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

Skip to comments.

Army takes HK416s from special unit
Military.com ^ | 12 March 08 | Matthew Cox

Posted on 04/08/2008 5:33:15 PM PDT by LSUfan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last
To: Travis McGee

My local 100 pound PC hired and promoted minority SWAT killer has everything I’ll need if the flag goes up.

I told her to call me Bawana as she is just carrying my guns till I need em.....:o)

Nite Ya’ll !


51 posted on 04/08/2008 7:15:31 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior; Squantos; Myrddin
The 6.8SPC is about as powerfull as the 762x39 or 30/30 win-with a trajectory of a rainbow past 300m-so we are back to the same result (if it was a super round, the High power community would use it-not a one will touch it as it is a turd in a punchbowl long range performance wise toooslow and too light bullet balisitally speaking).

I think you're off the mark comparing the ballistics and trajectory of the 6.8Rem to 7.62X39 or 30-30. And no, it's not going to light up the high power world, but no round that packs 25 cartridges into an M-16 magazine ever could do that.

52 posted on 04/08/2008 7:16:11 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

I get flamed when I criticize the 6.8SPC. Awhile back I suggested the 6.8 was the wrong direction and that the correct direction would be to put a heavier bullet in the 223 and then up the chamber pressure and the muzzle velocity by use of faster burning powder and/or more powerful primers. It wouldn’t hurt to make it a boat tail bullet either, since, I’m pretty sure the 223 is not commonly a boat tail type bullet. If brass starts to split or bulge, make it thicker walled, or switch to aluminum casings. Whatever it takes.


53 posted on 04/08/2008 7:20:37 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
Why isn't the crucial area teflonized?

Is the problem powder residue sticking to the works when they get hot
or that talc-like dust combining with the powder residue?
I also understand that the M4 action won't cycle when muddy?

And what is the commercial name of the lube you recommend. I like Dry-Slide, but by now there must be something sexier.

54 posted on 04/08/2008 7:21:07 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (GOP Plank: Double Domestic Crude Production. Increase refining capacity 50 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
For caliber, a 10mm.

The FBI dumped the 10mm because (in part) it was too much abuse for their guys to take for prolonged periods of practice. Also during extended training the round started beating the gun frames to death and there were some disturbing stoppages involving the slides being locked into full battery and refusing to open. Which I would guess is a BAD thing in the middle of a gunfight.

9mm is too weak. 10mm is too strong. 40 is too expensive among other problems. That makes the 45 ACP for a semi auto in the words of the three bears: Just Riiiiiiight

55 posted on 04/08/2008 7:26:15 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper

I just finished reading the book Black Hawk Down (I know - I’m about a decade late on that). I was amazed to read about how much our troops hated the 5.56 ammo. There were several instances in that battle where they had to shoot someone 10-15 times to kill them.


56 posted on 04/08/2008 7:35:29 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Oh, you got to be kidding me! Have you ever even fired a 10mm caliber handgun? The only reason the FBI dumped the 10mm is because the FEMALE cadets sued because they couldn’t pass the test with the 10mm. If I remember correctly, these same female cadets then failed to qualify with a 9mm. So the 10mm had nothing to do with it. I’ve fired the 10mm extensively. My 10mm glock kicks slightly LESS than my kahr PM9 9mm. Anyone that can’t handle a 10mm should be disqualified on the basis of insufficient hand strength to protect themselves in a scuffle.

BTW, the frames getting beat to death were the very first 10mm handguns on the market. The brenten, IIRC. That was a design flaw. Not a caliber flaw. Modern Glock 10mm handguns are very reliable.


57 posted on 04/08/2008 7:43:42 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
One small problem with the .223 is over penetration at close range due to small mass and high velocity. But at around 150-200m that sucker will tumble when it hits ruining the enemy's whole day.

The biggest gripe I've ever had with he M-16 were the crappy magazines we had.

The second was during high rates of fire the barrel would smoke thus obscuring your sight picture.

58 posted on 04/08/2008 7:54:51 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

Ditto.

My son carried an M4 on two tours, Liked it, he did say you had to do maintenace, esp the magazines.

He hated the M9, the magazines they issue are utter crap. I scored some commercial mags for him - in the end he carried a AK 47 or Mossberg as a backup. When he wasn’t humping a M249.

The 6.8 SPC is almost the same as the 7.62x39... the issue sems to be “when used in a M16/M4” weaponn...
http://www.ko-tonics.com/68-FAQ.html for a decent rundown.


59 posted on 04/08/2008 7:59:14 PM PDT by ASOC (I know I don't look like much, but I raised a US Marine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Yeah, it’s small mass and high velocity gives it crappy stopping power at close range. It’s the same problem with the 9mm. That’s why SOCOM uses the Mk 23 .45ACP pistol instead of the M9 9mm

Also didn’t help that the locals were high on khat.


