Posted on 02/02/2007 12:23:59 PM PST by John Jorsett
The Russians appear to have mostly given up on the 5.45mm round for now and continue to issue 7.62x39 for their domestic forces. 5.45 now appears to be limited to SMG-type use.
I own one gun - an SKS which uses the 7.62 rounds. I bought 1,000 rounds but only have about 940 left. ;)
It packs a pretty good punch and I am shocked at the accuracy I was able to achieve with the adjustable sights and no scope.
It's amazing what you can get for $105.
I think XM193 in my 1x8.25 twist 18" barrel is best all-around, but if the US military must stick with their huge stockpile of M855 they oughtta try using it from a 1x7 twist 24" barrel and see what happens.
... Or just go back to .308 Winchester and forget all about this 'twist/grain/bbl length' baloney.
Point of info - what you're using shoots the 7.62mm x 39mm round. The 7.62mm NATO round is 7.62x*51*mm. Considerably more powerful.
Interesting, did not know that. They probably learned the same lesson, but actually did something about it.
GASP!!!!!!
Is one of them SMOKING????
For Shame !!!
<\sarc>
How about NO?
HOLLOWPOINTS WILL NOT PENETRATE BODY ARMOR OR BUILDINGS.
Or just shoot em twice...
Semper Fi,
NYLeatherneck
Which means mine has even a lower muzzle velocity. I do like the low recoil the guns design offers. Virtually none, actually.
I'm no gun nut so I gotta ask, what ever happened to the .226 (I think)? Wasn't that basically a .22 with a pointier bullet and a couple of lbs of gunpowder in each cartridge? ;) I heard the deadly part was the muzzle velocity.
Actually, it was apparently driven by economics as the major factor. Converting everyone over to 5.45 would have cost the Russians more money than they had, considering that they had literal mountains of 7.62x39 sitting around in depots and their *entire* infantry logistics system was built around that round.
Their experiences in Afghanistan also lead them to that conclusion, but it seems that they'd made the decision prior to the end of their time there.
Can you just imagine a laser type weapon where the "deadly force" from the weapon hits the target INSTANTLY, and in a perfect straight line?! That would be truly amazing. And we may just get something like it relatively soon.
1) Someone sould check the date of that report - it sounds like about the tenth iteration of 'reports' that started about 1965 to my recollection.
That being about the time they decided to replace the M-14 with a rifle the Air Force had selected before them - electing powder jams over potential for rust.
Same time a Colt representative told me the .223 was better because it tumbled!
2) Seems to me that when "the Army" does a study they could find a few participants who had actually USED the weapons they were studying.
3) The "Marines picked up AK-47 and used them in the field" is also a recycled truism from the 'advisor' days prior to 1965.
4) On another note - did I not note somewhere that all or most Special Ops units are armed with the (obsolete/anequated/not european enough) .45 ACP rather than the 'wounds are better than kills' 9MM?
Probably thinking of the old .220 Swift. Huge case with a bitty 40 grain (IIRC) bullet and around 4,000 fps MV. Was supposedly very hard on barrel life, but a wickedly accurate varmint rifle.
Of course, doesn't the Geneva Convention also prohibit cutting off the heads of prisoners, as well as using film of prisoners being tortured and murdered for propaganda purposes?
The ban on dum dums (from the dum dum armory in India) dates to the Hague Treaty at the turn of the 20th century. Geneva updated "expanding bullets" to "unecessary suffering", or some such wording. Ironically you can't deer hunt in most (all?) states with FMJ, only expanding bullets, so as to not cause "unecessary suffering". There have been several rulings by the JAG that the ban on expanding bullets applies only in conflicts between signatory powers, and that expanding bullets can be used in counterterrorism operations, which imo would apply in Iraq. Since the 5.56 tumbles on impact, I'm not sure it would make much difference though.
US out of NATO?
A couple of pounds in each cartridge? That would be a 14,000 grain charge!
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.