And you mean ???

Originally posted by dragonrider
And you mean ???

He wrote in Russian. You have to have the russian font if you want to understand what he wrote.

Interesting topic, one I can certainly help out on. I would stick with my good ol' M4 with a 203 on it anyday. Ha ha whoever said 5.56 isn't good beyond 300 m.....whatever dude. I hit 600 m and that was with my crappy red dot sight of which I hate. Oh well, some people just can't shoot I guess. As in generally, not to whoever said that. I love iron sights.

Ha ha whoever said 5.56 isn't good beyond 300 m.....whatever dude. I hit 600 m and that was with my crappy red dot sight of which I hate. Oh well, some people just can't shoot I guess. As in generally, not to whoever said that. I love iron sights. Posted by SandMan

You will have to do this on the range with me as witness to believe this. Under any kind of wind condition, 5.56mm will yaw entire degrees off course (we're not talking MOA here). At 600 meters, the 5.56mm is producing around 100 foot pounds of energy, which is about what .22lr will do at 25 meters. At the same distance, 7.62mm NATO is still producing around 800-900 foot pounds, or about what a .44 mag does at 25 meters.

SandMan, I would also ask what rifle you were using that you hit at 600 meters with 5.56, and what ammunition.

I was at the range yesterday with my Springfield M1A, using Portuguese 147 gr FMJ surplus ammo... with iron sights I shot 3 inch group at 300 meters. With a Springfield Armory 14x scope, I shot 2 3/4" group with same ammo at 500 meters. (And my range officer will verify this claim)

Using Federal Gold Medal match .308M 168 gr Boattail Hollowpoint and scope, I have shot 2" groups at 650 meters.

Well dragonrider.....I hit 600 m with my good ol M4 using NATO 5.56 of course. And you're just going to have to take my word for it since the chances of us being on the same range and me with an M4 with NATO rounds is 0%. Mind you I was shooting at a big target but I got a few in the black, the center part, but with no magnification so the black was a teeny tiny dot.

Yeah, my Father is actually a circuit maker for a company that has been hired by Heckler and Koch to produce the OICW. Its actually looking like a very nifty gun.

Well dragonrider.....I hit 600 m with my good ol M4 using NATO 5.56 of course. And you're just going to have to take my word for it since the chances of us being on the same range and me with an M4 with NATO rounds is 0%. Mind you I was shooting at a big target but I got a few in the black, the center part, but with no magnification so the black was a teeny tiny dot. Posted by Sandman

Actually I do believe you probably hit the target... assuming that it was a 12 foot by 12 foot target, and you sprayed a couple of magazines downrange towards it, the laws of probability lean toward a couple of rounds hitting it out of close to a hundred.

However, my M1A would guarantee at least a 95% hit rate at such range for a standard human sihlouette target.

Allow me to provide a bit of ballistic education for those enamored with the 5.56mm....

Please keep in mind that first and foremost, the .223 Remington, AKA the 5.56mm NATO was originally designed as nothing more than a varmint cartridge. By contrast, the 7.62mm NATO was designed from the ground up as a combat cartridge, and later sporterized in the guise of the .308 Winchester round.

The 5.56mm is nothing more than a .22 bullet that gets all its magic from its hypervelocity. Take that velocity away, and you are back to square one, a very small .22 bullet.

The 5.56mm NATO is rated for a 55 gr FMJ bullet with a muzzle velocity of approximately 3000 feet per second, generating 1099 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. At 600 meters, this same bullet is traveling at 1240 feet per second, generating 188 foot pounds of energy. By comparison, that is the equivalent of a .38 Spl revolver with 158 gr bullet producing 190 foot pounds of energy at 100 meters, or a .22 long rifle bullet producing 156 foot pounds of energy at 25 meters. At 600 meters, this bullet drops over 128 inches. (not very impressive)

The 7.62mm NATO driving a 147 gr FMJ bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2800 feet per second (a bullet almost 3x the 5.56 weight and 2/3 the velocity) generating 2611 foot pounds of energy (2.6 times the 5.56mm) at the muzzle. At 600 meters, the 7.62MM is still traveling at 1558 feet per second, generating 809 foot pounds of energy. This is equivalent to a .44 magnum with 240 gr bullet producing 843 foot pounds of energy at 50 meters, or 50% more energy than a .357 magnum with 158 gr bullet produces at the muzzle, or 2.5X the energy that a 9mm produces at the muzzle. (and this is from over 600 meters!)