60 posted on 04/08/2008 8:07:01 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Are you finding full house 10mm for that pistol? You practically have to load your own for that.


61 posted on 04/08/2008 8:41:59 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Actually the Bren Ten was long gone before the FBI picked up the caliber. Don Johnson used to have one on Miami Vice during the early 80s but they dumped it because of failures and a lack of spare parts. A buddy of mine was a consultant on that show. He used to loan the star his own early model S&W 45 as a backup. They'd fit a BFA (Blank Firing Adapter) so it would cycle movie blanks and rock on. The FBI were using S&W's that screwed up. The main reason for the dump of the gun was the malfunctions I mentioned although I have no doubt that some of the cadets experienced the problems you mention for the reasons you mention. Just remember recoil is a highly subjective issue! Everything is perception. So don't be so quick to judge, okay?
62 posted on 04/08/2008 8:51:27 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
Most guys on “point” used sawed off shotguns, ...

Or M79 grenade launchers loaded with canister rounds.

63 posted on 04/08/2008 9:05:06 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
fought to keep its several hundred 416s, arguing that they outperform the Army’s M4 and require far less maintenance.

Why the heck would a crack military unit want something with better performance and less maintenance?




/sarcasm

64 posted on 04/08/2008 9:18:17 PM PDT by TheBattman (LORD God, please give us a Christian Patriot with a backbone for President in 08, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

Thank your son for me- I served last with the CENTCOM Fwd liaison in Iraq in 2003, mostly in South Iraq, retired in 2006 after a stint in ROTC.

I had trouble with M9 magazines as well-the bodies were fine, the springs were pretty weak. I had a small handful of my own commercial beretta mags and they served well; on the other hand the 9mm did not do much on taget-I too carried a Mossberg M590 12 ga. It did much better.

Out of a 24 inch barrel, the 6.8 does pretty good, but 20inch M16 or 14 inch M4, too much velocity is lost.


65 posted on 04/09/2008 4:52:39 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

The entire upper receiver is coated with a teflon material.

The residue from propellants is not as much a problem as some make it out to be. Graphite is commonly used as a lubricant, and this is the bulk of the residue we are concerned about. Graphite is used a a retardant on the ball powder used, the issue is that the original specifications by Mr. Stoner called for IMR (extruded stick powder), which uses different chemistry to control burn rate, and produces less residue (usually).

The dust is a problem, but with proper lub, routine cleaning and common sense operator sheilding of their weapons, and good junior leadership, dust can be kept to a minimum. A magazine in place, dust cover closed, muzzle cover on, the M4 is pretty well protected.

Not sure of an equivalent dry lub available commercially, but the mil-spec is a tough coating that in my expereince lasts quite a while under hard use, I will look it up and see if I can find a mil-spec nomenclature.


66 posted on 04/09/2008 5:00:57 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

The SPEC OPS foks have done just that-the Sierra 77 grain matchking (now called open tip, as hollow point is not technically correct nor geneva convention PC) and it does something like 2750-2800 out of an M16A2, somewhat less from a carbine. I beleive they call it the Mk 262 mod1 (Navy has the lead on it). This is the equivalent of what wins National Match competitions out of AR15A2s (200-600 yard).

Some rumors indicate that the rest of the Army may be interested in using it as well.

The 55 grain M193 and the 62 grain M855 (SS109) NATO 556 mm bullets are indeed boat tailed bullets.

The cartridge cases of the 556 are tough enough for our purposes-adding thickness reduces capacity-negating any improvement-however, mil spec brass is somewhat heavier than civilian counterparts.

Side note-commom BTHP type bullets perform very much like FMJ bullets in flesh-they do not expand like hunting soft point bullets, rather, they tumble and often break in to at the cannelure.


67 posted on 04/09/2008 5:12:07 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Okay, the 30/30 pushes a 150 grain .308 diameter bullet at 2300 f/s froma 20 inch barrel, the 762X39 makes a 123 grain .308-.311 diameter bullet at about 2400 f/s from an 18inch SKS/AK barrel.

The 6.8 pushes a 115 grain .277 diameter bullet at about 2550f/s from a 14 inch M4 barrel.

Add 6 inches to the 6.8 and you see advantages, but the 762x51 is already a mil-spec round with several off the shelf platforms available and in the field.

Calculations indicate not too much difference in KE at the muzzle (30/30 leading), plus the 115 grn .277 bullet has a rather poor BC (about the same as the 123 762, slightly better than the 150 grn 30/30 -because the 30/30 uses a FP bullet) and therefore a short range trajectory.

Correct me if I am wrong.


68 posted on 04/09/2008 5:21:16 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Nor should you. With a good selection of ammo, say 45-50 grain 223, it is a terrific house gun, with 68-77 grain BTHPs it will reach out easily to 300m and with a decent optical sight, you are not handicapped by it at all.

