Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

M-16 Rifle May Be on Way Out of U.S. Army
AP, Yahoo! ^ | 11-22-03 | Slobodan Lekic

Posted on 11/22/2003 1:50:36 PM PST by Ex-Dem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
To: CWOJackson
I lust after one of the Springfield M1As. Probably my next major firearms purchase. Something in a National Match, perhaps, Swarovski glass...(sound of BtD hyperventilating)...
51 posted on 11/22/2003 2:54:03 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem

52 posted on 11/22/2003 2:55:00 PM PST by The KG9 Kid (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale

You mean like this?

53 posted on 11/22/2003 2:55:25 PM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
The Japanese Model 97 Arisaka was 6.5 mm. The .30-06 trumped it every time. A .30-06 with standard AP could penetrate a palm tree and kill the man behind it. The 6.5mm used by both the Italians and the IJA was underpowered, and lacked the cross-sectional area to rip parts off, which is the function of a rifle. Hit a man with one round of .30-06, he is going down. Hit him with several, like from a M1919 Browning, or a BAR, and he will be separated into several steaming parts.

The M-1 carbine was too hot for a pistol round, and too wussy for a rifle. Little girls and the Army liked it though... Recoil being such a major factor for beanie wearing metrosexuals...

54 posted on 11/22/2003 2:55:31 PM PST by jonascord (Don't bother to run, you'll only die tired...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
The idea of mixing in some longer-range capability (see: Afghanistan's wide-open mountain battles) and quick-reaction short-range capability within a platoon is a good idea, but has problems in implementation.

Those of us who read about 10th Mountain troops in Afghanistan being shelled by mortars from 1000 yards, but unable to answer back with their M-16s and M-4s probably thought it would be nice to have one Barrett M82A1 .50 BMG rifle among each platoon (depending on the mission/terrain), to handle such situations.

For immeditate reaction at short range, a shotgun might not be the right solution, because the attackers are often in cars. A short-barrel weapon firing at least .308 would be nice.

55 posted on 11/22/2003 2:55:51 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Chamber the M4 into a .308 round ... perfect short range battle rifle.....
56 posted on 11/22/2003 2:56:47 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you ought, perform without fail what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man
Yes, that's the one. And they'll soon be manufactured here in the U.S., I believe.
57 posted on 11/22/2003 2:57:33 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
and a handy little 10mm Thompson

I always thought the MP-5 in a 10mm would do the trick.

5.56mm. Isn't that just your basic squirrel hunting sized .22 ? (Ok, with a little more muzzle velocity)

We may never see the good 'ol days of the 30-06 and .308 because all of the wimmin folk and the slack jawed, shallow chested boys coming into the army couldn't handle the kick like real fighting men.

58 posted on 11/22/2003 2:58:12 PM PST by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
The M-16 combines the size of a full size battle rifle with the knock down power power of a submachine gun and a range that splits the difference. That means its combines the worst features of battle rifles and submachine guns.

If the Army is going to make infantry drag around a full size rifle it might as well give them a cartridge of at least .308.

If the Army is going to send everybody who rides around in vehicles into battle with weapon with modest range and knock down power, they might as well make it short and handy and shoot .45 or 9mm. I saw a photo from this year of a Special Forces vehicle manned by soldiers armed with Sterlings. These are basically upgraded Stens, in 9mm, issued by the Brits in the 1950s to eveybody who didn't get a full size rifle.

What ever new weapons that are adopted need to be at least as rugged the AK-47.

59 posted on 11/22/2003 2:59:24 PM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
LOL yup they did. Was that not called a blunderbuss or if you consider any thrown object, even a rock? :-)
60 posted on 11/22/2003 3:03:23 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Ruger makes the Mini 30 which I understand uses the same round as the AKs. It also uses the garand action which is the best ever.
61 posted on 11/22/2003 3:04:39 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Hate the Soviets but you gotta hand it to 'em the AK is one hell of a weapon.
62 posted on 11/22/2003 3:05:13 PM PST by StoneColdTaxHater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
I don't doubt there are problems in implementation, but are these problems larger than the issues with the 5.56 round?

