The US Army says its new guns will 'penetrate any known body armour'

a reply to: roguetechie

That wasn't my point, but I don't disagree.

My point was the round being proposed is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

And hey, I liked the 90's BBS's! LOL

a reply to: CaptainBeno

So they are switching to the 6.8 round, interesting.

On the downside this mean's that a hell of a lot of formerly military grade US weaponry will be sold around the world and end up as always in the hand's of the wrong guy's.

Still it is a simple matter of fact time does not stand still and the US and it's Nato allies need upgraded weapon's to deal with upgraded threat's.

Of course then it is only a matter of time before those threat's adapt as well, same old same old round goes the merry go round and the money pour's into the arms industry while children pay the price.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
Cool! I can't wait to see this in civilian hands (Tongue firmly placed in cheek).....cough. Sorry no picture

Why? My 7mm can do it now.

Well, that's the paradox of military technology. Once they realize it can be done, they rush to bring it into existence so it can't be created by someone else and used on them first. Yes, it will be used on them, but in their eyes, logic dictates it's better to stand on equal ground.
a reply to: Echo007

a reply to: CaptainBeno

cool even better ways to kill each other faster than before !

now american military can kill twice as many people in the same amount of time!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: roguetechie

That wasn't my point, but I don't disagree.

My point was the round being proposed is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

And hey, I liked the 90's BBS's! LOL

Shoot why dont they just developed HEAT rounds fired from a rifle instead? or just make a bullet that dont need to pen the target with sheer force shatter their insides. armor still transmits force of impact.

a reply to: yuppa

wouldn't it be better if they could just develop a system of fighting without fighting

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: roguetechie

That wasn't my point, but I don't disagree.

My point was the round being proposed is a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

And hey, I liked the 90's BBS's! LOL

Shoot why dont they just developed HEAT rounds fired from a rifle instead? or just make a bullet that dont need to pen the target with sheer force shatter their insides. armor still transmits force of impact.

Shoulder fired HEAT you say well sir I have just the treat for you:

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Yeah sometimes I have trouble interpreting "you" statements and I puzzle and puzzle over whether the "you" is me or not.

Phase one was learning not to go off totally half-cocked over perceived sleights. It makes life better.

Probably doesn't even matter. Every video I have ever seen, they spray everything they have at what appears to be nothing, then call in an airstrike or arty. Bullets don't seem to do much killing in war these days.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Man... I don't know about that.

The Art of War would seem to argue against giving any information away, except to deceive in some way.

a reply to: CosmicAwakening

These days?

Artillery is and always has been the biggest battlefield killer since shortly before the advent of smokeless powder.

Air strikes are in there somewhere too, but there's a reason arty is called the king of the battlefield.

And btw

Prophylactic suppressive fire trades bullets for lives.

This is why people like me are worried by this entire thing.

Also, there are times where the shooter sees something the camera doesn't / combat is the ultimate extreme sport where people who unnecessarily expose themselves to the other team don't get do overs.

Just as in MSM... the stupid dictate a star and a flag.

a reply to: roguetechie

Having fought in Afghanistan i can tell you i know more about it then you do. First lets get some things straight you got wrong. An AK 47 Has a maximum effective range of 400 meters An m4 500 meters. problem is a target wearing body armor at 500 meters will survive an m4. In fact, I've seen hits at 300 meters and they were still able to run. However, If you get hit by a 7.62 in our Improved Outer Tactical Vest at 400 meters it was going through unless you added trauma plates.(most people didnt carry or have them with them most of the time) But even then IBA failed a lot through the new armour is better its not that much better and MTV will fail as well as Russias FMJ will penetrate a quarter inch of steel . Now to win a fire fight we relied on optics we want to reach out and touch you at the longest range possible. So for us we wanted the battle at 400 to 500 meters but the lethality of the M4 drops drastically at that range. Thats why you always wanted someone around with a M14EBR it can reach out to 800 meters easily but that is 7.62.

Now if you had everyone with that ability firefights would be ended quickly because instead of just having one sniper your entire squad becomes a sniper. The 123 grain 6.5mm has a muzzle velocity of about 3,000 feet per second.Comparatively, the 62 grain bullet on the M855A1 has a muzzle velocity of 2,970. So lethality will greatly increase with a minimal increase in weight the rounds themselves are about 40 percent lighter but to carry standard 200 rounds will require 3 extra clips.But as i said the manufacturer said they will eventually have 30 round clips.

a reply to: dragonridr

Thank you for your service but you just triggered me with the clip instead of mag.

originally posted by: BigDave-AR
a reply to: dragonridr

Thank you for your service but you just triggered me with the clip instead of mag.

A magazine feeds the gun while a clip feeds the magazine. People get this wrong a lot but with the new rounds they will use clips as well so i used it.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: BigDave-AR
a reply to: dragonridr

Thank you for your service but you just triggered me with the clip instead of mag.

A magazine feeds the gun while a clip feeds the magazine. People get this wrong a lot but with the new rounds they will use clips as well so i used it.

See I thought you were referring to stripper clips but then you said 30 round clip and lost me. Usually stripper clips are in 5 or 10 round, you sure you might not have gotten a little dyslexic?

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening
Probably doesn't even matter. Every video I have ever seen, they spray everything they have at what appears to be nothing, then call in an airstrike or arty. Bullets don't seem to do much killing in war these days.

Someones apparently never been in combat........

Trust me bullets do exactly what they are suppose to , and alot of those airstrikes are being called in by people dead ass looking at that target, and they wouldnt be alive to do it without those bullets

a reply to: CaptainBeno

What's the difference if you just need a head shot? (I know, most infantry are not trained to be snipers.)

Seriously though, I wonder if the bullet has a tungsten or titanium or some super hard ceramic casing.

originally posted by: CosmicAwakening
Probably doesn't even matter. Every video I have ever seen, they spray everything they have at what appears to be nothing, then call in an airstrike or arty. Bullets don't seem to do much killing in war these days.

Maybe you're seeing covering fire.