# The Best Assault Rifle.



## 102first_hussars (Oct 25, 2005)

I personally am at a cross between the M-16 and the AK-47


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

This answer depends on the situations that u'll be using said rifle....

Name a particular kind of combat scenario.......


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 25, 2005)

Well Fighting in the Desert I would pick the Ak, but in say, In the Jungle I would want the M-16


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Well Fighting in the Desert I would pick the Ak, but in say, In the Jungle I would want the M-16



I think you might consider the opposite....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2005)

AK-47 in both circumstances, it's more powerful and much-much-much more reliable than the M-16. The M-16 is a plastic piece of dog named an assault rifle to scare the enemy.

And where's the G-36 if you've got the XM-8. And where's the SLR?! Where's the FN-FAL!?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Well the Canadian c7 is a variant of the M-16A2 but its an all steel furniture, so no its not a peice of crap, its in fact a very reliable weapon which Is so much fun to use in full auto.
And I do have the FAL its the Austrian version,Steyr Stg.58

And Les the Ak is superior in both Circumstances but in a close quarter battle in the Jungle I only want the M-16 because its light, compact and during and Ambush I would be able to respond quicker with my lighter 
M-16.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 26, 2005)

AK-47 on all counts...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 26, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Well the Canadian c7 is a variant of the M-16A2 but its an all steel furniture.


All steel? Since when? Is there an A3 variant I don't know about? Every example I've ever seen has been built like the American M-16. The magazines are steel though, where I believe the American ones are plastic, but otherwise I think the major components are near identical in construction.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2005)

Its gotta be the Ak-47...I saw a show once where they ran one over with a tank and it still worked...simplicity, power and reliability do it for me...Only thing is the mag is large so you cant really lay down and fire with it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2005)

AK-47, the NATO round sucks

but if the SLR was there i'd pick that easily........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

I've fired AK-47s, M-16s and M-14s. Although heavy, I like the M-14 although the AK was a close second - I did feel the M-16 was more accurate.


----------



## Glider (Oct 26, 2005)

Can I suggest the Steyr Stg 77 AUG from Austria. Its a very modern weapon and has been taken up by a number of countries incl the US Coastguard who I would have expected to go for the M16 or one of its derivatives.
As you would expect being from Austria its designed for cold conditions. The sight is telescopic, simple and robust, designed so that you know when a man is about 300yards away.
It is also light and I think, one of the best looking assult rifles.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

How reliable though is it? It's all well and good that it has all that but if it jams ...it's useless. If it's designed for cold ...what about when you take it to the desert? 

The AK-47 is the best, it's got the hitting power and it's reliable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

I've got a Chinese SKS - once I got all the cosmoline out of it, I've never had a misfire


----------



## Glider (Oct 26, 2005)

PLanD I don't have any specific information on how reliable the Steyr is in the desert. 
But amongst the countries who have purchased it are the Australians and New Zealanders who know a thing or two about guns and the Saudi Armed forces and Oman who obviously would take care over a guns use in that environment. Malaysia have also purchased it and they operate in hot damp environments.
Put that together and there is no reason to doubt that it is a pretty reliable weapon.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

Okay. I'll have to look into it more ...but at the moment, I'm still plugging for the AK-47.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > Well the Canadian c7 is a variant of the M-16A2 but its an all steel furniture.
> ...



The C-7 that we use now is steel guts and barrel with plastic furniture but thats the C-7A1, The first C7(all Steel except for the stock) we used from 1984-1993 then replaced it with the A1. If you ever see the Documentry 
"Rocks At Whiskey Trench" you will see canadian soldiers holding an M-16 with a Carrying Handle and an odd looking magazine, thats the one Im talking about.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

plan_D said:


> How reliable though is it? It's all well and good that it has all that but if it jams ...it's useless. If it's designed for cold ...what about when you take it to the desert?
> 
> The AK-47 is the best, it's got the hitting power and it's reliable.



Its very reliable, have never used an ak myself so I wouuldnt know which is better, however I taken It to the Alberta Badlands for training and she didnt foul once.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 26, 2005)

I've handled the C7 and C7A1, and the only real difference is the picatinny rail and back-up hard sight on the A1. It's otherwise the exact same rifle, furniture and all. There's just as much plastic on the original.

In fact, in the Navy we usually only get to use the original with the carry handle, or the C8. The C7A1's almost all go to the Army.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Maybe theres a different name for it but I know that I have used the thing.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Ok NS, I am basically quoting from a book that I have in my lap

" The Colt M-16A2 Developed in collaboration with the Diemco of Canadawas based upon the M16A2 rifle, it has a heavier barrel, larger and stronger fore-end. the lenth of the rifle was about 38in long weighed close to six Kilograms like I said earlier "It was a heavy Bastard"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 26, 2005)

Yeah, I'd always heard that the heavier barrel of the C7 was later incorperated into later production M-16A2's and A3's in the States as well, but I wouldn't know if that's actually the case. Could be. Why the hell not, eh?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Yeah why not?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

K guys lets keep in mind that the Ak-47 though very reliable and Powerful cant shoot further than Sadams Dick. The M-16A2 Is alot more reliable than the original M-16 and more effective ammo has been developed for it as well. Ive also mentiond The Stainles steel Canadian C-7 which I found extremely reliable against Dirt sand and mud so lets all be opend minded about this. PD I did put the FN-FAL up there but I Marked it as The Austrian Steyr.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 27, 2005)

You tart - the FN-FAL is the base rifle of many alterations and improvements from the many nations ....like the SLR was the British version of the FN-FAL - different rifle. FN-FAL is Belgian ...and why no SLR?


----------



## trackend (Oct 27, 2005)

I did'nt think the FN was anything special.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2005)

Yeah the FN was peice of shit, yeah it used the powerfull 7.62 round the rifle constantly jammed, I wasnt around when canada used it but my NCO's were and they dont have alot of nice things to say about it.


