It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Say bye-bye to your old good M16 !

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by mad scientist
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.

Yes I know MS. But no, they really changed the weapon and it's ammo. It was a political issue in Belgium. Since the P-90 have been designed and is producted in Waloonia, some Flemishs policy makers have tryed to *kill* the P-90. They failed.

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 01:22 PM
lol ultra phoenix

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 01:27 PM
Lol, UP, I like your avatar.

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 02:09 PM
UP, you and Nans will likely end up getting married at that rate!

MS, do you have any information on the ballistics (specifically bullet weight and muzzle velocity) for the FN P-90?

It seems that the point of the P-90 is to produce a high volume of firepower for close range with increased penetration (although according to UP, it seems they are detracting from the penetration). This sounds like the requirements of a submachine gun.

If you need a weapon for up-close-and-personal confrontations, then yes, a subgun would be preferred. However, 9mm in my book just doesnt cut it. At the same time, I CANNOT see an advantage to going to an even smaller caliber!!!!! By far the subguns with the best stopping power at those chambered in .45 ACP.

In my book, the best subgun ever invented would be the Thompson M1928. It is rugged, virtually indestructible, the feed ramp is machined to accept virtually any cartridge shape that can fit in the magazine, and the weight and design are perfect for keeping good control when firing at full auto. I have fired one, and have no problems at all keeping an entire magazine within center of mass of a human shillouette at 25 and even 50 meters.

The alternatives to this would be the M3 Greasegun (acceptable), the Mac10 .45 (too small, too high rate of fire, too inaccurate, not acceptable), or the new HK .45 subgun (likely the preferred in todays world).

Of course, the queen of close quarters combat is a good reliable pump action 12 guage shotgun, preferrably with the shortest barrel possible. Firing 9 pellets of 00 Buckshot, or up to 41 pellets of #4 buckshot, it ends a close range fight very quickly.

If you need enhanced penetration, the Treasury Department developed a 9mm ammo that uses tungsten carbide drill shanks machined into flechettes and fitted into sabots... they are rumored to be able to penetrate Level III tactical vests from an HK MP5.

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 02:14 PM
Like the G 11, its most significant characteristic is its ammunition. The development of this cartridge reflects NATO concerns that the 9 x 19 mm ball ammunition used in most handguns and sub-machine guns possesses insufficient power for the battlefield of the 21st century

I laughed for a while when I read this!!!!!

I agree, the 9mm lacks a bit of stopping power, but to remedy that, you go to a smaller bullet?????? yeah, ok, that makes sense....

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by joehayner
Lol, UP, I like your avatar.

Of course, my new avatar is just temporary.I'll keep it some days.

But your avatar is funny too.

Originally posted by dragonrider
1) UP, you and Nans will likely end up getting married at that rate!

2) It seems that the point of the P-90 is to produce a high volume of firepower for close range with increased penetration (although according to UP, it seems they are detracting from the penetration). This sounds like the requirements of a submachine gun.

1) Huum, I have to see with my wife. She probably has a different point of view.

2) Yep, the P-90 is good for close combat. But actually, the P-90 cartridge can NOT penetrate anything, except a body. That cartridge don't penetrate body armor, helmet and so on.... Also, if you are hit by a P-90 cartridge, the bullet will stay inside you and will not coming out from your back. It's a security. If someone is behind the guy who's hitted, he/she will be safe. The new P-90 cartridge has been designed to wound, not to kill, and to avoid any * collateral damage *.

Also, if you don't hit your target, but you hit a wall, a car ...etc... the bullet will smash against the wall and will not go somewhere else after having hitted the wall.

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 05:16 PM
As to the claim that the 5.56mm was designed to hit targets at 1000 meters....

From a full size AR-15, the 55 gr FMJ round at 1000 meters will be traveling at 799 feet per second, producing 78 foot pounds of energy, or about 2x the muzzle energy of a .177 air rifle. It will experience 711 inches of drop or about 19.75 meters of bullet drop from point of aim

The 7.62mm NATO 147 gr FMJ at 1000 meters will still be traveling 1047 feet per second (still supersonic!) producing 365 foot pounds of energy, or about the same as the muzzle energy of a 9mm handgun.

There are MANY documented cases of the 7.62mm being used successfully (by snipers) at 1000 meters, and beyond.

I am STILL waiting for an explaination of why smaller lighter calibers and high tech are any better than what we had 50 years ago????

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 04:35 PM
On this link, I find many references to 7.62mm being used to 1000 meters, but NO reference to 5.56mm being used beyond 300 meters.

