AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/6/2012 12:38:13 PM EDT
|
Sure would be nice if some one came out with a .243 or 6mm AR style rifle. Lots of bullets to use, hitting power and range delux and light weight bullets. Seems the USARMY is concerned more about how many bullets a guy can carry than hitting power and range. Something to dream about and I suppose the Army has a million reasons why they don't but it makes sense to me. The poor troops in Iraq and Afganistan were shooting Taliban and the bullets were not taking them down, I can't see that happening with a 6mm 90 grain bullet.
fkniper1 |
|
I had a thread a while back about the 5.56 and whether it was the 5.56 cal or the military's selection of rounds that is to blame for the reports of poor performance of 5.56MM rifles in some circumstances. The resounding consensus is that the selection rounds that we are currently using is not the ideal round for the type of war we are fighting.
With that in mind, I would far prefer a change in ammo selection over trying to field hundreds of thousands of differently chambered rifles and all of the logistical problems and costs that would come with that. IMO an effective, expanding 5.56 round would eliminate almost all of the instances of enemy combatants not being downed by an otherwise effective shot when the culprit is the hit-or-miss terminal ballistics of the M855 or M193 rounds, but I still don't think that M855 is like throwing rocks as some would like people to believe. |
|
You mean a .243 rifle like this?
http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=529 |
|
I sure missed that one from RRA I may have to look at one. I think the weight of the ammo is what the army is concerned about mostly Soft nose bullets are illegal if a war time gun. Only solid or FMJ type of ammo can be used. I agree a soft point would be the answer but. I will have to do some ballistic comparisons between the .243, 6mm, 6.5mm and the 6.8APC to see what is the ballistic differences between all of them and will report back.
fknipfer1 |
|
Quoted:
I sure missed that one from RRA I may have to look at one. I think the weight of the ammo is what the army is concerned about mostly Soft nose bullets are illegal if a war time gun. Only solid or FMJ type of ammo can be used. I agree a soft point would be the answer but. I will have to do some ballistic comparisons between the .243, 6mm, 6.5mm and the 6.8APC to see what is the ballistic differences between all of them and will report back. fknipfer1 You are referring to the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, however these only apply to warfare between signed parties of the treaties and only if neither party is joined by an un-signed party. Additionally, while the US has as a policy, respected the 1899 guidelines, it is not a signatory of these guidelines and as such is not bound by any international agreement. Furthermore, there have been multiple recent rulings in military law within the US, that have over-ruled the convention's stance on this in many circumstances. Anyway, Al Quida isn't a signed member of the conference(otherwise I would venture to guess that it would have something to say about car bombs in market places)and neither are most of the countries in the world, so for us to be holding to these non-applicable policies is just asinine. 
|
AR Sponsor