----------



## trackend (Oct 27, 2005)

I have used one as I say it's nothing special.


----------



## Glider (Oct 27, 2005)

Sorry but I believe that the FN's record is exemplary. An awful lot of countries bought it (about 70) and about 10 countries bought licence's to manufacture it. I find it hard to believe so many countries would have made a mistake. Even the German army wanted to use it but the Belgians would sell them a licence to build their own so Germany went a different route.
The Australian Army used it in conjunction with the M16 in Vietnam and the result was an even split, some prefering the rate of fire and lighter weight of the M16 others prefering the accuracy, stopping power and reliability of the FN. 
102 I don't know why the Canadian ones had problems. I know that the heavy barreled versions designed to fire on automatic had problems but that was more to do with the power of the cartridge. Could that have been the problem?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2005)

It had great qualities to it but it had alot of drawbacks, It was accurate, powerfull, Light, and easy to master but the drawbacks like I said were the fact it was an unreliable weapon, those qualities are useless if the dam weapon doesnt fire.

Now Im sure the reasons for so many countries buying the weapon was because 1. they were cheap 2. Most of the Weapons they had could not measure up to the days need of and assault rifle. and 3. If anyone was to ever blindly purchase a weapon from somebody it would be from Fabrique Nationale, cause they are known for exceptionaly fine weapons quality.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2005)

try telling the argies it's a bad weapon in SLR form


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2005)

102. FN's weren't cheap, they were expensive due to a larger than normal number of machined parts. Just that I have never heard of them being unreliable, in fact that was a strength. One of the benefits of the FN was the ease of maintanence and field stripping.
Combining the FN with the GPMG was seen as an almost ideal match.

I admit to not understanding your second point so cannot comment on that


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 28, 2005)

There was nothing particularly wrong with the C1, which was the Canadian version of the FN SLR. The problems that finally _did_ occur were due to the same thing as with everything else defence related here: They got so damn old and abused that they eventually just wore out. I trained with the C1 back in basic, and it was essentially a good rifle. Every bit as reliable as the Belgian or British production versions. Like any old piece of equipment though, it required a fair bit of special attention, as did the C2 light machine gun version, and it was past it's time as the main battle rifle of the Canadian Armed Forces. The C7 was very welcomed by most of the troops, as was the C9 light machine gun (essentially the FN Minmi/M249 SAW). The 7.62mm C6 (FN-MAG 58 ) is still used as the general purpose machine gun of the Forces though, and is still pretty reliable.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

Anyway thats my opinion, So whats wrong with the Tar-21 nobodys voted for that, or the X-M8 which is basically a space aged M-16 with a larger caliber.

The Mag 58, reminds me of the MG-42 in terms of fire rate, but jesus it overheats just too damn fast.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

I personally would not go with any of those up there. I like the G36. It is much better than the M-16 and the M-4. When I was at our units gunnery the last 2 weeks. We spent the whole time at a German Military Post and got to shoot the G36. It was extremly accurate and just fun to shoot. We also had to qualify on the M-4 Carbine (smaller version of the M-16 with a folding stock) and we installed the red dot sites on them but I was not too impressed with the site. I am sure it is great for close quarter combat but not for long range targes. Ofcourse the real reason we were there was to do our Helicopter Door Gunnery Qualifications. As usual that was a lot of fun and I hummed the tune from Apocolypse Now the whole time I was shooting from my Blackhawk.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Anyway thats my opinion, So whats wrong with the Tar-21 nobodys voted for that, or the X-M8 which is basically a space aged M-16 with a larger caliber.



How can someone vote for the XM-8 when it has not been fielded yet and is probably going to get canceled anyhow and replaced by the Barret 6.8mm?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2005)

Thats what I'd like to know....

Welcome back BTW Adler... I know u had fun.... Dont you just love the smell of burnt powder???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

The 2 smells I love the most are burn powder and burning JP8 when my engines are starting up in the morning!

Okay well there are some other smells that I really love more but I wont go into those.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

Napalm in the morning?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

Blueberry Muffins and Deisel Fuel for me


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2005)

I love the smell of burning in the morning


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

Petrol and burning rubber...Mmmmm...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Naw Burning Rubber just does not do it for me, now the muffins on the other hand!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Steaks on the BBQ. Mmmmm!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Yeah I am going to smell that tomorrow!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

It will be trout and kebabs on the BBQ tonight for me. Trout for me, kebabs for the wife. The one thing that is "not right" with my wife is she doesn't like trout!  It's okay though, more for me!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

How can anyone not like trout. They have this great place near where I live where you can get smoked Salmon Trout! Oh man it is so good.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Yummy! I grill mine up with lemon, garlic, butter and almonds. I am getting hungry for it already.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

That is pretty much how I make mine when I grill it my self also.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2005)

I don't like trout...

You are making my mouth water Alder, I would kill for a rare (or very rare) BBQ'd Steak right now!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 29, 2005)

Gnomey, you disappoint me. But rare steak is good, so I guess you made up for it there.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 30, 2005)

Oh oh!! baby Carrots and Throwup now thats a great smell.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

I just ate my steak rare. Man was it good. A 2lb Porterhouse marinated with Montreal Seasoning, Red Wine, Italian Dressing and Garlic Salt. Man it was good.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

Sounds good, Adler! That Montreal seasoning is great.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

Here is a shot of last night's masterpiece. My wife steamed up a couple of artichokes and her killer dip and we feasted. This is a big trout, that's a 12 inch dinner plate.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 30, 2005)

Mmmmmmm...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Damn that looks good!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

It was. A whole clove of elephant garlic and lemon slices with butter filled the body cavity. The spine and bones pulled right out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Damn Damn Damn I am going to have to eat either fish or sea food tomorrow.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 30, 2005)

I'd offer to send you some, but it might be a bit stale by the time it gets there...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

More like poison!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 30, 2005)

Who here is Lactose intolerant?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2005)

Not me.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 1, 2005)

Not me either. Why do you ask?


