Everyone DOES understand why there can't be an Armed Population?

page: 20
24
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


.223 rem and NATO 5.56x45 are the same except for bullet weight and construction, not length. Standard .223 is 55 grain, which is the round the AR-15 was developed for by Stoner, and current NATO 5.45x45 is the SS-109, which has a 62 gr. projectile, and requires a different rifling twist on account of the added weight. The problem is that they've over-stabilized the bullet, trying to make something out of it which it was never designed for. Blame the USMC - they started that crap. The "added wear and tear" resulted from the higher weight bullet skipping the rifling and wearing it out quicker, not from a dimensional difference.

I've never had a feed problem with tracer or AP in either M-16's or AK's. The green tracers for AK's are a little disconcerting after getting used to red US tracers, but they can help point out which hole you need to be shooting into - just check to see where the green tracers are coming from. The tracers do tend to foul more, requiring more cleaning, but that's not a dimension problem. Tracer bullets tend to be longer to accommodate the tracer composition, but they are seated in the case to the same depth, giving the same overall length.

Ammo load is an individual thing - a standard US 5.56 loadout is 210 rounds, but SpecOps carry more, and the Soviet Spetnaz in Afghanistan regularly carried 600 round loadouts for their AK's. Regular Soviet troopers carried only 125 rounds, because they were only issued 5 30-round magazines per weapon, and Russian practice is to only load 25 rounds into each 30 round mag.. Those who could scrounge more magazines carried more ammo.

The "teflon coating" you are referring to is for pistol caliber bullets, not rifle. ANY center-fire rifle round will penetrate a IIa ballistic vest. ANY full metal jacketed round will, too - teflon or no. My vest has a titanium trauma plate that is supposed to be able to stop a 7.62x 51 NATO round, but I hope to never test that theory out. If it misses the trauma plate, it'll go through like a hot knife in butter - including through ME. You have to upgrade to level IIIa in order to start defeating those types of rounds, and IIIa isn't standard issue for beat cops, because it's so bulky. IIIa is what you see on SWAT teams. Steel core AP (rather than standard lead core ball) will punch through that, too.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 

Unlike the Body Armour that a Police SWAT team uses....a Hardened Bullet Tip along with Teflon coating will easily penetrate standard under uniform Police vests. And yes...for God Sakes...I know that the AR-15 is the General Public sales model of a Semi-Automatic M-16 but the M-16 has been changed in many ways very recently.

The .223 Remington and 5.56x45 NATO cartridges are very similar, and externally appear the same. But there are some differences that lie beneath the surface.

The 5.56 case has thicker walls to handle higher pressures, meaning the interior volume of the case is smaller than that of a .223. This will alter the loading data used when reloading 5.56 brass to .223 specs.

Some 5.56 loads have a slightly longer overall length than commercial .223 loads.

Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 

Also...my reference to Tracer Rounds has to do with the deterioration of the Rifle that uses them. Some Rifles...M-16 included...was known to experience EXTREME deterioration after repeated Tracer Round Ammo...so much so that it was redesigned...three times.

The M-16 will soon be replaced by a new Barrett that has the stopping power of an AK but also has the range very close to the current M-16 using the .223. This stopping power is necessary in Jungle Warfare in particular as one has to shoot through alot of Bush. Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I have been shot at close range and survived because I was rearing Highly Advanced Light Weight Body Armour. It has no metal plates or ceramic plates and is made by weaving Nylon, Kevlar and another kept secret type of Carbon Fiber filament that helps absorb impact.

Because of the close range...the vest was partialy penetrated...and I thought I was going to die...but I didn't and I saw it coming....I will NEVER make that mistake again.

General Rule...if who you are meeting is SMILING....they are either going to shoot at you or Blow you up.
Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

The M-16 will soon be replaced by a new Barrett that has the stopping power of an AK but also has the range very close to the current M-16 using the .223. This stopping power is necessary in Jungle Warfare in particular as one has to shoot through alot of Bush. Split Infinity



The stopping power of which AK? I wouldn't want one with the stopping power of the AKM or AK-47 - those are dismal. If it's the stopping power of the AK-74 instead, they may be on to something, but they should expect howls of outrage.

