The rumor in these parts is that they didn't budge from the current design for political reasons. Since Colt is made here in the US, they get a little more of a nod than usual. Army brass said something to the effect of "these results don't mean anything because our soldiers are happy with their M4s". Which makes you wonder why they did the test to begin with.
It's also interesting to note that one of the 416 rifles was a "lemon" and produced most of the malfunctions for the 416 stat. The XM8 and the other 416s bested the test, and completely blew the M4 out of the water. Doesn't matter, though... because troops "love their M4s".
It's a shame they killed the XM8 project. It seems to have proven itself time and time again. Unfortunately, it may never happen unless HK builds a factory here in the US. And they kind of have...
i had a look on the link you provide there. GG&G looks ok but the technic of the quick release lever is not safeguarded like the one of LaRue.
For me on hunting that makes no big difference but for a soldier it makes a big difference. I could say nothing about the company owner and i just compare the kind of made and the features. Price for americans nearly equal, but Larue, on the example of a real quick release mount, is cheaper.
sorry you understand me wrong. When i say M4s i mean the aimpoint CompM4s.
If i buy a semiautomatic weapon next year, it will be the H&K mr223 (civilian version of the HK416) or the mr308 (HK 417). I will never buy a M4 technical style weapon. I prefer the gas piston version from HK, like the G36, HK416, HK417 or the civilian version of these AR'S.
i had a look on the link you provide there. GG&G looks ok but the technic of the quick release lever is not safeguarded like the one of LaRue.
For me on hunting that makes no big difference but for a soldier it makes a big difference. I could say nothing about the company owner and i just compare the kind of made and the features. Price for americans nearly equal, but Larue, on the example of a real quick release mount, is cheaper.
Yep, it's more prone to get something caught on it, I guess.
But it is also easier to remove and reattach as a result of that.
You win some and lose some You just have to decide which is more important to you and which one has a probability of occurring.
I just wish I had that kind of problem. I've got an expensive and good rifle, but a horrible and cheap optic set-up for it. There's nothing worse than that!
sorry you understand me wrong. When i say M4s i mean the aimpoint CompM4s.
If i buy a semiautomatic weapon next year, it will be the H&K mr223 (civilian version of the HK416) or the mr308 (HK 417). I will never buy a M4 technical style weapon. I prefer the gas piston version from HK, like the G36, HK416, HK417 or the civilian version of these AR'S.
Ah gotcha Hunter
Personally i would recommend Eotech before Aimpoint, but thats just my personal opinion.
I have seen conflicting stories as to whether the US ARMY will adopt this new (excellent, versitile) H&K or a new 6.6mm round rifle, under development, because they finally realized the 5.56mm is just too whimpy for the task of taking down drug-enhanced fanatics and soldiers on adrenalin and in city combat in time to save the shooter.
I have seen conflicting stories as to whether the US ARMY will adopt this new (excellent, versitile) H&K or a new 6.6mm round rifle, under development, because they finally realized the 5.56mm is just too whimpy for the task of taking down drug-enhanced fanatics and soldiers on adrenalin and in city combat in time to save the shooter.
Yeah 6.5mm seems to be the hottest caliber nowadays.
They already figured that one out back in 1894 with the Krag Jorgensen
I've never heard of a 6.6 mm cartridge being a potential replacement for the 5.56. I have heard that they considered the 6.8 SPC for that.
But really, the government is not currently interested in switching from Colt. The FN SCAR gets a little bit of attention, and the HK 416 got a little bit of attention, but in the end the contract goes to the lowest bidder for the gun that barely passes the "low" standards set by the military.
In the words of the Future Weapons guy the 5.56mm doesnt drop your target fast enough, so you need something between the 5.56 and the 7.62 if you want both range and accuracy from the smaller round but stopping power from the bigger one.
—
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In the words of the Future Weapons guy the 5.56mm doesnt drop your target fast enough, so you need something between the 5.56 and the 7.62 if you want both range and accuracy from the smaller round but stopping power from the bigger one.