----------



## trackend (Nov 1, 2005)

I lack toes and i'm intolerant does that count?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2005)

I have a bent toe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2005)

I have a ingrowing toenaill..?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 2, 2005)

I have a bone missing in one of my toes (or so I have been told, it is not confirmed though)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2005)

Awesome...despite the freakish qualities I already posses, I would like more...


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 2, 2005)

I wouldn't...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

Well, ok I only asked because the last three posts on page three were to do with bowel effecting foods I thought I would relate.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 22, 2005)

Just out of nowhere, and loving assault rifles (even though the discussion seems to have been more about toes haha) i would go with the AK-47. I like the bigger round than the M-16, and the reliability and longevity of the weapon in amazing. The vietnam war showed how good the weapon was. The enemy could wait in water, mud, rain and anything you could throw at it and it worked every time. US navy seals often carried them on special operations due to the bigger round, reliability, and availability og ammuntion you could capture from the enemy. My cousing was a SEAL and he used the AK-47 on several occasions, and said that he wished the american marines would switch to it, jokingly of course, knowing no such thing would happen. He was told though, when he tried to carry one, supporting a large group of american soldiers he couldnt carry one, becase the destinctive sound would draw american fire. Many were found in Somalia, when the americans went there, and anything that can work in a country like that, be fired, reliably and hold up in conditions where people have no formal education and are ruled by factions is a stunning piece of machinery. Deffinatly the -47 with me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

The 47 was deffinatly a good weapon.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2005)

Was and is a good weapon... It saved my life on more than one occasion, and I feel that if I was using an M-16, I wouldnt be here right now......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 23, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I feel that if I was using an M-16, I wouldnt be here right now......


That bad, huh?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Have to say I am glad that I never had to carry or use a M-16 in combat. I like my trusted M-60D.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2005)

Yea NS, at close quarter combat, the stopping/knockback power of the AK works wonders....

In a certain place in South America, we were almost overrun... I say almost, because the firepower we were carrying was the only thing that made the difference... I got a little boo boo from this engagement, and if I had been using a smaller caliber weap, I would have had 5 bad guys in a small hole with me....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

We hear a lot today from the ground guys who complain about the stopping power of the M-16/M-4


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2005)

So do I Adler, and the Military est. seems to want to do something about it, which is why I like the Barrett M-468 option.... Not too pricey and u can still use all the M-16/M-4 gadgets...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

My buddy got to shoot the Barrett at a land combat expo and loved it!


----------



## evangilder (Nov 24, 2005)

I would agree that the M-16 was not enough. It would sometimes take several hits to put a man down and I always seemed to get one that had a tendency to jam. Usually a quick pull on the charging handle would clear it, but that is precious time when you are under fire.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 24, 2005)

The M-16/M-4 to me seems like a SWAT weapon for raiding a building, not a combat infantry weapon. And i would only give the SWAT designation because the M-4 is more compact than the AK-47, and you can attach american scopes (infrared, Night vision). I dont know if the U.S produces ones that could fit easily to an AK-47. The ammunition is simply not big enough to take an enemy down in a single hit most of the time. Some guys dont fall after a hit from an M-16, but if you see someone hit by an AK-47, there ass goes down. The reason the M-16, or one of the reasons, was because they changed from ball, to stick powder, which in the moist atmosphere of vietnam, would expand the shell, and jam it in the barrel/breech, making the weapon useless. Therefore many soldiers wouldnt leave a round chambered for fear of just that happening.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2005)

I posted this somewhere else, but I cant remember, so bear with my repeat....

My brother entered the Army in 1966 and did 2 tours in Vietnam with the 82nd Airborne, he spent time in the Ashore Valley and at a fire base outside of Hue. He used the M-14 and M-16 and he actually preferred the -14 although he said he learned very quickly to keep his M-16 clean at all times. He said he thought the M-16 unreliability claims were a bit exaggerated and felt a solder who wasn't lazy and kept his weapon clean had nothing to worry about. He also said during his tour it was dangerous to use a captured AK-47s as you could draw fire to your position from friendlies due to the AKs sound when fired. He thought the AK was a good weapon but not as accurate as an M-16. In his last months in Viet Nam (early 1969) he was involved in some real close in combat and managed to acquire a Mossberg shotgun. He said *that *was very effective!!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 24, 2005)

As I recall, the first M-16's were advertised as "self-cleaning", weren't they? Therefore a lot of grunts took it quite literally and never bothered to clean the damn things. Hence, it jammed a lot and quickly earned a bad rep because of it. That would gum up _any_ rifle.
Then of course you had the issue of the bolt not always closing all the way when the weapon was charged, which necessitated the addition of the forward bolt assist on subsequent models, including the Canadian C7 and C8.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> The reason the M-16, or one of the reasons, was because they changed from ball, to stick powder, which in the moist atmosphere of vietnam, would expand the shell



Actually ball is standard today.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 24, 2005)

For close quarter combat, the MP-5 is damn near unbeatable.... God I love that weapon....

While I was engaged in OPs, I carried a sawed off 12 gauge Mossberg slung over my back.... Between the AK and those 2 weapons, I didnt need anything else for any mission profile...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 24, 2005)

I do know that oen of the things that helped for us when in the field was to never completely fill a clip. 25 round clip...23-24 rounds. Leave them full and the spring got weak. Then the round misfeeds at the most inopportune time and you have a problem!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I do know that oen of the things that helped for us when in the field was to never completely fill a clip. 25 round clip...23-24 rounds. Leave them full and the spring got weak. Then the round misfeeds at the most inopportune time and you have a problem!



