The Gun Thread

[eli809]

i never said they where terrible, i was just giving my opinion on what i think is wrong with them, i said they are reliable, can take abuse and are accurate. that was one of the first things i said.
but please i want to hear your first hand experience? *starts camp fire for the long stories that bristle might have*

[Picasso]

Originally Posted by eli809

i never said they where terrible, i was just giving my opinion on what i think is wrong with them, i said they are reliable, can take abuse and are accurate. that was one of the first things i said.
but please i want to hear your first hand experience? *starts camp fire for the long stories that bristle might have*

well whats your k/d there fatal1ty?

[eli809]

well seeing how im typing, that must mean i am 0 on deaths, been shot once in the leg though, but cant say i ever been killed..... if you want i can upload a copy of my dd214 that shows everything i have done, also you could go one page back and look at the pics i put up. and most sane guys i knew over there didnt go around keeping a tally of how many people they killed. i was there for the surge, was in baghdad, then in east dejala river province. did 15 months. we lost 14 soldiers over that time.

[Zeste]

I respect vets and military personnel, I really do.

But dude, you're the only soldier making a "myspace kissy-face" in that first pic.

Everyone knows if you want stopping power, you get a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

[eli809]

this is true! and i was blinking! still trying to get the picture thing down! and that is a fail as you pointed out! lol. besides why make a serious face! im not gonna look any more hardass lol look at my ears they stick out like a monkey, no face will make me look hardass! i took it from my friends myspace, i actually think thats the first pic i have ever copied and posted of me in iraq, i had a camera over there, then i lost it. so never had any pics of myself other then the ones my buddies took!

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Zeste

Everyone knows if you want stopping power, you get a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

Just what you see, man.

[Erronius]

Holy Jesus on a Raptor. You know, I usually try to keep from arguing in this thread, and I've bitten my tongue quite a bit. Hell, as much as I would have liked to argue with Borzak about Obama/ammunition/politics bullshit, I just let it go rather than pollute this thread with what would ensue (if it were in General, it would be different, no offense Borzak, prob just political differences). However, this amount of retarded flaming just makes my head hurt.

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

No, I'm not. Go to AR15.com, register an account, go to the general section, and ask veterans there what they think about 5.56 and the M4 platform.

Incoming Threadnaught...be warned.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

I do go read there from time to time, and my take on it is that AR15 is much like any other forum - it's full of truth and misconception all rolled up in one. I've read some of their threads on 5.56 performance, on M855 and others. Just tons of people all arguing that they are right with different viewpoints and opinions, all presenting their view as fact. If you only get your information from forum bad-asses, then I'm sorry, but maybe you are the one that shouldn't go around flaming people, as most of the sites you have mentioned aren't exactly bastions of objectivity. At the very least, could you post any kind of study, research or to be frank, anything other than posts on OTHER internet forums? You can bash us here all you want (Seriously, did you really pull the "Internet gamerz" card??), but unless you post some proof (and by proof, I mean something other than posts...on another...forum), I can't exactly take what you are saying seriously. At least I can give Eli809 some cred as a combat veteran; don't think for a minute that simply claiming you get your infoz from an online gun site (lol) trumps his first-hand experience. Not to mention there are a number of veterans here who simply happen to be gamers (myself included), so why don't you do us all a favor and lay off the bullshit "LOLZ gamers" tripe?

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

First of all, they'll groan because it's been talked about literally thousands of times, but they'll tell you the same thing - - it generally works just fine, both the round and the rifle.

Yes, they'll groan - likely because there are people on each side of the fence willing to argue it into the fucking earth everytime it comes up. As such, I kind of laughed when you made the comment:

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

Please, go there, register a name, ask the question, then link the post here. Do it. It'll be highly amusing. You sound like an ill-educated moron, to boot.

Yes, you more than likely realize that no one here really wants to go argue THIS topic, there of all places. Hell, I don't even want to pick through the opinion, personal preference and cherry-picked data in order to come up with what I would feel is an objective, factual account of 5.56 ammunition performance, much less POST there. I get enough self-righteous chest beating here already, thanks. I don't need to go there, where everyone is a Spec-Ops trained, master-level gunsmith who personally tests thousands of rounds in their secret basement bunker, going through enough ballistic gelatin to bury Rhode Island. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't truly knowledgeable people posting there (there are quite a few), but the ratio of savant:internettard is nearly as high as it is here...which is really saying something.