A Barrett at all times would be nice - especially with one of those Canadian snipers on the trigger. Was that a 2400 meter shot in Afstan? Unreal.

63 posted on 11/22/2003 3:05:22 PM PST by AngryJawa ("The bang is great, but the shockwave is where itís at.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
That a Steyr Aug? Any good?
64 posted on 11/22/2003 3:09:24 PM PST by Ex-Dem (not just another brick in the wall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
AKs are more reliable functionally, but are less accurate and have less impressive terminal ballistics

I always thought the AK74 utilized the 223, or facsimile.

65 posted on 11/22/2003 3:10:59 PM PST by steppenwolffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
" when it comes to recoil but the Garand is a sweetheart in that respect."

To alleviate any concerns about "punishing recoil", my Drill Sergeant would take his M14 and place the buttplate on his crotch, then fire a few rounds downrange.

I always supected he was wearing an armored jock, but couldn't prove it...

66 posted on 11/22/2003 3:11:35 PM PST by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Squantos; blam; Lazamataz
I'd like to see all "obsolete" military M-16's sold at or below cost (hey, they're used) to U.S. civilians, rather than de-milled.

I'll take 2.

67 posted on 11/22/2003 3:12:45 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
Could'nt use the wire guided Dragon anti-tank gun in Alaska. They said the snow and many rivers/lakes would ground out the attached wire.

So we carried (2) 90mm recoiless anti-tank guns per platoon. We had HE, HEAT, WP, and anti-personnel rounds(Flechette). You think the M-60 was a PIG, I won't say what we called those 90's!

They gave us an advantage over small arms and dug in targets. When you fired one off, everyone ducked. Simple, and versatile, and it got the job done. All this old weaponary is still around and cheap, why not use it?
68 posted on 11/22/2003 3:13:22 PM PST by duk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Pilsner
Define "modest range"? The 5.56 is moderately efective out to maybe 500 yds. The 9mm is not very effective out to maybe 100 yds.
69 posted on 11/22/2003 3:14:11 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: AngryJawa
The 5.56mm round is not really the issue in the story at the top of this thread. In Iraq right now, the issues are the difficulty of bringing a 40" rifle to bear on a suddenly attacking enemy in an Urban environment, and the reliability of the M-16s mechanism in fine talcum-like sand.

The 5.56mm certainly isn't ideal, but it does have its advantages. It creates unusually nasty wounds due to the bullet design and high velocity of the rounds, but it is more easily deflected than heavier rounds, and has more trouble penetrating light cover. Check these links for info on the ballistic performance of 5.56mm rounds:

AR-15

Yes, that was some shot by the Canadian. I think it got him a U.S. medal, since he took some heat off of our soldiers.

Overall, I think the U.S. military will be more open to ideas like the ones you've expressed, as the likelihood of sustained, continuous and varied combat over the next decade or so will call for more inventive solutions. A less monolithic culture will hopefully allow the Army to more quickly adapt weapons and tactics that will maximize effectiveness.

70 posted on 11/22/2003 3:20:49 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
The OICW has been pushed back, since they didn't think they could develop it in a reasonable amount of time. The likely replacement for the M16/M4 is the XM-8. It's a variation on the HK G36. See http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

There's also been some talk of adopting a 6.8 X 43mm round. It has the same overall length as the 5.56, so it can be used with existing rifle magazine wells and magazines. About a 110 grain bullet, and a trajectory that's fairly similar to the 5.56 over the first 150 yards.
71 posted on 11/22/2003 3:27:28 PM PST by mcgredo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: steppenwolffe
The Ak-74 fires a round fairly similar to the 5.56mm.

Here's a link to photos:

AK74

Here'a a study about terminal ballitsics:

AK74performance

72 posted on 11/22/2003 3:27:59 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for the rearming of the U.S. Army. It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW.

?

The OICW is a G36K with a massive, semi-automatic grenade launcher on top.