That or to regularly empty your clip and streach the spring. That keeps that from happening and then you can keep a full clip. Atleat that is what I did with my 9mm so that I could keep 15 rounds in each clip. Doing this I never had a problem The guys that did not do this, had the same problem that you are talking about there.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 25, 2005)

I really love the FN-FAL, heavy punch of the 308 and light weight.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2005)

Similar to your story flyboy, I had a 2nd Cousin to serve in Vietnam.
He said to stay alive you had to keep your M-16 clean at all times! He actually trained with an M-14 at BT but just they got over there, they were thrown an M-16. He said that the M-14 was good but had a tough kickback. He said when you knew how to fire the M-16 at a ceratin angle, he could be very useful.


----------



## trackend (Dec 3, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> For close quarter combat, the MP-5 is damn near unbeatable.... God I love that weapon..



I know zip about modern weaponry Les ( infact the last weapon I fired was a replica Colt single action peacemaker) but according to the figures on Heckler's web site if 50 countries use the MP5's it must indicate that its a good weapon.
I'm suprised Heckler Koch survived after Royal Ordinance went tits up as normally its the oveseas companies that go to the wall first, but I suppose having such a good product line it had little effect on sales and if its true that the G36 is going to replace the SA80 it serves RO right for giving up the company. Typical British dont know when their breads buttered they recently gave up Smith Wesson control as well the knobnuts.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 3, 2005)

The Germans bought Heckler Koch back from Royal Ordinance in 2000, didn't they?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 3, 2005)

It's my understanding that when the M-16 first came out it used one type of powder that worked fine. When it was ordered the powder was changed to a more powerful ball type powder which left a residue. To counter the residue problem the reciever/bolt/chamber was to be chromed. Macnamara, who knew everything, rejected the chrome because it cost something like $1.62 per rifle and was not needed. Once they were chromed the reliability and jamming problems stopped. My uncle was in nam in 68/69 He said on more than one occasion they used anything at hand to keep their M-16s clean.

wmaxt


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 3, 2005)

That 'Ball" powder caused such a problem because it was meant for slightly larger calibers. by the time the decision to chrome the rifle 'guts' Macnamara was out of office, It was Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield that made that stunned decision.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> The Germans bought Heckler Koch back from Royal Ordinance in 2000, didn't they?



That is my understanding also. I know a friend of mine had a meeting with managment about starting a job and the managment was German. So I believe you are correct.


----------



## rikdil (Jan 29, 2006)

You don't know about what you talkthe i have 2 of the bet assault rifle

the fal as steyr 58 never jamming and capable of a accurracy of 3 to
4 inch without scope on 100 m distance

the second the sar galil in .223 for the moment the best assault rifle
never jammed and a very good accuracy on 100m 4 to 5 inch on 100m


regards 

rikdil lopez


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

rikdil said:


> You don't know about what you talkthe i have 2 of the bet assault rifle



I dont know what I am talking about? Im in the US Army and get to play around with these things.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 29, 2006)

Hell of a first post. rikdil, I suggest that you do a little reading to understand people's backgrounds before you state that someone doesn't know what they are talking about.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

i think he said that in jest.........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

Don't worry, Eric, he's Belgian ... they can't be blamed for their handicap. 

In the words of Monty Python; "Let's not think of a name for the Belgians, let's just ignore them!" - "I cannot think of a worse name than Belgian." - "But the best is, lazy fat Belgian bastards!"  

Sorry, welcome to the forum. Don't worry, I have nothing against Belgium specifically.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

Welcome to the forum Rikdil.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2006)

I am sure he meant it in jest, I was just trying to point out what Eric was saying.


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 5, 2007)

I like the SA80 personally, but the ak47 has been proved as one of the most reliable, popular, powerful and mass produced rifle Ever, well, assault rifle. it is also the most reliable and combat proven of the lot. it deserves to have the title


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2007)

Certainly above the SA-80, which is crap.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2007)

they have sorted a lot of the problems with the A2 though.........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 6, 2007)

Not enough for it to be even considered a decent assault rifle, alongside the AK-47.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2007)

Have to agree with u pD....


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 6, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've fired AK-47s, M-16s and M-14s. Although heavy, I like the M-14 although the AK was a close second - I did feel the M-16 was more accurate.



FBJ this is why I don't challenge your judgement.

AK in ANY dirty condition. M-16 for accuracy. M-14 for both.

God I love my avatar.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 6, 2007)

Les, while in the SEALS, how many time did you practice with AK versus other obscure makes.

'Nuff said.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2007)

I actually qualified with a higher score on the AK as opposed to the M-16 and M-4A1...

I would never want to lug around that much weight of the M-14 when there are lighter and better weapons available.... Hump it 60 miles in the jungles of South America for a week???

Piss on that...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2007)

We practiced all the time Matt.... Once an Operator gets settled with his preferred load out, u stick with what works.... The Teams were a testbed for many diferent weapons designs...

As for non-NATO weaponry, we were constantly acclimating ourselves with what was out there and what we would possible run into out in the field...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Not enough for it to be even considered a decent assault rifle, alongside the AK-47.



I'd agree too i was simply saying it was improved, but surely the SUSAT counts for something?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Certainly above the SA-80, which is crap.



Have to agree. When compared with the AK and the M-16 it is a crap weapon. I remember training up in England and the Brits telling us they would love to get rid of it.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2007)

don't disagree with either of your posts, Les. I too said AK. But M-14 is my favorite for looks, operation, stopping power. I think I was the first guy to admit that I would not want to schlepp anything but the lightest weapon with the biggest punch anywhere. I'm lazy by nature. And a pound, let alone 4 or 5lbs, makes a HUGE difference over the course of a day.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> I'd agree too i was simply saying it was improved, but surely the SUSAT counts for something?