Afghans called the rounds fired by the '74 "poison bullets", because anyone hit with them rarely survived long enough to get to aid. The international community got spastic because of the hollow space in the bullet tip - the called it a "dum dum round", and claimed it was illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

If the US is going that route, they'll have to make the bullet lighter and less stable, and change the rifling rate again. What they'll wind up with is the old M-16 rounds from before the Marines started trying to make a sniper rifle out of an assault rifle.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

From what I have heard...a new version of a Barrett which will have the ability to fire under any and all conditions as well as have close to effective range as an M-16 .223 and a Heavier Grain but an Highly advanced burn or I guess I could say...it is in the propellent...will be the next new U.S. Standard Asault Riffle.

I hope you are wrong about what you post because it is important to knock down your enemy but at the same time...if you fire an AK-47 or the newer varient...it is tough to bring the eeapon back on to target. The M-16 barely moves...this new Barrett is being tested in that mindset of being able to carry more ammo but have stopping power and keep your sites on target when in either small bursts or even full auto.

Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


If by "newer variant" you mean the AK-74, it doesn't walk - that baby will just lay in your palm and purr out all 30 rounds. The AK-74 muzzle brake, ugly as it is, is the best thing since sliced bread! I can dump all 30 rounds into a 6 inch circle at 50 meters - not great for a sniper rifle, but MORE than adequate accuracy for an assault rifle on rock-n-roll.

Beware the "super rifle". They are always marketed as such, but none can be trusted to perform as advertised until the knots are shaken out in real combat rather than at the range.They all have trade offs, too. For example the AK will hold up under any conditions without breaking down, but you pay for that in weaker accuracy than a tighter built gun that will choke on a grain of dust. M-16s, for example, were billed as "maintenance free" when first adopted - and a lot of fine young men paid with their lives for believing that BS.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

The first Varients of the M-16's used in Nam were crap. They should have placed the people responsible for allowing that weapon to be used over there in it's first, second and even third varients....in a small room with no light favorably at the botton of the Ocean. Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I suppose that's a matter of opinion. The A1 variant was, for my money, the best of the bunch. The A2's and A3's used in Somalia were crap after their "improvement". it seems that, by overstabilizing the bullet, they developed a weapon that would punch a quarter-inch hole straight through, without the knockdown and energy dump of the earlier variants. the net result was that people were getting shot with them, failing to realize they were dead, and continuing to fight on and kill and wound Rangers and Marines.

The straight M-16 - the original variant - had corrosion problems in humid environments, like the jungles it was being used in, and fouling problems due to an improper propellant in the cartridges. the A1 variant addressed the corrosion by chrome plating the bore and chamber (which was already standard in AK's), and the fouling problem with a change in propellant and a cleaning program, neither of which was really a flaw in the weapon. With the addition of the forward assist assembly, It's my opinion that was when the AR-15 family reached the zenith of their potential, and subsequent developments went down hill.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

You are confusing the wording I am using or to be more precise...what was changed and how many times the original M-16. The public released lettered and numerical varients to not include the changes that were not made public in the beginning first M-16 Riffle.

No company nor Military personel who knew about the original shortfalls of the Weapon...then after catastrophic problems...secretly made modifications to correct these issues with the least amount of Congressional knowledge or even worse...public release of information from Soldiers in the field who had their M-16's Jam or if I can remember...there was a problem with feed problems as the M-16 uses it's own gas from the cartridge being fired to both extract the spent case and chamber a new cartridge. This High Pressure Gas impinges on a surface such as a piston head of such level of energy to unlock the Action...extract the spent case and eject and cock the striker.

This is done by funneling this gas through a tube. Unknown to most everyone...they had to rework this three times but never made it public and squashed all attemps at media release of the problem. So the Varients you list are not these three modified versions of the original M-16.

