Fix-it
Oct 12 2005, 12:29 AM
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
Sure, we could. We could also be ruining barrels every time we did, if not blowing the barrels clean off the gun, and potentially into the gunner's face. |
load. stupid words. not load, I meant payload, not powder load.
I want something with the short-range stopping power and spread of a shotgun (or close)
with the abillity to use rifling and go back to long and medium ranges.
we need diamond gun barrels.
Diamond Age where art thou?
Fix-it
Oct 12 2005, 12:30 AM
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Oct 12 2005, 12:22 AM) |
also a 1954 Hague convention that prohibits attacks against "cultural property." |
wow. that deffinition is a bit... wide.
Arethusa
Oct 12 2005, 12:36 AM
That's it. This is officially the worst thread I ever started.
Eddie Furious
Oct 12 2005, 12:36 AM
QUOTE (Siege @ Oct 11 2005, 06:25 PM) |
Frosty, I think he's talking about part of the logic that went using the 5.56 round over the heavier 7.62.
As for the rest, yes - I heard an MP swear that while manning a .50 cal machine gun that, while the Geneva Convention prohibits him from aiming at soft targets, he was going to do his damndest to hit the hostile's rifle.
True story.
-Siege |
Flashlight.
I ordered my man to hit the flashlight.
ShadowDragon8685
Oct 12 2005, 12:38 AM
QUOTE (Fix-it @ Oct 11 2005, 08:29 PM) |
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Oct 12 2005, 12:15 AM) | Sure, we could. We could also be ruining barrels every time we did, if not blowing the barrels clean off the gun, and potentially into the gunner's face. |
load. stupid words. not load, I meant payload, not powder load. I want something with the short-range stopping power and spread of a shotgun (or close) with the abillity to use rifling and go back to long and medium ranges. we need diamond gun barrels. Diamond Age where art thou? |
No, I knew what you meant. Do you know what happens when you fire scattershot through a rifled barrel?
hyzmarca
Oct 12 2005, 12:38 AM
QUOTE (Fix-it) |
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Oct 12 2005, 12:22 AM) | also a 1954 Hague convention that prohibits attacks against "cultural property." |
wow. that deffinition is a bit... wide. |
It is specifically defined as
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
© centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments".
full text can be found here
http://www.icomos.org/hague/hague.convention.html
Siege
Oct 12 2005, 12:40 AM
QUOTE (Arethusa) |
For fuck's sake, the Geneva convention defines the treatment of prisoners of war by signatory nations. |
I'm not arguing that - I'm repeating what was said:
- The MP's sergeant told him not to engage soft targets with the .50 cal because it was against the Geneva Convention.
- The MP swore he was aiming for the hostile's weapon.
-Siege
Eddie Furious
Oct 12 2005, 12:52 AM
I think it would be best to blanket the whole mess with a nice soothing term.
Let's try.....
Articles of War.
That sounds nice and cozy, neh?
Arethusa
Oct 12 2005, 12:55 AM
Wasn't directed at just you, Siege. Geneva convention always comes up in these threads as the boogeyman convention that prohibits all conveniently odd manner of warfare.
Siege
Oct 12 2005, 01:01 AM
The urban legend that won't die.
-Siege
Tzeentch
Oct 12 2005, 01:12 AM
It is NOT illegal to shoot people with 50 cals. I really don't know where this urban legend comes from.
Tzeentch
Oct 12 2005, 01:15 AM
QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
QUOTE (Tzeentch @ Oct 11 2005, 01:39 PM) | Plus, in modern warfare the general idea is NOT to kill the enemy soldiers. You want to wound them so they place a larger strain on their combat effectiveness (takes soldiers to carry the wounded off the field, transportation assets to move them around, medical assets to care for them, and money to keep paying them and logistical assets to feed them). |
Whoa, Nelly!
Now that's an uninformed opinion if I've ever seen one. I'm sorry, but usually, the reason the average soldier is going to want to shoot somebody in the first place is to kill them. In most tactical situations, the object is going to be to kill the opposing soldier. If you're just shooting to wound, well, you probably shouldn't be shooting at them in the first place.
You can not generalize modern warfare. The forces acting within the war and the forces effecting it from without are going to be different in every situation. Sometimes this difference will be huge, while at times, one conflict may closely resemble a previous or future one.
Now true, there are situations where the scenario you described may be an effective means of combat, such as an outnumbered "guerilla" force conducting hit-and-run operations. However, your statement is correct only in the narrow context in which it was originally stated god-knows-how-long-ago.
|
QUOTE |
Now that's an uninformed opinion if I've ever seen one. |
-- That's what I was learned in the Marine Corps. It's a basic principle of modern warfighting. Sorry that it conflicts with your views on warfare as learned through playing Counterstrike.
