[Rifle_Shaman]

I see alot of sense being thrown around here. I love my poodle shooter, i just cant stand the round it shoots. Dont get me wrong i dont wanna get shot by one. But we are dealing with people who think they if they die killing "Infidels" they get a free pass to paradise. Wounding them will only make them fight harder. No doubt well placed 5.56 will kill but when if a fire fight do you get to take your time with a shot? I wanna see the AR-10 get its chance. A poor decision on the part of ArmaLite's president, George Sullivan to send it to testing with a aluminum/steel composite barrel killed its chances vs the m14. We have burst mechanizes for AR-15, chances are theyll work just fine in a AR-10. As for its sand reliability i could see sand cuts like the fal's to work with the AR-10 bolt carrier. I like stoping power but i also see the need for suppressive fire, with a large round like the .308 space and weight is limited. In the end build the gun to suit the round, build the round to suit the needs. Just my misguilded views *shrug*

[pico]

What is the news regarding the .50 Beowulf? Not that this would be a candidate, but I have looked into this for myself and passed because the ammunition is not available. Someone must be buying it, but who?

I wonder why the US military did not opt for something like the 7.62x45 round? It is clearly better than the 5.56 as far as stopping power, and much superior to the 7.62x39. Anyway, newer ammunition is out that trumps the older czech round, but it would have been a big step in the right direction back in 1960's.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Back in my neck of the woods, in rural Western Nebraska, there were many farmers/rancher that had blow out and gullies that would harbor old junked automobiles. They would sometimes put them there to decrease the washing effect of the rains (upper end of gully) and to prevent more blowout, and to simply put them in an obscure location. A lot of the latter. Anyway, my cousin and I would shoot holes in different car and truck bodies with different rifles/ ammo combos. We found that the .223 was kind of lacking for full through and through shooting of an automobile. Most higher power rifles, such as 7mm Rem. Magnum, 7.62 x 54R, 8mm Mauser, 30-06, and the like would not have any problem punching through both sides of a car and doing damage on the other side. We learned to think, and shoot, "behind" the barricade, since it was an slight obstruction to the path of our target. I have always felt that and taught that to my family....that doors can be shot though is someone is coming into our house to do you harm. As a Deputy Sheriff, I was taught that most people will NOT shoot through an obstruction, even as simple as a clip board. If confronted (gospel truth... was taught this in LEO training), use the clip board to put up in front of the shooter and they would invariably try to shoot around it, and as you moved it around, you drew your own weapon. They even made thick bullet resistant clip boards for some departments to buy if they wanted them. I've shot varmints from behind obstacles they though "hid" them but I simply shot right through and killed them.

In a shooting setting, one would need to imagine just where your enemy, your target would be, and shoot at the target, even if behind a car or door, or wall, knowing that if you have a round with some "guts" to it, that it will penetrate the barrier and put the major hurt on the enemy behind the cover.

There is a limit to all good things, and you simply cannot carry the biggest and best cover breacher rifle around all day. A .50 BMG would definitely get the top honors for being able to make cover simply disappear. But, being a bit heavy both on recoil and weight it is not the top pick. Pick one that has good light weight, has good stopping power, whether out in the open or behind cover and you have a good choice. As mentioned earlier, steel core 5.56 NATO are good at penetration. But, sometimes one might not have the steel core stuff at hand to do that. Would be nice to simply have something with enough muscle to bust through and not have to be steel core or armor piercing to do the job.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