As far as the AK-74....this weapon is no where near as lethal as some of the new Barretts that are coming out or are in use now on a trial basis. I have fired alot of Rifles...but this one Barrett in particular...U.S. Made...Family owned and designed weapons....is like having a Light yet extremely powerful and acurate beyond belief weapon that can shoot the Flea off a Dog at REDICULOUS DISTANCES but not only have almost ZERO RECOIL....not have the disadvantages of some of the other new asault Rifles made by various well known companies both Foriegn and domestic.

It's rate of fire is VARIABLE. Thus you can actually dial down the amout of fired rounds per second or even Milisecond. It has stopping power that will tip over a empty metal Drum and has some of the charachteristics which make a M-16 our current weapon of choice but without the drawbacks.

It has a similar distance capability of effective range of kill as the M-16 yet even though it is a heavier Bullet but because of the design of the Bullet as well as a different type of propellent....it will not drop out of the air before hitting a distant target plus has less issues with wind or atmospheric effect on the .223. It will fire even when thrown in mud, water....etc...and best of all...it will not drift in your sholder grip either up or side to side like some new attemps by other companies. This is the RIFLE all U.S. troops should have as standard issue.

One last thing...it has a much longer active life span. Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by nenothtu
 

You are confusing the wording I am using or to be more precise...what was changed and how many times the original M-16. The public released lettered and numerical varients to not include the changes that were not made public in the beginning first M-16 Riffle.


Are you talking about Colt or Armalite internal development numberings? Is that what you mean?



No company nor Military personel who knew about the original shortfalls of the Weapon...then after catastrophic problems...secretly made modifications to correct these issues with the least amount of Congressional knowledge or even worse...public release of information from Soldiers in the field who had their M-16's Jam or if I can remember...there was a problem with feed problems as the M-16 uses it's own gas from the cartridge being fired to both extract the spent case and chamber a new cartridge. This High Pressure Gas impinges on a surface such as a piston head of such level of energy to unlock the Action...extract the spent case and eject and cock the striker.

This is done by funneling this gas through a tube. Unknown to most everyone...they had to rework this three times but never made it public and squashed all attemps at media release of the problem. So the Varients you list are not these three modified versions of the original M-16.


It uses a Ljungman Direct Gas system. Gas is bled off from the bore through a hole in the rear part of the front sight base, and fed directly back to the carrier key in the bolt carrier as raw gas through a tube - no pistons are used in the original design. It enters an expansion chamber in the bolt carrier and is then exhausted back out through the carrier key, driving the bolt carrier rearward which recocks the weapon and ejects, then chambers a fresh round. Work started in the late 70's to replace the direct gas system with a piston modification - the first I ever hear about was the "RHINO" modification, but it never caught on for general use. I hear one of the new variants uses a gas piston rather than a direct gas system.

The problem with the direct gas system in combination with the cheap powder first used was fouling of the gas tube and carrier key, resulting in a failure to cycle. One modification was to the powder to reduce the fouling problem.

I'm not familiar with the Barret rifle you mention. If it has a heavier bullet that doesn't drop as fast as the SS-109 round, it must have some phenomenal forward velocity, since bullet drop is determined by gravity acting on the mass of the bullet downward, countered by forward momentum getting it to the target before it drops. the old 55gr M-16 ammo ran at about 3200 fps, and I think the new stuff runs at about 2800 fps. In order for a heavier bullet to maintain a flatter trajectory, it's going to have to be zipping along a good bit faster than that.

One of the problems I have with the M-4 is too many Buck Rogers geegaws to add to it. More stuff is more stuff to break in the field, where it counts the most.

I restate beware the Magic Rifle Filed Tests - they rarely ever perform as well in combat. The original M-16 also had a Magic Rifle Field Testing, and we see where that went when it hit the combat zone. Same goes for the Britsh Bullpup design - it had to be redesigned to keep from getting guys in the field killed, too.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Yes...that was developed by Sweden I think originaly...the modifications you speak of were public...there were more issues that were non-public fixes.

You are correct as far as it being all in the force created and directed by the material...powder...burn or calculated kinetic transfer...as well as the balistic design of the bullet and velocity that allows it to have extreme range.

Approval will change the nature of the NATO standard. Split Infinity





top topics
 
24
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join