Most important is practice and more practice. 55 grn M193 milsurp is getting expensive, but still less than 20-22 cents a shot if you buy in bulk.


69 posted on 04/09/2008 5:25:39 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier; mamelukesabre
Hep me out here.

I have fired the .45 (11.4 MM in Euro-talk) from a variety of platforms, and also the 10MM (which in American is a .40cal). The 10MM does have, shall we say, a bit "stouter" recoil. If this were to be a 100# person's first pistol, I'd say it could be a problem ... but the same might be true for the .45. Does anyone know the exact differences in ballistics between the two rounds? It seems to me the major point is that you can stack more 10MM in a magazine.

Various state police agencies used to start rookies off with .22 automatics, and when they could actually hit something on a regular basis, they would be moved on to heavier calibers. Whatever happened to that idea?

NATO obviously feels hitting something with one out of fifteen of their anemic 9MM loads is preferable to missing things with 7 rounds from a more manly weapon. Maybe after you can hit something with the 9MM, they should issue a .45 ... or at least issue real ammo for the 9MM?

70 posted on 04/09/2008 5:43:55 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (GOP Plank: Double Domestic Crude Production. Increase refining capacity 50 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior; Squantos; archy; Myrddin

Comparing the rifle calibers, I was mainly focusing on your lumping the trajectory of the 6.8spc with the 30-30 and the 7.62X39. This is not a correct comparison. Here is one handy table to check:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_trajectory_table.htm

Here are some common calibers, and their “max point blank range” which is the greatest distance the bullet will travel between 3” above and below the bore. This is a shorthand method for quantifying the flatness of a trajectory, from rainbow to laser.

.223 55gr at 3240fps MPBR 239 yards
.243 110gr at 3100fps MPBR 283 yards
6.8 115gr at 2800fps MPBR 267 yards
30-30 150gr at 2390fps MPBR 225 yards
7.62X39 123gr at 2365 MPBR 225 yards
7.62NATO 150gr at 2800 MPBR 275 yards
7.62NATO 180gr at 2610 MPBR 259 yards
30-06 180gr at 2700 MPBR 269 yards

So you can see, in terms of trajectory, the 6.8spc is up with the 7.62NATO and 30-06, not the 30-30 or 7.62Russian. On the battlefield, this flatter trajectory translates into a much longer effective range. A different table showing drops at longer ranges would show the 30-30 and 7.62 having so much greater drop that they would be categorized as having rainbow trajectories. Not so with the 6.8, 7.62NATO or 30-06.


71 posted on 04/09/2008 6:11:17 AM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

10mm is only .40 in terms of measured caliber. The .40S&W caliber is now commonly used by police departments, and could be considered the “10mm short.” They are not interchangeable, to say the least.

The FBI and other FLEAs did purchase a run of 10mm MP5 subguns, but they had a lot of problems. In the vernacular, they were called “MP five and dimes.” I don’t know if they are still in use.

The 10mm fired from the Glock pistol has been very successful. 15 rounds of the stout 10mm hollowpoint must be one of the mose powerful combos of stopping power and capacity in any pistol.


72 posted on 04/09/2008 6:15:25 AM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Comparing 9mm to .45 is really two separate discussions. If you are a soldier restricted to FMJ hardball ammo, then yes, the 9mm is much less effective than the .45, even considering greater mag capacity. The 9mm hardballs tend to zip through bad guys.

But in the civilian world where we can buy terrific hollowpoint +P ammo, 9mm is a pretty effective round. Coupling this greater effectiveness (compared to 9mm hardball) with less recoil and greater mag capacity makes the 9mm a good choice for civilians. Especially if the wife might have to use it.


73 posted on 04/09/2008 6:18:45 AM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
The 10MM does have, shall we say, a bit "stouter" recoil.

.....I have a Colt 10mm "Delta Elite".....

.....it's on a 1911 frame (.45 cal).....

.....on this frame with similar recoil springs it gives a bit more "kick" than models built from the ground up for the 10mm cartridge.....

.....I personally love the 10mm, and btw.....

.....the 10mm came first.....

.....they cut it down to .40 cal to lesson recoil for civi use.....

74 posted on 04/09/2008 6:54:31 AM PDT by cyberaxe (((.....does this mean I'm kewl now?.....)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Ditto. I thought long & hard about home defense tools, and settled on a Colt M4LE (as close to a gen-ew-wine M4 as legal for us mere civvies).

From what I can tell, the real problem is the insistence on using “green tip” rounds for soft targets: fragmentation is crucial for 5.56 performance, and the steel-core stuff doesn’t fragment. Use Mk.262 and results are much better. The M16/M4 platform is very sensitive to ammo selection (length & twist vs. weight & velocity, fragmentation velocity, velocity drop vs. distance), and most who have problems with terminal ballistics probably picked the wrong ammo. Feed it a proper diet, and it will perform admirably.