Back in my neck of the woods, in rural Western Nebraska, there were many farmers/rancher that had blow out and gullies that would harbor old junked automobiles. They would sometimes put them there to decrease the washing effect of the rains (upper end of gully) and to prevent more blowout, and to simply put them in an obscure location. A lot of the latter. Anyway, my cousin and I would shoot holes in different car and truck bodies with different rifles/ ammo combos. We found that the .223 was kind of lacking for full through and through shooting of an automobile. Most higher power rifles, such as 7mm Rem. Magnum, 7.62 x 54R, 8mm Mauser, 30-06, and the like would not have any problem punching through both sides of a car and doing damage on the other side. We learned to think, and shoot, "behind" the barricade, since it was an slight obstruction to the path of our target. I have always felt that and taught that to my family....that doors can be shot though is someone is coming into our house to do you harm. As a Deputy Sheriff, I was taught that most people will NOT shoot through an obstruction, even as simple as a clip board. If confronted (gospel truth... was taught this in LEO training), use the clip board to put up in front of the shooter and they would invariably try to shoot around it, and as you moved it around, you drew your own weapon. They even made thick bullet resistant clip boards for some departments to buy if they wanted them. I've shot varmints from behind obstacles they though "hid" them but I simply shot right through and killed them. In a shooting setting, one would need to imagine just where your enemy, your target would be, and shoot at the target, even if behind a car or door, or wall, knowing that if you have a round with some "guts" to it, that it will penetrate the barrier and put the major hurt on the enemy behind the cover. There is a limit to all good things, and you simply cannot carry the biggest and best cover breacher rifle around all day. A .50 BMG would definitely get the top honors for being able to make cover simply disappear. But, being a bit heavy both on recoil and weight it is not the top pick. Pick one that has good light weight, has good stopping power, whether out in the open or behind cover and you have a good choice. As mentioned earlier, steel core 5.56 NATO are good at penetration. But, sometimes one might not have the steel core stuff at hand to do that. Would be nice to simply have something with enough muscle to bust through and not have to be steel core or armor piercing to do the job.

Yes, this is true. People have a tendency to shoot at the weak portion of the target, even if it is "around the clipboard"...it's simple psychology

However, steel-core SS109 rounds (aka M855) are standard-issue to our servicemen, as it is the standard NATO 5.56 round. The likelihood of our servicemen having been issued ammo other than the SS109 is very rare, except in cases of having been issued ammo specifically demanded for a specific task.

[Darth AkSarBen]

I posted a very intersting pdf write up on the 5.56 NATO and it's history and it's failings at my links page here: Website and Information Links The pdf is titled "Bite The Bullet" written by Tony Williams and Nicholas Drummond. It goes into a lot of detail on why the need for a better round is needed in our armies. Tony's website here: CANNON, MACHINE GUNS AND AMMUNITION The link on the military technology is quite good.

[GlockMeister]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Johnnycat

Until a new platform to replace the M16 is sought I would not count on a new round. The 6.8 SPC is a huge upgrade, but it is really only a specialty round in the way it is being used. Same for .458 SOCOM, etc.

While I'll agree the 6.8 having more energy/knock down power is and would indeed be an upgrade from the .223/5.56, the drawback is it's really only good out to about half of what the .223/5.56 is. According to the chart linked below that is...

6.8 SPC Ballistics.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the 6.8spc. So much so, I picked me up a Stag model 5HL upper. Ammo just needs to come down now. And if our military or even NATO makes the switch to it, the price will more then likely eventually come down. I hope anyways.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Go look at the chart on page 17 of this link: http://taurus45acp.com/files/BittingTheBullet.pdf The 5.56 has way less energy of the 6.8 SPC even from the start and does not loose anything to the 5.56.

[dhermesc]

Quote:       Originally Posted by ZombieHunter

You are correct about the bullet that stays within the body transferring all of its energy to the body. However, in the realm of the Geneva Convention requirement for non-deforming bullets, anything larger than a .22LR is non-applicable to this fact.