That's the 6.8 SPC I was speaking of. As for the Future Weapons guy... I know he could kick my ass and he has all kinds of experience I don't have... but he's not the brightest when it comes to the tools of the trade. In one episode of them speaking about some kind of bullet protective vest, he says something to the effect of "This can stop the 7.62x39, the 5.56 NATO, and EVEN the 9mm!" He said it like the 9mm was the most powerful of the three... which of course it is not.
The 6.5 Grendel is the only 6.5 caliber bullet I know of... I believe it was designed by Alexander Arms, which used to test out their stuff at the range I frequented. Cool caliber, very similar to the 6.8 SPC, but if I remember correctly, even better ballistics.
Here's what's important about the more powerful calibers:
5.56 isn't as powerful or as "deadly" as 6.8 SPC. Neither boasts substantial "knockdown" power. Remember, every force requires and equal and opposite reaction, so the impulse felt by the shooter when taking a shot is about equal to what is felt by the person on the receiving end. Neither 5.56 or 6.8 knocks the shooter off their feet.
What you also have to consider (from a broad military standpoint), is that your average soldier is not a good shot, and does not have a good shooting stance. They can't control a high caliber round on full auto or even semi-auto. The 5.56 has been popular because it doesn't require a lot of skill to be competent or deadly.
Just a couple of thoughts. Some may be complete thoughts, some may not...
I wonder 8O ...
If a small fast round, that is deflected by leaves and twigs, and blown around by the wind quite easily is more accurate at range....why do snipers use .50 cal HMG-style rounds for long kills? Why do hunters use .30-06 on deer? 7.62x56 is a standard US military and police sniper round except where they want to avoid OVERPENETRATION to protect civilians. The 5.56mm NATO round is preferred for the weight and for the quanitity of ammo that can be carried to burn up for suppressive, unaimed fire while artillery and air strikes kill the enemy...US Army doctrine. If you are actually trying to HIT the enemy with each shot, a heavier round is more stable and has more penetration of masonry and body armor. Never confuse military combat doctrine with individual defense. They are aiming at the most Army soldiers surviving, not the individual. The Military considers factors like logistics. The soldier considers weight he has to carry. The marksman considers accuracy and effect.
It is the same as SAS tactics being best for the TEAM to survive, not the individual, despite being far better than no tactics for the individual. Good solo tactics are often the reverse of SAS tactics because you don't have 360 degrees covered. If you want to survive a corner, and u can double tap a tea cup in a heartbeat at 7 meters, you want to be as far from the enemy as possible when taking a corner to take advantage of that edge. In a team the 360 degrees of AOR protect you better if you stay tight to a corner but 18" off the wall. Don't buy a claw hammer to knock out auto body dents. You must understand the persons ENTIRE agenda to understand his assessment of armaments. If a TV host pisses off the Military, do you think he will be invited to assess their next weapon trials?
I wonder 8O ...
If a small fast round, that is deflected by leaves and twigs, and blown around by the wind quite easily is more accurate at range....why do snipers use .50 cal HMG-style rounds for long kills? Why do hunters use .30-06 on deer? 7.62x56 is a standard US military and police sniper round except where they want to avoid OVERPENETRATION to protect civilians. The 5.56mm NATO round is preferred for the weight and for the quanitity of ammo that can be carried to burn up for suppressive, unaimed fire while artillery and air strikes kill the enemy...US Army doctrine. If you are actually trying to HIT the enemy with each shot, a heavier round is more stable and has more penetration of masonry and body armor. Never confuse military combat doctrine with individual defense. They are aiming at the most Army soldiers surviving, not the individual. The Military considers factors like logistics. The soldier considers weight he has to carry. The marksman considers accuracy and effect.
I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not... but I'll answer like it is.
I don't disagree with a single thing you say in the above quoted text. But we're talking about Assault Rifles here, not sniper calibers. Of course, for sniper calibers you want heavy, and to some extent you want small diameter. A ballistic coefficient is best for a small diameter and long bullet assuming that mass of material is identical. However, wound ballistics are not best for those dimensions. Because of this, you want a mix of a large diameter, high speed, and a heavy bullet. The .50 caliber rifle is a great example of being extremely heavy, and at a high speed, to the point where atmospheric effects have much less to do with the bullet flight than it would on a featherweight bullet.
Any major rifle calibers have a high potential to "overpenetrate". Even small auto pistol caliber rounds have the potential to overpenetrate. A fully expanded JHP from a 9mm, 40, or 45 will penetrate at LEAST 12 inches through soft tissue. And they don't always expand, even with the magical hollow points of today. If you want some penetration data for various calibers and mediums, take a look at "The Box of Truth" website. A google search should turn it up.
A single 30.06 round from an M1 carbine will destroy a lot more tissue than a single round from a 5.56 rifle. However, like you pointed out, 30.06 rifles hold a lot less ammo, weigh a lot more, require a full length barrel to reach the intended muzzle velocity, and kick like a bastard. The result is a hard to wield gun that is very difficult to engage multiple targets with at close range. This makes it not suitable for close quarters combat. For a while, submachine guns like the MP5 (chambered in 9mm) were the answer. However, such weak caliber guns are being found to not be suitable enough and most police agencies are dropping the traditional pistol caliber submachine guns and switching to 5.56 rifles.
The heavier 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, I think there is a .50 beowulf as well... are all "better" round for round than the 5.56. But the 5.56 is easier to engage multiple targets with. I think that's the biggest factor.
In one episode of them speaking about some kind of bullet protective vest, he says something to the effect of "This can stop the 7.62x39, the 5.56 NATO, and EVEN the 9mm!" He said it like the 9mm was the most powerful of the three... which of course it is not.
Perhaps it was a bit tongue-in-cheek?
It is the same as SAS tactics being best for the TEAM to survive, not the individual, despite being far better than no tactics for the individual. Good solo tactics are often the reverse of SAS tactics because you don't have 360 degrees covered.
After the extensive training it took under the likes of Rand, Wiz, Relish, James, En4cer, and yes, even a bit of JB ;). I've been able to apply 'SAS tactics' as you call them, effectively even when operating solo - they still work if you know what you're doing and remember the concepts at heart.
Or as I like to say, we're trained to be a one man army when necessary, but work best together as an element.
The most important lesson I ever learned came from Rand during my P.R. phase: take it as if it was real, and you wouldn't want your buddies coming home in a bag, would you? Protect the team. That's been a core essence in much of what we do. Team of 1, still wants to keep his brains in the pain, not on the wall after all
In one episode of them speaking about some kind of bullet protective vest, he says something to the effect of "This can stop the 7.62x39, the 5.56 NATO, and EVEN the 9mm!" He said it like the 9mm was the most powerful of the three... which of course it is not.
Perhaps it was a bit tongue-in-cheek?
I could believe that if there wasn't all kinds of questionable things on the show. The episode I am speaking about is the Dragon Skin one.
(Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYaSRIbPWkM
(Part 2 - Where he says the 9mm quote. I'll let you decide if it's tongue in cheek :lol:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HRQNd84ZA
In Part 1 they claim that it stops STEEL CORE ammo from a 5.56 and 7.62x39. I have my doubts about that. I'm the kind that won't just believe what you tell me. I want to see PROOF beyond any doubt. They also shot it with an MP5SD... which is probably the worst weapon to use in a test of this kind. Most basic body armor is already rated to stop 147 grains of 9mm traveling at ~1000 feet per second. The MP5SD shoots 124 grain projectiles at the same speed because of its venting system.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Dragon Skin stopped all pistol caliber rounds. It wouldn't surprised me too much if it stopped light weight rifle rounds. It would surprise me if it actually stopped Steel Core ammunition from a rifle. The video claims it does, but the Army does not endorse this armor, and I can't find any test evidence NOT done by the company trying to sell it.
I even have issues with how the grenade test in Part 2 was conducted in that video. The model they use is practically a rigid body that looks like it weighs a lot less then the upper body of a human. Especially a soldier loaded down with 50 extra pounds of gear. A human's body would mold around the grenade and trap the expanding gases a lot more than that rigid model. It would also resist upward movement a lot more. The result would cause more damage to the person. And they didn't specify the model of the grenade... so that's another con.
The few times I've watched Future Weapons I haven't admired the scientific processes they've used, I've had problems with what they considered to be laws of physics, etc. Just not happy with it
The gun world has grown very tired of magazines and TV shows like this. They never dislike something they test. It has kind of forced many of us to not trust any article we read. Which is a crock of poo. Not every new thing is amazing or useful.
The rumor in these parts is that they didn't budge from the current design for political reasons. Since Colt is made here in the US, they get a little more of a nod than usual. Army brass said something to the effect of "these results don't mean anything because our soldiers are happy with their M4s". Which makes you wonder why they did the test to begin with.
It's also interesting to note that one of the 416 rifles was a "lemon" and produced most of the malfunctions for the 416 stat. The XM8 and the other 416s bested the test, and completely blew the M4 out of the water. Doesn't matter, though... because troops "love their M4s".
It's a shame they killed the XM8 project. It seems to have proven itself time and time again. Unfortunately, it may never happen unless HK builds a factory here in the US. And they kind of have...
MaverickH1,
i had a look on the link you provide there. GG&G looks ok but the technic of the quick release lever is not safeguarded like the one of LaRue.
For me on hunting that makes no big difference but for a soldier it makes a big difference. I could say nothing about the company owner and i just compare the kind of made and the features. Price for americans nearly equal, but Larue, on the example of a real quick release mount, is cheaper.
http://www.gggaz.com/index.php?id=206&parents=69,70
http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Detail.bok?no=160
regards
Hunter
(formerly known as SAS_LCpl_Hunter)
Valroe,
sorry you understand me wrong. When i say M4s i mean the aimpoint CompM4s.
If i buy a semiautomatic weapon next year, it will be the H&K mr223 (civilian version of the HK416) or the mr308 (HK 417). I will never buy a M4 technical style weapon. I prefer the gas piston version from HK, like the G36, HK416, HK417 or the civilian version of these AR'S.
(formerly known as SAS_LCpl_Hunter)
Yep, it's more prone to get something caught on it, I guess.
But it is also easier to remove and reattach as a result of that.
You win some and lose some
You just have to decide which is more important to you and which one has a probability of occurring.
I just wish I had that kind of problem. I've got an expensive and good rifle, but a horrible and cheap optic set-up for it. There's nothing worse than that!
Ah gotcha Hunter
Personally i would recommend Eotech before Aimpoint, but thats just my personal opinion.
Nice one Valroe, in poland the shooting ranges didn't have such weapons, but i don't complain, there are always copetitions in Netherlands.
GROM has em ;P
Yes, but I writing about civilian shooters (like me) and not our special units.
hehe, I read you mate
What about this spitball gun?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/CZ868_Skorpion.jpg
Looks like high tech gear mounted on a half a century old SMG.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Look closely and you'll notice a familiar Czechoslovakian pea shooter.
The CZ-61? Weren't you telling us about this thing on TS? Now I remember.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I have seen conflicting stories as to whether the US ARMY will adopt this new (excellent, versitile) H&K or a new 6.6mm round rifle, under development, because they finally realized the 5.56mm is just too whimpy for the task of taking down drug-enhanced fanatics and soldiers on adrenalin and in city combat in time to save the shooter.
Yeah 6.5mm seems to be the hottest caliber nowadays.
They already figured that one out back in 1894 with the Krag Jorgensen
I've never heard of a 6.6 mm cartridge being a potential replacement for the 5.56. I have heard that they considered the 6.8 SPC for that.
But really, the government is not currently interested in switching from Colt. The FN SCAR gets a little bit of attention, and the HK 416 got a little bit of attention, but in the end the contract goes to the lowest bidder for the gun that barely passes the "low" standards set by the military.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5OmYhA_PS4
In another video there is also the 6.5mm round.
In the words of the Future Weapons guy the 5.56mm doesnt drop your target fast enough, so you need something between the 5.56 and the 7.62 if you want both range and accuracy from the smaller round but stopping power from the bigger one.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
That's the 6.8 SPC I was speaking of. As for the Future Weapons guy... I know he could kick my ass and he has all kinds of experience I don't have... but he's not the brightest when it comes to the tools of the trade. In one episode of them speaking about some kind of bullet protective vest, he says something to the effect of "This can stop the 7.62x39, the 5.56 NATO, and EVEN the 9mm!" He said it like the 9mm was the most powerful of the three... which of course it is not.
The 6.5 Grendel is the only 6.5 caliber bullet I know of... I believe it was designed by Alexander Arms, which used to test out their stuff at the range I frequented. Cool caliber, very similar to the 6.8 SPC, but if I remember correctly, even better ballistics.
Here's what's important about the more powerful calibers:
5.56 isn't as powerful or as "deadly" as 6.8 SPC. Neither boasts substantial "knockdown" power. Remember, every force requires and equal and opposite reaction, so the impulse felt by the shooter when taking a shot is about equal to what is felt by the person on the receiving end. Neither 5.56 or 6.8 knocks the shooter off their feet.
What you also have to consider (from a broad military standpoint), is that your average soldier is not a good shot, and does not have a good shooting stance. They can't control a high caliber round on full auto or even semi-auto. The 5.56 has been popular because it doesn't require a lot of skill to be competent or deadly.
Just a couple of thoughts. Some may be complete thoughts, some may not...
I wonder 8O ...
If a small fast round, that is deflected by leaves and twigs, and blown around by the wind quite easily is more accurate at range....why do snipers use .50 cal HMG-style rounds for long kills? Why do hunters use .30-06 on deer? 7.62x56 is a standard US military and police sniper round except where they want to avoid OVERPENETRATION to protect civilians. The 5.56mm NATO round is preferred for the weight and for the quanitity of ammo that can be carried to burn up for suppressive, unaimed fire while artillery and air strikes kill the enemy...US Army doctrine. If you are actually trying to HIT the enemy with each shot, a heavier round is more stable and has more penetration of masonry and body armor. Never confuse military combat doctrine with individual defense. They are aiming at the most Army soldiers surviving, not the individual. The Military considers factors like logistics. The soldier considers weight he has to carry. The marksman considers accuracy and effect.
It is the same as SAS tactics being best for the TEAM to survive, not the individual, despite being far better than no tactics for the individual. Good solo tactics are often the reverse of SAS tactics because you don't have 360 degrees covered. If you want to survive a corner, and u can double tap a tea cup in a heartbeat at 7 meters, you want to be as far from the enemy as possible when taking a corner to take advantage of that edge. In a team the 360 degrees of AOR protect you better if you stay tight to a corner but 18" off the wall. Don't buy a claw hammer to knock out auto body dents. You must understand the persons ENTIRE agenda to understand his assessment of armaments. If a TV host pisses off the Military, do you think he will be invited to assess their next weapon trials?
I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not... but I'll answer like it is.
I don't disagree with a single thing you say in the above quoted text. But we're talking about Assault Rifles here, not sniper calibers. Of course, for sniper calibers you want heavy, and to some extent you want small diameter. A ballistic coefficient is best for a small diameter and long bullet assuming that mass of material is identical. However, wound ballistics are not best for those dimensions. Because of this, you want a mix of a large diameter, high speed, and a heavy bullet. The .50 caliber rifle is a great example of being extremely heavy, and at a high speed, to the point where atmospheric effects have much less to do with the bullet flight than it would on a featherweight bullet.
