Gun Porn!

Well, what do they have to gain from doing so that isn't already handled by SOST? I think we've already covered that expecting your target to reliably go down without a CNS hit is foolish regardless of caliber...

There's one major drawback to 7.62 Soviet that neither 5.56mm nor 7.62mm NATO possess. Ballistics.

7.62x39 M43 is a carbine round that happens to be an intermediate cartridge. It's not meant to be fired at or beyond 300 meters at all. (Kinda like .30 Carbine) At very long ranges for example 500 meters the 7.62 Soviet is a rainbow shooter. Lots of arc, lots of drop and it's pretty slow at those ranges to boot. 5.56mm is a pinpricker at 500 meters but it still retains a somewhat flat trajectory at least. (And at that distance 7.62 NATO is better than both in every way.)

Secondly, the wounding ballistics of 7.62 Soviet sometimes leave much to be desired. It doesn't fragment at really short distances unlike 5.56mm reducing its stopping power there and it possesses nowhere near the hydrostatic shock potential that 7.62mm NATO has. It's kinetic energy is too low to be viable as an all around. (It's a step up from 7N6 5.45mm in terms of barrier penetration and wounding potential at 200-300 meters but not by much.) Additionally, the yaw effect of 7.62 Soviet is nowhere near that of either 5.56mm or 7.62 NATO. Meaning the wounds it produces are often either through and throughs or comparable to being hit by pistol calibers aka in either rate you are likely to survive it without too much detriment if medievac'd in time.

There are worse bullets than 7.62 Soviet (8mm Kurz comes to mind, as does .30 Carbine) but there's a lot better you can do as well.

So make it better? Russians aren't using M43 and we're not using the OG 5.56 anymore.

Bullets can be improved.

edited 30th Mar '17 5:19:27 AM by LeGarcon

The Yugoslav M67 version improves the velocity a bit but retains most of M43's original problems.

Instead the Russians improved 5.45mm. 7N10 ammunition is some really nasty stuff. Punches through old body armor like cardboard. It lacks in stopping power per round in terms of wounding potential but it's an accurate and effective modern cartridge. Even modern IBA's in the US Army aren't very resilient to it.

The Russians aren't looking for One Cartridge To Rule Them All^TM. Instead they use different cartridges for various missions. If the mission says they're going into a long range environment, they'll pack up on 7.62 Russian GPMG's and DMR's backed up by 5.45 7N10. If their mission is short range and stealth, they go with 9x39 and stuff like the AS Val. If they need submachinegun calibers they issue that.

But why would we? Modern 5.56x45 works fine and there's no pressing reason to switch to another caliber, much less 7.62x39 in particular, and with upcoming developments like CT ammo, there's no real reason to keep an existing round if something entirely new will work better.

You've got a solution seeking a problem that just isn't there and an interest in pushing this solution to a non-existent problen that rivals Tom's bizarre naval and aviation wankery.

Tell that to all these people with their weird 6.whatever rounds. I was just suggesting to use the 7.62x39mm instead.

I mean lets be honest, that's what they're actually trying to invent.

7.62x39 doesn't feed so well from AR STANAG mags for some reason, so there's that.

Again the EPR rounds and other rounds Taira listed are punching 5.6mm effectiveness out past 500m. That is in part because that ammo is higher quality than the older M855 ammunition.

As for the old M 193 being easily stopped, well turns out that isn't quite accurate either. That and dense enough vegetation can deflect even .50 BMG especially when you talk dense jungle vegetation.

Besides if the 7.62x39 was this good the Russians wouldn't adopt the 5.35x39, which is very similar to the US 5.56.

Was there ever any solid proof to the claim that vegetation would significantly divert 5.56? It always sounded to me like the kind of thing people claim to account for bad aim.

I mean, there's a reason that soldiers are trained to use concealment in addition to cover.

It is known to happen when you fire into dense vegetation, yes. Thing is though it tends to affect pretty much all bullets. Some plants are a lot more likely to do it than others. For example if you are firing through a thick woody shrub or a heavy fibrous plant that can certainly cause issues. However lighter vegetation is usually no problem.

The thing people forget is t hat deflection=/=stopping the bullet it just means it can cause the round to deviate from its point of aim. This is usually caused by the bullet impacting something obliquely or an odd angle which causes the rounds trajectory to deviate.

Some peeking through hunting sites suggest even the mighty .30-06 can have issues with heavy brush.

One example here.

Not the best experiment but it does illustrate the point. The material that really affected the shot was the denser woody/brush material.

edited 30th Mar '17 6:18:46 PM by TuefelHundenIV

In addition, it really depends on your circumstances and requirements. For military use in a battlefield setting, penetration is often regarded as desirable, but it's definitely not a good thing for law enforcement in an urban environment.

Very true. The M855 is less than ideal for use in built up areas by police.

Just goes to show: use the right tool for the job at hand. I've been reading up on the M1 Carbine lately, and it seems to me that no gun has ever been more misused in wartime.

The Carbine is not a front-line battle rifle or an assault rifle, and should not be employed in place of one. But for self-defense by support personnel, it does the job quite handily. In terms of ballistics, the .30 Carbine round is comparable to a .357 Magnum fired out of a lever-action saddle gun. Jim Cirrillo, a famous veteran of the NYPD Stakeout Squad, used a Carbine in numerous incidents, and speaks of it with glowing praise. (Granted, his firefights all took place at close range, and he kept his Carbine stoked with softpoint or hollowpoint ammo. Which is exactly what you should do if you use a Carbine for home protection.)

But those stories out of the Korean War, where some G.I. claims to have shot a North Korean or Communist Chinese soldier in the chest ten or twenty times to no effect, are total bullshit. The G.I. who says so just won't admit that every shot he fired missed. Ten or twenty in the chest from anything, even a BB gun, will make anybody pause and think twice.

Pine, spruce and fir trees in Colorado do that to just about everything. Fire a bullet into a conifer frond, don't expect it to hit where you aimed. Also a known rule of thumb when hunting around here. Never fire at something in cover in coniferous forest or dense riparian shrubs like willows unless you are for sure having a clear trajectory. Because all of that will deflect and/or stop even mighty rifle rounds like .30-06.

edited 30th Mar '17 7:15:32 PM by MajorTom

I have my own theory on the ACR - Remmington wanted them yuge gov'ment contracts like Colt had with the M16/M4. They thought the ACR was a Colt-killer.

Instead it was too pricey. The price went up from when the rifle was first announced, they even screwed over some pre-orders. When no police departments or the Army picked up on it, Remmington just walked away from the ACR.

The other and perhaps bigger problem is the ACR pulled the same mistakes the XM 8 did. (No, not barrel melting!) As in, it hyped up the modularity aspect and convertibility when nobody's ever going to carry spare parts to convert from assault rifle to carbine to DMR to LMG or over to haji supplies of 7.62 Soviet. Too much weight, no real benefit, made it more expensive when they could have focused more on making a much more reliable, accurate and cost-effective version of the AR-15.

TFB ANNOUNCES NEW PARTNERSHIP!

The Air Service M1903 Springfield.

Fun fact about Brit-American (both used them) bolt-action rifles from the First World War: The 1917 Enfield is still in use with the Danish Navy, more specifically the Sirius Patrol (i.e the guys who lead dogsled patrols across Greenland.) They prefer a bolt-action rifle because it's the only thing that will perform reliably in those conditions and reliably drop the angry wildlife, like musk oxen.

They're also the only unit in service that doesn't use the SIG P210 as their primary sidearm - they switched to a 10 mm Glock because, and I quote:

...A 10mm isn't going to do much better. Here is a hint. DON'T SHOOT THE DAMN POLAR BEAR WITH A HAND GUN! There is a reason they make large and dangerous game rifles and Polar Bear qualifies for that. These are the kind of critters you buy the larger bore 40 caliber hunting rifles for.

The only kinds of handguns that you could reasonably use on an animal like Polar Bear are not exactly compact easily portable weapons.

edited 4th Apr '17 4:58:19 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Usually they use the '30.06 rifle with a hollow point.

But apparently they needed a bit more reassurance than that when the bears get nosy.

edited 4th Apr '17 5:02:19 PM by math792d

Smith & Wesson Model 500 or Desert (Snow?) Eagle in .50 AE as a standard sidearm when?

Use a rifle on the polar bear. If that doesn't work, any handgun will do. (You're supposed to use the handgun on yourself, to avoid the agony of being mauled and eaten alive. Or better yet, use it on that guy in the squad that you don't like, and let the bear eat him while you escape.)

If rifle on polar bear doesn't work, that's when you holler FIX BAYONETS!

If a bayonet charge can't take a polar bear down, it's time for a Tactical Withdrawal covered by artillery and air support.