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

A bullet tumbling does, in fact, have a lot to do with what distance it's fired from. The shorter the distance, the less likely the bullet will tumble when it hits the target. I didn't say they should start tumbling in the air, that's keyholing. When the bullet has more velocity (at a shorter distance) it's less likely to tumble upon hitting a target. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Hold on a second there. What you are saying is somewhat correct, yet not completely. In general, bullets will yaw differently throughout their flight, but it is NOT a steady progression from "stable spin" to "increasing angle of yaw" the further the round goes, with a corresponding increase in the likelihood of some nasty tumble through flesh. In fact, there will be some notable amount of yaw at very close range, which some might argue that combined with the 5.56 tendency to fragment at close range (high velocity/energy) before it loses enough energy to do so, makes it far more deadly up-close. Furthermore, by the time there is any significant increase in the angle of yaw, the round is pretty much beyond combat ranges for the most part (around 400m, more than likely most combat is going to take place inside of that distance, as per modern combat doctrine and weapon design post-WWII).

Let me link this research article that puts it far better than I can articulate it. It's down about pg 6, but I highly encourage everyone to read the entire article. It also has some decent illustrations of the salient points here:

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

3. Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet yaw. Shot placement aside, why is it that some Soldiers report “through-and-through” hits while others report no such problems, despite using the same weapons and ammunition? The phenomenon of bullet yaw can explain such differences in performance. Yaw is the angle the centerline of the bullet makes to its flight path as the projectile travels down range (Figure 4). Although the bullet spins on its axis as a result of the barrel’s rifling, that axis is also wobbling slightly about the bullet’s flight path. Yaw is not instability; it occurs naturally in all spin-stabilized projectiles. However, bullet yaw is not constant and rifle bullets display three regions of significantly different yaw (see Figure 5). Close to the muzzle, the bullet’s yaw cycles rapidly, with large changes of angle in very short distances (several degrees within 1-2 meters range). Eventually, the yaw dampens out and the bullet travels at a more-or-less constant yaw angle for the majority of its effective range. Then, as the bullet slows, it begins to yaw at greater and greater angles, until it ultimately destabilizes. A spinning top which wobbles slightly when started, then stabilizes for a time, then ultimately wobbles wide and falls over demonstrates the same phenomenon.

This is why when you made this next gem of a post, I almost shat myself:

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

...and you've further outed yourself as having no fucking clue what you're talking about. 5.56 does tumble. Not at 25 yards it doesn't, but neither does anything else.

O RLY? Again, go back to that PDF and refer to the chart. And don't even try to argue that the potentially EXTREME angle of yaw at the very close ranges you mentioned would not induce tumble on a round, you shold know better than that.

Now, if you discount the extreme-close-quarters yaw, even then the round is not CONSISTENT! Go back to page six in that PDF, and start up reading where my quote ended. Look at the two gelatin block pictures. Then continue on and read:

Consider the two photos on this page. In the first (Figure 6), the bullet impacted at almost zero yaw. It penetrated deeply into the gel block before becoming unstable. In a human target, it is very likely that this round would go straight through without disruption – just as our troops have witnessed in the field. In the second photo (Figure 7), the bullet impacted the gel block at a relatively high yaw angle. It almost immediately destabilized and began to break, resulting in large temporary and permanent wound cavities. Our troops have witnessed this in action too; they are more likely to report that their weapons were effective. So all we have to do is fire high-yaw ammunition, right? Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. High yaw may be good against soft tissue but low yaw is needed for penetration – through clothing, body armor, car doors, etc. – and we need ammunition that works against it all. Further, we currently cannot control yaw within a single type of ammunition, and all ammunition displays this tendency to some degree. Both of the shots were two back-to-back rounds fired from the same rifle, the same lot of ammunition, at the same range, under the same conditions. Yaw requires more study, but the Army solved a similar problem years ago in tank ammunition.