Context is also important. The M4 platform, with its short barrel, is made more for close ranges of urban & CQB situations, not the long ranges of open desert & mountain terrain. For the latter, you want an AR10 or M24 (both .308). Where velocity drops below 2700fps, the M4’s effectiveness plummets (it will still mess up someone’s day, however); compact & light is great for quasi-urban situations, long & heavy works better for reach-out-and-touch-someone.

Upshot: use the right tool for the job. If you don’t, don’t blame the tool.


75 posted on 04/09/2008 7:47:34 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
I have fired the .45 (11.4 MM in Euro-talk) from a variety of platforms

Or 11.25mm, in Norwegian Model M/1914 .45 Auto talk.


76 posted on 04/09/2008 7:57:07 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

he was allowed to carry a personal ak47 and mossberg shotgun?

If this is the case, why not start a buy a gun for a soldier program?

If it has not been started already we could do this via one of the suppliers since they would have the expertese to get it to the solders through the approriate channels.


77 posted on 04/09/2008 8:18:28 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: archy; cyberaxe; Travis McGee; Manly Warrior; ExSoldier; mamelukesabre
So, is it safe to say that the M4 is a very good weapon that needs a bit more work to make it "goof-proof" in combat in muddy or fine-dusty regions? Is it worth fixing?

If the answer is "Yes," the fixes suggested, namely changing from open gas operation to piston actuation, don't seem all that daunting. How do we go for it?

If the answer is "No," should we replace with the HK416? How do we get that done? Some changes are obviously in the wind, but we are also obviously in the "confusion" stage. As far as the caliber change goes, both of the weapons in question are adaptable ... I think.

The M9 issue is perhaps more complicated. IMO, this would be a fine weapon, if fed with the right ammo, which is forbidden to us by NATO and the Geneva Convention. Can we change that? If not, then what? If not, with what do we replace the M9?

We need specific people in Congress who can help sort this out. Do we have 5 people we can trust?

78 posted on 04/09/2008 8:20:47 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (GOP Plank: Double Domestic Crude Production. Increase refining capacity 50 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Actually, the US Marine Corps was kind enough to lend him the Mossberg for day to day use.

As for the AK - he made the point there was always “a lot lying around” when not humping the SAW, he did prefer his (carefully maintained) M4 with IR laser, ACOG and large magazines.

Walking in the mud of Anbar had to be at least as hard as humping ruck in the mud of the Mekong Delta - but they do have better line of sight, no jungle.

Our next worry is that some of his buds from his old FAST team have been called back to active duty.....

79 posted on 04/09/2008 8:29:40 AM PDT by ASOC (I know I don't look like much, but I raised a US Marine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper
The biggest gripe I've ever had with he M-16 were the crappy magazines we had.

That's half of the M16 magazine problem. The worst flaw is that the *curved* 30-round magazine has to enter a straight-sided magazine well, so has to include a straight-line upper portion combined with a curved lower, a result of Gene Stoner's original design meeting the requirement of having a 20-round capacity. Why? because the M14 and BAR that preceeded the AR-15 designs had 20-round mags, so that was what Army Ordnance specified.

When American soldiers armed with testbed AR15s and early production M16 rifles that would empty a full 20-round magazine in a single burst in less than a second began to encounter NVA and Viet Cong troops with AKs with 30-round magazines, the difference mecame a mattter of survival. The most immediate answer on the American side was to tape two magazines together, one up and one down. With the early light aluminum *waffle* magazines for the M16, this had two additional results, one being that the additional weight bent away the magazine's metal around the mag catch, resulting in misfeeds from a ruined magazine; the waffle mags were subsequently removed from service. The other problem was that the magazine catch of the rifle could be bent enough to prevent reliable feeding even with a single new magazine. One other *field fix* sometimes tried was to modify the magazine of an AK47 to fit an M16, though the magazine catch limitation meant that was just a stopgap.

When Stoner developed his M62 machinegun, which could be fired in either magazine-fed or beltfed configurations, he designed a new magazine for it, omitting the straightside magazine well of the AR15/M16/M16A1/A2/M4 and allowing a magazine that was of curved form for its entire length. When the Israelis combined bits of the FN-FAL paratroop rifle, the AK and the Finnish Valmet m/62 into the 5.56 Galil, design, the first test versions used Stoner 62 magazines, which will fit and feed in the Galil's produced today, except for the ones that have an accessory *adapter well* to let them use dirt-common M16 magazines.

Likewise, when H&K designed their HK33 series 5.56mm rifles based on their roller-locked 7.62mm G3, they used a new magazine with an all-curve profile. As did the Steyr AUG, the followon H&K G36, The first versions of Britain's L64/SA80 bullpup, and most every other 5.56 rifle I can think of that doesn't use the M16 magazine. The one exception that comes to mind was the first versions of the French FAMAS bullpup, which had a rectangular profile 25 round magazine; the current production FAMAS G2 uses the M16 magazine.