Agreed. When the M16 was first issued they had this problem solved with the "slow" twist rate (1:12). The bullet was stabil "enough" in flight but keyholed upon hitting the target causing massive wounds. The original M16 had only slightly better accuracy than the AK but the rifleman carried more rounds with less weight and less recoil to the shooter. When greater accuracy and long range became the prime objective the faster twist rates resulted in a round that stayed stabil even when punching through a target. Instead of a slug that keyholed or tumbled though the flesh of the target it punched a nice tight .22 sized hole through it.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Actually, it's the Hague Convention of 1907. In Section II, Article 23 it does state this: "It is forbidden: To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" ref: The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

The Hague Convention of 1899 mentions the specifics of bullets/projectiles, which states: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." those rules found here: The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 It also goes on to say that: "It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power"

So, it makes me wonder if Afghanistan is one of the "Contracting Parties" that signed in the original Hague Convention, and I also wonder how binding it is to a radical group like the Taliban that may not have exact ties to be doing what a "singular" country would do. What I'm saying is that if we were fighting Iraq that we are fighting the organized toops and armies of that country. But, the resistance that springs up in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places is from outside the normal avenue of the organized armies of a particular nation. Are we then held to the Hague Convention in dealing with these Taliban Jihad extremists?

[blueice]

Quote:       Originally Posted by GlockMeister

While I'll agree the 6.8 having more energy/knock down power is and would indeed be an upgrade from the .223/5.56, the drawback is it's really only good out to about half of what the .223/5.56 is.

Not to mention the added bulk and weight....

[Shooter Girl]

Quote:       Originally Posted by ZombieHunter

Yes, this is true. People have a tendency to shoot at the weak portion of the target, even if it is "around the clipboard"...it's simple psychology However, steel-core SS109 rounds (aka M855) are standard-issue to our servicemen, as it is the standard NATO 5.56 round. The likelihood of our servicemen having been issued ammo other than the SS109 is very rare, except in cases of having been issued ammo specifically demanded for a specific task.

M855 is not a steel cored round. It has a steel penetrater with a lead core. Now there is M855 lead free which was designed for training in countries with strict lead laws (like Japan) which has a tungsten penetrater and a steel core.

Some of the lead free did find its way into theater due to the lack of normal M855, but not much.

[Shooter Girl]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

Actually, it's the Hague Convention of 1907. In Section II, Article 23 it does state this: "It is forbidden: To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" ref: The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 The Hague Convention of 1899 mentions the specifics of bullets/projectiles, which states: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." those rules found here: The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899 It also goes on to say that: "It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power" So, it makes me wonder if Afghanistan is one of the "Contracting Parties" that signed in the original Hague Convention, and I also wonder how binding it is to a radical group like the Taliban that may not have exact ties to be doing what a "singular" country would do. What I'm saying is that if we were fighting Iraq that we are fighting the organized toops and armies of that country. But, the resistance that springs up in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places is from outside the normal avenue of the organized armies of a particular nation. Are we then held to the Hague Convention in dealing with these Taliban Jihad extremists?

Also note that it does not mention fragmenting rounds. Or rounds that easily fragment. That was covered in the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868. Which we are not signatory to, because we were not considered a major power at the time. So we were not included in the talks. So we decided not to sign or ratify it.

Any round that is longer than it is wide will yaw when going from one medium into a medium that is more dense. The difference is how quickly it yaws. But that in itself does not greatly increase wounding. The fragmenting that 5.56 experiences above 2700 ft/s or so is what increases its lethality, and that occurs more now with the M855 over the old M193.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Shooter Girl

M855 is not a steel cored round. It has a steel penetrater with a lead core. Now there is M855 lead free which was designed for training in countries with strict lead laws (like Japan) which has a tungsten penetrater and a steel core. Some of the lead free did find its way into theater due to the lack of normal M855, but not much.

Core Definition | Definition of Core at Dictionary.com
The central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.

Granted, I've never actually cut one apart to see where exactly the steel penetrator is located, but I'm gonna just take a guess and suggest that it's located in roughly the same part as where most other steel penetrators are located in other rounds...which is inside the lead.

Just sayin'...

[Shooter Girl]

And this means what exactly?

If you are saying that the penetrators are at the center of the core, then you are wrong in terms of modern NATO small arms. Penetrators tend to be forward of the core, aka slug.



