imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-25-2010, 01:04 AM
Ermac Ermac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Default

That barrel is way too short. I imagine they shoot cartridges with reduced powder charges because shooting a full powered 7.62x51 in that would have a defening blast and recoil. I think a rifle shouldin't have a barrel shorter then 15 or 16 inches. As for the controlobility of such weapons in full auto comes down to the rate of fire. Most battle rifles and assault rifles have very high ROFs which makes them hard to control in full auto, it also chews up ammo faster and heats up the weapon faster by having a high ROF.

Last edited by Ermac; 04-25-2010 at 01:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-25-2010, 06:29 AM
Rockwolf66's Avatar
Rockwolf66 Rockwolf66 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ermac View Post
That barrel is way too short. I imagine they shoot cartridges with reduced powder charges because shooting a full powered 7.62x51 in that would have a defening blast and recoil. I think a rifle shouldin't have a barrel shorter then 15 or 16 inches. As for the controlobility of such weapons in full auto comes down to the rate of fire. Most battle rifles and assault rifles have very high ROFs which makes them hard to control in full auto, it also chews up ammo faster and heats up the weapon faster by having a high ROF.
Not for it's intended purpose. I know of units that standard issue the 12.5" barreled G3KA4 because of where they will be fighting. The rounds they fire are full power 7.62X51mm NATO. Frankly the rate of fire doesn't matter as much as some people think. Those aformentioned M14E2s fire at about 700~800 rounds a minute and they are used in Full Auto competitions.

As far as the FAL in the origional post it's one ment for jungle and urban fighting so it needs a shorter barrel.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-25-2010, 02:59 PM
Nyles Nyles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 921
Default

People talk alot about controllability of various assault rifles, but the reality is the only time a shoulder-fired rifle caliber weapon should be fired automatically is trench clearing and in FIBUA.

The level 3 marksmanship test we do is called the run-up. Start at 300M, shoot from the prone, sprint to 200M, fire prone and kneeling, sprint to 100M, prone and kneeling, sprint to 75M, standing, sprint to 50M, standing, sprint to 25M, only then do you fire full auto. Shooting a rifle-caliber weapon full auto much further than that is not necessary.

I do think the 5.56mm is a better military round, but the reason is not full-auto fire. You can carry more ammo for less weight, the weapon itself is lighter, and most importantly it's alot easier to use in semi-auto. Remember, most soldiers in this day and age go to basic training never having shot a rifle before. And even infanteers don't get to go to the range and practice nearly as much as they should, because there are so many other skills required of a modern soldier that need to be learned and refreshed. We don't have the time or the budget, and neither does almost any other army.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-27-2010, 04:06 AM
Markost Markost is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Soviet Republic of Argentina
Posts: 620
Send a message via AIM to Markost Send a message via Yahoo to Markost Send a message via Skype™ to Markost
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyles View Post
People talk alot about controllability of various assault rifles, but the reality is the only time a shoulder-fired rifle caliber weapon should be fired automatically is trench clearing and in FIBUA.
Thatīs right Nyles. Remember the South Atlantic Conflict, both sides used the Fal in semiauto. The argentinian versions were selective, but they just used them in full auto during close combat, like Darwin.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-27-2010, 05:25 AM
Ermac Ermac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Default

double post.

Last edited by Ermac; 04-27-2010 at 05:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-27-2010, 05:40 AM
Ermac Ermac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwolf66 View Post
Not for it's intended purpose. I know of units that standard issue the 12.5" barreled G3KA4 because of where they will be fighting. The rounds they fire are full power 7.62X51mm NATO. Frankly the rate of fire doesn't matter as much as some people think. Those aformentioned M14E2s fire at about 700~800 rounds a minute and they are used in Full Auto competitions.

As far as the FAL in the origional post it's one ment for jungle and urban fighting so it needs a shorter barrel.

