 XM-8 on TV, On the History Channel |
  |
 Sep 27 2004, 07:45 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222  |
They'll be in a hurry to change back to M855s as soon as Austrians, Belarussians, Belgians, Bulgarians, Chinese, Danish, Ethiopian, Fijian, etc etc soldiers enter the battlefield, however. Damn the Final Act Of the International Peace Conference!
Although if these agreements meant anything, there would be no M193s or M855s either. Or is it that it's just a weird coincidence and an accident that they tend to fragment when they hit humans at common engagement ranges? Sort of like it's a coincidence and an accident that VX is lethal? [Edit]Crap, nevermind, the US never signed that. They are free to use as much fragmenting and expanding small arms ammunition as they please, as long as they are not incendiary (or if they are, they must also be armor piercing), explosive (ditto), or cause undetectable fragments. Looking on the bright side: Finland never signed it either, not having existed at the time. Yay![/Edit] This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 27 2004, 07:50 PM |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 27 2004, 07:55 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
It's amazing the kinds of acronyms we can come up with by simply deciding not to use a 100-round mag. Definitely a smart move. :)
Eh. It was cool in a movie, but I just don't think it would be worth much in the real world. When it stops going "BANG" it's time to change mags. KISS. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 27 2004, 08:28 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
well the US military does abide by the Hague Accords even as a non-signatory. I believe there's a lot of other nations that do the same (like the UK). it's seems like a bunch of BS to me, military lawyers have cleared some hollow point ammunition for war use. http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html and there's a similar opinion clearing .45 JHP, specifically Winchester 230-grain SXT anyway the law is subjective, how much suffering is necessary for a bullet to do it's duty and incapacitate? isn't suffering as pain a part of incapacitation? my crack team of mall ninja philosophers is in the process of drafting an opinion declaring Czar Nicholas II to be an inbred idiotic autocratic bliss-ninnie. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 27 2004, 08:40 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The "superfluous injury" bit is truly BS, yes. It's not as though you ever get to choose whether you just put a small or a fucking huge gaping hole in the enemy on the battlefield.
However, the linked agreement simply bans all expanding and fragmenting ammunition in small arms. The wounding potential of such rounds does not matter in this context. JHPs and open-tip ammunition are explicitly banned: "To prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions." And, re-reading the ratification information, the US has ratified this. There's really no excuse there. Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something, it would be a clear breach of these declarations to use any such ammunition against another signatory state, such as China, Iran or Serbia -- unless of course some of these have "un-ratified" the agreement since 1899. [Edit]I love the attitude in the memo you linked. "It's okay to use JHP ammunition as long as it's expansion reliability is below ~90%!" "Well it wasn't really designed to expand, so it doesn't count!" I'm really starting to like my VX comparison. Pitiful last-ditch attempt to save the thread: Do the megacorps have similar agreements limiting the use of forced in armed conflict? Is Explosive Ammunition for small arms banned in the Desert Wars? What about chemical and biological weapons?[/Edit] This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 27 2004, 08:55 PM |
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2004, 08:55 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
where? the USA isn't on that list, it did sign the 1907 Hague Accords, not the 1899. the 1899 Accords also banned bombing from balloons and "similar methods", that would mean all arial bombing is illegal.
Germany is on that 1899 list and they used a fragmenting .308 for many years when the US fought china, iran and serbia i don't think they recognized them or declared war on them, so in theory we could have used all the hollow points we wanted. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2004, 09:08 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
USA is clearly listed as a signatory on 29.07.1899 (July 29th 1899) of the Final Act Of the International Peace Conference. I do not rule out the possibility that the site in question is in error. However, I have not found any other source listing the signatories, and I would expect the International Committee of the Red Cross to get their facts straight on such matters. (Check this for the beginning of the list and the reference, the list continues, including the US, here.)