The two on the right are the 20 and 30-round magazines for the Ar15/M16/M4:


80 posted on 04/09/2008 8:49:06 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I don’t feel undergunned with my M-4gery Homeland Defense Rifle.

I'm happier with my longer but lighter M16A1 version, whose longer gas tube allows more room for buildup of corrosion from foreign surplus ammo, old GI M193 ball, or my crappy reloads. But I have hedged my bets sufficiently to have a second upper available for it with a shorty 1:7 twist barrel, just in case I find some 62 grain M855/ NATO SS109 or 77 Grain MK 262 Mod 0 5.56MM lying around on the ground.

Of course, I could throw another lower together for the shorty barrel, and have another rifle around. Then I'd want to have a spare available for it, then I'd probably come up with another lower for it, then another spare, usw, usw.

81 posted on 04/09/2008 8:59:10 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Neat info-

The 556 62 grn does not do 3240-more like 2750-2800 from an M4

The 6.8 fails to meet that 2800 fs as well-more like 2450-2500 from a 14 inch M4

Got to compare apples to apples. Remember what I stated in my post-’No free lunches for the Dogs of War”.

It would be nice if the 6.8 actually did perform that well from a 14 inch M4-the truth is not in your quoted table, likely it was derived using a 24 inch barrel or maybe even longer. 10 inches of added length would add approx. 25-40 fs per inch, or 250-400 more velocity than a 14 inch tube. I would not expect any more than my estimated 2450-2500 fs.

Also, given the design of the M4, the point blank figures should be using 14-15 inches above and below the point of aim-the military expects troops to aim center mass and on a standing enemy, that total target height is around 28-30 inces (hips to collar bones)

The M16A2 point plank range is 360 m with M855 ammo (rear sight set at 300+1 click, zeroed at 42 m, then RS backed to 300) Bullet path is approx 15 inches high at 250m, crosses line of sight at 300m and falls below 15” low at approx 360m. M4 5.56 is zeroed in similar fashion, with max PB at around 300m IIRC.

See FM 23-5 M16/A1/A2, M4, M4A1 Rifle Marksmanship for data tables etc. I do not know of any comprehensive M4/6.8 data, just ballistic software figures.

My estimation for the 6.8/M4 is that is would not significantly add PB range, compared to the M855/M4 (again, same platform, different caliber).

Would be interseting to see actual test data.


82 posted on 04/09/2008 9:05:10 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

There are a few mods tha that M16 family could use to improve serviceability.
However, the platform is a fine tool as it is. Adding a piston driven system would not be cost effective, nor necessary. It works.

Soldiers have died because the Garand (the world’s greatest battle implement)failed as well.

Too many older troops (no disrespect intended, believe me) expereinced major life-threatening problems with the M16 in Vietnam. The M16A1 pretty much solved those functional problems-chrome lined bore and chmaber, slight mods to the externals,and more QC in the ammo production process. Each susequent upgrade has resulted in a more lethal, user friendly modular system that plain works.


83 posted on 04/09/2008 9:19:51 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Thanks for the link to the trajectory table. Interesting and useful.
84 posted on 04/09/2008 9:28:26 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
So, is it safe to say that the M4 is a very good weapon that needs a bit more work to make it "goof-proof" in combat in muddy or fine-dusty regions? Is it worth fixing?

It's been the standard rifle in one version or another since 1967. We may have squeezed about as much out of the system as can be managed, but a couple of additional improvements do come to mind. With more than 10 million produced and most of those still in service, we can expect that one way or another, the M16 is going to be in service somewhere in the system until at least 2025, probably to the midpoint of the XXI Century.

If the answer is "Yes," the fixes suggested, namely changing from open gas operation to piston actuation, don't seem all that daunting. How do we go for it?

It's going to take more than that, actually, quite a bit more. See my comments about the magazine design in the post above. And the M16 is not particularly lefty-friendly, the *Brunton Bump* on the side of the M16A2 receivers to prevent ejected brass from hitting left-handed firers in the eye not withstanding. There have been a couple of troops blinded in one eye by ejected, spinning brass, not a real desirable feature in a combat weapon.

If the answer is "No," should we replace with the HK416?

Maybe some of them could be replaced with the HK416; I don't think it's ever going to be an all-services rifle, even though the SpecOps community likes it. Neither is the XM8 *just* the answer, nor the German G36s that are the weapon used by the Pentagon security detail.

How do we get that done?

I would strongly suggest a Divine religious miracle.

Some changes are obviously in the wind, but we are also obviously in the "confusion" stage. As far as the caliber change goes, both of the weapons in question are adaptable ... I think.