QUOTE |
I'm sorry, but usually, the reason the average soldier is going to want to shoot somebody in the first place is to kill them. |
-- That conflicts with all research done into combat psychology. Again, please go back to getting high scores for headshots and pwning n00bs.
Arethusa
Oct 12 2005, 01:24 AM
Let the record show that I am laughing my ass off.
ShadowDragon8685
Oct 12 2005, 01:28 AM
QUOTE (Arethusa) |
Let the record show that I am laughing my ass off. |
So noted.
Fix-it
Oct 12 2005, 02:28 AM
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
QUOTE (Fix-it @ Oct 11 2005, 08:29 PM) | QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Oct 12 2005, 12:15 AM) | Sure, we could. We could also be ruining barrels every time we did, if not blowing the barrels clean off the gun, and potentially into the gunner's face. |
load. stupid words. not load, I meant payload, not powder load. I want something with the short-range stopping power and spread of a shotgun (or close) with the abillity to use rifling and go back to long and medium ranges. we need diamond gun barrels. Diamond Age where art thou? |
No, I knew what you meant. Do you know what happens when you fire scattershot through a rifled barrel?
|
Not from experience, no.
I'm guessing from a conventional barrel, it would damage it severely, and place the scattershot in a nice, tight swirly pattern?
ShadowDragon8685
Oct 12 2005, 02:45 AM
No. It wrecks the barrel, possibly it blows it out, and it definately dosen't work the way it's supposta.
FrostyNSO
Oct 12 2005, 02:45 AM
QUOTE (Siege) |
Frosty, I think he's talking about part of the logic that went using the 5.56 round over the heavier 7.62 |
I actually understood where it was coming from, but thanks anyways

I am just of the opinion that said logic is flawed.
QUOTE (fix-it) |
the counter-arguement to this, is how much damage 2.5 times as many rounds of 5.56 will do as opposed to an equivalent weight in 7.62.
if it takes a three round burst of 5.56 to drop a man, you're not getting greater efficiency there, in fact you have less than half the firepower per magazine. |
It's not just a matter of stopping potential, but of ability to maintain the fight. While stopping potential has it's place (most certainly), soldiers have to be able to carry enough ammunition to fight a prolonged battle for an indefinate period, possibly without resupply for some time.
Now I just noticed the *if* at the beginning of the second part

but I'll say it anyways and try to keep it clear:
Under the same circumstances, same range, same hit location, and same target, the 5.56 compares reliably with the 7.62.
Now this is barring certain extremes, but a nation choosing a standard caliber for their rifle is looking for the best
average overall performance, balanced with other factors, like as noted above, ammunition capacity. Look at it as
Military Moneyball 
QUOTE (Tzeentch) |
-- That's what I was learned in the Marine Corps. It's a basic principle of modern warfighting. |
I'm not trying to say you have no idea what you're talking about, but this is a debate, and the logic your citing isn't exactly set in stone. Besides, I know lots of guys who were in the Marine Corps, and that alone certainly doesn't qualify them as experts on warfighting.
QUOTE |
Sorry that it conflicts with your views on warfare as learned through playing Counterstrike. |
QUOTE |
-- That conflicts with all research done into combat psychology. Again, please go back to getting high scores for headshots and pwning n00bs. |
Care to cite that resarch for me? In any case, not every situation is going to be the same, but if you're in a firefight and there's some <insert derogatory term for enemy here> that's laying fire on your
and your squadmates' position (even if he's just trying to *wound* you), are you telling me the Marine Corps taught you to just *wound* that fucker?
Hell, let's look a little deeper:
In a CQB situation, are you going to be shooting to wound?
Oh, and your little Counterstrike jokes gave me a good laugh. Thanks
Arethusa
Oct 12 2005, 02:54 AM
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685) |
No. It wrecks the barrel, possibly it blows it out, and it definately dosen't work the way it's supposta. |
Uh, no. I don't know where you learned this, but this is all kinds of wrong. Out of a rifled shotgun, you will damage the barrel with prolonged usage, eventually rendering the rifling practically useless in addition to scattering the shot. In a pistol or rifle, the same is more or less true with varying rates of damage depending on the weapon and ammunition. Shotshells exist for a number of popular pistol calibers, both revolver and automatic, and while I've not heard of a rifle equivalent, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that someone at some point had made some. It will most certainly not immediately wreck the barrel, blow up the gun, or any other such nonsense.
QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
Oh, and your little Counterstrike jokes gave me a good laugh. |
Pretty much everything he said had me laughing. Your restraint is of course rather admirable.
Siege
Oct 12 2005, 03:01 AM
Amen Frosty.
The "wounded theory" sounds like someone's pet project who has never been in combat.
As for "shooting to wound", a good friend of mine just graduated Army AIT and at no point did his Drill Instructors tell him to "shoot to wound."
For that matter, the only real commentary on aiming revolved around "center mass" as that's the most easily observable part of a hostile at range.
On a completely unrelated note, I did not realize the M-16 barrel actually has a slight angle to it, as opposed to a traditionally straight barrel as one might find in a hunting rifle.
-Siege
Siege
Oct 12 2005, 03:04 AM
QUOTE (Tzeentch) |
It is NOT illegal to shoot people with 50 cals. I really don't know where this urban legend comes from. |
I dunno, but apparently it's a common myth in and around the Army barracks as well.
A similar urban myth claims that anti-material weapons cannot be used against soft targets.
-Siege
Svilazna
Oct 12 2005, 03:11 AM
QUOTE (Krazy) |
didn't someone say once that the AK-47 was useless as an infantry weapon because of the size? I'm suprised that they went with the 5.56x45. its been proven to have limited effectiveness, and the weight of the GL should mean that full auto fire in 7.62x51 would be managable. besided that GL can't have much more recoil than a dangerous game caliber rifle, and I hear you don't feel the recoil at all when you need to be fireing. |
Supose someone had to take dumb comments to the extreme.
FrostyNSO
Oct 12 2005, 03:12 AM
QUOTE (Siege) |
On a completely unrelated note, I did not realize the M-16 barrel actually has a slight angle to it, as opposed to a traditionally straight barrel as one might find in a hunting rifle. |
Yeah, I think it converges with the point of aim at two points: 100 yds and 300 yds. Not sure about the 300, but the 100 for sure.
Eddie Furious
Oct 12 2005, 03:19 AM
The reason for smaller calibre rounds.
It be easier to carry 300 x 5.56mmN rounds in 10 30round mags than it is to carry 300 x 7.62mmN in 15 20 round magazines. It means you can carry more bullets, use them more readily to provide cover fire and to shoot at people for longer periods of time. It also means that you can carry a lot more ammo overall and stay deployed for longer periods of time. Its no good to burn through all your ammo only to realize that you have to resupply half way through a firefight. It has nothing to do with "Wounding" or Casualty creation. It has to do with how small arms doctrine goes in most western armies.
However, the US Military is looking at several ideas for a round that is lighter than the 7.62mmN but performs on par. The forerunners being Remington 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel. Apparently the 6.8 has a bit more punch up close, but the 6.5 carries it better over longer distances, if I remember my numbers right.
mmu1
Oct 12 2005, 03:20 AM
QUOTE (Siege @ Oct 11 2005, 11:04 PM) |
QUOTE (Tzeentch @ Oct 12 2005, 01:12 AM) | It is NOT illegal to shoot people with 50 cals. I really don't know where this urban legend comes from. |
I dunno, but apparently it's a common myth in and around the Army barracks as well.
A similar urban myth claims that anti-material weapons cannot be used against soft targets.
-Siege
|
I wonder whether I still have the gun camera footage from Afghanistan / Iraq showing a C-130 gunship and an Apache engaging "soft targets" in the open with a howitzer and a 30mm chaingun, respectively. They were both thermal imagery, and you could see warm bits of guy separate and flop to the ground in the latter...

Fascinating in an extremely gruesome way...
Eddie Furious
Oct 12 2005, 03:25 AM
QUOTE (Svilazna) |
QUOTE (Krazy @ Oct 10 2005, 10:57 PM) | didn't someone say once that the AK-47 was useless as an infantry weapon because of the size? I'm suprised that they went with the 5.56x45. its been proven to have limited effectiveness, and the weight of the GL should mean that full auto fire in 7.62x51 would be managable. besided that GL can't have much more recoil than a dangerous game caliber rifle, and I hear you don't feel the recoil at all when you need to be fireing. |
Supose someone had to take dumb comments to the extreme.
|
Yeah, between you and me, I would not want to be standing on the business end of the bloody AK or any other damned firearm. Bullets are bullets, they make holes in people who tend to get very f**ked up at the least.
Eddie Furious
Oct 12 2005, 03:29 AM
QUOTE (mmu1) |
QUOTE (Siege @ Oct 11 2005, 11:04 PM) | QUOTE (Tzeentch @ Oct 12 2005, 01:12 AM) | It is NOT illegal to shoot people with 50 cals. I really don't know where this urban legend comes from. |
I dunno, but apparently it's a common myth in and around the Army barracks as well.
A similar urban myth claims that anti-material weapons cannot be used against soft targets.
-Siege
|
I wonder whether I still have the gun camera footage from Afghanistan / Iraq showing a C-130 gunship and an Apache engaging "soft targets" in the open with a howitzer and a 30mm chaingun, respectively. They were both thermal imagery, and you could see warm bits of guy separate and flop to the ground in the latter...  Fascinating in an extremely gruesome way... |
Yeah, its more a note of what you need to use as opposed to what you can use. I mean, hey we used 81mm mortars and 105/155mm howitzers to make people dead. As for AMRs, look at the new XM109 that is on line in Iraq and Afghanistan, 25mm Payload Delivery Weapon System for crying out loud!
ShadowDragon8685
Oct 12 2005, 03:54 AM
If you still have those movies, I'd like to get a copy of 'em?
Siege
Oct 12 2005, 04:03 AM
I think it was more a matter of using the equipment at hand to resolve the situation at hand.
Apaches are not, as I understand it, often outfitted to engage soft targets with cost effective solutions, so it's not a matter of the gunner picking an expensive solution just for the hell of it.
-Siege
blakkie
Oct 12 2005, 04:06 AM
Was that the footage of those the ones of the guys with the [likely] RPG in the blanket hidden under the tractor?
Yes, that was rather morbid to see the still warm 'gibs' scattered around. It was linked on the internet in a number of places, i believe it was an exert from footage released to a news program.
Arethusa
Oct 12 2005, 04:07 AM
QUOTE (Eddie Furious) |
However, the US Military is looking at several ideas for a round that is lighter than the 7.62mmN but performs on par. The forerunners being Remington 6.8mm SPC and 6.5 Grendel. Apparently the 6.8 has a bit more punch up close, but the 6.5 carries it better over longer distances, if I remember my numbers right. |
6.8mm SPC has already been decided upon. That doesn't mean the change will happen soon or even that it will happen at all, but 6.5mm Grendel (incidentally, you are correct; they are quite similar, but 6.8mm is slower and heavier while 6.5mm Grendel has substantially better long range ballistics) is no longer in consideration, and I am not even certain it ever was beyond internet messageboards.
With the recent demise of the silly XM8, there are rumors flying around that the HK416 is going to be the rifle of choice. Certainly not a bad choice if that is at all true, and for what it's worth, the 416 is designed to easily convert to 6.8mm SPC— that is, of course, assuming that if all of this is true, the changeover doesn't happen all at once. Then again, that'd just make too much sense.
Tzeentch
Oct 12 2005, 06:00 AM
The XM8 was a weapon without a real purpose. The idea was to get some OICW-derived technology out ASAP, but it's just a cool looking polymer frame on a G36 (for the most part). Without the revolutionary combination of a grenade launcher and integrated sensors what's the point? The XM307 OCSW looks to be far more promising.
Raygun
Oct 12 2005, 07:26 AM
30mm HEDP overdose (AH-64 Apache vs. Humans)Greetings from the Spectre (AC-130U vs. terrorist training camp)This is what happens when you and 30 of your buddies try to ambush Marines in FallujahM249 upside the headSo... Okay. If you can drop bombs on people, you can shoot them with M2s. If you can shoot people with 30mm cannons loaded with HEDP, you can shoot them with .50 cal rifles. Of course, the Apache gunner was particularly justified, I think, because he was attacking what is quite obviously a piece of artillery, and its operators.
There is a picture somewhere on the internet of, IIRC, an Afghani terrorist with his head turned inside out, allegedly by an M82A1A. Due to the lack of anything resembling explosive residue (that I recall), I would assume that it was done with an inert load. There aren't a lot of things out on the battlefield that will make a mess quite like that. I don't particularly want to see it again, so I didn't go looking for it.
As hyzmarca said, the
1899 Hague is the appropriate convention to refer to in regards to 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." That rule was made in direct reference to the British .303 "Dum Dum" load.
QUOTE (Siege) |
On a completely unrelated note, I did not realize the M-16 barrel actually has a slight angle to it, as opposed to a traditionally straight barrel as one might find in a hunting rifle. |
What?
QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
Yeah, I think it converges with the point of aim at two points: 100 yds and 300 yds. Not sure about the 300, but the 100 for sure. |
Every rifle does that. It's called Near Zero and Far Zero and has mostly to do with how your sights are set over the bore axis. In other words, the barrel is perfectly straight and in line with the action. your sights are what are set at an angle, the severity of which depends on the trajectory of the bullet and the Far Zero range. Far Zero is the point you set your sights to. So in order to align your eyes with the sights and the sights with the target, your barrel actually is set at an angle.
This diagram is a pretty good (and necessarily exaggerated) example of that. It's why your bullet will generally hit high if your target is inside of your zero range.
With both M193 and M855 from an M16A2 (sights are about 2" above the bore axis; but I'm not at home to bust out the dial calipers and find out exactly), the Near Zero is more like 30 yards if your Far Zero is at 300. At 200, Near Zero is about 50 yards.
EDIT: The top of my front sight post is exactly 2.665" above the bore centerline. Zeroed at 300, Near Zero is right about 42 yards with M193 from a 20" barrel.
QUOTE (Arethusa) |
6.8mm SPC has already been decided upon.That doesn't mean the change will happen soon or even that it will happen at all, |
Yeah. I'm hearing that decision was "no, thanks" and that the likelyhood of it happening isn't much of one at all. I don't think anyone but some elements of SOCOM were even remotely interested in it. Too bad. I thought it was a pretty good idea.
QUOTE |
With the recent demise of the silly XM8, there are rumors flying around that the HK416 is going to be the rifle of choice. Certainly not a bad choice if that is at all true, and for what it's worth, the 416 is designed to easily convert to 6.8mm SPC— that is, of course, assuming that if all of this is true, the changeover doesn't happen all at once. Then again, that'd just make too much sense. |
Being that the last Army solicitation for a new rifle was for a "5.56mm Modular Weapon System Family" that pretty much ran down like an advertizement for the XM8, and was almost immediately jumped on by the Marines and thrown into joint development status (further action pending), and what with Colt suing the piss out of everyone else to keep them out of competition (having the money to sustain that activity from several huge M4 orders that took place after the US moved into Iraq), I don't think we'll be seeing a new cartridge or rifle to fire it anytime soon, outside of small orders for SOCOM and such. Like possibly the SCAR.
QUOTE (Tzeentch) |
The XM8 was a weapon without a real purpose. The idea was to get some OICW-derived technology out ASAP, but it's just a cool looking polymer frame on a G36 (for the most part). Without the revolutionary combination of a grenade launcher and integrated sensors what's the point? |
Having a rifle that doesn't "shit where it eats" would be a nice step forward, IMO. Everyone else figured that out back in the 70's. The HK416 solves that little maintenance issue while keeping everything else pretty much the same as the M16/M4, which cuts down on transition training time. Significantly reduced bulk of optics and laser designators is also a plus, but it's not like we couldn't just buy that stuff and stick with the M16/M4.
Don't get me wrong, I've owned several AR15s and they've all worked great for my purposes. But I don't know if I really like the idea of having to depend on it in a combat environment. Of course, I've never been in a combat environment, so what the hell do I know?
Last word I heard (from Small Arms Review) was that HK is planning to make a 7.62x51mm version of the HK416, ostensibly in order to compete with SCAR.
TheNarrator
Oct 12 2005, 07:31 AM
QUOTE (Siege @ Oct 11 2005, 10:01 PM) |
The "wounded theory" sounds like someone's pet project who has never been in combat.
As for "shooting to wound", a good friend of mine just graduated Army AIT and at no point did his Drill Instructors tell him to "shoot to wound."
For that matter, the only real commentary on aiming revolved around "center mass" as that's the most easily observable part of a hostile at range. |
To the best of my knowledge, you are correct. But then, to the best of my knowlege, so was Tzeench. In fact, what you said doesn't relate to what he said at all.
Nobody said that militaries "shoot to wound". That's just preposterous. Trained personnel aim for the center of mass.
I got the impression that they weren't talking about decisions made by soldiers in the field or the nature of their training. They were talking about the choosing of munitions at the administrative and strategic level. I didn't get the impression that they talking about CQB.
I've heard it said that in war it's better to leave a wounded enemy on the field than a dead one because when a man is wounded, one or two of his comrades will rush to help him while a dead man can be left where he lies, and because the cost of treating and rehabilitating the horribly maimed far exceeds the cost of burying the dead. I've heard this from more sources than I can count, many of which I considered highly reliable, so I take it to be probable. (If I've been misinformed, then that's my mistake.)
But all that means is that mines are often made just big enough to only blow legs off rather than kill, or that mortor designers tend to prefer shrapnel that wounds lots of men rather than kills a fewer number. It most assuredly does not mean that they train soldiers to shoot to wound, and to my knowledge nobody here said that. Your responses imply that you thought that they did, in which case I believe you misunderstood.
(Apologies if this post came off as blunt... I don't do my best posting at this time of night.)