The ban on bombing or launching projectiles from balloons or similar methods is only for 5 years from the Hague Conference of 1899. (Declaration (IV, 1), to Prohibit, for the Term of Five Years, the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, and Other Methods of Similar Nature, 26 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 2) 994, 187 Consol. T.S. 456, entered into force Sept. 4, 1900.) The follow-up was to last until the 3rd peace conference, which never came, so it is (sort-of) still in effect -- but that was never ratified by the US. Several nations that use fragmenting rifle ammunition are on that list, which was my point exactly. Nobody really does seem to give a fuck about these old agreements. Thus it would be no surprise if EX-Explosive ammunition for small arms was the norm in the 2060s. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 27 2004, 09:12 PM |
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2004, 09:11 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
for Desert Wars, everything is very carefully measured and ratified on a per-campaign basis, as i recall. furthermore, all but the last battle of a given war's campaign is conducted with non-lethal munitions. so, in that case at least, it'd depend.
beyond the Desert Wars (i really liked them better before they were defined and pussified, sigh), i imagine that the Corp Court has a set of detailed rules that were written with an eye towards limit collateral damage. the limitations would be geared less towards what you could shoot people with, and more towards who you could shoot with them. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2004, 12:13 AM
Post
#33
|
|||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
Awesome link, otomik. Wish I'd known about it sooner. He even used an image from my site. Cool. Anyone who wants to know just about all there is to know about the 5.56x45mm cartridge should read that link.
How about twenty of them? It looks like this only more like the guy from the Village People and it comes with a lot more guns that are way cooler than that one. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 28 2004, 05:31 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
I watched the one-handed demo of the XM-8 with the 100 round mag and thought, "wow - the samurai munchkins are having wet dreams now." :grinbig:
-Siege |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2004, 12:57 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
Having watched the vid-clip of the 100-round drum demo, I get the sneaking suspicion some troopers will simply opt for the "automatic rifle" variant as a bigger, badder version of the standard assault rifle.
Which raises concerns of fire discipline and how willing the Army is to release the components for that particular configuration. -Siege |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2004, 02:12 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
there used to be an automatic rifleman who carried a M16A1 and more ammunition then the average grunt with the M16A2, i think they did away with that with the M249. is there something inherantly wrong with drum magazines that they can't be made reliable? (i've used one in an SAR-1, a lotta fun, worked for me, there are some four column mags that hold 60-rounds, maybe those would work better)
I'm a little bit confused about the 9'' barrel version, is that to be a SOF colt commando/xm-117 type thing or a PDW (cuz sometimes i see with this the pad buttstock and other times it is shown with retractable stock). M4s replaced some M9s, i wonder if they are continuing this trend, it would make a lot of tankers happy (those not already grabbing AKs). I'm sure there will be a lot of soldiers envying the DMAR and the Compact 9'', grass is greener effect. personally I think i'd prefer the Compact in house to house ops or when crammed in the back of an APC or when i'm behind a desk most of the time because of "my rare and mysterious ability to type", i'll gladly let anybody that prefers the extra weight and bulk have the DMAR as long as they have the skill to make use of it. electronic ammo counters, bayonets, 100-round magazines, etc. honestly i don't have the experience to say what would be useful in real life, i'm just a college student with a .22 pistol and many hours of FPS gaming experience. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2004, 07:57 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
I've used a 75-round drum on my SAR1 and it worked fine. Through 150 rounds under relatively controlled conditions, anyway. It's the C-Mags in particular that seem to have reliability problems in the field, or so I have heard. I've never used one personally, though with the AWB dead, I probably will pretty soon. Anyway, if I really needed such a high volume of fire, I'd rather have a belt-fed. Or rather another guy with a belt-fed. Otherwise, the XM8 mags work like the SG550/G36 mags, where two or three of them can be clipped together and switched pretty easily. That's good enough for a rifle 99% of the time, I think.
Probably both. I'm sure anyone who needs a compact rifle would like to use it, SOF, tankers, officers, support troops, anyone. Being a modular weapon, it can be made to suit pretty much any mission requirement. But I'm sure it would be used mostly by SOFs who tend to operate in close quarters; CAG, DEVGRU, etc...
