim terrorists, when will SAF change to 7.62mm b
come on, our boys can shoot right?
come on, our boys can shoot right?
Similar threads
