The general firearms thread!

[Woldan]

Special units etc tend to have different focuses. Better penetration of the 7.62, only meaningful if you think that 5.56 don't pack enough punch. Proponents of 5.56 usually mention extra damage\accuracy\weight consideration, leaning on specialization to deal with other threats.(btw. many special units prefer smaller more wildy guns and smaller rounds, to minimize collateral damage)

I still think the 7.62x39 is the better allround-round, both rounds lose a great deal of accuracy and effectiveness at 300yds so range is not a factor. Both kill people dead. The 7.62x39 however makes it through light and medium cover where the 556 would fragment itself to death before making it to the enemy, so if you want to be prepared for the worst it includes shooting through cars, wooden barriers and light brick walls.You have to carry a little bit more weight but, but very little, its almost negligible.

 

If I was a soldier and could choose my firearm I would take a FN-FAL in 7.62x51 with a 2-7x33 scope instead of 556 or 7.62x39, it has the speed of the 556, more twice the effective range, kills people dead as doornails and penetrates cover like crazy while having a mild recoil, especially in a semi. Heavy you say? I'm used to haul 30kg of gear up to 3700 meter mountain tops, up and down, for days, and the air is thin up there. I'm a  mule.

 

Ouch! I'd have thought that was a bad ricochet or something and not a direct hit.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOYPxiRldaE

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8hL3WtKGY8

 

 

Edited January 24, 2014 by Woldan

[Gorgon]

Don't get the concept of that rifle, if you miss, you miss twice. The rifle is much heavier. You get twice the recoil.  If you hit your target, you hit it twice - Sounds good? Nah, a single 5.56 should put the target down, whats the point of the second one? Kill it deader? Waste of good ammo.  Also the chances that both barrels hit roughly the same spot at 100 is near zero, regulating barrels is already a pain in the behind with super expensive double barrel rifles. 

 

Makes no sense to me. 

 

Yeah I know, double more gun, double more fun. But not this time. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4e4QcbEZP8

Firing several shots practically simultaneously can improve accuracy if the successive shots comes before the recoil. That's the claim anyway. 

[Woldan]

7.62x51 

 

 

And just for fun a standard 12 gauge shotgun slug:

 

[Woldan]

Firing several shots practically simultaneously can improve accuracy if the successive shots comes before the recoil. That's the claim anyway.

But if you shoot several shots at once you either hit the target several times or you miss it several times, I don't get why its supposed to improve accuracy at all....

 

Anyway, here is a Phalanx test firing. Its awesome. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcR-oGeBXmc#t=12

Edited January 24, 2014 by Woldan

[Walsingham]

I assume he's talking about the principle behind the H&K G11.

 

Fire three rounds before the recoil from the first impacts the shooter.

 

 

The G11 always struck me as such a good idea, rotating bolt, 3 round burst, lighter smaller ammo... I think it was just too far ahead of its time culturally.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Walsingham

[Gorgon]

It doesn't improve accuracy of individual shots but increases the chance of scoring a hit. Probability math. 

[Walsingham]

It doesn't improve accuracy of individual shots but increases the chance of scoring a hit. Probability math. 

 

Assuming whatsit-thingy, independent probability between discharges. Some factors would affect all three.

[Gorgon]

It's relevant if three bullets are aimed close to the black versus just one. 

[alanschu]

it's not like both shots are guaranteed to hit the exact same spot (from what I understand there's the idea of cold barrel vs. hot barrel accuracy as well).  Though admittedly it's just from things I have read and the like.

[Walsingham]

If anyone really cares  I think I have a book in my library from the 1940s which talks about this. Engineering manual.

[Woldan]

 

 

I assume he's talking about the principle behind the H&K G11.

Yeah but in the case of the G11 the three round burst was meant to insure a KILL, not to increase the chance to hit something. It fires a really small round.

 

it's not like both shots are guaranteed to hit the exact same spot (from what I understand there's the idea of cold barrel vs. hot barrel accuracy as well).  Though admittedly it's just from things I have read and the like.

 

I regularly shoot precision rifles, the difference between hot and cold barrel shots is that the group opens up from 1cm to about 1.5cm at 100 meters. Granted, we're talking about assault rifles but with modern ammunition and barrel technology the accuracy difference between hot and cold barrels is negligible at anything under 300 meters. Unless we're talking about BOILING hot. 

 

If three shots are fired before the gun recoils all the rounds will hit VERY close together at normal combat distances, and I'm talking about 3cm groups. It makes more sense to fire thee individual aimed shots at a target, THIS increases the probability to hit a target. 

[Walsingham]

Again, you're assuming that the wound effect is the same from three separate shots as it is from three close together. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. Jacketed rounds have a bow wave that can push soft organs and arteries out of their way, but if there are several in play at once ...ew.

[Woldan]

I'm not assuming anything, according to the engineers they made the G11 fire so quickly to increase the wounding effect of the very little cartridge. I'm mainly talking about increasing the chances to hit something with firing super quick bursts. Which does not make any sense. 