It is not the kind of weapon that will replace standard assault rifles any time soon.

73 posted on 11/22/2003 3:28:15 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Anyone wanting more info on the OICW can go here:

OICW


74 posted on 11/22/2003 3:36:40 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
I think there will be few wet eyes in the house with the demise of the M16. During my military career, I carried the 03, the M1, the M14 and the M16. Never did trust the M16 and in Nam, I pulled a "midnight survey," upgrading my personal protection to the M14. At least I felt like I could "reach out and touch someone."
75 posted on 11/22/2003 3:37:45 PM PST by Joee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
They are already being "given" to Police Departments under the POTUS WOD Assistance Program.....aka ...POTUSWODAP....(no it doesn't have web feet and a duck bill )...check yer local LEO's cruisers.....:o)

CMP thang would be kewl indeed !

Stay Safe !

76 posted on 11/22/2003 3:46:50 PM PST by Squantos (Support Mental Health !........or........ I"LL KILL YOU !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
Springfield Armory sold a short barreled M1A1 years ago with a folding stock. With the stock folded it was a bit over 30" long. It would be dandy in close quarters. And a .30 caliber to boot rather than the poodle round.
77 posted on 11/22/2003 3:54:14 PM PST by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: All
Take an AK47 and refine it to the tenth degree and you get one of the finest made AK47s, a Valmet Sako 76F. Used by the Finnish Army. A real quality made item. Too bad they're so expensive. Remember, our weapons are made by the cheapest bidder.
78 posted on 11/22/2003 3:56:06 PM PST by Bringbackthedraft (Hillary will you run today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Squantos; GlocksRock; TexasCowboy; humblegunner; Flyer; Travis McGee; Joe Brower
I'd like to see all "obsolete" military M-16's sold at or below cost (hey, they're used) to U.S. civilians, rather than de-milled.

I'll take 2.

I am kinda hard on weapons so I'll take 3!!!

Durn good idea!!!

79 posted on 11/22/2003 4:00:53 PM PST by Eaker (When the SHTF, I'll go down with a cross in one hand, and a Glock in the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: crz
The Ruger Ranch rifle, while it employs a Garand style gas system, (more like a shrunk M-14 type, with a gas-driven piston hitting the end of the operating rod, which cams the bolt out of lock.) is chambered for the 5.56mm NATO. The AK-74, like all USSR leftovers, is chambered so it can either use Red Army issue ball, or captured NATO ammunition, same as the AK-47 could chamber and function with .308 Nato, and the USSR 82mm mortar could fire the NATO 81mm shell. While they could fire ours, we could not fire USSR issue. As to whether this was worth much is open to debate.
If my side has to depend on scrounged enemy ammo to fight, I'm going to question if I am on the winning side...
80 posted on 11/22/2003 4:02:13 PM PST by jonascord (Don't bother to run, you'll only die tired...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
Bump for reading when I am not fat and sleepy ...
81 posted on 11/22/2003 4:04:35 PM PST by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I know caseless rounds have been experimented with before. Does anyone know if that is still a good idea? I think it would be less weight and bulk for the infantryman.

They've been pretty much put on the shelf as no one appreciated the amount of heat exiting the weapon along with the spent case during development. Caseless had cook-off problems.

82 posted on 11/22/2003 4:47:15 PM PST by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
Thanks. I had not realised this until this thread. But it sure makes sense.
83 posted on 11/22/2003 4:51:47 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: OldSmaj
Regarding post #21, that was the best thing I've read all month. Thanks.
84 posted on 11/22/2003 5:05:32 PM PST by pchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister; Eaker

Yes, that's the one. And they'll soon be manufactured here in the U.S., I believe.

The XM8 rifle under consideration to replace the M4 carbine and many of the M16A2 rifles is a little different in form from the German G-36, though derived thereof. But ongoing troop trials with the preproduction versions may yet reveal some overlooked flaws or disadvantages deemed worthy of correction, so the final production version could vary considerably. We shall see.