- As far as p90 vs M16/M4...the p90 was intended to replace pistols and pistol-caliber carbines, so from the outset that's a dicey comparison. Especially when one considers the fact that the 5.56x45 already has a legion of detractors (decide for yourself if their arguments are valid); comparing a 5.7x28 to it is almost...humorous.

- The quoted "80% Survey" , well, hmm, where to begin. M9/M249 rated worse in that study in regards to jamming...I never really liked either of those, but then again I suppose I'd prefer a return to "old-school" weapons (I cut my teeth on the 60). Now this is important, as Eli wasn't arguing jamming - he was talking stopping power. For the most part this study had NOTHING TO DO WITH STOPPING POWER. FFS, you were jumping all over him using the survey as a weapon when the survey wasn't even relevant to ANYTHING he was fucking saying. The Objective of the study pg 5:

Specifically, they wanted to know soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of the M9 pistol, M4 and M16 (A2 and A4) rifles, and the M249 light machine gun. These four weapon systems are the standard issue individual weapons being used by Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And from this very study, comes statistical results that mirror Elis very sentiment in the "Soldiers recommendations" section:

Twenty-six percent of M9 users requested higher caliber ammunition and increased stopping power. M4 and M16 users echoed this recommendation. When speaking to experts and soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit. M249 users also expressed a desire for increased ammunition caliber, but to a much lesser degree than other weapon users.

M9 and M4 users requested armor-piercing and hollow-point ammunition. The use of hollow point bullets is illegal for military use. However, these requests should be interpreted as a desire for increased stopping power/lethality.

- Everyone likes to throw out alternative CIVILIAN ammunition choices whenever the question of 5.56 effectiveness comes up. Now, I was in Iraq, and I can fucking tell all of you that you aren't going to be able walk down to the local base/FOB PX and pick up some 'special' ammunition. Soldiers use what they get. Also, numerous studies have been done and for the most part, they didn't find any significant differences in 5.56 ammunition performance. Hell, they're even developing new rounds to address shortfalls that the ammunition has, shortfalls that 5.56 supporters refuse to accept. If someone has some inside infoz on super-uber mega-deadly 5.56 to use, then email that shit to the DoD, because they must not know it exists.

- A lot of Spec-Ops (and others) were carrying around M-14s, and trying to get more. They didn't want M4s or M16s. Contrary to what I have read on teh intrawebz, what I witnessed was people trying to replace their m4/m16s with alternative weapons, because they weren't as effective as they would have liked. Yes, many of the operators wanted m14s because of range issues, but in general many have used the m4/m16s and found them lacking. In the end, I really don't give much shrift to what some people say on one gun website or another, what I saw was completely different, and I'm going to go with what I saw RL, thank you very much.

[Zeste]

What exactly is an AR-10 btw? Same platform but in a 7.62? Is that the semi-auto version of an M16?

[Bristlebane]

Obviously, I was wrong on a couple of points, and I was not completely accurate on my understanding of bullet tumbling, and thanks for the information.

Tumbling Bullets Explained (Hell in a Handbasket)

The obvious thing wrong with military standard ammunition is the Hague Convention and FMJ. Civilian ammo, i.e. Hornady TAP, or other HP ammo with ballistic tips that promote expansion are far superior than shitty ball.

However, the point stands that I've seen numerous other combat veterans saying that they were happy with 5.56x45's "stopping power," on AR15.com and in other places. Are they all lying? Are they all delusional?

[eli809]

zeste you are right its a m4/m16 that shoots 7.62, the M110 is the military version and its loosely based off the ar10. good rifle though!

and Erronius you sir are the man made my head hurt from all that info! lol thanks for the incite!

[Fyndina]

I'll just stick to my G26. At least it can go with me anywhere, anytime, without anyone noticing.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

However, the point stands that I've seen numerous other combat veterans saying that they were happy with 5.56x45's "stopping power," on AR15.com and in other places. Are they all lying? Are they all delusional?

It's a good point. I don't think anyone is lying, rather, different people have seen different results. To requote from my last post:

3. Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet yaw. Shot placement aside, why is it that some Soldiers report “through-and-through” hits while others report no such problems, despite using the same weapons and ammunition? The phenomenon of bullet yaw can explain such differences in performance.