*All muzzle velocities are average, with standard bullet weights. Data from Sierra Reloading Manual, 2nd edition (yeah, I know its old, but the data is still perfectly valid).

Now, as I mentioned before, the 5.56mm magic comes from its ultra muzzle velocity, but as we see above, that velocity disappears very quickly. This muzzle velocity is also derived from the standard length 20 inch barrel of the M-16/AR-15 family.

However, the new rage in US firearms, especially in the new M4 carbine, is the much shorter 16 and sometimes 14 inch barrels. Some "entry" models have barrels as short as 7 inches! Ever wonder what that does to the muzzle velocity, when you take that much barrel away?

From a recent gun test of a popular civilian legal AR-15 clone with a 16 inch carbine barrel, the highest recorded muzzle velocity with a standard 55 gr bullet was only 2770 feet per second, which would generate only 890 foot pounds of energy (just over what a .44 magnum does at 50 meters). Pretty powerful for a handgun, but pretty piss poor for a rifle. Ballistically speaking, with a barrel that short, you are NO LONGER shooting a 5.56mm, but essentially, well, lets see (flipping pages), the calibers listed with similar ballistics would be a .22 Hornet or a .218 Bee, both of which are varmint rounds, only marginally hotter than the .22 Winchester Rimfire Magnum (as it turns out, only about 30% hotter than a rimfire bullet).

So, with a 55 gr bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2800 feet per second from an M4, at 600 meters it is at 1141 feet per second, generating 159 foot pounds of energy, with 153 inches of drop.

Oh you say you use the 62 gr NATO load? OK, that would produce (from an M4) 2600 feet per second at the muzzle, 945 foot pounds of energy, and at 600 meters 1059 feet per second and 157 foot pounds of energy, with 183 inches of drop.

Do you really want to trust you life to a .22 rimfire????

Originally posted by SandMan

Ha ha whoever said 5.56 isn't good beyond 300 m.....whatever dude. I hit 600 m and that was with my crappy red dot sight of which I hate. Oh well, some people just can't shoot I guess.

Really ?

I would like to see it with my own eyes.

It seems that we've moved off topic somewhat. The 5.56 and 7.62 both have their advantages and disadvantages however much depends int the weapon firing them as well.
Whilst some unique rifles have been posted, many are just remakes of the same old assault rifle crap.
So, please gentlemen let's see some more posts on exotic technologies for small arms. Not just the weapons but advances in ammunition as well.

I agree with you mad scientist, but I'm still waiting that someone show me where the 5.56 has an advantage over the 7.62 mm.

I've used both of them,in different occasion and situation, and I know what am I talking about. The 5.56 is just good for the bin.

I agree with you mad scientist, but I'm still waiting that someone show me where the 5.56 has an advantage over the 7.62 mm. Posted by Ultra Phoenix

I would second this motion.

I think I have pretty much proven the ballistic inferiority of the 5.56mm to the 7.62mm NATO, and I still am waiting for someone to explain to me how the new high tech crap is going to keep someone alive in a battle better than what is already available.

Take for example, the fact that the 3 main 7.62mm rifles available: The M1A/M14, based on the M1 Garand, originally designed in the 1930s: the Heckler and Koch HK91, basically an adaptation of the system pioneered by the Germans in the MG42 machine gun from WWII, and the FN FAL, which is just a refinement of the FN49 rifle, which began construction in 1949 (the FN FAL was first produced in 1956 I believe).

All 3 of these rifles are at least half a century old, all of them are totally battle proven, and have reputations for extreme ruggedness, reliability, and accuracy.

MS mentioned at one time the Steyr AUG. I have fired this rifle, and I will readily admit that it is a well built, rugged, reliable and accurate rifle. I ask, what can it do that the M1A, the oldest of this trio, cannot do? (Cannot do better???)