85 posted on 11/22/2003 5:10:22 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs; FreedomPoster; Eaker
I know caseless rounds have been experimented with before. Does anyone know if that is still a good idea? I think it would be less weight and bulk for the infantryman.

They've been pretty much put on the shelf as no one appreciated the amount of heat exiting the weapon along with the spent case during development. Caseless had cook-off problems.

As well as problems with extraction/ejection of unfired rounds when a caseless round had been chambered but it was not necessary to fire, and it was washed to unload the weapon without firing it.

There are still some interesting caseless ammunition applications going on in the fields of submachineguns and shotguns. But insofar as the infantryman's primary rifle, the ammunition technology is not developed to that extent yet.

86 posted on 11/22/2003 5:15:41 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
My goodness, what an amazingly erroneous statement. The 7.62x39 in no way is interchangeable with the 7.62x54, nor the 5.56x39 with the 5.7(about)x44.
87 posted on 11/22/2003 5:21:47 PM PST by Iris7 ( "Duty, Honor, Country". The first of these is Duty, and is known only through His Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Iris7; jonascord
Yeah. I heard the same urban myth myself when in highschool. Even propigated it some, myself. I've since learned better.
88 posted on 11/22/2003 5:34:31 PM PST by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I'm sorry but the plastic action on the AUG just seems so ... ugh. I've fired them and they are difficult to "feel." I know that sounds so imprecise, but that's the exact feeling I have. I don't like the Aug; but i also have issues with the 5.56mm round as well.

I'd like to see an M14 with a folding stock. There was an EYEtalian knockoff of the M14 called the BM59 (I think) that had a paratroop style folding wire stock. That'd be the ticket!

89 posted on 11/22/2003 5:37:37 PM PST by ExSoldier (When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
The 7.62x39 in no way is interchangeable with the 7.62x54, nor the 5.56x39 with the 5.7(about)x44.

Well it is in one way. The 123-grain 7,62x39mm bullet can be loaded in the 7,62x53r/7,62x54r full-length cartridge to make a more comfortable and less brutally recoiling load with less flash at night; particularly in Mosin Nagant M38 and M44 carbines.

Just as easily the same .311-.312 bullet can be used in loads for the .303 British, 7,65 Mauser *Argentine* [and Belgian] and 7,7mm Jap, among others. And the .312 hollowpoint bullets meant for the H&R .32 magnum pistol can be loaded into the above cartridges as well; all in the appropriate cartridge cases, of course. There've also been adapters made to allow the use of the 7,62x25mm Tokarev or 7,65 Mauser pistol cartridge in 7,62x54r chambered rifles and some 7,62x39mm weapons for single-shot indoor practice at very reduced ranges; 50 feet or so.

But as a complete loaded round, you're quite correct; they're not at all interchangable.

-archy-/-

90 posted on 11/22/2003 5:47:50 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Phyto Chems
Ok guys, lets have a pic of both, so we not so "all-into-guns" will have a idea what the difference are between all of these. THANKS

Check out #85 and let us know what you think. Most of us who've successfully used one tool or another to keep ourselves alive are understandably in favor of that which we know has worked, extremely disinclined toward that which we've seen let others down, and suspicious of anything that claims to be *new!* *Improved!* and the greatest thing since bread sliced the short way.

Accordingly, the opinions of rookies who'll soon be getting more experience than they'll be happy about and intelligent and aware observers like yourself who will hopefully miss out on that horror but still maintain a serious concern are worthy of note too. So take a look and see what you think, and let us know.

-archy-/-.

91 posted on 11/22/2003 5:57:13 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bringbackthedraft
Take an AK47 and refine it to the tenth degree and you get one of the finest made AK47s, a Valmet Sako 76F. Used by the Finnish Army. A real quality made item. Too bad they're so expensive. Remember, our weapons are made by the cheapest bidder.

Not quite. The Finns continue to use the original 7,62x39mm AK round, both in their first-issue m/62 Valmet rifles and the most recent m/92 version. They've also obtained a great many East German MpiKms folding stock versions and Chinese type 56-1 variants.


