back to 7.62 ?
Discussion
GC8 said:
The rifling affects accuracy, but also the bullets behaviour when it hits its target. Barrel length will affect the trajectiles velocity.
This is why Colt altered the twist of (what we would now regard as) early M16s.
Rifling affects the bullet weight that can be stabilised as well, IIRC (at least part of) the reason for changing the M16 twist rate was to use heavier projectiles?This is why Colt altered the twist of (what we would now regard as) early M16s.
No opinion on assault rifles though, I'll just stick with my bolt action hunting rifles - much simpler!
hidetheelephants said:
Saddle bum said:
hidetheelephants said:
[snip]
there and ROF Enfield
[snip]
Er, do you mind, it was RSAF (Royal Small Arms Factroy) Enfield. Enfield was never a Royal Ordnance Factory.there and ROF Enfield
[snip]
I think the reasoning behind this being rolled out in limited numbers e.g. 1 per squad.
Is the manufacturers of the 7.62 for the UK MOD can barely keep up with the demand from support weaponry in the 7.62 calibre, GPMG et al. If you were to add on 1 paras ammo demands alone and easily 1/4 of their current production. I wonder if they have upgraded the machinery or built another line to cope with this demand?
Is the manufacturers of the 7.62 for the UK MOD can barely keep up with the demand from support weaponry in the 7.62 calibre, GPMG et al. If you were to add on 1 paras ammo demands alone and easily 1/4 of their current production. I wonder if they have upgraded the machinery or built another line to cope with this demand?
RobDickinson said:
I think a convention (geneva?) requires all batlfield weapons to be lethal up to their maximum range, at least as a possibility.
the Laws of Armed Combat are a funny set of rules e.g. the stuff that doesn't allow soft point / hollowpoint/ dum- dum rounds to be used in armed combat despite their ubiquity in other uses becase of their destructive and stopping power ... by ensuring optimum energy transfer to the targetSaddle bum said:
voicey said:
JMGS4 said:
In my experience the SA80 is one of the worst firearms the Army ever bought (I was in at the introduction). It jammed, was difficult to strip and clean and was totally unreliable and innacurate. It may have improved now, but somehow I doubt it as when I have the adoo shooting at me I don't want a weapon that is ineffective over 200m when they're using AK47 or larger!
The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I concur - I too remember the intoduction of the SA80 and have been issued both weapons. Although it should be noted that the revisions to the SA80 have made an improvement to it (although I left before the revisions were intoduced and only have the account of others). My unit had an exchange program with the US Army so I had opportunity to use the M16 when I went over there - now that's what we should have been issued with all along.The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I have no idea what prompted the MOD to design it's own weapon (SA80) from scratch - although I can guess someone made a killing out of the contract...
Terminal ballistic effect is a function of the ammunition not the weapon that discharges it.
7.62mm has far more energy that 5.56mm at any range.
Too much uninformed opinion here, especially on the subject of SA80.
inman999 said:
Saddle bum said:
voicey said:
JMGS4 said:
In my experience the SA80 is one of the worst firearms the Army ever bought (I was in at the introduction). It jammed, was difficult to strip and clean and was totally unreliable and innacurate. It may have improved now, but somehow I doubt it as when I have the adoo shooting at me I don't want a weapon that is ineffective over 200m when they're using AK47 or larger!
The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I concur - I too remember the intoduction of the SA80 and have been issued both weapons. Although it should be noted that the revisions to the SA80 have made an improvement to it (although I left before the revisions were intoduced and only have the account of others). My unit had an exchange program with the US Army so I had opportunity to use the M16 when I went over there - now that's what we should have been issued with all along.The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I have no idea what prompted the MOD to design it's own weapon (SA80) from scratch - although I can guess someone made a killing out of the contract...
Terminal ballistic effect is a function of the ammunition not the weapon that discharges it.
7.62mm has far more energy that 5.56mm at any range.
Too much uninformed opinion here, especially on the subject of SA80.
Saddle bum said:
inman999 said:
Saddle bum said:
voicey said:
JMGS4 said:
In my experience the SA80 is one of the worst firearms the Army ever bought (I was in at the introduction). It jammed, was difficult to strip and clean and was totally unreliable and innacurate. It may have improved now, but somehow I doubt it as when I have the adoo shooting at me I don't want a weapon that is ineffective over 200m when they're using AK47 or larger!
The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I concur - I too remember the intoduction of the SA80 and have been issued both weapons. Although it should be noted that the revisions to the SA80 have made an improvement to it (although I left before the revisions were intoduced and only have the account of others). My unit had an exchange program with the US Army so I had opportunity to use the M16 when I went over there - now that's what we should have been issued with all along.The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I have no idea what prompted the MOD to design it's own weapon (SA80) from scratch - although I can guess someone made a killing out of the contract...
Terminal ballistic effect is a function of the ammunition not the weapon that discharges it.
7.62mm has far more energy that 5.56mm at any range.
Too much uninformed opinion here, especially on the subject of SA80.
Ayahuasca said:
I believe he is and agree - the longer the barrel the longer the expanding propellant gases have to push the bullet forward. The bullet will accelerate all the way along the barrel.
Once the proj has passed the "all burnt position", the gases undergo adiabatic expansion, there is no further acceleration past this point. Barrels that are too long don't do anything except possibly slow the proj down due to friction and have wide deviations in muzzle velocity. This destroys any possibility of getting an acceptable MPI.Terminal ballistic effect is a different ball game. Bullets that have a C of G behind the centre of mass tend to tumble on impact, eg. the 303 Mark VII and the Mil Spec 5.56 x 45. 7.62x 51 NATO does not exhibit this property.