The SUSAT was something cool to play with, but it was nothing spectacular. It really does not enhance your shooting ability.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2007)

Did you guys use the ACOG or the EOTech holographic sight. I like the ACOG, ALOT!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

I have used the ACOG. We had it mounted to our M-4s. I liked the ACOG better than the SUSAT. The ACOG was a bitch to sight in in my opinion but once it was sighted in it took all the fun away from aiming.

As for EOTech, I have not used that one at all.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 8, 2007)

I didn't have problems sighting in the ACOG. Were you unable to adjust for windage and elevation and had to shim the sight? If so, sounds like a mounting problem on the rifle. I have to admit, mine virtually fell in.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

The main problem we had was this, our Armourer was stupid and mounted the sight too far foward and the sight rail. Once that was figured out, it was pretty quick to sight in.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 8, 2007)

Ah. That would explain it. You mount that thing to far forward and you lose your sight picture. The eye relief on the ACOG is not infinite by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

Yeap we started to get frustrated because our armourer mounted all the sights, handed them to us and said go zero and then qualify, you dont need to do anything but make some minor adjustments.

After about 2 hours of not getting anything to even come close to the target (its hard to make adjustments when you dont hit the damn paper) a couple of us finally pulled out the manual for the sight and read up on it, unmounted our sights and remounted them the correct way. Zeroed really quick, went to the qualification range, qualified and went back to the hooch while the armourer was still trying to figure it out.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 8, 2007)

Oh man. That's the kinda of SNAFU that makes one question who the **** is in charge.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

He actually was pretty good at is job. Atleast when it came to all the old weapons and what not like the M-60. He coult tear that damn thing down and fix it an do what ever you needed blind folded.


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 15, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> AK-47, the NATO round sucks
> 
> but if the SLR was there i'd pick that easily........



something you and i agree upon Lanc 7.62mm SLR sorry not voting as the above selection doesn't appeal to me. so refrain from casting a vote


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

out of interest why don't you like the SLR/FN FAL


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 17, 2007)

no Lanc i loved the Slr 7.62mm I trained on it for ages was a bloody great weapon to use. the M16 i found no better than a cap gun in comparison and that is just my opinion only Lanc


----------



## k9kiwi (Jan 17, 2007)

Emac

I agree totaly on the SLR, hot and hard with a full load of ammo, but worth every drop of sweat in the bush.

We regularly demonstrated targets 1/2 obscured by light brush at 80-100 meters where the 5.56 rounds were zipping away from every damn leaf or twig they hit.

Same target got hit every time by the 7.62 round.

Even showed how to shoot through 12 inch trees to blow the target full of lead and wood.

As mentioned a mix of the two weapons was our preffered loadout, with at least one person using the browning pump action shotgun with a load of 1 shot and 1 solid mix.

As for the Steyr, it is a solid dependable weapon, without the stopping power of the 7.62.

After they sorted out the fact that the initial magazines (plastic) were just too damn weak.

It is not just embarrasing when you take a dive for cover and have your magazine shatter at the slightest bump on the ground, spraying springs and 19 rounds everywhere, it is fatal.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

Interesting posts. I have published tests demonstrated in gun rags that show that while 5.56mm will certainly ricochet with light brush, apparently so does 7.62x39 and 7.62x51. It is a matter of KE that the 7.62x51 is less prone to ricochet, but testing has proven that at 100m all are greatly affected if the target is more than 5m-10m behind the light brush, amazing as that might seem.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

even if that's true you're a fool if you think the 5.56 will be better off than the 7.62...........


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2007)

5.56, 7.62, 8.6 and 12.7mm rounds will all be affected if fired through a brush, heck a single twitch is enough to ruin your aimed shot.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 20, 2007)

Have to agree fellas, but on full auto, who cares about ricochets...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2007)

ah the Americans


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 21, 2007)

Rock and Roll!!...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 21, 2007)

Lanc you are making my argument for me. If you (Brits) are so concerned about aimed fire (as your "American" statement implies), then small brush ricochets affecting aimed minute of angle should be of concern to you. I fully recognize the bigger bullet/greater KE argument, but my point is that for virtually any modern day round small brush has a significant effect upon point of aim regardless of battle/assault rifle caliber. You can use your limited farm experiences to argue different, but your gonna lose this one. While I don't get on my high horse often, this is my forte.

Every other technical opinion...well I just make those up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> You can use your limited farm experiences to argue different, but your gonna lose this one. While I don't get on my high horse often, this is my forte.



Ouch!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 22, 2007)

F yeah! Go me!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

Are you Les's understudy now?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 22, 2007)

Hey!!


----------



## k9kiwi (Jan 22, 2007)

Matt

I agree that 7.62 will deflect as well, and the more bush the greater the chances of deflection.

However the angle off through light scrub leaves etc is a lot less, 1/2 an inch over 75 metres is still going to hurt when you aimed at the center of mass.  

I always found it was better to give than recieve. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

that was low matt, don't ever expect me to come to your aid if you get your tractor stuck or need to heard some cattle 

but i wasn't saying that British rounds aren't affected by it, as much as i wish we were we're not _that_ God like, read what i've said again all you'll see i've said is that the larger calibre is affected less, the American comment was aimed at your prefered shooting style


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 23, 2007)

Actually tests have shown the deflection of small arms bullets are rather significant with brush as small as 1/4in diameter. And the deflection is much greater than 1/2in at 75 meters. I'll try and dig up the test scenarios, but I recall that .30cal class (.308, .30-06, etc) cartidges exhibited deflection of the magnitude of a foot or two on target 75m behind brush. I'm having to extrapolate, because the scenario was not 75m, but rather 5yd, 10yd and 25yds behind light brush obstruction. Bullets were noted to keyhole in all cases.

And get over it. Jeez. I'm a teddy bear compared to Les.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

dude that's not what i've been saying at all, jeez


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

Oh.

Well.

Then nevermind.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

but yes you are a teddybear compared to les


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

You're **** skippy. I don't eat my young.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)




----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

Eat my young??? Comeon, Im not that bad...