92 posted on 11/22/2003 6:04:20 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: archy

93 posted on 11/22/2003 6:06:58 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: archy
As I recalled the 7.62x39 was about .312, but have never reloaded in the way you describe. Used to put 30-30 bullets into loaded down .308 cases looking for the ideal recoil vs. performance ratio, though. Never got there, bullets are designed all wrong for war. Personally, I have a lttle familiarity with the StG 43, know a collector who lets me shoot his, with Nazi headstamp ammunition. Very good weapon, better than the AK.
94 posted on 11/22/2003 6:17:37 PM PST by Iris7 ( "Duty, Honor, Country". The first of these is Duty, and is known only through His Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
It's the 6.5 mm Grendel, and I've been following its development a bit, since I'm an amateur shooting and reloading enthusiast. It looks like an ideal compromise between power and size. It's based on the 6 mm PPC, which is a champion's target round. With low-drag bullets, it's supposedly capable of 1000 ft-lbs of energy out to 1000 yards. 1000 ft-lbs is generally considered to be the energy required for efficient kills on deer, which happen to be human-sized. I imagine it is a lot more efficient than the .223 in short barrels, too, since it is a shorter, fatter cartridge.

From a web site on the subject, http://www.competitionshooting.com/pages/708565/:

"The 6.5 PPC is able to equal or exceed the ballistic performance of the 7.62 NATO / .308 in terms of retained velocity, trajectory and wind deflection while operating with 50% less recoil. (6.5 PPC 123 grain @ 2750 fps = 7 lbs vs. 7.62 NATO 185 grain @ 2500 fps = 14 lbs: Reference- 5.56 NATO 77 grain @ 2850 fps = 4 lbs) ".

It will be interesting to see where they go with this. A relatively small increase in weight gives a very large increase in power over the .223 with this cartridge.

95 posted on 11/22/2003 6:29:43 PM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
As I recalled the 7.62x39 was about .312, but have never reloaded in the way you describe. Used to put 30-30 bullets into loaded down .308 cases looking for the ideal recoil vs. performance ratio, though. Never got there, bullets are designed all wrong for war. Personally, I have a lttle familiarity with the StG 43, know a collector who lets me shoot his, with Nazi headstamp ammunition. Very good weapon, better than the AK.

I've owned a couple of MP44s/StG44s, even had one in high school I bought from one of my dad's fellow American Legion post members for all of $50- he couldn't find ammo for it. Now, one magazine is worth more than that, and I got eight with it. I always wanted one of the Mkb42(h) prototypes, but the one I saw that was for sale was at a time when I was short the cash required to carry.

Back in 1976 and '77 I carried an MP44 *for real* as something with a little more range than the folding-buttstock Uzi I kept under the dashboard of the Volkswagon Rabbit I was driving at the time. I practiced going out of the sunroof and could be out and on the ground in under three seconds.

The MP44 is more controllable than the AK, which it oughta be, being less powerful and 12 pounds heavy, near the weight of a BAR. The one I've really wanted to wring out over a long period was the FG42 in the full-power 7,92x57mm Mauser caliber. I've shot 'em a couple of times, but really getting a chance to use one has eluded me so far.

-archy-/-

96 posted on 11/22/2003 6:29:45 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
I bought a book written by a Colonel who was with Merrill's Marauders in WWII. They loved the .30 carbine because it was so handy in the jungle. The guy also did an analysis on the Japanese arms in the book and basically said that except for their mortars they were crap.
97 posted on 11/22/2003 6:34:58 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: All
In Iraq a DEFENSIVE weapon is needed. The offensive weapons are carried on the vehicles.

A defensive weapon is relatively close range, and good at clearing buildings, busting an ambush, etc. By defensive I mean like a 12 gauge in the hands of an expert. (Shotguns are not practical weapons for general issue because it takes too long to train the troops. Need to shoot more than 85% birds at skeet to do OK with a shotgun.) A Thompson handled by a man who knows what he is doing is OK, as is an UZI. Body armour stops shotgun and pistol rounds very easily, of course.