Well, I'm sure some people in some situations would find that kind of stuff useful, but if you're a military and you have to think about arming hundreds of thousands of troops with these weapons, it comes down to cost versus effect pretty quickly. It's a rediculous byproduct of the digital age to think that everything needs to have a computer in it, even when the task it performs is superfluous. Ammo counters and maintenance electronics sound neat, but they're totally unneeded in a combat rifle. These kinds of things are what you have brains and armorers for. I found a thread on AR15.com that says the XM8 has a double-action trigger. Pretty odd for an assault rifle. I knew the XM320 did, but the XM8? Any one else heard this? Also found this NDIA Power Point presentation. Future small arms programs, including the XM8 and XM25. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 28 2004, 09:14 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
i've also heard about the double action trigger. i can't think of any other rifles that use it except for the excellent SITES Spectre smg. wouldn't it just go unnoticed most of the time unless you need to double strike a hard primer? what is US military condition of carry anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 29 2004, 01:32 AM
Post
#39
|
|||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
The only other double-action long arm I can think of is Mossberg's 590DA. There are probably others, but it sure isn't a common thing.
I guess so. Unless there is a way to decock the hammer and carry in Condition 2. (haha!)
I'm sure it depends on where you are and what you're doing. I don't think there's any single rule. If you're pulling guard duty at a US base, it's probably loaded mag, empty chamber. Otherwise, it's probably loaded chamber, safety on. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 29 2004, 02:18 AM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
I read the same thing somewhere, though I don't recall when or where. Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea. Now, a DAO rifle, on the other hand... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 29 2004, 03:17 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Standard carry condition is loaded mag in the well, bolt closed, empty chamber.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 29 2004, 06:51 AM
Post
#42
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 20-June 04 Member No.: 6,423 |
Those 60-round four-column magazine are coming back in style, thanks to the Russians. It's a rather new development, 60-round magazines for the AK-74 and associated weapons, like the AKSU-74 and the Abakan. No magazine well modification, from what I've seen, and I've seen some pictures of it in a AK carbine. It looks pretty much the same as a normal magazine, except it's thicker and tapers as it enters the magwell.
From what I've seen, it'll most likely be issued as a PDW, but it'll probably end up as a special forces gun, too. Just like the CAR-15/Colt Commando/XM-177, which was initally a helicopter pilot's defense weapon but end up getting used heavily by SEALs, Green Berets, and other MACV/SOG types.
I'm hoping they stick with the full size DMAR rifle for infantry duty. I for one am pretty skeptical about that new semi-caseless ammunition the Army has been talking about and it's pretty well known that the 20" barrel is necessary for the M855 bullet to get enough twist to achieve maximum ballistic effectiveness. Of course, I keep think the "grass is greener" effect to also pop up with this gun, perhaps 20 years into it's service life, when 7mm caseless bullpup smartguns appear in the latest gun news.
Ammo counters, heh. DARPA's definitely been watching Aliens way too much. I swear, as much as the suggestion pops up in some gun magazines, that's where they got the idea for the OICW/Sabre, from the Pulse Rifle (which, in turn, was probably inspired by the Salvo rifle project in the '60s) Bayonets will probably still be issued up until personal firearms become obsolote, and will continue to be issued when there's the switch to directed energy infantry weapons. It's one of those things that you know will work when the chips come down. I'm not sure about a SAW exclusively using 100-round drum magazines. Like Raygun says, a belt feed's much better for sustained high-volumes of fire, sustained being the operative word. All you need is a guy hooking up the belt after belt. I swear that only the reason why M249 has a magazine feed is because of logistics: in a pinch, the Automatic Rifleman can use his squadmates' clips if he runs out of belted ammo. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 30 2004, 10:09 PM
Post
#43
|
|||||||||
|
Mostly Harmless Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 937 Joined: 26-February 02 From: 44.662,-63.469 Member No.: 176 |
If they do, it won't be called a "Designated Marksman Automatic Rifle", as everyone would have one. A 20" rifle would be wasted on most infantrymen anyway. The vast majority are rarely if ever going to attempt to engage targets beyond 300 meters considering the kind of environments they're likely to be fighting in and the training they're likely to receive, so there's really not a lot of point in arming everyone with a rifle like that. You might as well make it as compact as possible. A couple of guys in a squad with a 20", fine. And that's the idea behind a "DMAR". Though I'd even prefer that those two had M14's or something more substantial than a 5.56x45mm rifle anyway.