The other day Lanc, I was watching CSPAN and they had Tony Blair in Commons talking about Lancashire....

I thought deeply of ewe....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

oh boy, how long've you been waiting you use that one then


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

Actually the ewe part came to me as I was finishing up that paragraph... Pretty clever actually, but I was serious about seeing Blair....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

my my aren't we quite the comedian then


----------



## ndicki (Jan 27, 2007)

Back to the thread - I agree with Emac and K9, give me an FN FAL / SLR any day. You can shoot through walls with them. Very useful, even if your chances of actually hitting anyone aren't that high, you'll still scare the **** out of them. I never had trouble with stoppages, and could hit out to about 400 yards with my own rifle, no probs. As for bushes, a 7.62 will deviate less than a 5.56, and the rest is academic. How much each one deviates is unimportant - the fact is that with a 7.62 you have a greater chance of hitting him and doing him serios unpleasantness, and that's all there is. And the M-16 I tried was a piece of junk.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

ndicki said:


> give me an FN FAL / SLR any day


And Ill take an AK-47, preferably the lighter AKM, for any sort of combat mission other than close in work....

And I wouldnt go so far as to say the M-16 was junk, but the M4A1 SOPMOD is a far superior weapons system...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

I have to agree with Les, give me an AK. I do like the M-4 though as you have shown. I like all the cool **** you can do with it and they were pretty accurate and fun to shoot. Never had a problem with an M-4.


----------



## ndicki (Jan 27, 2007)

It's got lots of bits to lose or break, I'll give it that.


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2007)

The 4 X optical sight looks a lot like the one on the SA80. Does anyone know if they are the same?


----------



## ndicki (Jan 27, 2007)

Doesn't look that much like it, does it? Anyway, all these fancy sights do is get in the way when you're snap shooting, by increasing your target acquisition time. I'd sooner have a basic, bog-stock iron sight like on the SLR.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

Thats pretty much all I ever used, was the iron sight and was allways pretty damn good with it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

> It's got lots of bits to lose or break, I'll give it that.


Special Operations Operatives dont lose anything, we find things hehe...

There are lots of Missions that are were and are going to be fought in the cover of darkness guys... Iron sights in the dark???








Anyways, I did like the fit of the SLR, but crawl through the mud with one and then compare it to an AK.... I could break my AK down in under a minute... Cant say that of the SLR...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Special Operations Operatives dont lose anything, we find things hehe...
> 
> There are lots of Missions that are were and are going to be fought in the cover of darkness guys... Iron sights in the dark???
> 
> ...



Ofcourse we did not use iron sights at night. We used NVGs and laser sights at night. From the aircraft I chose not to use a laser though. It was useless to me. I just used NVGs and walked my tracers in.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

I know, I was being a smart ass...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

Yeah we know you are good at that!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 27, 2007)

...it was the "deeply" part that I found intrinsically disturbing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

now where does a man like you learn a word like that?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 27, 2007)

I was learned it.


----------



## ndicki (Jan 27, 2007)

SLRs are good for shooting prone, unlike AKs - the mag is nice and short, and you can stay well down and still put out properly aimed fire. Also, the British SLR, as opposed to the FAL/R1 will accept the 30rd mag off the L4 Bren gun. Which also means that the L4 Bren Gun will take the 20rd mag off the SLR. Sometimes useful when there's a flap on.


----------



## Thumper (Jan 28, 2007)

loved my SLR..only hated carrying it ...much preferred to carry the F1 during patrols...but that couldn't stop a man in a wet trench coat.

could strip the old SLR in less than a minute.....and keep it operational for all but 1 operating part......but thats academic.

5.56 compared to 7.62....pleassssssssssseeeeeee....7.62 hurts...a lot

5.56 always reminds me of the old westerns on tv where the guy takes 6 shots and still crawls to his side arm and gets that last shot off.

but were talking assault rifles.

"An assault rifle is a selective fire automatic rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns that are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and smaller submachine guns that fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge."

so unless you have the heavy barrel on an SLR it doesn't really qualify.(or you stick a bit of cardboard in it and get a 30 round mag off the Bren) 

pity as i have used the Steyr/M16/SLR and prefer the SLR on all counts except weight.

as a close in weapon...the M16/14 is probably the better option between that and the SLR but over range and in a section environment the SLR gives the better weight to target ability.

but as far as a pure assault rifle.....has to be the AK

as for stories of the M16 in Vietnam versus the SLR...my Uncle (a Lon Tan and two tour Vet) relates how the US used to call up an Aussie with an SLR to hit the enemy hiding behind banana trees...the 5.56 wouldn't penetrate far enough.


----------



## ndicki (Jan 28, 2007)

Thumper said:


> my Uncle (a Lon Tan and two tour Vet) relates how the US used to call up an Aussie with an SLR to hit the enemy hiding behind banana trees...the 5.56 wouldn't penetrate far enough.



See my point?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

All good points, ndicki.


----------



## ndicki (Jan 28, 2007)

yes I know you've seen it before, but I like FN FALs.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

I've got an L1A1, but the **** rear sight is jammed and I cannot regulate it to point of aim. It's drift pressed and I need to get another assembly. Barrels pretty warn too. Looks like some dumb*** used a cleaning rod from the barrel end. Its seen quite a bit of use. Wish I had NIB version.


----------



## ndicki (Jan 29, 2007)

Cleaning rods are rubbish; we had pull-throughs, they're less wear on the barrel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2007)

Same here, we had pull throughs.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 29, 2007)

Agreed. That was the beauty of the FAL design. Can figure why even with a cleaning rod they just didn't open her up, remove the bolt and clean away. The muzzle is slightly oblong and accuracy really suffers. But then again. I got what I paid for.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 29, 2007)

In my trade our weapon was the M8 not much range but its use was illuminating to say the least


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 30, 2007)

M8...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 30, 2007)

I have no idea. Is that a pistol?


