Printable View
I do recall doing trials of ammo with the L34-A1 and L96-A1..............7.62x52 or .308Win (to our American allies)
Some of the nicest ammo was the Norwegian Raufoss, but the Salt Lake City National Match was brilliant until the temp went over 80f.
I guess that for sniping in Iraq I would look to Raufoss 185gr (yellow label) and a 1 in 10 twist barrel?
Well, actually, "purple spot"...........no one takes snipers prisoner do they?
:D
Never shoot as a sniper, just about everything ell's though SLR SMG 9Milli gun match section match even had a go at the AL47 target rifle.
Standard NATO ammunition for the M16 is 5.56 x 39. The 7.62 x 51 was the old ammunition used in the M14. From some of the history channel shows that I watched the decision to switch was made from experience in Korea, with the heavier bullet not penetrating some of the thick clothing that the North Koreans / Chinese were wearing. So they went with a much smaller, but extremely high velocity round with the 5.56. It goes in excess of 3000fps whereas the .308 was in the mid 2000 range (depending on ammo, not sure on standard rounds)
Now I have no experience whatsoever with British weapons, but I know that the 5.56 x 39 is the standard NATO round, and that its been used for quite some time. The standard issue weapon was the L85 A1 bullpup, and the L86 is the light support weapon. Judging from what I just read the SA80 is the latest in the line of the L85, "modified in light of operational experience, and had a major mid-life update in 2002, which resulted in the SA80A2 series"
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/pw/pw_sa80.htm
Now thats a bit of individual knowledge and a quote from a UK army site :)
I was unable to find out when the 5.56 standard took over, however the 7.62 standard was enabled in the 50's, more info about that here http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/7.62mm%20NATO ...
Anyhoo enough gun geeking out for me!
7.62 R00lz......
A friend, (Bootneck), in the Falklands was carrying an AR-15 and was moving into position to attack an Argentinian SF position in a remote farmhouse when they were discovered. They were carrying the "little" rifles because they were light. During the ensuing firefight he was charged by a slightly "pissy" Argentinian with an FN. He claims to have put 3-4 rounds in the man's chest to no avail. "They just seemed to go right bloody through... he never even noticed them" was the quote. He managed to bring the man down at his own feet. He put down the AR-15, picked up the FN, took all the guys ammo and got all he could when the firefight was over.
I'll carry the extra few pounds..... It's worth it to know that when I shoot at something it's going to fall over no matter how "pissy" it might be....... You don't keep coming when a single shot has made a hole in your back that a rolled up combat jackets barely fills.....
Personally, I have always favored a 12 guage. Never heard of anyone getting right up when hit by a 12 guage, even if they are wearing body armor. (like getting kicked by a mule!)
Always did think the AR15 was a toy gun your mate should have crossed the round tips. But that is a bit noughty though.
Tedob1: your right, and if that damm press had never brought up water gate we would have been fine...or mali4 no problems there....look we went far beyond any intaragation methods...people where attacked by police dogs, people where beaten to death. MPS who where never trained in intaragation where told to use any means nessecary to keep men up for days on end.....If we didn't get the answers we wanted out of pople we beat the some more, its starting to looklike the iraquis quickly learend to lie and tell us about forign fighteres insted of telling the truth and getting beaten again.
In the heat of battle I can imagine a 7.62 would cause much more damage, but its also much slower. I have no combat experience to vouch for, but I love bigger rifles and aren't knocking them. I mean heck I almost bought a .338 ultra mag for hunting :)
Anyways the theory behind the M16 / 5.56 ammo is that its blistering fast, and when it does impact a target, rather than going straight through it tumbles, which causes more trama. Where as the big heavy bullet 7.62 plain goes straight through. And because of the speed of the 5.56 its much more likely to go through body armor / thick clothing.
I'll leave it to you vets to decide which is better though. But if I get deployed into combat, I know what weapon I'll be carrying, the standard issue M16A2. Its here to stay, suffice some of the sniper rifles / specialized teams sometimes carry M14's.
Hi thad~
The problem with small calibre HV rounds is that they are so easily deflected..........a bush or pampas grass, or bamboo or whatever?Quote:
Anyways the theory behind the M16 / 5.56 ammo is that its blistering fast, and when it does impact a target, rather than going straight through it tumbles, which causes more trama. Where as the big heavy bullet 7.62 plain goes straight through. And because of the speed of the 5.56 its much more likely to go through body armor / thick clothing.
A shotgun, M-79 or large calibre round will either penetrate, or work its way through?
As for AP qualities...............a tungsten dart in a standard round will give more penetration?
Purple spot will explode inside...............true explosive bullets, not "black claw/talon" or crap like that..............
So I take a standard .45 Speer 485 grain semi jacketed hollow point, and insert a small tungsten spike and a few drops of mercury................I would like you to be wearing the flack jacket :D
Just a few thoughts?
Chicksands? **** that is a blast from the past.