A) The Army is not talking about any "semi-caseless" ammunition. It's a brass base with polymer walls, shoulder and neck. It's still a full case, just half of it is made of plastic. Here. B) They are looking into more effective types of ammunition because of the M885's apparent lack of terminal effectiveness beyond 100-150 meters. That's why the Mk262 has been seeing so much use. IMO, if you're going to bother changing rifles, you should try improving the cartridge, too. But there's only so much you can do with the 5.56x45mm. Eventually you have to face the fact that you need more bullet.
You also need to be able to change barrels quickly. Firing from an open bolt would probably be a good idea as well. XM8 does none of that. It's a rifle, not a machine gun, and would be pretty lousy in that kind of a role. I think we ought to stick with the M249 as an automatic rifle. Way more versatile.
You're right about that. But unless they decide to use the NATO mag in the XM8 (which I doubt they're going to do as that requirement was dropped during the XM29 program), that won't be an option any more. Too bad. It was a decent idea. But if they decide to go with Barrett's M468, they'll still have that option, as they'll probably be rebarreling M249's for 6.8x42mm anyway. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 30 2004, 11:00 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
If cartridges adopted were logical, we'd have .45 in our pistols, 6mm Optimum in our rifles, 9x90mm MEN in our long range rifles and HMGs. so many compromises...
we're not hearing enough about 6.8mm, we've never had a better opportunity to ditch 5.56mm and i think we're going to have it for a long time now. the good news is it won't be M885. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 30 2004, 11:03 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
What was the matter with 7.62mm again?
~J the forgetful |
|
|
|
|
Sep 30 2004, 11:27 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
which one? which purpose? in what gun? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 30 2004, 11:37 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Assault rifle round. 7.62x39mm, used in the AK-47 and the Vz.58.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 30 2004, 11:52 PM
Post
#48
|
|||||
|
King of the Hobos Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,117 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 127 |
Is it just me, or does this sound vaguely similar to SVD idea that the Russians use- having a weapon that extends your range out further than the standard carried one? Although there wouldn't be any commonality of ammunition if it was a heavier round which would make things difficult. :/
Larger, heavier, more powerful than you need for what you're usually using it for and 5.56 seems to have a better wound profile than the 7.62 from what I've been able to follow- more damage and less just passing straight through them as it were. Probably not explaining myself real well here. :/ |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 1 2004, 12:29 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 |
7.62x39mm Soviet
Pros -about optimimal in power/recoil balance (esp AKs with muzzle break) -good stopping power, perhaps it could be better Cons -45k psi is relatively low pressure, inefficient weigh/space/materials -poor ballistic coefficient, loopy trajectory, long time of flight (bad long range) I think the only military that has been stupid enough to try to use 7.62x39mm as a general purpose round was the Iraqis with the Tabuk Marksman's Rifle. RPKs are also lacking in range for a LMG. Raygun has Fackler's report of modern military rifle terminal ballistics http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/basics/pmrb.html I guess i don't entirely agree with Fackler's report but i don't know enough about rifle terminal ballistics to make an effective argument. handgun terminal ballistics are much simpler. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 1 2004, 01:53 AM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
The SVD fires 7.62x54mmR while the AKM fires 7.62x39mmR and the AK-74 fires 5.45x39mmR. No commonality of ammunition whatsoever. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th July 2026 - 11:32 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.