So Eli809 has seen poor results. I don't doubt him, and he isn't alone in what he has seen. And I believe the people who have had good performance as well. If you get through and throughs, then yeah you are going to feel that the round is underpowered, too small, etc. If you get one-shot kills and never have a problem, well you'll obviously believe the round is outstanding and that critics simply are wrong. The results simply aren't consistent, and I doubt they will ever be. I think this is exactly what has been seen throughout the history of the round.

It's hard to compare rounds given that there are so many variables involved. I'd say this goes double for most 5.56 rounds, given that much of their effectiveness relies on fragmentation/tumbling to bear upon temp/perm wound tracks and such, as well as the debated pros/cons of the round ever since its introduction. I freely admit that other rounds will also have instances of through and throughs (7.62, 30-06, whatever), especially as said with standard mil ammo; what is hard to quantify is how effective those rounds are, compared to each other, when you don't get fragmentation or tumbling. If you rely on your round to do exactly this, you are simply going to be disappointed at times when chance conspires against you. I prefer larger rounds that have more consistent performance and perform better across the board w/o having to rely on fragmentation or tumbling. Much of this is personal preference, and my being a grognard of sorts, I freely admit it. I hated the M9, I would have loved a return to a larger caliber, or even something in a 1911 style. I detested the SAW, even though there was evidence (supposedly, I'm sure it's out there) that it performed better than the M60, with appropriate ammunition, in tests on how well they penetrated steel helmets (I kid you not, we were told this).

My only concerns with the round would be:
- subpar long range performance when compared to many larger calibers
- inconsistent wound characteristics, ranging from 'pencil stab wounds' to 'shredding you like 10g flechette'

Of course, much of this also might (must!) come down to shot placement, either alone as a factor or in conjunction with other events. I'm almost positive that some anecdotal evidence of the 5.56 having sub-par performance is a result of poor/unlucky shot placement, no vital damage perhaps combined with a lack of tumbling/fragmentation that leaves the target with nothing more than a stab wound and light bleeding. I think larger rounds will alleviate this to a point, but it only goes so far.

Another thing I'd say is that there is a difference in desired effectiveness with hunting, and with any military 'kill the bad guy' scenario. Many hunters tout the 5.56 as an adequate hunting caliber; in the hands of an experienced hunter with good skills, scope, and position on the target, I'm sure it is more than adequate for most game. That said, with military scenarios you don't always get the luxury of lying in wait, camouflaged with good recce waiting on your enemy to approach you, with more than enough time to breathe, pause, pull (whatever your approach is) and put a round exactly where you would like for maximum effectiveness. Combat scenarios often throw that right out the window, so I'd say that a lot of the hunting comparisons simply aren't that apt. When the shit hits the fan and your composure (and aim) can go right out the window, lessening your chances of hitting a vital area. Some people are stone cold and can still hit you in the eye at 50yds while you are spraying rounds full-auto at them, but not everyone can. Myself, I want the most deadly round I can get, even if I end up carrying a heavier weapon with heavier ammo and mags. Again, this is personal preference, I've never been an ace sharpshooter, so give me something that'll put really big holes in really bad people.

This isn't to say that I wouldn't carry an m16 again, though I admit I'm leery of the M4, given the shorter-barrel/FPS arguments. Again, that's just me. I also wouldn't want to use one over a couple hundred meters if something beefier was available, and at close range...fuck, give me my M3 back.

[Bristlebane]

I have read numerous times soldiers saying the M249s were unreliable to a point of annoyance.

It seems ridiculous we're still using FMJ in the military based on something over 100 years old.

[Picasso]

Originally Posted by Bristlebane

I have read numerous times soldiers saying the M249s were unreliable to a point of annoyance.

It seems ridiculous we're still using FMJ in the military based on something over 100 years old.

Would you please tap out?

[Lejina Bloodbath]

Given my field of work, people arguing over wound ballistic and bringing all sort of urban legends and things flat out inaccurate is a big pet peeve of mine.

Rather than to go into nerd rage, I'm just going to toss a link. The author is a former combat surgeon and has been doing scientific research on wound ballistics for the US Army. The quality of his work is outstanding and he doesn't leave anything to guesswork or bullshit. It's a bit lengthy, but if you are genuinely interested by what is going when a bullet strikes someone, It's a must read.

http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn...ler/wrong.html