FrostyNSO
Oct 12 2005, 09:24 AM
QUOTE (Raygun) |
Every rifle does that. It's called Near Zero and Far Zero and has mostly to do with how your sights are set over the bore axis. In other words, the barrel is perfectly straight and in line with the action. your sights are what are set at an angle, the severity of which depends on the trajectory of the bullet and the Far Zero range. Far Zero is the point you set your sights to. So in order to align your eyes with the sights and the sights with the target, your barrel actually is set at an angle. This diagram is a pretty good (and necessarily exaggerated) example of that. It's why your bullet will hit high if your target is inside of your zero range.
With both M193 and M855 from an M16A2 (sights are about 2" above the bore axis; but I'm not at home to bust out the dial calipers and find out exactly), the Near Zero is more like 30 yards if your Far Zero is at 300. At 200, Near Zero is about 50 yards. |
You are of course, correct. The AR-15 family isn't my "first weapon"

so go easy on me. But jesus, they had us set to near zero at 100 where I'm at now...figured that was standard

Hell, I aim at the target's head from 300 if I wanna hit center mass!
Oh by the way, still havn't gotten to shoot that damn AR-10. Some guy at another site (thankfully not our company) shot himself in the foot with one! Shouldn't be a problem, but you know how companies operate. Gotta evaluate whether we "really need" them now.
@Narrator -- I said this earlier, but the whole wounded enemy thing
depends on the situation. If you are in a position where you are not likely to have to deal with that wounded enemy after shooting him (like a hit and fade op), or in the case of an anti-personell mine where you may not even be in the area anymore, Yes, it will pose more of a burden on the enemy (financially and in manpower) if soldiers are only wounded. In these cases, a wounded enemy may not neccessarily pose a threat any longer.
However, if you are trying to take a position, or clear a building,
a wounded enemy is still a threat. You shoot to stop the threat. Furhtermore, in those situations, the likelihood is greater that
you will end up being the one caring for the wounded. Whoops!
I understand the POV of the administrative level, and that all goes along with the "best average performance a majority of the time" attitude which those in charge are forced to adopt. My problem was less in what Tzeentch said, as how he said it. The issue is by no means set in stone, and probably will never be, because every situation is different, and different situations have different requirements.
TheNarrator
Oct 12 2005, 09:46 AM
Frosty, I think we essentially agree on this matter. We just have a hard time phrasing it. Like I said, I don't do my best posting at 2:30 a.m.
I just wanted to make it clear that we didn't mean "shooting to wound" when we talked about a military doctrine of wounding the enemy.
@Raygun -- I Googled the HK416... seems interesting. Looks kind of like the lovechild of an M-4 and an MP-7.
Just out of curiousity: What about your AR-15 makes you not sure about it in a combat environment? The same things that made the first M-16s a pain in the ass in the early days of Vietnam and prompted the creation of the M-16A1? Or something else?
Raygun
Oct 12 2005, 10:31 AM
QUOTE (FrostyNSO @ Oct 12 2005, 09:24 AM) |
You are of course, correct. The AR-15 family isn't my "first weapon" so go easy on me. |
Sorry, didn't mean to come off as a hard-ass. Just as factual as possible.

QUOTE |
But jesus, they had us set to near zero at 100 where I'm at now...figured that was standard Hell, I aim at the target's head from 300 if I wanna hit center mass! |
Yeah, it's about 10" of drop to 300 if you're zeroed at 100 (which the A2 sight doesn't do unless it's modified; the rifle shoots flat enough to allow the big aperture to work for everything out to 200, and the small aperture, set dead-bottom, is 300). I wouldn't imagine that they'd have you bother with zeroing out very far, considering the environment. What are you guys using again? 16" Bushmaster XM15s? I don't know what I did with that picture.
QUOTE |
Oh by the way, still havn't gotten to shoot that damn AR-10. Some guy at another site (thankfully not our company) shot himself in the foot with one! |
Lovely! Did they give him his limping papers? (God, I'm funny.)
I got to compare two 16" AR-10s (Bushmaster and Armalite) side-by-side at a recent gun show. Still like the Bushmaster better. Uses cheap FAL mags, totally ambidextrous (important to a lefty). If I wasn't so hung up on getting a FAL, I probably get one of those.
QUOTE |
Shouldn't be a problem, but you know how companies operate. Gotta evaluate whether we "really need" them now. |
Couldn't hurt. Wait...

QUOTE (TheNarrator) |
@Raygun -- I Googled the HK416... seems interesting. Looks kind of like the lovechild of an M-4 and an MP-7.