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 11:01 PM
I have a reason, a full caliber rifles is almost useless in Urban enviroments. This was learned (painfully) in WWII by especially Germany when soldiers armed with Kar 98s were taking high casualties in Urban enviroments. The reason was the large rifles were to unwieldy and the ROF was to slow. I know the Mauser 98 was bolt action, but the semi-auto rifles didn't fare much better. Both the Germans and Russians reached a similar conclusion, submachine guns beat rifles in Urban enviroments, but were useless in the field, thus the Asssualt Rifle was born. The idea was (and is) that a soldier with an assualt rifle can still fight at the average combat/accuracy range (300m) and recieve the benefits of a rapid fire weapon in close combat they would be more effective overall. As for the small caliber (5mm or less) vs. large caliber (7mm or more) intermediate round debate i've heard arguements and seen supporting (and often contradictory) evidence from both sides, so I make no judgement there. Since it is (as far as I know) accepted that most future conflicts will take place in cities, the long range full caliber rifle is pointless.

On a more specific note, I've heard good things about the Russian 5.45x39mm round, and the wound channel it produces is pretty impressive, the temporary and permanent cavities are roughly equal to a NATO 7.62x51 and the idea that 9x39mm is the new prefered russian caliber is completely false, they 9x39 is a special subsonic round designed for special ops and is not issued to regular soldiers.

For info and charts on termianl ballistics see:

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 12:15 AM
This weapon is the leading contender for replacing the m4 in our military...

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 02:50 AM
Actually, the new player in the game is a re-vamped M4 using a new cartridge in 6.8mm. All that is needed is an upper receiver change out - or replacing the barrel and bolt - and a slightly re-designed mag. Do a search on 6.8 SPC and you will find out the info on it. FYI they are being sold commercially as well now too - around $600 - $1200 (depending on the maker) for a new upper for your AR-15 (or clone). Also, another new development is polymer cased ammo that the military is looking at - lighter weight than conventional brass cased ammo. And by coincidence (?) a round of the new 6.8mm ammo in a polymer case weighs in about the same as a standard 5.56mm brass cased round. Oh and the polymer cases cannot be reloaded! Kinda dries up the "secondary supply chain"!

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 02:54 PM
The XM-8 are already in field trials with the army...the M4 is too unreliable in adverse conditions...that is why they are looking for a replacement.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by mad scientist

"If one greatest innovation of WWII in realtion to small arms was the German research and development of the assault rifle, vastly increasing the firepower of small units."

==Too little Too late for NAZI dominated Germany,
which could never field panzer-grenadier or light infantry units armed exclusively with MP//SG-42/3/4s to test the idea that such use would result in firepower supremacy against the prevailing mix of small arms & tactics used by Russian, American, or British forces of the day.
--So, they stayed tied to their strict infantry tactics based on the use of light, mobile Machine guns --MG34-&-42-- used as direct fire weapons to gain firepower supremacy
in the hand held and bipod role, as well as on tripods for direct & indirect fires.
These being 7.92 mm X 57 mm, in comparison to 7.92 mm X 33 mm for the MP//SGs,
clearly shows the gap in bullet weight, powder charge and effectiveness that fuels the arguments,- that are still current, even today, between 7.62 & 5.56 NATO.

==The German assault rifle development line finally evolved into the Cetme in an odd 8 mm long spire tip bullet, then 7.62 NATO in Spain, then back to Germany as the G-3 rifle in 7.62 NATO, which was overpowering the design, as it was intended for an intermediate cartridge of far less power, with a third to half more cartridges available in the magazine, a battlefield tool denied fruition by politics and Germany's defensive, non - aggressive stance of the cold war era.
==The FN-FAL used by germany as the G-1 was another design engineered for a far less potent intermediate cartridge that was stretched to its limits to accept the 7.62 NATO round. Later both design systems, somewhat modified, were made in 5.56 NATO, AND proved beyond doubt that they could perform admirably as the "assault rifles" their designers had originally conceptualized.

==Both these outstanding designs did yeoman service as post Korean war BATTLE RIFLES, leaving the field of firearms development glory to the genius of Kalashnikov,
whose AK47 & 7.62 X 39 Cartridge stood tall, without competition of any sort, until 1967 and the adoption of the M16 series of rifles by the US army, whose design limitations put it in second place to the Kalashnikov, and has had it ever evolving since its inception until the current moment, when short stroke gas pistons !!!, and larger caliber and cartridge case capacity rounds, in 6.8 & 7.62 NATO even !!!, are in use by elements of US forces in the current conflict. Can we just ever once get it mostly right the first time around ??!!!!---obviously not.

==Design wise, an intermediate cartridge rifle that gives a perfect solution to short range Urban combat in rooms or up to 300 meters, as well as open country, desert, and mountain distances that can reach 1200 meters, is just not in the cards.

So, first of all, a cartridge has to be developed to do all the jobs,
with a critical eye turned to rifle design at the same time.
5.56 is too small, 7.62 is too big.
And 7.62 X39, is a darn good Urban solution to 300 meters,
in the hands of good riflemen, but lacks the power to do much more than that.
Who has a good suggestion of where to go developing that Holy Grail Cartridge ??

The M14 could be tweaked and turned out in the Holy Grail Cartridge.
The M16 could be tweaked and turned out in the Holy Grail Cartridge.
I would walk the walk with either one.
And BOTH final improved versions would do a bang up job.
What other weapons platform could be the best for the job ??

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in