Saddle bum said:
Once the proj has passed the "all burnt position", the gases undergo adiabatic expansion, there is no further acceleration past this point. Barrels that are too long don't do anything except possibly slow the proj down due to friction and have wide deviations in muzzle velocity. This destroys any possibility of getting an acceptable MPI.
Terminal ballistic effect is a different ball game. Bullets that have a C of G behind the centre of mass tend to tumble on impact, eg. the 303 Mark VII and the Mil Spec 5.56 x 45. 7.62x 51 NATO does not exhibit this property.
We're talking about military ball ammo' here. For home loads you can get a 90 grain .223" (5.56mm) bullet with a BC that keeps up with a .308 (7.62) out to 1000 yards but you'll need a 30" tube and slow burning powder to do it. It all depends on the powder, load, head and so on - most military powders are designed to be reliable, hot enough to operate a machine gun and have minimal muzzle flash.Terminal ballistic effect is a different ball game. Bullets that have a C of G behind the centre of mass tend to tumble on impact, eg. the 303 Mark VII and the Mil Spec 5.56 x 45. 7.62x 51 NATO does not exhibit this property.
The twist rate to stabilise a certain weight of bullet is well known and pretty fixed; a 5.56 would have a 1-12 twist to suit 55 grain FMJs. Most bullets only tend to tumble as they pass from supersonic to subsonic, much before 1000 yards on most sniper rifles I know of in service, hence why they go for the .338 Lapua and .50 for this work.
Twist rate if you're using soft points (varmint bullets) has a massive effect on terminal ballistics. Drive them hard, twist them fast and they can even tear apart on the way to the target, imagine what they do when they actually get there..
dfen5 said:
Saddle bum said:
Once the proj has passed the "all burnt position", the gases undergo adiabatic expansion, there is no further acceleration past this point. Barrels that are too long don't do anything except possibly slow the proj down due to friction and have wide deviations in muzzle velocity. This destroys any possibility of getting an acceptable MPI.
Terminal ballistic effect is a different ball game. Bullets that have a C of G behind the centre of mass tend to tumble on impact, eg. the 303 Mark VII and the Mil Spec 5.56 x 45. 7.62x 51 NATO does not exhibit this property.
We're talking about military ball ammo' here. For home loads you can get a 90 grain .223" (5.56mm) bullet with a BC that keeps up with a .308 (7.62) out to 1000 yards but you'll need a 30" tube and slow burning powder to do it. It all depends on the powder, load, head and so on - most military powders are designed to be reliable, hot enough to operate a machine gun and have minimal muzzle flash.Terminal ballistic effect is a different ball game. Bullets that have a C of G behind the centre of mass tend to tumble on impact, eg. the 303 Mark VII and the Mil Spec 5.56 x 45. 7.62x 51 NATO does not exhibit this property.
The twist rate to stabilise a certain weight of bullet is well known and pretty fixed; a 5.56 would have a 1-12 twist to suit 55 grain FMJs. Most bullets only tend to tumble as they pass from supersonic to subsonic, much before 1000 yards on most sniper rifles I know of in service, hence why they go for the .338 Lapua and .50 for this work.
Twist rate if you're using soft points (varmint bullets) has a massive effect on terminal ballistics. Drive them hard, twist them fast and they can even tear apart on the way to the target, imagine what they do when they actually get there..
dfen5 said:
We're talking about military ball ammo' here. For home loads you can get a 90 grain .223" (5.56mm) bullet with a BC that keeps up with a .308 (7.62) out to 1000 yards but you'll need a 30" tube and slow burning powder to do it. It all depends on the powder, load, head and so on - most military powders are designed to be reliable, hot enough to operate a machine gun and have minimal muzzle flash.
The twist rate to stabilise a certain weight of bullet is well known and pretty fixed; a 5.56 would have a 1-12 twist to suit 55 grain FMJs. Most bullets only tend to tumble as they pass from supersonic to subsonic, much before 1000 yards on most sniper rifles I know of in service, hence why they go for the .338 Lapua and .50 for this work.
Twist rate if you're using soft points (varmint bullets) has a massive effect on terminal ballistics. Drive them hard, twist them fast and they can even tear apart on the way to the target, imagine what they do when they actually get there..
The OP was discussing the military scenario. Even the US has apprciated the limitations of the 5.56 SS109 round at ranges grater than 500m. That is why they considered putting the 7.52mm M14 back into service, or something similar. It is getting to the point when the Infantry need a weapon customised to the theatre, ie Urban or Desert. The way we think about it is that if you can stick a bayonet on it, all will be well.The twist rate to stabilise a certain weight of bullet is well known and pretty fixed; a 5.56 would have a 1-12 twist to suit 55 grain FMJs. Most bullets only tend to tumble as they pass from supersonic to subsonic, much before 1000 yards on most sniper rifles I know of in service, hence why they go for the .338 Lapua and .50 for this work.
Twist rate if you're using soft points (varmint bullets) has a massive effect on terminal ballistics. Drive them hard, twist them fast and they can even tear apart on the way to the target, imagine what they do when they actually get there..
The end result is that 7.62 is superior to 5.56 at longer ranges both in terms of consistency and terminal effect. The launching platform is a means of putting the bullet where the operator wants it to go.
This was taken in Jan 2010 as spent the 09 xmas period visiting various houses in and around the area we nicknamed "The Minge Of Death". On my return I found 27 xmas parcels waiting for me. The photo took its inspiration from "Evil Robot Santa" from Futurama.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I had an SA80 with a UGL for this tour sp borrowed the gun. (yes I know the straps twisted)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I had an SA80 with a UGL for this tour sp borrowed the gun. (yes I know the straps twisted)
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff