ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:56 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The gun of the 21st century
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:11 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
We've seen the modern firearms being announced right and left, such as the FN2000, XM8, G11, MP7, M-16A3, and M-16A4. The main idea is light bullets that can pierce body armor and high ammo capacity.

While I'm all for high ammo capicity (you know, it helps having more bullets than the enemy), I gotta disagree with the trend towards 5.56mm and similar bullets. .223 is great for varmint hunting, but when you're shooting a guy, possibly armored and quite probably shooting back at you, you want a bullet that'll drop him instantly, not just enter his body and piss him off while he's bleeding all over the place. Many support the 7.62x39 or 7.62x45mm used in guns like the AK-47 and AK-103. While I would take such a gun over the 5.56mm any day, is it really the best round for a service rifle?

The point of this debate is to discover the proper bullet for the modern battlefield and what exactly a gun needs to be the ultimate weapon for general military issue. Comparing various weapons to one another and arguing over which is better would also be approriate.

Discuss.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:59 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Switching to 5.56mm has little to do with increased ammo capactity or reduced cost. The main reason that it takes more manpower to deal with an injured person than a dead one. You don't have to medevac, hospitalize, or care for a dead person.

There is also the benefit of incresed re-fire accuracy due to the decrease in kick, and the ability to wield the weapon while injured or in other less than ideal circumstances.

The Geneva convention prohibts the use of hollow-point, glass cored, hydra-shock, or mercury cored amunition, as well as the modification of jacketed ammunition such as "cutting".

Personnaly, i like the idea of a more modular weapon system. The M4 is a better urban weapon than the M16 because it is shorter and lighter, but its shorter barrel decreases it's accurate range (it also looks really silly with the M203 under-barrel grenade launcher sticking out past the end of the muzzle). Similarly, the M9 beretta is a compromise weapon between short-range firepower and re-fire accuracy, it's much better than either the M16 or the M4 in close quarters, and it has a touch more "stopping power". A modualr weapon system with the ability to fill all three roles would be ideal, but it's likely to be both expensive and less rugged than the curent weapon designs. (The main reason the CIWS hasn't been fielded yet is its fragility)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:08 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
"Switching to 5.56mm has little to do with increased ammo capactity or reduced cost. The main reason that it takes more manpower to deal with an injured person than a dead one. You don't have to medevac, hospitalize, or care for a dead person. "

Why are you connecting 5.56mm with high ammo capacity in my statement? I said that the current trend is toward low-caliber bullets, such as the 5.56mm, and high ammo capacity. Not that one means the other. And I get the concept of "If I shoot the guy and he's dead, that's one out of action. If I shoot him and he's wounded, his buddy will have to drag him to the M.A.S.H. and that's two out of action". It just doesn't work when faced with an actual battle field. I'd rather be secure in the knowledge that my enemy is dead and incapable of harming me than hoping he's too focused on pain to get pissed and shoot me back.

"There is also the benefit of incresed re-fire accuracy due to the decrease in kick, and the ability to wield the weapon while injured or in other less than ideal circumstances. "

This is true of most small-caliber weapons, yes. 5.56mm has its place, but it shouldn't be the standard for the general-issue weapon.

"The Geneva convention prohibts the use of hollow-point, glass cored, hydra-shock, or mercury cored amunition, as well as the modification of jacketed ammunition such as "cutting". "

Again, what does this have to do with anything I said? The Geneva Convention is a bunch of rules some good old boys put together to try and be nice to each other while the kids were getting their asses shot to pieces and blown up. FMJ rounds are considered more humane because they do less collatoral damage than, say, hollow-point. I get the idea behind it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but if everyone actually follows the rules and plays nicely, maybe we can keep war from being as bad as it would be in a knock-down drag-out waste-everything-that-breathes war to end all wars. Too bad nobody actually plays by the rules. The Soviets never did. Heck, before the USSR collapsed, they were experimenting with bullets that had barbed prongs on them to make it impossible to remove the bullet from a wound without cutting out a chunk of the victim with it. They never issued it, but they made it. The Barret .50BMG rifle is an "anti-materiel" rifle and weapons such as it are prohibited from being used against personnel. Yeah, and what are we shooting with it, tanks? Cars? Missiles? I don't think so. Heck, snipers in general aren't allowed, but do you see a single modern military that doesn't have dedicated sniper equipment?

You're right though. The modular weapon system will rule the battlefield of the future. Screw the fancy electronics and hideously expensive computer control systems that adjust the rate of fire for range, make the grenade explode at a certain distance, etc. Soldiers don't need to mess with that crap while being shot at. Give 'em simple, tried and true accessories and tools that they can actually use and swap around for certain scenarios. A maritime night operation might want large, glow-in-the-dark sights, a laser sight, and a collapsing stock. An urban combat unit might want a grenade launcher and a flash suppressor. A marksman might want a scope and silencer, etc. Being able to switch it all out according to the mission and the soldier's role would be much better than simply issuing a basic weapon and saying "here, use this".

I also think bullpup rifles will gain more popularity. You can get a shorter weapon with the barrel length of a larger gun, which means it's more accurate and has better range than weapons of similar size.

Caseless ammo... dunno if that'll really catch on, even if they do get it to actually work.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:10 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Personally, I'd like something along the lines of the AK, but with a more accurate cartridge. It's light, reliable, terribly easy to clean, and can take a beating or two. I've heard all sorts of wonder stories about this new 6.8x43mm SPC cartridge, so I wonder if that's the solution to things.
I've read from numerous sources that the current 5.56x45mm round doesn't have enough knockdown power, and I'd prefer to have something that's able to put a man down with a shot or two. True, an injured enemy takes more out of the fight, but he can also still fire back or pull the pin on a grenade.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Yeah, I don't want any French men pretending to be Italians to hand me a grenade pin and tell me it's from Mathilda. That kinda shit just sucks. They'd better be dead when I shoot 'em. Period.

I've heard good things about bullets in the 6mm range, and a 6.8x43mm sounds much better than 5.56x45mm.

I like the AK as well, especially the AK-103. Firepower, reliability, and it don't take shit from nobody. A bullpup based on the AK, wich the 6.8mm cartridge might make a good service rifle.

Unfortunately, the only bullpup AK I've seen is an after-market kit that sucks ass. That gun and a Chinese rip-off are the only AK's I've ever seen that actually jam on a regular basis.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
"Switching to 5.56mm has little to do with increased ammo capactity or reduced cost. The main reason that it takes more manpower to deal with an injured person than a dead one. You don't have to medevac, hospitalize, or care for a dead person. "

Why are you connecting 5.56mm with high ammo capacity in my statement? I said that the current trend is toward low-caliber bullets, such as the 5.56mm, and high ammo capacity. Not that one means the other. And I get the concept of "If I shoot the guy and he's dead, that's one out of action. If I shoot him and he's wounded, his buddy will have to drag him to the M.A.S.H. and that's two out of action". It just doesn't work when faced with an actual battle field. I'd rather be secure in the knowledge that my enemy is dead and incapable of harming me than hoping he's too focused on pain to get pissed and shoot me back.

I connected them because they were mentioned in the same sentence, and the fact that you can pack more of a smaller round in the same size magazine.

I_M wrote:
"There is also the benefit of incresed re-fire accuracy due to the decrease in kick, and the ability to wield the weapon while injured or in other less than ideal circumstances. "

This is true of most small-caliber weapons, yes. 5.56mm has its place, but it shouldn't be the standard for the general-issue weapon.

I didn't argue that it should be, but i'm trying to explain why it is.

I_M wrote:
"The Geneva convention prohibts the use of hollow-point, glass cored, hydra-shock, or mercury cored amunition, as well as the modification of jacketed ammunition such as "cutting". "

Again, what does this have to do with anything I said? The Geneva Convention is a bunch of rules some good old boys put together to try and be nice to each other while the kids were getting their asses shot to pieces and blown up. FMJ rounds are considered more humane because they do less collatoral damage than, say, hollow-point. I get the idea behind it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but if everyone actually follows the rules and plays nicely, maybe we can keep war from being as bad as it would be in a knock-down drag-out waste-everything-that-breathes war to end all wars. Too bad nobody actually plays by the rules. The Soviets never did. Heck, before the USSR collapsed, they were experimenting with bullets that had barbed prongs on them to make it impossible to remove the bullet from a wound without cutting out a chunk of the victim with it. They never issued it, but they made it. The Barret .50BMG rifle is an "anti-materiel" rifle and weapons such as it are prohibited from being used against personnel. Yeah, and what are we shooting with it, tanks? Cars? Missiles? I don't think so. Heck, snipers in general aren't allowed, but do you see a single modern military that doesn't have dedicated sniper equipment?

I_M wrote:
The point of this debate is to discover the proper bullet for the modern battlefield and what exactly a gun needs to be the ultimate weapon for general military issue. Comparing various weapons to one another and arguing over which is better would also be approriate.

If you're going to argue about what the standard battlefield weapon/round should be, you need to accept the idea that the military cannot issue a weapon which violates the geneva convention as standard to all soldiers. Mostly this is a political decision, if we at least give a polite nod to the geneva convention, so will everyone else. The ideal general issue weapon is not necessarily the best weapon for every soldier, but the weapon which is best on average for all soldiers. This is where modularity is key. At 123lbs (~56kg) I couldn't fire 2-3 shots from a .50 rifle or handgun half as accurately as i could a .223 or 9mm. The fact that the 220 lb (100kg) guy in my squad could doesn't help me, and it doesn't help him if i have to cover his back. (before some moron makes a "women shouldn't be in the military" reference, the same goes for the 135lb motor sergeant, or the 150lb armorer)

I_M wrote:
You're right though. The modular weapon system will rule the battlefield of the future. Screw the fancy electronics and hideously expensive computer control systems that adjust the rate of fire for range, make the grenade explode at a certain distance, etc. Soldiers don't need to mess with that crap while being shot at. Give 'em simple, tried and true accessories and tools that they can actually use and swap around for certain scenarios. A maritime night operation might want large, glow-in-the-dark sights, a laser sight, and a collapsing stock. An urban combat unit might want a grenade launcher and a flash suppressor. A marksman might want a scope and silencer, etc. Being able to switch it all out according to the mission and the soldier's role would be much better than simply issuing a basic weapon and saying "here, use this".

It's more important, especially in the Current Operating Environment, to be able to reconfigure based on mission. In the span of a 2 year tour, the same infantry unit may be deployed in a balkan peacekeeping mission, small scale "war" in a North african or middle-eastern country, and a tour in Iraq. In fact, the same units that had to fight a "conventional war" going into Iraq had to change missions after about 4 months to something between peace-enforcement and urban combat. Depending on a unit's mission, they might want 5.56 carbine or bullpup rifles with M203s and a mix of 40mm HE and Flechette ammunition one day, a handgun and 40mm launcher with beanbag or rubber ball ammo the next, and a mix of handguns for interior guard detail and full-length rifles for exterior guard details the next.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:16 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Emy wrote:
. . ., or the 150lb armorer)


Arms room, represent!

Except I weigh maybe 5 pounds more than that, but still.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:59 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
160 even, and still scrawny looking.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:10 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Posts: 79
This might be necromancy, but I'm going to post anyway.

What's the reliability like on the Famas, how often does it jam and how detrimental is dirt to accuracy and just overall mechanical function. The AK-47 and the later variant AK-74 will continue on for a long time just because of the reliability and the fact that you can not clean it for 6 months, kick open the bolt, load it, and still fire off a full clip accurately as if it just came off the factory. That and the Russians made Billions of them.

(Side note: Kalashnikov has just started to make vodka)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:12 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
That's not necessarily true. AKs are more reliable than the average assault rifle, but that doesn't mean you can go without cleaning them. Filling any weapon with mud, dirt, and carbon will lessen the accuracy to a degree anyways. Besides, with AKs, accuracy is a relative thing, since they aren't nearly as accurate as M16-series rifles, though I hate to admit it.
Bottom line: Just because a weapon has a reputation for reliability is no excuse for laziness.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:09 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Green Owl wrote:
accurately as if it just came off the factory. That and the Russians made Billions of them.

Note 1: As Rupe pointed out, 'accuracy of a kalashnikov' is like saying 'bravery of the french'.
Note 2: Russia only made a couple hundred thousand, China on the other hand. . .

If you want an accurate russian weapon, try a Dragonov. An AK-47, even in pristine condition, is less accurate and has a shorter effective range than the M-16, in part because of it's shorter barrel length. It will jam less often, on average, than the M16A1 on full auto fire, however.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:56 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Hm, to elaborate on what Emy said, yes, the shorter barrel length does play a part in the accuracy, but also the fact that the vast majority of AKs are mass produced in Communist or former Communist countries, and they have fairly wide tolerances during the production process, which is oddly part of the reason it's so reliable. Everything inside fits together loosely instead of being all tight together like in the M16-series. The 7.62x39mm cartdridge is also not exactly designed for accuracy, but Clay would be able to go into more detail than I on that subject. The main contributing factors are subpar manufacturing and subpar ammunition. It was designed to be a simple, reliable rifle to be used by illiterate, incompetent Russian peasants, and as such, the accuracy is enough to hit a torso-sized figure at 150m or so, but don't expect much past 250-300m. I've actually managed 6 inch groups at 100m with one of my Romanians, and for an AK, that's respectable. I've also heard that the VEPR II will get groups like that at double that distance, but I haven't tried mine yet. (VEPR II = RPK receiver, longer barrel, uber-sexy manufacturing.)

Ironically about that comment on the short barrel length contributing to lack of accuracy, the US has been shifting to the M4, which has a 14.5in barrel instead of the 20in like the M16. Not that I'm complaining, it's less to lug around.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:35 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Of course, the shorter barrel length is fine in urban combat, which is what the US seems to be switching to more and more. having a 550m effective range isn't too important if you're likely to be doing most of your fighting in steets and alleys. As i understand it, the M4 is as good as the M16 up to about 200-250 meters.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:15 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
I agree entirely on the shorter barrel being better for urban combat, since it seems like that's most of what's going on these days.
We had to qualify on the M4 on the same qualification range type as the M16 here. The main difference that I noticed was the exaggerated trajectory. With the M16, for targets 150-250m, you're supposed to aim at the groin of the target to hit it properly, due to the trajectory. With the M4 however, for targets 100-250m, I had to aim about a foot into the dirt below the targets in order to achieve hits. It was weird getting used to.
Took me 18 tries, but I got my damn expert badge.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, and BLAH BLAH.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
I don't want no teenage queen......

I just want my M-14...........

I have been reworking the action on my 'surplus' M14. Saturday PM it poped a quarter dead, at 914.4m
That is 1000 yrds. My own loads.
It now matches my former baby. I miss her, (sniff).
It is all a matter of what you need the weapon to do. For sniping, an old fossil (the weapon, not me dammit) can outdo the latest and greatest, if prepared properly, and the person has the training.
My Dragunov is getting rebarreled and the action remade to use the same rounds as my M14. In the end, it will be stoppable by dirt, water, and whatnot, as the tolerances are going to be quite tight, unlike its original manufacturers specs. It will also be a pindriver like the M14.
Now, give me an M4, and I can design a nice compensator that will give it single round performance nearly identical to the M16A2 (I still prefer the A1 personally). Change the cartride ballistics, or modify the discharge, and you change the shooting characteristics of any weapon.
The Russians even changed the rounds for the Ak-47 to use a cartridge similar to the 5.56 round. Small caliber, high velocity. The weapon did not get produced in the numbers that the 7.62 model was due to slow decay of the Soviet system. The weapon had tighter toleraces in the action (could jam eaier if was dirty, thus requiring more maint) but was on a ballistic par with the M16s.
Direction I am going? to hell in the end I suppose, but the point being that there is no set equation to a weapon. Situations change, constantly, so the needs for a flexible system to accomidate. But existing weapons still have a great need to fit special circumstances. Sniper weapons need to be single pourpose to be accurate and consistant. Unique combat situations may still need weapons such as the 'grease gun'. Heavy weapons (MA Duece) are still needed. Even the shotgun has its place on the battlefield at times. My X model 10 gauge is going to be produced (with a few minor mods) to fill an urban warfare role. It goes on. The weapons need to be a flexible as the situations unfold. With the ability to fall back onto, and use standbys, even ones as old as the M14.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group