bullets to small for taliban

[Fleabag]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...at-Taliban.html

[Zapp]

In fairness this has been done to death since the 1960s when 5.56 came in with the US forces. Yes it's ****, but when did that ever come into play where government acquisition projects are concerned?

 

ZB, leaning back in his chair and waiting for the first "shoot to wound" mythtastic response.

[mikee]

i dont know a great deal about rifle ammo but if i had the choice of being shot with a .223 or a .308 i know which one i would choose, i cant believe the forces use such a caliber but hey what do i know

 

mikee

[George1990]

Ok it's in millimetres Getting confused for a mo

Edited October 29, 2009 by George1990

[PaulABF]

I've been fortunate/unfortunate, depending on your viewpoint to see and observe men hit by 5.56mm. They don't magically brush it off and carry on fighting. They're human and the immediate response is to scream and roll around in pain or die. If you're hit by 5.56mm in a vital area like the chest or head the chances are you're going to die. One of our lads was hit by 7.62mm short in Afghanistan. The round entered his right arm, travelled through his body and exited his left arm. He only realised when he collapsed a couple of minutes later with shortness of breath. The round had missed all major organs and only nicked his lungs. There was no fist sized exit either only a small tear.

 

Too many people are of the opinion that 7.62mm is a 'man stopper' and hark back to the days of the SLR. Yes it was a good rifle, but we now use the L85A2, which is a smaller calibre but we can carry more ammunition round to weight ratio. At the end of the day it all depends where you're actually shot.

[Justintime]

The AK 47 CAN USE 7.62 long and short rounds one is used in the gpmg the idea of the 5.56 is to hurt not kill so as to tie up more men getting casuiltys off the battle field tieing up there logistics med etc , If the boys need fire power they use .50 ,gpmg ,81mm moter mcgun. Air force for tac air strikes etc thw 5.56 will and dose kill out to 300yards just look what the 223 will do same round oop[s slip of the finger

Edited October 31, 2009 by Justintime

[PaulABF]

The AK is 7.62mm short. We, NATO, use the 7.62mm long.

[Traztaz]

Good lord here we go again!!

The AK47 my friend will not chamber a 7.62 NATO round as it is designed for the &.62 short..............it will not fit!!In the good old days of the cold war and the SLR we had the advantage that yes we could chamber a 7.62 short, how accurate it would have been I do not know, but we could chamber and fire the bloody thing.

As far as the 5.56 thing goes, it kills just like any other round, as has been said here I have also been fortunate/unfortunate enough to see this.I would be happier with a 9.3 x 64 as it goes, with hunting ammo, dead is really really dead with this, but it is not allowed and no one uses it as a military caliber.

Any tosh you may have heard about 7.62 vs 5,56 is probably just thyat TOSH.

I like the 5,56 because we can carry more of it, that said the old SLR and some 7.62 was good for moving/killing muppets behind walls!!

We now hunt as very fluid teams and incorparate both calibers into the team and as such probably have the best of both worlds.

I am sure somewhere in the middle is a 6 mm round that would do Jack of all trades, but reissue to the force with all new weapons is unthinkable in todays economic climate.

[PaulABF]

The AK 47 CAN USE 7.62 long and short rounds one is used in the gpmg the idea of the 5.56 is to hurt not kill so as to tie up more men getting casuiltys off the battle field tieing up there logistics med etc , If the boys need fire power they use .50 ,gpmg ,84mm moter mcgun. Air force for tac air strikes etc thw 5.56 will and dose kill out to 300yards just look what the 223 will do same round

 

 

An 84mm 'moter'? We use 81mm, and most of our enemies, who incidentally use a lot of Russian kit against us, use 82mm. Have you been snorting diesel?

[Zapp]

The AK 47 CAN USE 7.62 long and short rounds

 

Eh? No it cant, the AK-47 uses 7.62 short.

 

the idea of the 5.56 is to hurt not kill so as to tie up more men getting casuiltys off the battle field tieing up there logistics med etc

 

No, that is a myth. It was only a matter of time

 

84mm moter

 

84mm? Last time I looked the Warsaw Pact countries used 82mm mortars, plus many larger fruitier varieties.