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 30, 2007)

And I thought you guys were on the ball about armaments


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 30, 2007)

See? A flare pistol. God, I are smart.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 30, 2007)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

i doubt a "Best flare pistol" thread would really take off


----------



## ndicki (Feb 2, 2007)

I dunno - Schermouli vs Verey, could get very ... impassioned!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 9, 2007)

OOOooooooooooooo!! I want one in .223! KelTec RFB Bullpup. Wonder how much...


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 9, 2007)

The cartridge chute sucks monkey nutz...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 10, 2007)

Would be a dirt magnet, agreed. But c'mon for a plinker?! I needs one!

And if you are a lefty who has always wanted a bullpup then you must be salivating. Only other bullpup that I am aware of that is accomodating for those retards is the FN2000.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 10, 2007)

Steyr has been designed with low maintenance and reliability in mind. It's an excellent gun but it has one HUGE downside: it's many times more expensive than the M-16 or AK-47/74. Best bang for the buck would be those two.

Personally, I'll go for the FN FAL because it's widely available, reliable and easy to acquire. Honorable mention to the FN F2000.

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 10, 2007)

It's a Styre in origin? That's good and bad news. Excellent quality, but the rumours of it running $2500-$3000 will likely come true.


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 29, 2007)

The Ak-47 by far, i mean the others are great but nothing compared to the great russian Kalashnikov. They were the highest manufactured assualt rifle in the world purely because they would go to war use the ammo and dump the guns. They were so cheap the only expensive part was the ammunition. Besides being cheap they could go through mud, sand or water and they would still never jam. During ww2 the ak-47 was the best hands down because they were gas powered, rotating bolt action firing 600 rounds per minute while shooting at a muzzle velocity of 710m/s and best of all they were cheap as chips!


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 29, 2007)

im sorry about the length guys but you should never ask an ammunition technician the best gun in ww2.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 29, 2007)

> During ww2 the ak-47


Hey Mr. Ammo Tech, when was the AK-47 put into combat operations again???


----------



## plan_D (Mar 29, 2007)

I agree; you should never ask an "ammo tech" what the best rifle in World War II was. As he'll tell you a rifle that was issued two years after the war had ended.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

The AK-47 hands down I agree. I would have rather have used on in Iraq instead of the M4 that I would have taken if our bird went down.

Howerver here is a bit of history lesson on the AK-47:

It is called AK-47 because it was fielded in 1947 *(WW2 1939-1945)*. AK-47 stands for: Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 which translates to Kalashnikov's assault rifle, model of the year 1947.

Was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov and produced by Russian manufacturer Izhevsk Mechanical Works.

The only thing that AK has to do with WW2 is the fact that the guy who designed it based off of the German Sturmgewehr 44. I read an artical about this in the Stars and Stripes with an interview with the designer. He designed the AK after being wounded in battle and decided that the Russian soldiers needed a weapon like the German Sturmgewehr 44.

Again the AK-47 was fielded in 1947 hence the name AK-*47*


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 29, 2007)

RK-95TP, maybe the best variant of AK-47. Too bad that the Finnish Defence Forces didn't have enough money to product more of these rifles.

Rk 95 TP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

This guy HaWk3r T3mP3sT is popping up everywhere with his bountiful wisdom. 

Makes for a good read though.


----------



## Schtockus (Mar 29, 2007)

The severe reality is that you usually get engaged in a fire contact much closer than 100 yards, especially in a city. At open spaces and longer distances first word belongs to mortars, cannons and to a lesser degree to heavy machine guns. In close combat high velocity and superb accuracy are just words - no more. It's your speed of reaction and reliability of weapon that counts. From this point of view it's the AK 47 - 7,62 mm is the best personal weapon. Chinese, Bulgarian, Hungarian or 5,45 mm don't count.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2007)

That's my choice too. Utter reliability under wartime conditions, mediocre accuracy and relatively lightweight. Perfect design. And to hell with 5.45mm. I'll take the 7.62x39 anyday.

Having said that, it is the best under your stated conditions. Just not my favorite.


----------



## renrich (Mar 29, 2007)

This may have been discussed previously but the M14 does not meet the definition of an assault rifle. The 7.62 Nato is not an intermediate powered cartridge and when I qualified with it it had no selective fire feature and I don't believe most of them issued had the selective fire ability. My vote goes to the AK 47.


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 30, 2007)

HAHAHAHAHA You Guys are bloody awesome, every world war two site ive visited ive always left a a comment about the ak-47 in the second world war and i am very, no actually extremely pleased to say your the first site to pick up that the Ak-47 was not used or manufactured untill 1978 long after the second world war.
Congrat's


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 30, 2007)

Sorry guys about the false information above i always get the manufacture dates mixed up between the Ak-47 (1947) and the date the Soviet Union started replacing the ak-47 with the AKM (1978).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

This site is a serious site about WW2 and specifically WW2 aviation, what did you expect?


----------



## MacArther (Mar 30, 2007)

Guys, I've heard that the M4 has less "knock down" or range (it was one of the two, maybe both) than the standard full sized M16(whatever variant we're on now). Is this statement true? I could understand the range because there is simply less barrel for the bullet to fly through, but does the "knock down" have to do with a lower velocity or something?

As per a rifle, give me the Italian variant of the Garand they have been using until recently, or an M14 shortened (SOCOM does this, right?). Baring either one of those, I would gladly take a G36. I'll give the M4 the accuracy and ease of use, but give me a 7.62 NATO and NOT a flippin 5.56x45mm NATO round.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

I have never heard of a difference in the "knockdown" power between the M4 and the M16 and I have used both, however neither is exceptional in that way because of the 5.56mm round.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 30, 2007)

> Guys, I've heard that the M4 has less "knock down" or range (it was one of the two, maybe both) than the standard full sized M16(whatever variant we're on now). Is this statement true? I could understand the range because there is simply less barrel for the bullet to fly through, but does the "knock down" have to do with a lower velocity or something?





