| Size Matters |
 |
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
9 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
I'm surprised the .223 jumped as much as it did. A great man once referred to it as a "Poodle Shooter".
-
6/28/11, 11:43 PM
-
toadold said...
-
Well the felt recoil isn't bad but since it's inception there have been problems with the .223 on full auto at 100 yards and over.
-
6/29/11, 1:19 AM
-
Chuck Martel said...
-
And that's why I need a Barrett.
-
6/29/11, 9:14 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
if you went to war with the 30-06 as He did, the 5.56 does seem pretty weak by comparison. But the 5.56 is nothing to sneeze at.
Please oh please let's not turn this into a free for all -
6/29/11, 10:07 AM
-
Snackeater said...
-
Just seeing side-by-side videos of the 5.56 vs the 7.62 should convince most people that the two rounds have very similar terminal ballistics. And I'll guarantee the 5.56 ammo used was not the new M855A1 ammo.
M16 ammunition has come a long way since the Vietnam-era M193. The M855 was a big improvement--bullet weight was increased by 13% and a steel penetrator core was added to defeat armor and other hardened surfaces.
The most recent evolution is the M855A1, which was fielded in the Afghan theater about a year ago. It uses a copper slug instead of lead, and because copper is not as dense as lead, it allows the now-exposed steel penetrator to be nearly twice as big. Because it didn't use lead, it was initially pooh-poohed by many in the shooting community as simply a "green round." But it is a vast improvement over the M855 ammo.
The new design is not yaw-dependent like all previous US ammo, which translates to soft-target consistency (energy transfer) throughout greater ranges of the trajectory, as well as increased hard-target penetration at all ranges--in testing it penetrated 24 layers of Kevlar at 1000m.
And I'll guarantee Picatinny Arsenal is already designing the next generation of 5.56 ammo--God, I'm glad I'm on Team USA and not fighting them. -
6/29/11, 1:56 PM
-
Drew458 said...
-
Slackers, all of them, except for the .338 and the .50.
Here's what the Army was using 130 years ago ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LBG0Ewm974&feature=related
and that's a plain old lead bullet at less than half the velocity of these new fangled ones. -
6/29/11, 2:46 PM
-
Snackeater said...
-
Granted, there's no comparison between the terminal ballistics of the .50 BMG, the .338 Lap, and the 5.56. But which would you rather hump--a semiauto M107 at 28 lbs and 26 lbs/100 rds, a bolt action .338 Lap Mag at 17 lbs and 20 lbs/100 rds, or a full auto M4 at 7 lbs and 2.5 lbs/100 rds (and given the .45-70's pathetic exterior ballistics, I won't even consider it)? It's all about tradeoffs.
-
6/29/11, 9:16 PM
-
Drew458 said...
-
Pathetic, sure. Right. Which is why the Army found it effective at ranges over 2 miles. Tests done at Sandy Hook. Look it up.
And tradeoffs? This post is about the effectiveness of large bullets vs little ones, because Size Matters. It's got jack-schnidt to do with carrying one around, or any silly load-out numbers or "green rounds" or any of that. Even with "pathetic" ballistics a big ass chunk of lead puts those pinhead sized mini-slugs to shame no matter how fast you shoot them. The only ballistics that really matter are the terminal ones, and mass + meplat wins that every time. That might explain why the ancient "pathetic" .45-70 from 1873 is still one of the top hunting cartridges going: one hit, one deer. Or bear. Or elk. Or boar. -
6/30/11, 3:08 PM
-
Snackeater said...
-
Drew--Sandy Hook was a good read--I hadn't heard that one. Reminds me of Elmer Keith and his long-range shooting with his .44 Mag.
We're obviously coming at this from totally different perspectives--so with due deference to Anonymous "Please oh please let's not turn this into a free for all," we'll just have to agree to disagree.
So what are your thoughts on the M1911? -
6/30/11, 10:35 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)