Oh oh discontent in M16 world

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Hahn, May 27, 2008.

  1. Mooseman684

    Mooseman684 G&G Newbie

    17,238
    17
    For close quarters Combat, they should bring back the Thompson Sub-machine gun in .45...
    Rich
     

  2. Yep. That'll drop 'em. But they do already mention the .45acp in this article as one being ill-suited for the "new wars". So who knows? But I agree, at least try it. Or better yet, supply 1 or 2 or 2 or 3 in each unit, depending on unit size, with something more powerful/bigger projectile?
     
  3. Personally, as a medic that is not supposed to engage combat unless in self defense... id rather side with that 7.62 Ak-47 than my M-4. I would also side with a .45 pistol than my M-9 9mm. That M9 just does not have the stopping power a soldier needs for self defense. My squad leader in my medical platoon emptied a whole 9mm magazine into a target before the insurgent stopped in his tracks and realized he had been hit(Mosul, Iraq). The insurgent was able to hit the wounded soldier that my squad leader was treating couple more times before he stopped.
     
  4. I hear ya' soldier medic. But even though the AKs 7.62 has more punch, the .223 is far more accurate. In the article it sounded as if it wasn't the fact it didn't have stopping power, the .223 that is, but that it had the tendency to just go through and through and if it didn't hit a major organ, it's basically the same as a miss. I mean sure there'll be pain, but it isn't as if they can't keep or start shooting at you or you unit again.

    But I would think the .45 would be different. It does have stopping power. And if it don't, maybe they should give them better ammo that fragments instead of giving them the standard issue FMJ crap that don't frag. Maybe give them some .45 HP? Maybe also give some HP in .223. Pretty sure that crap is FMJ also; so no wonders it punches straight through.
     
  5. yeah, but that would cause "undue suffering" according to the hague convention bs
     
  6. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    Whoever wrote that article does not know a thing about ballistics.

    The reason so many people think the 5.56 just punches threw is because after the core separates in the body the M855s steel penetrator continues to travel forward and punches out the back leaving a small exit. But the wound channel is rather large because of how the bullet tends to separate during its yaw.

    Also note that .223 is not the same as 5.56.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2008
  7. squirrelblaster

    squirrelblaster G&G Enthusiast Forum Contributor

    why not though in a guy with an ak47 for every few with m4s? granted would make suply a bitmore complicated but they have diffrent uses, and each a very good at what they do! some why not utilise both?
     
  8. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    Because we do not need to. We work in combined arms already. Where the 16 falls short the golf picks up, so on and so forth.
     
  9. squirrelblaster

    squirrelblaster G&G Enthusiast Forum Contributor

    sorry iof im being slowbut that is the golf?
     
  10. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    M240 Golf.
     
  11. Iron_Colonel

    Iron_Colonel G&G Enthusiast

    Whats the difference between .223 and 5.56?
     
  12. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    5.56 is loaded to a higher chamber pressure than .223. The 5.56 also has a thicker casing to withstand the higher pressures. NATO tests chamber pressures at the mouth, as opposed to the SAAMI location. This throws a lot of people off. This is why you can fire .223 from a weapon chambered in 5.56 but are not supposed to the other way around.

    Because the .223 is loaded to lower pressures you loose lethality because the projectile will not come apart in the target, and you get a wound channel that looks like it was caused by an icepick. Also using .223 in a weapon chambered to 5.56 will tend to not be as accurate because of the differences in leade length.

    http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/news/newsview.aspx?storyid=11
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2008
  13. The British were not so stupid when they suggested a .280 round way back in the days of the 7.62nato arguments!! Were they?? Especially nowadays when everybody is looking towards the 6.8 or 6.5 round????
    Same-same with the .45acp; the reason it was accepted in the first place was that the previous cartridges could not do the job.
     
  14. meatloaf

    meatloaf G&G Newbie

    I shot a thompson full auto, my personal beleif is it fires to slow. However maybe the KRIS? It has a high rate of fire very low recoil and its lighter and more compact.

    As far as what i would want as my fire arm. IDK besides my 45 I would like to see what bushmaster and magpul have produced from the masada.
     

  15. I too have shot the Thompson (1928A1) on Full auto, I don't think it is too slow, any faster & it would be harder to control. I much preferred it to the modern grease gun! BTW what did the military do with all their grease-guns?
     
  16. SwedeSteve

    SwedeSteve Freedom Zealot Forum Contributor

    I think at some point we will have to step away from the AR platform, and 5.56 as well.
     
  17. mym1a

    mym1a G&G Newbie

    1,308
    0
    test

    was that a test? or am I so naive that I find it hard to believe a colonel wouldn't know this???????
     
  18. Hahn

    Hahn G&G Newbie

    88
    0
    .45 is a nice round for close up a personal but 9mm is 300fps faster than .45 and is't Effective range beats .45 by at least 30yds and it's Max. range beats .45 by at least 50yds. In a room to room fight .45 can't be beat for mil. pistols but take it outside where ranges will vary more I would personally rather have 9mm. But of course an AK pistol beats them all ... lol
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2008
  19. Turbo

    Turbo G&G Newbie

    123
    0
    Hahn, I think you need to check your ballistics again brother.