So is the M16, though it's better handled as an armorer's project during depot rebuilds with them. That offers at least one possible use for the 4.5 million old M16A1s in the national inventory, some of which the Navy has recycled back into M4A1s, and many of which have gone to Israel. The M9 issue is perhaps more complicated. IMO, this would be a fine weapon, if fed with the right ammo, which is forbidden to us by NATO and the Geneva Convention. Can we change that? If not, then what? If not, with what do we replace the M9?

And the M12, used by those for whom the M9 is overly bulky. Oh, and those SIG226s used by the Navy Seal teams.

We need specific people in Congress who can help sort this out. Do we have 5 people we can trust?

The problem is, they have to be both trustworthy AND knowledgable, or at least have at least one staff member in the right position to understand the issue. We've got one such running in Indiana's 9th District. And Chip Pickering from Mississippi's Third District knows what he's talking about, based on a conversation I had with him when he visited the Katriuna relief efforts. But I understand he's not running for reelection.

85 posted on 04/09/2008 9:47:29 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
I do not know of any comprehensive M4/6.8 data, just ballistic software figures.

My estimation for the 6.8/M4 is that is would not significantly add PB range, compared to the M855/M4 (again, same platform, different caliber).

Would be interseting to see actual test data.

Remember that the Soviets, who'd been fielding the AK47 and AKM with a 16-inch barrel since the early 1950s, have also had unhappy users insofar as the smaller bullet of their own downsized 5.45mm AK74- including MikTim Kalishnikov hisself.

What I'd really like to see would be that bullet from the 6.8 SPC utilized in the 5.45mm case, thereby suitable for either the 5.56x45mm-length actions, or the former SovBloc &.62 M43 and 5.45 weapons.... and maybe even the existing magazines. I haven't run the ballistics of the reworked round yet, though I'm sure the Soviets did when they worked out the 5.45 cartridge. But I have offered the idea to someone in that line who's interested.

86 posted on 04/09/2008 9:55:30 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
the 762X39 makes a 123 grain .308-.311 diameter bullet at about 2400 f/s from an 18inch SKS/AK barrel. ... .

Correct me if I am wrong.

The AK47 or AKM barrel is usually 16.1 inches long. That of the SKS/CKC Siminov Carbine is 521 MM/ 20.5 inches in lenght. Best of all, the RPK Squad Auto version has a barrel 23.5 inches long, offering both a little better velocity and a longer sight radius than its shorter cousins.

87 posted on 04/09/2008 10:02:51 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Squantos; DocRock
"The Brown Bess was good enough for our fathers, and it is good enough for our soldiers now."

It was ever thus.

Not so:


88 posted on 04/09/2008 10:31:20 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: archy

If we could only travel in time.......:o)


89 posted on 04/09/2008 10:43:56 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: archy

LOL! Is that guy on the lower right having mag problems??! :)


90 posted on 04/09/2008 10:53:49 AM PDT by griffin (Love Jesus, No Fear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Somebody help me out here. All my posts seem to be registering in the color green. How do I turn that off? That's never happened to me before now.

Okay: First off, the 10mm is not the same thing as a 40. The forty is called the shorty forty because it is actually a shortened 10mm case because the full size round was beating the frames of the pistols to death and doing a job on the sensibilities of folks that fired the round. Also, the 10mm isn't what you'd call a widely available round and neither is the 40. As opposed to the 45 and 9mm which can be found everywhere on the planet and in great quanities. Maybe there is a reason for that? Anyway, that's useful in logistics (my secondary military specialty) when you run short and maybe have to make a local purchase. We used to do that all the time for various types of goods.

Perhaps the most spectacular example of local purchase is the first Gulf War when Special Forces discovered that wheeling across the desert in the HUMVEE was hazardous to your health because only Americans drove them so every sniper and jihadi with an RPG was looking for those. But in a Land Rover, Range Rover, or Toyota Land Cruiser you could be mistaken for a wandering mullah or imam and shooting at those could make you wind up in hell. So here went the SOCOM guys buying up the entire inventories of whole dealerships and screaming across the desert in these fully loaded (pun) luxury land yachts with the CD's blaring inside and the A/C on full blast.

Back on topic. The 10mm is inadequate in so many practical ways but not in the man stopping department. Too bad that's not enough. The Hague accords aren't going to change so bullet configuration is going to remain FMJ and the 10mm is far more likely to over-penetrate than either the 45 or the 9mm, bringing innocent lives into harm's way. The result is every politician's nightmare collateral damage.

Better to use a suitable platform like the USP or H&K45 both of which use a mechanical system to reduce the felt recoil. It's a DA first shot which beats the 1911 all the way around for making sure the shot is an intended action and that reduces that ~shudder~ dreaded collateral damage.

