EdwardWellcraft
Sergeant Knight
Speaking of calibers, what do you guys think are the ideal rounds for:
A) Service Rifles
B)Pistol
A) Service Rifles
B)Pistol
Gun wankery
- Thread starter Seff
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Sergeant Knight
1) Depends on the job of course, but 6.8x43mm is very promising - barely weighs more than 5.56x45mm, but packs a lot more of a punch, making it bridge the gap between 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm without being ballistically retarded like the 7.62x39mm is. I'd seriously consider a 7.62x51mm battle rifle for the current middle-eastern battlefields, if I couldn't get 6.8x43mm.
2) Depends on the job of course - if I was doing law enforcement, where body armor for the crooks is unlikely and overpenetration poses a serious problem, I'd go for .45 ACP. It packs a punch and doesn't penetrate too much.
If I was to choose a handgun to carry into battle, I would go for something in .38 Super, .357 SIG, or .45 ACP, in that order. .38 Super approaches the kinetic energy of the .357 SIG, surpassing the .45 ACP, and it has the diameter of a 9mm Parabellum, meaning that you can fit lots of them in a mag. .357 SIG doesn't have that luxury, but otherwise presents a strong case for an automatic, which I strongly prefer over a revolver. .45 ACP because it works and has a history of working.
2) Depends on the job of course - if I was doing law enforcement, where body armor for the crooks is unlikely and overpenetration poses a serious problem, I'd go for .45 ACP. It packs a punch and doesn't penetrate too much.
If I was to choose a handgun to carry into battle, I would go for something in .38 Super, .357 SIG, or .45 ACP, in that order. .38 Super approaches the kinetic energy of the .357 SIG, surpassing the .45 ACP, and it has the diameter of a 9mm Parabellum, meaning that you can fit lots of them in a mag. .357 SIG doesn't have that luxury, but otherwise presents a strong case for an automatic, which I strongly prefer over a revolver. .45 ACP because it works and has a history of working.
Lord Burgess1
Seff said:
... I know.
Fenix_120
Sergeant
EdwardWellcraft said:
WARNING: Gun rant ahead.
First of all, this is my opinion take it as it is, you may disagree with me, that's fine, once again this is my opinion.
1: 7.62x51 NATO (Or .30
Q: But that round is way to powerful for a fully automatic rifle! also its so heavy you can't carry much ammo into battle!
A: Full auto(in an rifle platform not machine gun) is overrated.
It really is.
As for the ammo being heavier and you carrying less of it, Due to its increased stopping power and range you can actually get away with it, the problem with most 7.62 NATO firearms is not the weight of the ammo, its the weight and length of the firearm in question, at the time of 7.62 NATO's adoption instead of making newer firearms with newer technology people were still designing firearms with older WW2 era standards or trying to make their full powered battle rifles into modern "assault rifles".
The three most common 7.62 NATO battle rifles were the M14(or the very similar Beretta BM 59), the FN FAL, and the German G3 (itself based off the Spanish CETME Modello 2, which fired a underpowered 7.62x51 bullet and was actually quite controllable in full auto fire)
The mistake that said gun makers did was try to take the full powered 7.62 NATO firearms and make in controllable in a fully automatic rifle.
The M14 was basically an M1 Garand with an attached magazine and made to fire full auto Right?
Wrong.
Springfield gave the M14 a much heavier barrel than the M1 Garand ever had, this made the gun weigh around 12 pounds (instead of the barely acceptable 9 pounds of the Garand) and thus making the full auto recoil more controllable (which was still impossible thanks to its power).
Even though the US army quickly removed the full auto feature of the firearm they kept the insanely heavy and excessively long barrel instead of going back to M1 Garand standards(with a shorter barrel)
The FN FAL was actually even slightly heavier than the M14(though they did make a carbine everyone adopted the full length rifle excpet for maybe some special forces), the G3 was a little lighter than both but still just as long(once again they did make a carbine of this rifle but no one adopted it)
What they should have done was made an "battle carbine" with a barrel length of 16 - 18 inches that weighed around 8 pounds and never even tried to make full auto to begin with, thats what heavy machine-guns are for.
Q: The British had developed a 7x40 experimental round that is similar to the 6.8 SPC is now, and the U.S. rejected it.
A: Yes, you are correct.
The US Foolishly over ruled the Europeans(in this case, they should have kept the .45 ACP over the 9mm though), the experimental 7mm round they developed is indeed a far superior round to the 7.62 NATO in an so called assault rifle platform.
But once again there was nothing wrong with a full power semi-auto battle rifle, if you need more than two shots the problem is not with the firearm.
This is why the FN-SCAR Heavy in carbine configuration(16 inch barrel) would be my weapon of choice.
2: Pistols are just about obsolete right now for military purposes(with the exception of some special forces-type work), modern body armor has reached the point were unless you hit the head your shot will do nothing(unless they are wearing a Kevlar helmet, in which case you can only hit the face and neck area) and although they are making bullets that can punch through a Kevlar Helmet(HK's 4.6 x 30 and FN's 5.7 x 28 come to mind) the stopping power on these rounds are so pitiful that unless you hit the head or heart your going to have to shoot someone several times to drop them, and if they have a 7.62x39 or x51 they just have to hit you in the lower torso or arms to knock you to the ground senseless regardless of if it kills you or not.
For police work they are still useful, a .45 ACP for use on the street and a .357 mag or .357 SIG for in the car (to shoot through windshields)
Though criminals are getting their hands on body armor and have been for sometime, not so much in western Europe(yet) but in Russia and eastern Europe it is very common and in the U.S. and Asia its not as uncommon as some would like you to think (especially on the Mexican border, Those drug cartels put several government military forces to shame in terms of firepower and equipment)
My all time favorite, which I carried for certain missions in SE Asia, (yes, I am an old fart) is the Rock Island XM21, although with the wooden stock, it weighed in at 11.5 pounds, but with a tripod, made for a very stable platform. Basically, an M14 with a scope attached and a couple of other tweaks to make it quieter. Effective range about 900 m., but with the proper motivation, hits were recorded out to 1800 m.
Assuming you're speaking to me, not special forces, sniper forces, although we did receive some of the same training.Seff said:
I haven't been military, real or pretend, since the 70's. lol
Captain Pyjama Shark
Grandmaster Knight
hey remember that mercenary chick? was she a pretender?Seff said:
I'm not sure what you want me to talk about, given the way you've chastised others in this thread for asking questions of marginal appropriateness. Suffice it to say, it was days of pseudo-boredom interspersed with moments of full adrenalin. Actually, you asked for favorite weapons and I responded. But if you have specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them...or not.Seff said:
Actually, my days of gun wankery are long past. I just wanted to give a little recognition to what was a fine weapon of its time.