Just out of curiousity: What about your AR-15 makes you not sure about it in a combat environment? The same things that made the first M-16s a pain in the ass in the early days of Vietnam and prompted the creation of the M-16A1? Or something else? |
The same thing it's always been with every version of the AR15. Direct gas impingement system. It's the big fault of the AR15 design. It's been mitigated over the years by careful selection of propellants and better maintenance training, but you still have to clean the stupid thing at the very least twice as often as you would a long or short stroke piston system. The weight savings is really not worth all that bullshit, IMO. A soldier's time would be better spent on other things.
On the other hand, it's just about perfect for laying waste to about 50 acres worth of gophers, if you ask me. Au revoir, gofair.
FrostyNSO
Oct 12 2005, 10:45 AM
16" Bushmaster XM15 - You nailed that one

I just recently affixed one of the bushmaster-made 74-type muzzle breaks though...very nice.
What makes the foot shot even better is that it was one of their trainers! Was just about to do a chamber check and BAM! Those darn wandering fingers
Raygun
Oct 12 2005, 11:08 AM
One of whose trainers?
Well, I bet he won't forget the rules
ever again!
Musashi Forever
Oct 12 2005, 11:13 AM
I don't know if this will sidetrack the thread...or if it really matters at this point, but could Raygun or someone who knows guns like him give us a rundown on what they think the pros and cons of the HK416 are? Not being particularly knowlegable myself, from the info I have so recently seen, it looks right up America's alley. A solid replacement for the M16/M4.
FrostyNSO
Oct 12 2005, 11:14 AM
QUOTE (Raygun) |
One of whose trainers? |
One of their company's training staff. I don't remember which site it was at though. They were in-house guys, not contract security.
Raygun
Oct 12 2005, 12:22 PM
The M16/M4 and HK416 are both gas-operated rifles. This means that some of the gases used to propel the bullet from the rifle are tapped from the barrel and are used to push the bolt carrier rearward, unlocking the bolt, then extracting and ejecting the fired case. The bolt and carrier are then returned to battery by a recoil spring locacted in the stock of the rifle. The differences between the gas systems that each rifle uses are the big deal here.
AR15-based rifles (M16/M4) use what's called a direct gas impingement system. This system taps expanding gases from the barrel, then transports them through a very small tube directly into a "key" attached to the top of the bolt carrier inside of the receiver. This action propels the bolt and carrier rearward. The problem with this system is that after the key is pushed back past the gas tube nozzle, excess gas sediment is free to go wherever it may, which happens to be all over the relatively closed space inside of the receiver, where the bolt and carrier actually reciprocate. This is bad. The system gets dirty very quickly, eventually preventing the bolt and carrier from moving freely within the receiver. This is why every version of the M16 since the A1 has included a "forward assist"; a mechanism that physically pushes the bolt carrier forward when the action is excessively fouled and the recoil spring won't return the bolt carrier to battery as normal.
The Pros to direct gas impingement are:
- It is relatively lightweight
- The amount of necessary moving parts are reduced
- It is relatively inexpensive to manufacture
The cons:
- It gets dirty fast, negatively affecting reliability
- It gets hot fast, making it difficult to touch the parts that have to be cleaned
- It has to be cleaned often in order to operate reliably
In the HK416, the direct gas impingement system is replaced by a self-contained short stroke piston system very similar to that of the HK G36 (which is itself loosely based on the AR18). The short stroke piston prevents propellant residue from entering the receiver at all through use of an operating rod. In this system, gas is tapped from the barrel in the same way as direct impingement, only the gases are tapped directly from the barrel into a cylinder with a piston inside of it. Gas expansion drives the piston rearward only a short distance, perhaps about an inch (thus short stroke piston). The piston is in contact with a spring-loaded operating rod, which then comes into contact with the "key" on the bolt carrier. After that short distance of rearward travel, which transmits enough impetus to the bolt carrier to drive it fully rearward, the operating rod and piston move forward again, under spring pressure. After the bolt and carrier perform case extraction/ejection, they are also driven forward, by a separate recoil spring. The nifty thing about the G36/HK416 short stroke piston system in particular is that A) it's self cleaning; as the piston reciprocates, it scrapes propellant residue off of and out of the cylinder, allowing the rifle to function longer without maintenance, B) the operating rod/return spring assembly is self-contained; it can be removed as a single piece, which means only two additional steps in disassembly compared to the M16/M4 for maintenance (removing the handguard, then removing the op rod and piston).
