ok guys both types rounds kill people let's leave it at that jesus who gives a shit about ammunition
This is why Jenkem is on my ignore list.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;28097086]Not really, no. Battlefield reports are rampant with complaints about it's power - something you pretty much don't hear about 7.62. What do you have to say about the stories from Vietnam with NVAs taking two and three hits of 5.56 to drop vs. one from 7.62?[/QUOTE]
This isn't Call of Duty, if you get shot your probably not going to keep running at someone.
None of your information is sourced either, mate. On more specific points-
1. Give me these reports. A lot of people make references to "the reports" that are "out there somewhere" but frankly the data points towards the fact that 5.56 works. Why? Cavitation. On paper, a smaller round appears less lethal because it theoretically will yield less damage. In reality, the round tumbles once it enters a subject within its effective range, creating a much larger wound channel. 5.56 messes people up pretty bad, trust me on that one. The only time we've seen the 5.56 truly fail was in Mogadishu, where the targets were too hopped up on drugs to feel pain, but more important, we were issuing AP ammo, which went through people rather than tumbling. M855 Ball does a much better job at this. Oh, and the powder has changed, it's a slightly hotter round. But mainly, you're citing reports that are more rumored than existent- show me a report from Iraq or Afghanistan that shows the 5.56 round having significant trouble with its knockdown capability, and I might listen. Until then, nope.
2. Bull. Shit. You ever fired an Armalite? That statement is bordering on retarded. The M4, shooting out of a 14.5 inch carbine barrel is rated for point targets at 500 meters and area fire to reasonable accuracy out to 600. Admittedly, these are the numbers the government gives, and frankly at that range you can't guarantee a one-shot-stop, but you will put lead on target at 500. Within 300, the round is going to still be moving fast enough to induce tumble when it enters the body, and a round in the head, chest, or upper leg is going to fuck you up real good. Actually, even out to 500 a round in any of those places will probably do the trick, but it won't be a quick put down like closer than 300 will. The M16, out of an 18 inch barrel, is rated for point targets at 550 and area at 800. Out of the longer barrel, the round is shooting hotter and more likely to tumble even from longer ranges, and is known to be pretty consistent with one-shot stops out to 400 or 500 meters. Where you got the idea that the M4 has an effective range of 70 meters I'm not sure.
3a. The thing is, a 249 or even the occasional 240 bravo is actually a rather mobile platform. Being that it's a crew served weapon, with a two man team the gun can move at the same speed as the rest of the squad, and when it's needed they can get the gun into the fight in moments (referring to the 240. The 249 is an individual weapon that one soldier can get into the fight as soon as they engage)
3b. Interesting question. I think there's two main reasons for it. For one, everyone wants to be high-speed-low-drag, and all the publicity on the tier one guys is the SEAL's with their Mk18's (CQBR's). The other reason is that, frankly, the advantage in range that the slightly longer barrel gives you in airsoft is minimal compared to the fact that it's harder to use in a MOUT environment (the difference between a 14 inch and an 18 inch barrel in terms of accuracy is much less significant in Airsoft than with real weapons.)
4. No, thousands is, frankly, enough. We need the midrange rifles for most of the engagements we fight. With possible exception of a handful of parts of Northern Afghanistan, an Armalite chambered in 5.56 will be the best system because it is extremely versatile, and frankly gets the job done at most ranges fighting happens at. The DMR's we're issuing are a supplement to a squad, to allow them to engage further out, and fix an enemy position so the infantry with their lighter weapons can move fast and go in for the kill.
5. No, we don't fight on the principle of "Spam Power". We fight on the principle of maneuver warfare. Do you know what the keys of maneuver warfare are? Speed, aggression, fire superiority, and suppression. Having a lot of 5.56 and 7.62 to throw down the range while you close with your target keeps you safe as you approach. Then you get within your kill box, which I'll add is still out of range of the majority of your enemies Kalinshnikov based weapons, and engage with accuracy there. The heavier weapons, frankly, are for pinning your enemy in place so your ground-pounders can close, destroy, and kick the bodies. Oh, and my bad on the manufacturer. Though in fairness, Remington remains one of the few producers of 6.8, so my point stands, even if the manufacturer was wrong- it has limited market support.
6. Yes, it is. However, it is, what we've learned to be the most effective way of fighting. It's what our land war schools teach now, tactics perfected by ten years of Rangers and other infantry units fighting in the mountains of A-Stan. And the Air Support thing is irrelevant. Additionally, it's often because the altitude some of the fighting is at limits the utility of helicopters. That's just how it is.
7. No, speed and aggression are not impossible with a 6.8. However, frankly, the round doesn't have enough of an advantage over the 5.56 to justify it's implementation when what we've got works, and more, HEAVIER ammo isn't going to aid our ability to close and destroy. And as I've said, the doctrine we've spent the last ten years developing goes to show that we want our guys moving as fast and light as possible- there's a reason that photos of Rangers these days show guys who've dropped everything they can afford to. Gone are the days of Large Rucks, 10 mags, Side-SAPI's, and the kitchen sink. These days they opt for the smallest armor they can get so they can use the lightest plates, no side plates, no rucks, rarely more than 7 mags, no handguns, no extra kit whatsoever. Why? Because mobility kills- and the 5.56 is the round we have right now that is lightest, and, frankly the best way to make the man on the ground light and lethal.
TL;DR- cite your own damn sources before you question me. I can back a lot of this up, but frankly I've written enough. 5.56.
[editline]16th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=deathmog;28097322]ok guys both types rounds kill people let's leave it at that jesus who gives a shit about ammunition[/QUOTE]
Sorry, had to get the last word in...
hey jenkem
m4s are effective to up to 300 meters and 500 meters when engaging an area target
so is the m16
[editline]16th February 2011[/editline]
5.56 also kills you just as good as 7.62
[editline]16th February 2011[/editline]
and 5.56 likes to break apart when it hits making it kill even better
You were doing good for a moment there Jenkem. Why you gotta do this again?
Yeah when the 5.56 hits you it breaks up and cuts you up like my mommas knife on a palenta back home in Sicily
[QUOTE=Inafinus :3;28097972]Yeah when the 5.56 hits you it breaks up and cuts you up like my mommas knife on a palenta back home in Sicily[/QUOTE]
back when i lived in sicily my momma cut herself with her knife
yo! killin yoself is bad! god don like it! Kapiche?
slick you should be an officer
you got the mind for it
[QUOTE=W0w00t;28098049]slick you should be an officer
you got the mind for it[/QUOTE]
Thanks? haha. I lead a team in CT, but that's as far as it goes at the moment.
hey guys m4's suck :xd:
trololol
Tisk tisk. Jenkem, our ability to win conflicts like that of Afghanistan and Iraq isn't going to be decided by a few millimeters of metal. If material quality is what wins wars, we would have won already. Many insurgents are using submachine guns and rifles from the SECOND WORLD WAR. Our infantry have already proven themselves to be superior in combat and small-scale tactics than the enemy in almost every scenario we have faced so far. The answer lies in strategy and large scale tactics. The answer on how to win a partisan war is not changing the weapons we use, it's creating tactical solutions to strategic problems.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;28114095]Tisk tisk. Jenkem, our ability to win conflicts like that of Afghanistan and Iraq isn't going to be decided by a few millimeters of metal. If material quality is what wins wars, we would have won already. Many insurgents are using submachine guns and rifles from the SECOND WORLD WAR. Our infantry have already proven themselves to be superior in combat and small-scale tactics than the enemy in almost every scenario we have faced so far. The answer lies in strategy and large scale tactics. The answer on how to win a partisan war is not changing the weapons we use, it's creating tactical solutions to strategic problems.[/QUOTE]
finally someone that says guns don't solve wars, People do!
yeh but what if all the marines were armed with deagles and .50 barrets??????
we'd win the war 4 sure!
[QUOTE=Jenkem;28097086]Wrong. The maximum effective range of an M4A1 is roughly [B]70[/B] meters, not 300. [/QUOTE]
ahahahahahahahahahahah
oh god seriously?
this means i could outrange an M4A1 with my WE PDW then
5.56 rounds are cool okay. they like tumble when inside you and shit and fuck you the fuck up
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;28117087]5.56 rounds are cool okay. they like tumble when inside you and shit and fuck you the fuck up[/QUOTE]
just like my dick
[QUOTE=venom;28117241]just like my dick[/QUOTE]
Venom has a barbed penis that destroys the vagina on the way out.
Like a cat?
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;28117256]Like a cat?[/QUOTE]
like a dargon.
[QUOTE=venom;28117241]just like my dick[/QUOTE]
Can't make statements like that without posting your "gun"
[QUOTE=DarkSamus;28117274]like a dargon.[/QUOTE]
rwaarrr
[QUOTE=Lightened soul;28117299]Can't make statements like that without posting your "gun"[/QUOTE]
yeah you'd like that wouldn't you, sweet cheeks?
[QUOTE=venom;28118025]yeah you'd like that wouldn't you, sweet cheeks?[/QUOTE]
Looks like 90% of his posts are in the crossdressing thread on gaypunch
hot
why would you even crossdress
[editline]17th February 2011[/editline]
itt: mental disabilities
BTW NIKO
OPEN BETA 6 FOR MW MOD FOR WIC IS OUT
ITS SEX
hng i have to reinstall wic
later
[QUOTE=W0w00t;28118330]why would you even crossdress
[editline]17th February 2011[/editline]
itt: mental disabilities
BTW NIKO
OPEN BETA 6 FOR MW MOD FOR WIC IS OUT
ITS SEX[/QUOTE]
Some people feel like they are a different sex on the inside.
because they're mentally disfigured
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