I guess its okay as long as they aren't completely replacing the long barreled FAL. What happens in a competition dosen't pertain to a battlefield. There is a reason why you don't see M14E2's anymore because they were ineffective weapons as machine guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyles View Post
I do think the 5.56mm is a better military round, but the reason is not full-auto fire. You can carry more ammo for less weight, the weapon itself is lighter, and most importantly it's alot easier to use in semi-auto. Remember, most soldiers in this day and age go to basic training never having shot a rifle before. And even infanteers don't get to go to the range and practice nearly as much as they should, because there are so many other skills required of a modern soldier that need to be learned and refreshed. We don't have the time or the budget, and neither does almost any other army.
It's not entirely better otherwise we wouldin't be supplementing 5.56x45 weapons with 7.62x51 weapons. You could argue that with a 5.56x45 you carry more bullets, but with less effect compared to a .308. In Afghanstan, soldiers have to use more bullets to kill the enemy because of the 5.56x45's poor lethality.

Last edited by Ermac; 04-27-2010 at 05:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2010, 05:50 AM
Nyles Nyles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ermac View Post
It's not entirely better otherwise we wouldin't be supplementing 5.56x45 weapons with 7.62x51 weapons. You could argue that with a 5.56x45 you carry more bullets, but with less effect compared to a .308. In Afghanstan, soldiers have to use more bullets to kill the enemy because of the 5.56x45's poor lethality.
Uh, yeah, I'm posting this from Kandahar and I haven't seen anything to suggest the 5.56mm is lacking in lethality, and we use the same ammo the US does. You'd be surprised what one of those little bullets will do at those velocities.

The 7.62mm is great in machine guns and DM rifles, but I don't feel it's suited to use in an infantryman's rifle, and our new .338 sniper rifles (C-14 Timberwolf) shoot circles around the old 7.62mm C3A1s. Our guys have been taking shots at some pretty impressive ranges with them.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-27-2010, 05:18 PM
Ermac Ermac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyles View Post
Uh, yeah, I'm posting this from Kandahar and I haven't seen anything to suggest the 5.56mm is lacking in lethality, and we use the same ammo the US does. You'd be surprised what one of those little bullets will do at those velocities.

The 7.62mm is great in machine guns and DM rifles, but I don't feel it's suited to use in an infantryman's rifle, and our new .338 sniper rifles (C-14 Timberwolf) shoot circles around the old 7.62mm C3A1s. Our guys have been taking shots at some pretty impressive ranges with them.
We have the most combat experince with the 5.56x45, more then any other country.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Last...Of_VNhtml.html

Last edited by Ermac; 04-27-2010 at 05:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-27-2010, 06:30 PM
Nyles Nyles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 921
Default

We've been using the 5.56mm for 25 years now, these days the only guys who remember the FN either used it in training or are reservists who didn't get C7s until the 90s. The US doesn't exactly have a monopoly on it.

Even in uniform, you'll always get somebody pushing for their favorite pet piece of kit, whether or not it's actually necessary. That's why were told to bring tanks to Afghanistan. They sat in a FOB for 3 years as quick reaction force, only being brought out to demolish the occastional compound before somebody finally figured out something useful for them to do a few months back.

The 5.56mm issue always gets play with civilian gun enthusiats, because yes, the 7.62mm does have more range and knockdown power, so to civilians (and that includes myself before I actually joined the military) who don't realise all the other factors at play, it seems like the better choice.

Most civilians have never done a 15 kilometer forced march carrying 60lbs without their weapon. Most civilians don't realise that quite frankly, most soldiers don't actually know all that much about guns. Most serious civilian shooters, no BS, have fired more rounds than most infantry Privates (not counting machine guns, which are a completely different proposition).

Is the 7.62mm a better deer round? You bet. In the right hands can it do things that a 5.56mm simply can't? For sure. Is it a better overall combat round than the 5.56mm? No, it's not. Quite simply it's easier carry more of, makes for a lighter and easier to handle weapon, and most important, it's easier to learn shoot accurately with.

You'll always get a few soldiers complaining vocally that we should be using the 7.62mm / 6.8mm / flavour of the month. Most of them just wish the army had more carbines and could make the damned machine guns lighter.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-27-2010, 07:20 PM
Ermac Ermac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 17
Default

I can defenetly understand the weight thing. Weight was the biggest reason why the M14 got replaced. I suppose the recoil advantage of the 5.56x45 might be negated if those recoil reducing designs like Para Ordanence rifle become more popular.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.