Skip to comments.Army takes HK416s from special unit
Posted on 04/08/2008 5:33:15 PM PDT by LSUfan
click here to read article
Are you finding full house 10mm for that pistol? You practically have to load your own for that.
Or M79 grenade launchers loaded with canister rounds.
Why the heck would a crack military unit want something with better performance and less maintenance?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
.....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.....
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.
Or 11.25mm, in Norwegian Model M/1914 .45 Auto talk.
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.
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?
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.....
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:
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.