The pros to a HK416 and short stroke piston system are:
- Propellant residue never enters the weapon's receiver = clean
- The piston is self-cleaning = less maintenance time
- Presents minimal changes to the existing M16/M4 platform in terms of user interface = reduced training times and costs compared to other rifles
- HK416 upper recievers can be attached to existing M16/M4 lower receivers, mitigating acquisition costs.
The cons:
- Short stroke piston system adds weight to the rifle
- Increased number of moving parts/parts to keep track of
- It's expensive
- It's made by HK, so it's really expensive.
Other differences between the M16/M4 and HK416 are relatively minor and mainly deal with a proprietary forward quad rail system for mounting accessories, an integrated flip-up front sight, and minor dimensional changes to the upper and lower recievers, such as a flared magazine well and a slightly elevated top rail.
QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
One of their company's training staff. I don't remember which site it was at though. They were in-house guys, not contract security. |
Ah. I was thinking it might have been a guy from the manufacturer or something. That would have been good...
Siege
Oct 12 2005, 04:22 PM
As it was described to me, the barrel and firing mechanism is housed in the frame at a slight angle from horizontal in the M-16, by just a few degrees, so shooters have to aim a little lower than they otherwise might.
Which is why new recruits experienced with shooting hunting rifles and similarly "straight barrels" don't do as well when first exposed to the M-16.
It's very possible I'm explaining this badly, but the new AIT grad was very specific about the angle and resulting consequence. The subject came up when discussing new recruits, shooting ability and prior shooting experience.
-Siege
spotlite
Oct 12 2005, 06:05 PM
OK, I don't know whether or not the reason for the switch to 5.56 was due to an actual PLAN to put more soldiers out of the fight by making them take care of wounded. I just know that all the squaddies I've met who were around when the brits switched to 5.56 in that crappy SA80 we use hated it. They wanted to shoot a gun that would KILL people, like the SLR did, and were fairly convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the ammo was at fault, not the gun, which was to blame for any number of other things including the sky being blue if some squaddies are to be believed.
If you watch news footage of various british troops being deployed in the last Iraq war you'll spot the odd unit all equipped with a larger gun. Often these are old SLRs mysteriously shipped by mistake. The brass were furious and the squaddies were chuffed to bits (bearing in mind the units who by 'bad luck' ended up with these guns seemed to be people like 42 Commando and the Paras iirc, who just happen to be the units with the biggest rep for ferocity). Maybe its just a better gun, maybe the ammo is to blame, and maybe the reason for the change is simple cost or maybe it's modern western military doctrine. I dunno.
But I DO know that squaddies like bigger guns, and above all, guns which kill what they're shot at.
Which I suppose is no surprise.
RunnerPaul
Oct 12 2005, 06:54 PM
QUOTE (Tzeentch) |
The XM8 was a weapon without a real purpose. |
And here, I always thought the purpose of the XM8 was because one day, someone in the top brass hit upon the idea "Hey, that Halo 2 game is pretty popular with the kids these days. I bet we could drive recruiting numbers up if we had a rifle that looks like the one from that game."
Seriously. The XM8 looks like a non-bullpup version of Master Chief's UNSC-issue Battle Riffle.
Kagetenshi
Oct 12 2005, 07:03 PM
I just want to know when I can get one of
these.
~J
ShadowDragon8685
Oct 12 2005, 07:06 PM
RP actually has a good point. I wonder why they didn't go through with it? Hmmmm....
Arethusa
Oct 12 2005, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
I just want to know when I can get one of these.
~J |
I don't know why. That thing began the glorious videogame tradition of assault rifles being glorified melee weapons.
mmu1
Oct 12 2005, 07:56 PM
QUOTE (spotlite) |
OK, I don't know whether or not the reason for the switch to 5.56 was due to an actual PLAN to put more soldiers out of the fight by making them take care of wounded. I just know that all the squaddies I've met who were around when the brits switched to 5.56 in that crappy SA80 we use hated it. They wanted to shoot a gun that would KILL people, like the SLR did, and were fairly convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the ammo was at fault, not the gun, which was to blame for any number of other things including the sky being blue if some squaddies are to be believed. |
Still, the key thing here is that judging the 5.56mm in part based on the performance of what was (as you point out) before the massive re-design, probably the worst assault rifle in widespread service, is not exactly fair.
RunnerPaul
Oct 12 2005, 08:49 PM
QUOTE (Arethusa) |
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Oct 12 2005, 03:03 PM) | I just want to know when I can get one of these.
~J |
I don't know why. That thing began the glorious videogame tradition of assault rifles being glorified melee weapons.
|
Don't forget the part where it instituted the tradition of attached grenade launchers becoming jump height enhancers.
Fix-it
Oct 12 2005, 09:56 PM
I thought rocket launchers did that...