I agree with the idea of starting folks out on a 22 and working up. I use that whenever I have a novice in one of my ccw classes(I've been an NRA certified Instructor for about 20 years). The truth remains thusly: In a FMJ configuration bigger bullets are needed for a decisive stop. The round that meets the need best all around including the militarily critical area of logistics is clearly the 45 ACP.

91 posted on 04/09/2008 11:18:36 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Overpenetration? You’re a nut. Nobody cares about overpenetration from a rifle. So why should they care about overpenetration from a pistol?


92 posted on 04/09/2008 11:29:51 AM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: archy

Archy;

There are are 6X223, 6.5X223 and 7X223 wildcats which generally are poor performers with bullets of any appreciable increase in mass/BC.

The 6mmX223 can push a 70 grn 6mm bullet at about 2700fs, much less effeicient than the 77/80/90 grn SMK already in use in the 223/556, don’t even try seating a 107 SMK with the expectation velcoity past 2000fs!

Again, no free lunches-trade capacity for bullet diameter.

You kinda lost me-use the 5.45x39 mmm with a .277 diameter bullet? You would be losing more case capacity than if you wnet with a 6.8x223 (45mm case), I think.

There are a few dedicated 6mm cartridges being used in High Power Competition in the AR-the 2007 National Match Rifle Champ (Carl Bernosky) used a 6mm Hagar, not too sure of the case length, but the OAL must be AR mag length for use in the rapid fire stages....

Bottom line is the 233/5.56 mmx 45 is probably the most mature cartridge since the 308/7.62 (full course 200-600 yd match competition drives designs to the edge of performance, occassionally past it!)

Nothing to stop you from creating a 6.8 x39 mm, but it will be a lessor cartridge than the 6.8 or the 5.56 already are;

Rough interpolation would indicate that it could not exceed ~2450-2500Fs (gas law rule of reduction of bore diameter compared to existing rounds always yeilds less velocity from a similar platform profile) with a 115 grn bullet, and AK/SKS platform accuracy is nothing to boast about either.

The 5.56 with advanced bullet design (77 SMK) still is the best combination of performance, capacity, reliability and accuracy compared to the other combat options.

If you want a 30 cal (762x51, 762x63) performance step up to a proper platfrom, remember.... no free lunches for the dogs of war! (Democrat party planks notwithstanding....)

Molom Labe!


93 posted on 04/09/2008 11:31:51 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US Army, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Is it worth fixing?

NO!

If the answer is "No," should we replace with the HK416? How do we get that done?

First take the ~spits to the side~ politicians out of the process! Listen to the troops not some politician or senior officer either one of which (speaking of generals who are superior politicians in their own world) might be taking kickbacks under the table from the arms manufacturers or folks with serious monetary connections to the contracts. Like companies who manufacture accessories for the M4 that would need to be retooled in a new rifle.

Get a bunch of troops and test the crap out of the weapons under real world conditions and situations from the testers experiences. Once the 416 is confirmed as meeting the needs of the service determine if there must be any variations for special circumstances (like tankers or aircrew) and issue the contract.

94 posted on 04/09/2008 11:32:46 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
THe 45 doesn't even come close to a 10mm. If you are purely talking about muzzle energies, the 45 is pathetic. About 400 lb-ft of muzzle energy for a 45ACP and nearly 700 lb-ft for a 10mm. Now, a 9mm +P luger gives you about 390-440 lb-ft of energy. So all those guys out there that like to bash the 9mm probably don't understand muzzle energies.

But, in the 45s defense, there is evidence to suggest that muzzle energy isn't a perfect indicator of stopping power. for instance, the 45 seems to do much better in the real world than ballistic data would predict.

But you asked about ballistics, not real life gun fights. AS far as balistics are concerned, the 45 is really pathetic. Well, not as pathetic as a 38 special. But not very good. Not very good at all.

95 posted on 04/09/2008 11:46:18 AM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Overpenetration? You’re a nut. Nobody cares about overpenetration from a rifle. So why should they care about overpenetration from a pistol?

First of all, is that all you took from my argument? I posted overpenetration as a potential consequence to MOUT operations (aka urban warfare) where a round that sails clean thru may hit either a civilian or worse another troop. But hey taken from a soldier's point of view I don't think I'd lose much sleep over the former (maybe sleep a little sounder if I was able to drop two bad guys for the price of one) and we all knew the risks when we signed on the dotted line. But the folks who make the decisions in the big five sided puzzle palace absolutely cringe at the thought. So you seized upon the most minor point of mine to argue and then you attack me personally. Sounds like a liberal with the weak side of the argument. Can't argue on substance. Go for the "below-the-belt" shot, confuse the issue with small points and hope nobody notices that you slimed out of the issue in all the confusion.

C'mon, you've been around FR almost as long as I have. You're well traveled (I saw your about page) and well read. Don't stoop to the juvenile tactics of the left. You're way better than that.