The M1A is at least as rugged as the AUG, at least as accurate if not more so, and still has at least 2x the effective range. I would not hesitate to use the M1A in any environment that one would likely engage an enemy.

Aside from the ballistic superiority of the M1A over the AUG, I would also argue that in the event of parts breakage, the M1A is easier to field service and repair than the AUG. (I cannot speak to how breakage prone the AUG is due to my limited experience, although I will say such breakage is extremely rare with the M1A)

Therefore, I still await an explaination of how the new technology will make things easier on the footsoldier on the battlefield of the future over what we fielded before.

Dragon and UP, do you know of anywhere to get information on new experimantal calibres of amunition being developed for small arms ?

Originally posted by mad scientist
Dragon and UP, do you know of anywhere to get information on new experimantal calibres of amunition being developed for small arms ?

I understand what you mean MS. But Dragon and I, we aren't speaking about the new ammo.We are deeply convinced that only the 7.62 is reliable. I've used some others calibers, and each time, I was thinking something like this : " gimme my ol' 7.62. I want my old good 7.62 damn it ".

It's like for the hand guns, I like the .45 ACP. I'm a conservative. I only do a concession to the new Belgian FN P-90 and it's new ammo.

The newest ammunition that I am aware of in terms of technology would likely be the caseless ammo made for the HK G11. I *did* read the post MS put up regarding the G11, and it was very interesting. However, I would say it is even more useless than the 5.56mm in terms of ballistics.

The G11 uses a 4.3mm (.17 caliber) bullet at approximately 3050 feet per second muzzle velocity (all I can say is that this concept is moving in the wrong direction)... Bullet weight is not given, but I will assume 25 gr as that is the normal commercially available bullet weight for this caliber.

According to my calculations, this combination produces 518 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. This correlates approximately with a .357 magnum launching a 125 gr bullet from a 6 inch barrel producing 544 foot pounds of energy... so essentially, you have a brand new high tech assault rifle that is just barely making the energy of a well established, well respected handgun...

*If you wish to do your own calculations, the formula for finding foot pounds of energy is

muzzle FPE=((V*V)/450240)*WT

FPE=foot pounds energy
V=muzzle velocity (feet per second)
WT=bullet weight (grains)

This is actually almost an order of magnitude below the energy and muzzle velocity produced by the older .17 Remington cartridge, which normally produces 4200 feet per second velocity.

I have a friend who had a .17 Remington and soon sold it: He said it was an amazing but useless gun. It would shoot absolutely flat trajectory for 400 meters, but had no stopping power. He used it for hunting Coyote once, and after he shot a coyote at 200 meters 4 times in the kill zone (he knew he hit it because he saw the dust puff off of the animals fur at impact), and the coyote simply looked around like it just heard a noise each time and simply walk on undisturbed. He reported shooting at coke cans at 200 meters: the 25 gr bullet would penetrate one side and knock it down, but would fail to penetrate the opposite side: he almost always found his expended bullets inside the cans.

I do understand that similar ammunition has been produced for the FN P-90, based on the .223 bullet, so hopefully the stopping power wont be as bad as the above (I'll still stick to my 7.62mm however!). But I have not seen any info on ballistics for it, ect.

From what I've read of the new 5.7*28mm P-90 ammo, it has the ability to penetrate body armour and helmets up to 200m. So, it may have a promising future in replacing the 9mm as premier submachinegun round. No doubt as the ammo is developed it will become more lethal.

Originally posted by dragonrider

He used it for hunting Coyote once, and after he shot a coyote at 200 meters 4 times in the kill zone (he knew he hit it because he saw the dust puff off of the animals fur at impact), and the coyote simply looked around like it just heard a noise each time and simply walk on undisturbed.

....Sorry, it's too much funny.

I'm not the right guy to speak about new so-called " super-ammo ", since I ONLY * believe * in the 7.62 mm.

But it's true for the P-90. It really is a dangerous weapon ( cuz the ammo ); and I know that they did some modifications on it. Now, the new version can NOT penetrate a body armor or an helmet anymore.

It may just be a different version of teh ammo UP. Sometimes penetration power is detrimental to the requirements of a mission ie. inside a plane.