 

You have no idea what you are chimping on about do you?

 

ZB

 

Edit: Beaten to it, but thankfully in agreement with those who actually do have a clue.

 

Edit number 2: Ok, you were talking about our mortars, but were even further out on the calibre, meaning I was less harsh than I should have been in the first place.

[Paladin]

If it can take up to Five rounds to do the job of One, then you would have to carry more rounds!!!!

Anyone remember the 30cal the yanks had that wouldn't penetrate quilted uniform jackets , how would you feel if you had to rely on the capacity of your mag to do the job of One round!!

How many lives have been lost because of a good arms salesman and a low budget?

You need proper tools for a propper job.

Our lads need the best we can give them.

 

Edit. I remember reading in Guns And Ammo about a guy in Vietnam who went every where with his 45.70win Bunker buster and accounted for more than his fare share!!!

Edited October 29, 2009 by Paladin

[PWD]

I recently had the pleasure of firing an SA80 and a 7.62 rifle on a RAF/Army military range ..never fired either before...but at 200 yards put 19 out of 20 .223 on target in something like a kill or seriouse wound area with iron sites to ...with the 7.62 I would have been over run and shafted by mr Taliban .. Nice gun and very little recoil so I would have preferd the smaller round out of choice just seemed more user freindly .

 

Am I right in thinking the smaller round becomes more unstable once it hits flesh ..thus causing bigger trauma anyway .(that might be another Sky tv Myth though )

Edited October 29, 2009 by PWD

[Boromir]

I think once the round hits the body it breaks up inside. So you can shoot them in the chest and it could come out there ****.

[Harnser]

If it can take up to Five rounds to do the job of One, then you would have to carry more rounds!!!!

Anyone remember the 30cal the yanks had that wouldn't penetrate quilted uniform jackets , how would you feel if you had to rely on the capacity of your mag to do the job of One round!!

How many lives have been lost because of a good arms salesman and a low budget?

You need proper tools for a propper job.

Our lads need the best we can give them.

 

Edit. I remember reading in Guns And Ammo about a guy in Vietnam who went every where with his 45.70win Bunker buster and accounted for more than his fare share!!!

I have never heard of a 30 calibre round that wouldnt penertrate a quilted jacket . Before the introduction of the centre fire .22 the american standard issue calibre was the mighty 30.06 . You may be confusing the .45 pistol round that was always thought to be lacking in the power stakes with the 30.06 .

Harnser .

Edited October 29, 2009 by Harnser

[Harnser]

The idea of shooting to wound on the battle field is a load of old tosh . You want your enemy dead ,nobody is a good enough shot to do this . How would you miss shooting your enemy in a vital spot .would you shoot him in the foot or the hand ,I think you would then make him very cross and he would start to shoot back .

Harnser .

Edited October 29, 2009 by Harnser

[PaulABF]

Any ex-squaddies or anyone that's ever done a 'falling plate' shooting competition on here? If I remember correctly the falling plate was made of steel, 6mm or so thick? I was a good shot with the SLR, even better with the L85 A1 and A2 due to the SUSAT,X 4 magnification. Anyway, the 7.62mm round rarely penetrated the steel although it would give it a good dent. The 5.56mm will penetrate nearly every time. I don't profess to be a weapons expert so I don't know of the make up of the bullet or it's joules of energy, I just know how to use them both accurately and safely, but what I will say being a user of both the SLR (7.62) and now the L85A2 SA80 (5.56mm) is that I'll take the L85 hands down over the SLR.

 

Most detractors of the SA80 are the 'cold war warriors' who've never used it or armchair generals who wax lyrical about a weapon system they've never fired in anger. It does the job and it does it well.

[Zapp]

I just know how to use them both accurately and safely, but what I will say being a user of both the SLR (7.62) and now the L85A2 SA80 (5.56mm) is that I'll take the L85 hands down over the SLR.