Now, when talking COMBLOC steel jacketed copper washed you tend to see a steel core to the rear of a lead filler. Which many of the COMBLOC nations used to call a steel penetrator to make their ammo seem meaner. But this was more a function of cost than effectivness.

Sometimes it is best to stop talking.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Excellent! +1 Shooter Girl.
If I remember right, the Russians designed the 5.45 x 39 so that the bullet was very unstable in it's design and would yaw much easier in tissue than would the 5.56 NATO round. I remember reading this somewhere, and it even mentioned Mikhail Kalashnikov kind of chuckling at our idea of an assault weapon round with the 5.56 x 45.

Personally, I think they went the wrong direction. In fact, I think we should have shortened the .308 Winchester brass and made the 6.5 or 6.8 from that rather than the brass that is used to make the Grendel, the .220 Russian for the Grendel and the .30 Remington for the 6.8 SPC brass. Ideally, it would have given the 6.5/6.8 a little more oomph, with lighter bullets but really let them cook out there more than either the Grendel or the 6.8 SPC. You can make the 6.5 really a speed demon with the 6.5 Creedmoor that Hornady recently come out with or the old standard of the .260 Remington (which has better ballistics than the Creedmoor), but it requires a longer action into the AR-10 class rather than the AR-15. Recoil is much subdued, compared to the .308/7.62 x 51, but magazine capacity is also somewhat subdued with the Creedmoor and .260 as well.

I think they were looking for something in the shorter magazine class that could load nearly as much ammo as before, but have better penetration, and more effective thump on the intended target.

[wunhunglo]

Personally I think you lot should have listened to the Brits in the early 50's and adopted the .280 as a nato standard! Maybe even listened in 1912 when the Brits suggested the .276 Enfield cartridge.

Don't really like to say it but................"We Told Ya So!"

[Shooter Girl]

[quote=Darth AkSarBen;1059197]Excellent! +1 Shooter Girl.
If I remember right, the Russians designed the 5.45 x 39 so that the bullet was very unstable in it's design and would yaw much easier in tissue than would the 5.56 NATO round. I remember reading this somewhere, and it even mentioned Mikhail Kalashnikov kind of chuckling at our idea of an assault weapon round with the 5.56 x 45.[quote]

Yeah kind of. The 5.45 was a product to counter our 5.56, and while it does yaw sooner, it is still not as effective because it does not fragment due to the projectile's construction. Steel and steel does not fragment as easily as copper and lead. Most modern ballisticians tend to agree that yawing in itself does not greatly increase lethality. But like everything when it comes to guns, there are people that do not agree.

Back during the Cold War the Russians boasted the lethality of their 5.45 without doing many actual ballistic tests. Yes they shot live animals, and humans to test it, but instead of actually looking at the wound channel, they tended to only look at the exit wound. At the time it was thought that the size of the exit directly related to the size of the wound channel. The exit wound from the 5.45 in human targets from a frontal hit was so large because the bullet tended to be at 90 degrees in its second or third yaw. Making the exit much larger than the majority of the actual wound channel.

The Russians, Chinese, and other countries using the AK varients at the time tended to use a steel jacket that was copper washed along with a steel core for two reasons, smelting steel was easier in mass quantities, and steel was cheaper than lead and copper. But in the information wars of the Cold War, they spun this to say it made it penetrate intermediate barriers along with body armor better than 5.56. Which was totaly untrue because the muzzel energy of this round is several hundred foot pounds lower than our 5.56, and as it is a slower round to start with the rounds momentum is much lower.

Quote:       Originally Posted by wunhunglo

Personally I think you lot should have listened to the Brits in the early 50's and adopted the .280 as a nato standard! Maybe even listened in 1912 when the Brits suggested the .276 Enfield cartridge. Don't really like to say it but................"We Told Ya So!"