96 posted on 04/09/2008 11:46:27 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: archy

Feed reliability partly comes from the fact that bullet diameter is less than case diameter.

But, I was thinking earlier that maybe a good idea would be to neck up a 223 to maybe a 25 caliber, then load a sabboted 22 caliber bullet in it. Also, very fast burning powder, polygonal rifling, increased head space, less twist, much higher chamber pressures, aluminum cases or steel if necessary and a hammerforged stainless barrel. Heck, make it out of monel or nikasil or whatever stands up better than stainless. Invent a new metal if necessary. Whatever it takes to increase pressure and velocity.

But not at the expense of accuracy. Some of the ideas I just threw out may hurt accuracy.


97 posted on 04/09/2008 12:12:10 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Feed reliability partly comes from the fact that bullet diameter is less than case diameter.

Just right offhand, I can't immediately recall any round that has a bullet diameter greater than the case diameter....

98 posted on 04/09/2008 12:29:14 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: archy

Very funny. I meant to type “greatly less than” or “significantly less than”.


99 posted on 04/09/2008 12:46:05 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
There are are 6X223, 6.5X223 and 7X223 wildcats which generally are poor performers with bullets of any appreciable increase in mass/BC.

The 6mmX223 can push a 70 grn 6mm bullet at about 2700fs, much less effeicient than the 77/80/90 grn SMK already in use in the 223/556, don’t even try seating a 107 SMK with the expectation velcoity past 2000fs!

Indeed. One of the contenders [submitted by Gene Stoner's ARES, I believe] during the SAW trials used a 5.56mm case with the neck opened enough to take a 6mm bullet. But I think the idea was to get a tracer bullet with a tracer burnout distance beyond 900 meters as much as for other external ballistic improvement. It's of course a lot easier to make a barrel change on a Minimi/M249 SAW than on a M16 rifle.

Again, no free lunches-trade capacity for bullet diameter.

An improvement on one side of the scale will certainly be met with a tradeoff of some sort elsewhere, unless there's a major materials/technology breakthrough. No argument from me about that.

You kinda lost me-use the 5.45x39 mmm with a .277 diameter bullet? You would be losing more case capacity than if you wnet with a 6.8x223 (45mm case), I think.

Correct. But it would be an improvement for the AK family platform, probably using existing AK74 magazines. At the very worst, magazines for the 5,56x45 AK variants might be used, or new ones developed.

There are a few dedicated 6mm cartridges being used in High Power Competition in the AR-the 2007 National Match Rifle Champ (Carl Bernosky) used a 6mm Hagar, not too sure of the case length, but the OAL must be AR mag length for use in the rapid fire stages....

Yep. And 6mm Tubb, the 7,62x39mm/M43-derived6mm PPC,and there's 6mmAR, intended specifically for the M16/M4 platform. And stepping things up a notch, the 6,5 Grendel.

Bottom line is the 233/5.56 mmx 45 is probably the most mature cartridge since the 308/7.62 (full course 200-600 yd match competition drives designs to the edge of performance, occassionally past it!)

Nothing to stop you from creating a 6.8 x39 mm, but it will be a lessor cartridge than the 6.8 or the 5.56 already are;

Yep. But it could well be an improvement over the 5.54x39.5 Soviet

Rough interpolation would indicate that it could not exceed ~2450-2500Fs (gas law rule of reduction of bore diameter compared to existing rounds always yeilds less velocity from a similar platform profile) with a 115 grn bullet, and AK/SKS platform accuracy is nothing to boast about either.

Concur, for the most part. Though accuracy concerns are more an issue with rifle accuracy than required beaten zone effects for a SAW, as per the US *Project Salvo* efforts of the 1960s-'70s.

The 5.56 with advanced bullet design (77 SMK) still is the best combination of performance, capacity, reliability and accuracy compared to the other combat options.

If you want a 30 cal (762x51, 762x63) performance step up to a proper platfrom, remember.... no free lunches for the dogs of war! (Democrat party planks notwithstanding....)

Molom Labe!

I'm not so certain it's all that cut-and dried. From the British thoughts circa 1910 regarding a possible pre-WWI .303 SMLE replacement that became the Pattern 13 Rifle of , to Pedersen's .276 cartridge used in the first Garand rifles, to the Post-WWII British circa-1945 Armament Design Establishment's Ideal Cartridge Panel development of the .280 cartridge [280 Mk1Z/(7 x 43 mm)]for the EM1 and EM-2 designs that would have become the British *Rifle No. 9* NATO rifle, there's been a lot of interest in something in there somewhere between a .22 and .30 caliber hole. Oh yeah, and the old Navy/Marine straight-pull Lee rifles and Colt Potato Digger LMGs of the Boxer War period.

100 posted on 04/09/2008 1:10:02 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-159 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