 

(And I know that three different projectiles hitting the same spot will be more devastating than single bullet hitting the target, all three projectiles will go separate paths once the enter a medium. If this weren't so shotguns wouldn't be more effective than a large caliber rifle. But its still a waste of good ammo, a center mass hit with a 5.56 should put the target down. )

Edited January 24, 2014 by Woldan

[Walsingham]

 a center mass hit with a 5.56 should put the target down.

 

That's certainly not what I've been hearing from guys coming back from sojourns further East.

 

Not that a good story doesn't occasionally overcome the facts.

[Raithe]

Heh. I think the classic I've heard is the rumours that the 5.56 was designed on purpose so it's more likely to wound then to kill, and thereby result in a further drain on the enemies resources. 

 

Of course, that tends to be from the same people who say things like "The USA started going downhill when they began to use weapons that were designed to piss off the enemy rather then kill them."

[Woldan]

 

 a center mass hit with a 5.56 should put the target down.

 

That's certainly not what I've been hearing from guys coming back from sojourns further East.

 

Not that a good story doesn't occasionally overcome the facts.

 

 

Thats because people always remember bad things, you certainly don't hear about reports where the 5.56 totally stopped the hell out of thousands of insurgents. Because thats what people expect. 

I've heard of insurgents surviving .50bmg hits, that doesn't mean I want them to get AR's chambered in 20x114mm anti aircraft rounds. 

 

(I'd give them 7.62x51 battle rifles though, don't like the 5.56) 

Edited January 24, 2014 by Woldan

[ShadySands]

That's why we practice failure to stop/Mozambique drills

[alanschu]

 

 

But its still a waste of good ammo, a center mass hit with a 5.56 should put the target down.

 

Armor maybe?

 

The pragmatist in me just sort of sees the "if it's just a waste of ammo, why would they use it?"

[Woldan]

You better shoot armor piercing rounds instead of spamming the target with bullets hoping some make it through.  

[alanschu]

So you're of the opinion that they are just misguided and are being wasteful of their ammo?  (which *is* a valid perspective, if that's what you think)

[Malcador]

But its still a waste of good ammo, a center mass hit with a 5.56 should put the target down. )

 

Problems when the targets are unarmored, that was something Bowden mentioned alot in BHD - book also has an awesome description of the effects of .50 BMG rounds on human targets, Ranger gunner put 4-5 of them into some guy.

[Mor]

 

Special units etc tend to have different focuses. Better penetration of the 7.62, only meaningful if you think that 5.56 don't pack enough punch. Proponents of 5.56 usually mention extra damage\accuracy\weight consideration, leaning on specialization to deal with other threats.(btw. many special units prefer smaller more wildy guns and smaller rounds, to minimize collateral damage)

I still think the 7.62x39 is the better allround-round, both rounds lose a great deal of accuracy and effectiveness at 300yds so range is not a factor. Both kill people dead. The 7.62x39 however makes it through light and medium cover where the 556 would fragment itself to death before making it to the enemy, so if you want to be prepared for the worst it includes shooting through cars, wooden barriers and light brick walls.You have to carry a little bit more weight but, but very little, its almost negligible.

 

If I was a soldier and could choose my firearm I would take a FN-FAL in 7.62x51 with a 2-7x33 scope instead of 556 or 7.62x39, it has the speed of the 556, more twice the effective range, kills people dead as doornails and penetrates cover like crazy while having a mild recoil, especially in a semi. Heavy you say? I'm used to haul 30kg of gear up to 3700 meter mountain tops, up and down, for days, and the air is thin up there. I'm a  mule.

 

You have a point and 30kg gear hikes is very nice. Although on topic of soldiers, just a quick note, that its less about the individual guns and more about the team, which is usually prepared for the worst.

 

_IF_ there is a serious point to the double barrel it could be CQB/FIBUA/FISH. After all this is about the only job left for infantry apart from country walks while getting shot at. there's been a fair amount of muttering that 5.56mm kills, but does not incapacitate quickly enough. Swivel-eyed, furry chaps leap out from behind sofas at you and you want them to die immediately. Not even 2 or 3 seconds from now.

 

I _suppose_ there might be beneficial (i.e. nasty) effects from having two 5.56 bullets go through you in close proximity. Although I'd have to wonder what would happen if you made the rifling spin them in opposing directions.

sure, as long as you don't mind everyone carrying another ~4kg of extra gun and ammo weight Also I wonder if those guns use special mags or duct tape solutions, and what happens if you got a stoppage ...

[Woldan]

Although on topic of soldiers, just a quick note, that its less about the individual guns and more about the team, which is usually prepared for the worst.

Good point, I guess the general issue weapon doesn't matter much if you have guys in your team carrying LMG's and 7.62 designated marksman rifles. Still, I'd take the most versatile weapon. 

 

Also I wonder if those guns use special mags or duct tape solutions, and what happens if you got a stoppage ...

It accepts mags that are ''tied'' together with this special adapter-strap-thingy which has been available for AR mags a long time. Its like duct taping them together though with a spacer between them. I have no idea how reliabel it is though. 

[ShadySands]

[Aram]

 

My fixed (ish) Manurhins.