Any major rifle calibers have a high potential to "overpenetrate". Even small auto pistol caliber rounds have the potential to overpenetrate. A fully expanded JHP from a 9mm, 40, or 45 will penetrate at LEAST 12 inches through soft tissue. And they don't always expand, even with the magical hollow points of today. If you want some penetration data for various calibers and mediums, take a look at "The Box of Truth" website. A google search should turn it up.
A single 30.06 round from an M1 carbine will destroy a lot more tissue than a single round from a 5.56 rifle. However, like you pointed out, 30.06 rifles hold a lot less ammo, weigh a lot more, require a full length barrel to reach the intended muzzle velocity, and kick like a bastard. The result is a hard to wield gun that is very difficult to engage multiple targets with at close range. This makes it not suitable for close quarters combat. For a while, submachine guns like the MP5 (chambered in 9mm) were the answer. However, such weak caliber guns are being found to not be suitable enough and most police agencies are dropping the traditional pistol caliber submachine guns and switching to 5.56 rifles.
The heavier 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, I think there is a .50 beowulf as well... are all "better" round for round than the 5.56. But the 5.56 is easier to engage multiple targets with. I think that's the biggest factor.
I'm tired. Sorry if thoughts aren't complete.
Perhaps it was a bit tongue-in-cheek?
After the extensive training it took under the likes of Rand, Wiz, Relish, James, En4cer, and yes, even a bit of JB ;). I've been able to apply 'SAS tactics' as you call them, effectively even when operating solo - they still work if you know what you're doing and remember the concepts at heart.
Or as I like to say, we're trained to be a one man army when necessary, but work best together as an element.
The most important lesson I ever learned came from Rand during my P.R. phase: take it as if it was real, and you wouldn't want your buddies coming home in a bag, would you? Protect the team. That's been a core essence in much of what we do. Team of 1, still wants to keep his brains in the pain, not on the wall after all
I could believe that if there wasn't all kinds of questionable things on the show. The episode I am speaking about is the Dragon Skin one.
(Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYaSRIbPWkM
(Part 2 - Where he says the 9mm quote. I'll let you decide if it's tongue in cheek :lol:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HRQNd84ZA
In Part 1 they claim that it stops STEEL CORE ammo from a 5.56 and 7.62x39. I have my doubts about that. I'm the kind that won't just believe what you tell me. I want to see PROOF beyond any doubt. They also shot it with an MP5SD... which is probably the worst weapon to use in a test of this kind. Most basic body armor is already rated to stop 147 grains of 9mm traveling at ~1000 feet per second. The MP5SD shoots 124 grain projectiles at the same speed because of its venting system.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Dragon Skin stopped all pistol caliber rounds. It wouldn't surprised me too much if it stopped light weight rifle rounds. It would surprise me if it actually stopped Steel Core ammunition from a rifle. The video claims it does, but the Army does not endorse this armor, and I can't find any test evidence NOT done by the company trying to sell it.
I even have issues with how the grenade test in Part 2 was conducted in that video. The model they use is practically a rigid body that looks like it weighs a lot less then the upper body of a human. Especially a soldier loaded down with 50 extra pounds of gear. A human's body would mold around the grenade and trap the expanding gases a lot more than that rigid model. It would also resist upward movement a lot more. The result would cause more damage to the person. And they didn't specify the model of the grenade... so that's another con.
The few times I've watched Future Weapons I haven't admired the scientific processes they've used, I've had problems with what they considered to be laws of physics, etc. Just not happy with it
The gun world has grown very tired of magazines and TV shows like this. They never dislike something they test. It has kind of forced many of us to not trust any article we read. Which is a crock of poo. Not every new thing is amazing or useful.
Pages