I really don't know too much about those two rounds. But from what I understand, the agreement was that everyone would use our rifle design, and in turn we would adopt their .280. But we changed our minds and kind of said. "Yeah we are going to use our design, and our bullet. So F U."

Which in turn ticked off the Brits, and is one of the reasons we are meeting such resistance in trying to get the 6.8 as a standardized round.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Shooter Girl

And this means what exactly? If you are saying that the penetrators are at the center of the core, then you are wrong in terms of modern NATO small arms. Penetrators tend to be forward of the core, aka slug. Now, when talking COMBLOC steel jacketed copper washed you tend to see a steel core to the rear of a lead filler. Which many of the COMBLOC nations used to call a steel penetrator to make their ammo seem meaner. But this was more a function of cost than effectivness. Sometimes it is best to stop talking.

The last thing I want to do is start a fight over the internets. However, it's my understanding that the addition of steel to the round was out of a perceived need to penetrate certain things a bit better...namely, steel helmets and such, at distances greater than what could be achieved with our 193 round. If so, the 62gr NATO 5.56mm round can correctly be referred to as a "steel core" round, as it would fit the dictionary definition of the term...namely, the steel penetrator portion of the round would be the most essential part of the projectile, as it is what allows the projectile to well, you know, actually penetrate stuff that it was designed to penetrate.

Thank you for sharing the photo though, I had never actually seen a cross-section of the SS109. I have seen diagrams of various 7.62 rounds, both commie and NATO. In these rounds, the steel penetrator is most often in the center of the round, with lead being used as a "filler" material.

Out of curiosity (not challenging it, just wondering about its origin), where did you get the info about the Soviet use of a steel core being out of cost-effectiveness as opposed to performance? I understand the concept of using a steel jacket vs. copper, the cost differential is obvious there...but without a serious shortage of lead, I am having a hard time figuring how how steel would have been cheaper. Steel is infinitely more difficult (and therefore, more expensive) to manufacture, cast, and form than lead, without taking into account material costs. This is due strictly to its physical properties (malleability, melting point, et cetera).

Again, thanks for the information.

[Darth AkSarBen]

If you need better penetration from the short barreled M4 then you need a different caliber, not bullet.

Somewhere I read that in 16" of barrel the 6.8 SPC attains 98% of it's velocity and going to 14" looses very litte from the loss of that 2". Likewise, going to 18" gains maybe 50 fps to the 6.8 SPC. Here is where the caliber really finds it's talent. While others rely on longer barrels for decent velocity/accuracy the 6.8 SPC is quite at home in the short barreld assault type weapons.

A bigger bullet closely missing the target in a battle scenario still is a miss, but the miss of the 5.56 is not taken as demoralizing as the "miss" of the 7.62 bullet. Somehwere in the middle there has to be a trade off for light weight and lethality.

[Shooter Girl]

Quote:       Originally Posted by ZombieHunter

If so, the 62gr NATO 5.56mm round can correctly be referred to as a "steel core" round, as it would fit the dictionary definition of the term...namely, the steel penetrator portion of the round would be the most essential part of the projectile, as it is what allows the projectile to well, you know, actually penetrate stuff that it was designed to penetrate.

You could only use that definition change if you are willing to call it an AP round, which it clearly is not, or you would not be able to purchase green tip on the open market. It is a ball round, the core is lead, with a penetrator. Nothing more.

Quote:      

Out of curiosity (not challenging it, just wondering about its origin), where did you get the info about the Soviet use of a steel core being out of cost-effectiveness as opposed to performance? I understand the concept of using a steel jacket vs. copper, the cost differential is obvious there...but without a serious shortage of lead, I am having a hard time figuring how how steel would have been cheaper. Steel is infinitely more difficult (and therefore, more expensive) to manufacture, cast, and form than lead, without taking into account material costs. This is due strictly to its physical properties (malleability, melting point, et cetera). Again, thanks for the information.

From the publications detailing the history of the rounds. Both U.S. and Soviet written.