 

Here endeth the lesson and thankfully (hopefully) the tabloid myth. Horses mouth etc etc.

 

 

ZB

[deeksofdoom]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...at-Taliban.html

 

There is a certain amount of truth to the article, I mean it is possible for some drugged up lunatic to not even feel a round passing through them. But then you could say that every round has been put down for lack of stopping power at one time or another. I'ld say that the 5.56mm is perfectly capable of doing the job.

I've used both 7.62mm and 5.56mm and even the venerable old .303 and I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of any one of them.

[Billy.]

I don't think the troops are too concerned about rounds tailing off at 300 yards, not when they're firing 500 rounds a minute...

 

Put a 5.56 in the hands of a skilled marksman and tell him what it's zeroed at and I can pretty much guarantee you he'll be able to calculate holdover and counter a side wind.

[clyde]

we trained up on the first sa80, ,and also L1A1 SLR. sa80 wasn't a bad little weapon very good for fibua.they used to tell us the concept behind the 5.56 was to the dissable the enemy, by injuring the combatant you had gone for, but by wounding him it would take more men out of the enemy section to look after the injured person. it would still kill a person no probs at effective section range, but would have a higher % of wounding. the L1A1 SLR however, what a weapon that baby is. as our old instructers said who were in the falklands ,that if that hit the enemy it was more likley than not going to drop them outright. this was my favourite weapon out of the 2 'but that is personal pref, but only cause it gave a nice kick on setting 0 and was very reliable, and you could realy lay the butt into someone when taking a fire trench. the first sa80 wern't so clever on reliabilty, but it had only just come through when we trained. Edited October 29, 2009 by clyde

[Zapp]

we trained up on the first sa80, L98A1, if i remember right,and also L1A1 SLR. sa80 wasn't a bad little weapon very good for fibua.they used to tell us the concept behind the 5.56 was to the dissable the enemy, by injuring the combatant you had gone for, but by wounding him it would take more men out of the enemy section to look after the injured person. it would still kill a person no probs at effective section range, but would have a higher % of wounding. the L1A1 SLR however, what a weapon that baby is. as our old instructers said who were in the falklands ,that if that hit the enemy it was more likley than not going to drop them outright. this was my favourite weapon out of the 2 'but that is personal pref, but only cause it gave a nice kick on setting 0 and was very reliable, and you could realy lay the butt into someone when taking a fire trench. the first sa80 wern't so clever on reliabilty, but it had only just come through when we trained.

 

Clyde, I would suggest that if you dont know the difference between the L98A1 (the cadet GP rifle) and the L85A1, you are talking out of your crimper about everything else.

 

ZB

EDIT, YOU CHEEKY MONKEY, YOU CAN EDIT YOUR POST TO REMOVE THEL98A1 REFERENCE BUT NOT MY QUOTE YOU WALTER.

[PaulABF]

Ha ha, zapp you've been reverse- walted by a cadet!

[Zapp]

Ha ha, zapp you've been reverse- walted by a cadet!

 

C'est n'est pas Paul, I flagged him as a walting walter complete with evidence of waltage.

 

How can you slight me so sir?

 

ZB

[PaulABF]

Ah but zapp your walt finding skills are defunct when encountered by an-ex cadet with the editing skills of a pro but unfortunately the 'Jane's Weapon Encyclopedia' memory of a skiplicker.

[clyde]

Clyde, I would suggest that if you dont know the difference between the L98A1 (the cadet GP rifle) and the L85A1, you are talking out of your crimper about everything else.

 

ZB

EDIT, YOU CHEEKY MONKEY, YOU CAN EDIT YOUR POST TO REMOVE THEL98A1 REFERENCE BUT NOT MY QUOTE YOU WALTER.

not at all bud was 89 when we used them along with gpmg, lsw, law 90, lmg, slr.yes bit of memory relapse on model,because used to instruct at army cadets late 90s, very sorry if this is a problem with yourself,not being able to recall all model no's after 20yrs ,it reminds me of getting beasted for not reading part 1 orders,

Edited October 30, 2009 by clyde