The AK is a good defense weapon. A better cartridge than the 7.62x39 is the WW2 German 7.92x33, although the Germans believed something like 7mm would have been better if they hadn't had such time pressure. The case shape and balance of the cartridge made for excellent chambering and extraction without making the chamber neck area too loose. It is meant for guns that begin extraction with chamber pressures still high enough to aid extraction. Call them ten percent blowback operated. Those boys knew what they were doing.

The bullets need redesign also. The Voss designed bullet used in the early CETME rifle program deserves study, although I would probably go with a 9mm and 180 grain bullet, but a long spitzer boat tail VLD bullet shape. Basically a steel, lead, polymer, and gilding metal bullet in order of weight. Center of mass well behind center of drag, more so than the SS109. Optimized for "knockdown" and able to pierce class IV armor at minimum velocity, maybe 1600 fps at the muzzle. Loaded into a high pressure relatively small case capacity round it would make a folding stock Kalashnikov action weapon about 22 inches long. This is do-able.

For a short barrel to work well you need an expansion ratio over 6. This means moderate velocity and a relatively large bore size.

There is an interesting new Russian cartridge, 9x39, that will penetrate grade IV body armour that stops 30-06 armor piercing. The cartidge is optimised up to about 200 yards. Good expansion ratio down to about 10" barrel, maybe.

Problems with the M16 include but are not limited to the Ljungman action that puts propellant gases in the reciever. This is so dumb I am still amazed.
98 posted on 11/22/2003 6:44:29 PM PST by Iris7 ( "Duty, Honor, Country". The first of these is Duty, and is known only through His Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
My goodness, what an amazingly erroneous statement. The 7.62x39 in no way is interchangeable with the 7.62x54, nor the 5.56x39 with the 5.7(about)x44.

The only interchangeability I have found is that the 7.62X51(NATO) round will chamber and fire from the 7.62X54(Russian) Mosin-Nagant. Once.

Extraction is another problem - the Mosin-Nagant requires the uniquely thick rim of the 7.62X54 for the extractor to grab and pull the shell fron the barrel. Also, there appears to be some slight brass swelling on firing.

In fact, the unnamed person I know who tried this ended up having to drive the brass from the chamber from the muzzle end with a ramrod. But this was primarily because the idiot at Sears who sold the rifle ($15.00 for the "sporterized" version circa 1966) included a box of NATO surplus ammo with it. Hell, Dad didn't know the difference (woops!). The gun was never fired again until I figgered out what it was about 1974 and bought the appropriate ammo for it.

That's when I found out Mosin-Nagant was Russian for "big muzzle flash".

99 posted on 11/22/2003 6:51:03 PM PST by Morgan's Raider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: duk
When I got my first '03 Springfield, I did some research, thinking it just the best, at all times. I came across a report of a country boy gone winter hunting with one. He carried it in snow, with a gloved hand, over the action. When he got home, and the rifle warmed up...the ice in the action melted, and the rifle discharged in the corner where it was left standing. I subsequently read advice about not carrying it that way.

My concern is the advantageous, revolutionary anti-personnel attributes of the round, seem to not be there through shorter barrels...making it not the all-around short/long range weapon we are evidently searching for. I do wonder if a shorter, perhaps even wider case would burn more powder well, and impart the velocity we want to our, yes, weakest of the popular varmint ctgs., out of our desired short barrels. As it is..increase the bullet diameter, perhaps lose the longer range potential...which we all agree..is to be expected in warfare, along with close-in situations. Which may just possibly be why in the day of the .30 caliber American battle rifles...Thompsons and M1 Carbines were also distributed among the ranks. This worked. The M16 in .223 Rem. does not now nor ever will do it all. The bean-counters will run the entire show down the drain if we let them.
100 posted on 11/22/2003 6:56:31 PM PST by PoorMuttly (DO, or DO NOT. There is no TRY - Yoda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson