That is awesome.
5.56mm velocity and pressure vs barrel length study.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
That is awesome.
Sorry should have been clearer, that was across the range of rifles at the trial (4 AR based and 4 not, with both carbine 14-16 and rifle 18-20 options) and not comparative of the same platform with different barrel lengths, with some of 14.5's platforms out shooting other platforms in 18-20's.
What was the guys reckon was there wasn't a large difference in the groupings size's throughout between the carbine and rifle length barrels of the top performers i.e. not enough reason to go for a 18-20 vs 14.5-16 inch.
Well unless you run match everything, your shooting minute of bad guy at 600m, where the barrel length comes into play, again, is velocity. Being able to barley break the skin at 600m vs an actual penetration into the vitals is they key.
IMO the US Army fucked up going to the M4 exclusively. The M16 has its place, as does a 7.62x51 clambered rifle. The M16 is lethal at 600m the M4 from all the studies I have seen is not.
IMO the US Army fucked up going to the M4 exclusively. The M16 has its place, as does a 7.62x51 clambered rifle. The M16 is lethal at 600m the M4 from all the studies I have seen is not.
I believe that's the primary reason we are ditching SS109/F1 and going to 77gr across the board as our service rd to try for the best median between flexibility and effect. That being said our Infantry sections already have 2 LSW/Mk 48's and a DMW/LMT MWS (20inch barrel) so at least a 3rd of the section are running 7.62
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
So they are finally getting closer to a 1980's Section/Squad in fire power... lol
We should have never pulled the Jimpys from the section, and we should have adopted, and scoped, a 7.62 Bren, and added a 7.62 DMR (putting a scope and a bi-pod on an SLR).
That mix would have been good for the time but with the 2 Guns, a DMW and a couple M-203's, I think its probably a better mix of mobility and firepower in the Infantry Bn's than the 80's.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
Ah, two Jimpys, plus a scoped BREN and a scoped SLR, with also M203s is the same thing right? Well except the Riflemen have 7.62's as well...
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
Expecting riflemen to engage targets at 600m is an exercise in diminishing returns. You don't get a full exposure target in combat, you get head shots or a running target.
M240s kill at 600m, they also scare the hell out of the bad guys while the riflemen get closer to finish the job.
Laying on line at 600m and exchanging fire isn't how we win fights.
M240s kill at 600m, they also scare the hell out of the bad guys while the riflemen get closer to finish the job.
Laying on line at 600m and exchanging fire isn't how we win fights.
Florida173
SOF Support
I've never engaged anyone past maybe 200m...
I'm in your court in a broad sense, given that 7.62 will knock over most humans, 5.56, not so much.
As an aside, isn't 7.62 now the new paradigm?
I have, and from what I've read, it was pretty common in Afghanistan.
Your point is?
Hmmm, not one to disagree with you much, but I'm 50/50 on this one. Yeah if you have a 240B or heavier in your patrol to give support by fire as you maneuver, that would text book. That said, not every patrol is going to have immediate support by fire, hints the whole SDM concept and the EBR M14's. Having the capability to reach out and touch IMO is essential to an infantry squad or the like. That doesn't mean every soldier should be able to be consistent at 600m, albeit there wouldn't be the current "oh shit our soldiers cant shoot" in the Army Times, if they could shoot consistently at extended ranges. But lets be honest, most soldiers don't know how to properly group and zero, much less know how to call the wind, make a correction or apply a proper wind hold. I mean the Army is still using 25m zero's, when everyone knows the 50m zero is the better way to go with the M4/Aimpoint. I can go on and on, but the point being there is alot to be fixed, I think KD 100-300m qual with a fam-fire out to 500m is a good idea, and an SDM capability to 600m qual with a fam-fire to 800m is the best way to go. How they all get employed on the battlefield is a whole other discussion.
Florida173
SOF Support
Pretty sure doesn't require additional explanation. Good for you.
So because you never shot someone past 200m the whole Army should stop there? Or let's make "good for you" remarks when I tell you I have shot at Iraqi's much further than 600m? WTF is that?
I'd actually like to know what your point of view is, or maybe clarify if that was a "hi I'm here post".
Florida173
SOF Support
Maybe I took your "Your point is?" the wrong way.
Staying away from your rhetorical question... You sort of answer some of it in your next post. I'm more familiar with our patrols at least having an EBR or a SAW that can manage the 600m quite successfully.
I think your comment on KD 100-300m qual with a fam-fire out to 500m and a SDM out to 600m qual with a fam-fire to 800m is definitely a good idea, but fam fire on an m4 and acog should be out to 600m+. I've hit plenty of targets at 600m and 800m with the new m855a1 ammo and pretty consistent with 400-500m range. I'm not all that great of a shot nowadays though given the lack of range time we get.
Okay gotcha, I'm not at all familiar with the M855A1 or what its capabilities are. I know when I lived on the range, the M4/M855 combo was pretty well a crap shoot past 400m and past 500m we would occasionally have the rounds actually stuck into the corrugated plastic target backers. Hints my comments on the M16 or 7.62x51 weapon still having a place in an infantry squad. I like the M4 as much as anyone else as a general purpose rifle, but the EBR or even the M16, is still a good weapon to have in the squad.
Its an modified M14, to fill the squad designated marksman role.
Are they on standard issue to teams/sections? In the past I've encountered unit with and without.
Similar threads
