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

Skip to comments.

Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang
Defensetech.org ^ | 5/30/2007 | Edited by Christian Lowe

Posted on 05/30/2007 7:12:47 AM PDT by Sergio

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-66 last
To: Sergio
I have always wondered why we decided on a "varmit" round for targets in the "white tail" deer weight range.

'Cuz even women can fire it accurately.

Seems like something in the 30.30 class would be more appropriate.

You wanna lug around 210 rounds (infantryman's basic load) of 30-30?! It would leave little margin for grenades, mortar rounds and water....

51 posted on 05/30/2007 9:09:08 AM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Banning Bread and Circuses is the New Bread and Circuses....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
but the sound that thing must make.

I'm sorry I can't hear your post.>>>hahahahaha. my head is still shaking...and rattling

52 posted on 05/30/2007 9:09:17 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (liberals suck....... but it depends on what your definition of the word "suck" is.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dick Vomer

I wanna hear it!


53 posted on 05/30/2007 9:10:37 AM PDT by wastedyears ( I deleted my tagline by accident =()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Also, the 7.62mm NATO is uncomfortable for some smaller soldiers.

It's meant to be uncomfortable when it enters the body. ;-)

54 posted on 05/30/2007 9:17:32 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting

“Because the object of shooting an enemy (in warfare) isn’t to kill target, but to wound it. “
But, dead enemy combatants don’t shoot back.


55 posted on 05/30/2007 9:20:38 AM PDT by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
is it possible to get better results by just creating a heavier 5.56 round?

The cartridge has reached it's limit (especially in shorter barrels) with the 77 grain ammunition issued to the SDM's. Anything heavier can't be accelerated quickly enough through a short tube.

The projectiles will also be at the limits of spin-stabilization out of a 1:7 barrel. As a heavier bullet gets longer, more spin is required to keep it stable. It's been a while since I did the math but I believe the heavy bullets are turning something a bit over 300,000 rpm.

There are quite a few good bullet / cartridge combinations in the 6.5 - 6.8 mm range that could be made to work on the same platform. However, I doubt that the average soldier could make use of the extra horsepower.

56 posted on 05/30/2007 9:21:24 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Graycliff
About 10-12 years ago I bought a Ruger .223 Mini-14 rifle. My test facilities are modest, so I decided to shoot through 2X4s to check penetration. As I recall the .223 would go through 2 2X4s and stick in the third. I tried various ammo, but this was the result.

I decided to see what an 8mm Mauser from WWII would do shooting some Yugoslav ammo. I set up 6 2X4s in a row in front of a walnut tree and fired. The 8mm Mauser penetrated all 6 2X4s and went into the tree. Draw your own conclusions.

An old saying. We know that one round will kill a man. We don’t know how many it will take to scare him to death.

Recall the definition of gun control.

57 posted on 05/30/2007 9:23:13 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (Swift as the wind; Calmly majestic as a forest; Steady as the mountains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9

Thanks for the informative response! It’s one of the great things about FR.


58 posted on 05/30/2007 9:24:56 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TLI
With a few updates to the basic design such as a modern trigger group (smaller) and running the mag through the handgrip for more barrel length / shorter overall length plus chamber it to .40 cal instead of 9mm you would not be able to get them out of the troops hands.

I thought the grease gun was .45 ACP?
59 posted on 05/30/2007 9:30:11 AM PDT by JamesP81 (Isaiah 10:1 - "Woe to those who enact evil statutes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gideon Reader
Dumb comment.

How so? BTW, I take it you didn't get my sarcasm, but I'm still curious as to your take on this.

60 posted on 05/30/2007 9:49:46 AM PDT by umgud ("When seconds count, the police are just 10 minutes away!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Just a question ... since stopping power is in part a function of energy delivered to the target, is it possible to get better results by just creating a heavier 5.56 round?

Snipers who use an M16/AR15 platform use 77gr Sierra HPBT's (this is 15gr heavier than M855 (62gr), a 24% increase in weight and a thinner jacketted "match" bullet).

61 posted on 05/30/2007 9:52:09 AM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
I thought the grease gun was .45 ACP?

Yes it is. You can build a sub-gun like I have described in .40 or .45

The .45 version would be a real handfull, the design of a `76 runs much faster than a M-3

62 posted on 05/30/2007 9:52:24 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
I thought the grease gun was .45 ACP? Posting HTML

You thought correctly.

Personally, I never cared much for it, what with that gawdawful big bolt slamming around, you could not aim for crap. The Thompson was heavier, but oh so easy to shoot accurately.

63 posted on 05/30/2007 11:07:51 AM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

HKs are a little pricey, but money well spent. imho


64 posted on 05/30/2007 11:19:09 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith; All
I will be happy when Jim introduces a function that presents what you mean, rather than what you write. LOL!!!

What I meant to say in referring to the 30.30 was it’s terminal ballistics, not the cartridge itself. If I were in the sandbox, I would want a cartridge that will put at least 1000 ft/lbs on target at 300 to 400 yards.

The 6.8x43 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel seem to be heading in the right direction.

65 posted on 05/30/2007 11:30:52 AM PDT by Sergio (If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he make a sound?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Sergio
The 6.8x43 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel seem to be heading in the right direction.

I agree with you there.

66 posted on 05/30/2007 1:07:37 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Banning Bread and Circuses is the New Bread and Circuses....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-66 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