Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/4/2012 6:24:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 6:30:56 AM EDT by BHMucci]
Here is an article that I read a while back about the current NATO round and its efficiency. I thought it was a pretty interesting read, but the end made it seem like it was a marketing ploy designed to raise attention towards the author and his opinions. If you have no life and read the entire article like me, I would like to get your feedback on this mans opinions and some of the points he made.

Thanks,

Ben
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:51:56 AM EDT
I stopped reading in the first couple of paragraphs when the author started bitching about optics and potentially having to clean mud off of them before being able to use them. Iron sights couldnt be caked with mud if dragged through? Biased much?
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:52:14 AM EDT
just read it, I think he makes great points and is asking for a perfect rifle. (cheep, accurate, powerful, simple...ect.) and i think that perfection is hard to come by. IMO i dont think there is or can be such a catch all rifle. For instance he talks about the 7.62 nato multiple times, In fully automatic fire a 5.56 rifles would have a faster rate of fire and be easier to control. BUT he is right the 5.56 lacks the power at distance and a more powerful round is needed like he said to punch through cover and take down a threat in one shot. overall after reading the article id say i agree with him and im sure many people already felt the same way. since no such gun exists i think we should just use laser rifles
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:55:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 6:57:28 AM EDT by sinlessorrow]
utter crap, hes saying the 5.56 cant drop a man who weighs 75lbs much less 165lbs, i guess hes never seen the M855A1, or the MK318 SOST, or how about the SEALS 5.56 optimized(70gr TSX) i guarantee they will kill people.

sounds to me like he doesnt understand that M193 and M855 are not meant for todays wars

lets not forget the part where any KNOCK can upset the zero on an optic? he must be using some shitty optics, ive dropped my rifle from 10ft on my eotech and never had a change in zero

that whole post reads of someone who has no idea about the 5.56 and its terminal ballistics, or someone who knows much of anything since hes so clueless about optics as well
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 6:59:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 7:02:36 AM EDT by BHMucci]
Originally Posted By gunmonkey:
I stopped reading in the first couple of paragraphs when the author started bitching about optics and potentially having to clean mud off of them before being able to use them. Iron sights couldnt be caked with mud if dragged through? Biased much?


I would have to agree he is quite biased during certain parts of the article. He also sounds like he's living in the past.

Originally Posted By bullshark:
just read it, I think he makes great points and is asking for a perfect rifle. (cheep, accurate, powerful, simple...ect.) and i think that perfection is hard to come by. IMO i dont think there is or can be such a catch all rifle. For instance he talks about the 7.62 nato multiple times, In fully automatic fire a 5.56 rifles would have a faster rate of fire and be easier to control. BUT he is right the 5.56 lacks the power at distance and a more powerful round is needed like he said to punch through cover and take down a threat in one shot. overall after reading the article id say i agree with him and im sure many people already felt the same way. since no such gun exists i think we should just use laser rifles


Laser rifles it is! He does make some valid points but like you said unfortunately, I also think there can't be such a catch all rifle. Different calibers for different engagement situations. I do love my 7.62 rounds though... They pack a meaty punch.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 7:24:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 7:24:15 AM EDT by brasidas]
Anything from that site has to be taken with a grain of salt. They tend to present speculation as fact. Any artice that uses the term "knockdown power" is suspect.

I have had a lot more problems with fragile iron sights than optics.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 8:13:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By gunmonkey:
I stopped reading in the first couple of paragraphs when the author started bitching about optics and potentially having to clean mud off of them before being able to use them. Iron sights couldnt be caked with mud if dragged through? Biased much?


Same here

Iron sights can get caked with mud just as easily
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 9:17:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sinlessorrow:
utter crap, hes saying the 5.56 cant drop a man who weighs 75lbs much less 165lbs, i guess hes never seen the M855A1, or the MK318 SOST, or how about the SEALS 5.56 optimized(70gr TSX) i guarantee they will kill people.

sounds to me like he doesnt understand that M193 and M855 are not meant for todays wars

lets not forget the part where any KNOCK can upset the zero on an optic? he must be using some shitty optics, ive dropped my rifle from 10ft on my eotech and never had a change in zero

that whole post reads of someone who has no idea about the 5.56 and its terminal ballistics, or someone who knows much of anything since hes so clueless about optics as well


This.

And as for all that long range stuff, that's what the guys with the 7.62s are for...we all don't want/need to carry 7.62 weapons.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 12:33:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 12:38:45 PM EDT by MTPD]
The writer of the article in question sounds like an olde dog who can't learn new tricks. A lightweight rifle in 7.62x51 is uncontrolable in full-auto. So is any LW rifle with any heavy recoiling round. And the .30 cal Russian/Chinese crowd traded in their .30's for 22's after years of 30 cal experience. So, obviously, even they came to the conclusion that the 22's were more desireable for general issue.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:04:51 PM EDT
Every time the "hurr durr caliber" discussion starts all I want to say is:

"Go to Vietnam, go to Panama, Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Laos,Cambodia,the Balkans,various places in South and Central America, and any number of other places I either can't think of or we don't know about. When you get there I want you to conduct a power point presentation for the families of the hundreds of thousands of people that have been killed by M855 and M193 on how the 5.56mm round is incapable of killing anyone."
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:21:40 PM EDT
At the end of the article he says they were firing 168s (I'm assuming SMK) from their L1A1s at the battle of Long Tan in 1966.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:30:41 PM EDT
Article is absolute crap. I wonder how he feels about 4.6mm MP7's in use by JSOC units who have used them to terminate a number of opponents.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 1:38:38 PM EDT
Crap.

I agree he must have never seen then optics we used Schmidt & Bender, US Optics both come to mind

I know for a fact the 5.56 can kill and it does it very well.
Top Top