Well there is an accuracy difference between the two, the M4 has a shorter barrel hense the round is naturally gonna fall short some distance,


i think what your talking about is stopping power, which really theres no difference because they fire the same ammo


----------



## MacArther (Mar 30, 2007)

Okay, just heard that there was lower velocities involved in the M4 due to shorter barrel, and the assumption I had was this might effect the knock down punch. Thanks for clarifying things for me!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

There is less kinetic energy in rounds out of the M4 versus M-16 due to a difference in barrel length. However the difference in KE is relatively small. And with military steel core bullets, not civie hollowpoints or match bullets, the difference in velocity does not significantly impact bullet fragmentation. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about current M855 rounds is that typically full penetration of a soft target occurs. Thus, "knockdown" power, as perhaps defined as transferring all energy to your target, is not maximized anyway.

An if someone wants to write volumes on temporary wound cavities, energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, etc. Start a new thread.


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 30, 2007)

Im sorry guys but ive been to alot of ww2 forums that are filled with people that know jack crap. but im pleased ive actually found a good ww2 forum.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 31, 2007)

thats your misconception...............i actually know f*ck all

back me up on this Adler


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

HA!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2007)

I'm watching you, Babowski. I'm watching you.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

> Im sorry guys but ive been to alot of ww2 forums that are filled with people that know jack crap. but im pleased ive actually found a good ww2 forum.


And in the years we have been here we have seen a large number of jackoffs who think they are knowitalls, when in reality they are actually dontknowshitters...

Now that u have established that we kind of know wtf we are talking about here, its time to fly the straight and narrow and stop with the gay ass routine... If u've noticed, we dont put up with sh!t here, so button up, keep ur powder dry and dont be a wise-ass...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> Im sorry guys but ive been to alot of ww2 forums that are filled with people that know jack crap. but im pleased ive actually found a good ww2 forum.



And the SHIFT key. It's on the left hand side of the keyboard. Live it. Love it. Learn it.


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> thats your misconception...............i actually know f*ck all
> 
> back me up on this Adler



Rubbish 102, I know much less than you Ive already won UK Twit of the year 2006 at the Planet Plonker Awards.
I'm actually thinking of starting a new thread "Who Knows the least" I bet I'm an the top of the pile.
Only problem is I don't know how to start a new thread so Ive won already.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2007)




----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2007)

Just remember, we're always behind you Trackend.


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2007)

I Know I can feel the Knife Matt


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 1, 2007)

LMFAO....


----------



## Desert Fox (Apr 5, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3st, or however he spells his name, isn't who he says he is. He's not 54, neither is he an ex-ammo technician. He's a 16 year old kid, who goes to my school. He became interested in warbirds when he bought Blazing Angels, so I thought that I would show him this forum. He joined, and unbeknownst to me he told you all lie after lie. I'm very sorry for any trouble he has caused, I'll be much more careful when referring people to this website. I'm sure he won't mind if you ban him. Once again, I am sorry for this.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 5, 2007)

Thanks for the heads up Fox....


----------



## Desert Fox (Apr 5, 2007)

When I read his post about going to Vietnam, I had to say something. I don't want him making fun of going to war.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 5, 2007)

Maybe u should pick ur pals better??? Guy sure acted like a meatball...


----------



## Desert Fox (Apr 5, 2007)

Well, after the last week, I'd hardly consider him a "pal" right now...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 5, 2007)

Hehe..


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Good for you DF. We saw through him. I even asked him some military fake bull**** that I made up just to goad him along.  Took some real fortitude to come back to the forum with that admission. No harm, no foul. I'll move you up a notch on my totem pole of respect. [And don't even go there Les  ]


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 6, 2007)

> [And don't even go there Les ]


Got to...

U like the Totem Pole, dont u Matt???


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Ooohhh yeaaahhhh


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 6, 2007)

So is this, but I just cant vision u in heels tho...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Package is too small.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 7, 2007)

Thats what she said...


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2007)

Its a shame the G-36 isn't on the list, but then agtain the XM8 is a copy of it - a co-operation between HK and General Dynamics.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 7, 2007)

Added it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> HaWk3r T3mP3st, or however he spells his name, isn't who he says he is. He's not 54, neither is he an ex-ammo technician. He's a 16 year old kid, who goes to my school. He became interested in warbirds when he bought Blazing Angels, so I thought that I would show him this forum. He joined, and unbeknownst to me he told you all lie after lie. I'm very sorry for any trouble he has caused, I'll be much more careful when referring people to this website. I'm sure he won't mind if you ban him. Once again, I am sorry for this.



Thanks for the heads up and do me a favor please tell this kid that in real life pulling off something like that will get your ass kicked!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 8, 2007)

Not even worth the comment, Adler. I suspect his antics are indicative of where he is going in life.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 8, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Thats what she said...



You gotta quit hangin' around these kind a women. It can be tough on your ego doncha know.


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2007)

Is there even such a thing as a Ammo technician ?


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Apr 9, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thanks for the heads up and do me a favor please tell this kid that in real life pulling off something like that will get your ass kicked!



I know him too adler. Last year he broke my USB drive right in front of me and denied he even did it. We're on holidays now but when school resumes i'll remind him of how much of a dickhead he is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Is there even such a thing as a Ammo technician ?



Yeah we have them in the military.


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2007)

We used to call them ammunition experts but thats the same.


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2007)

Btw Adler, since you were in the German military did you shoot the G-36 ? I know it probably isn't given to helicopter crews but since its become std. issue I thought you might have used it - if so what do you think of it.

IMO its a beauty and one of the best weapons around..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2007)

I was not in the German Army. I was a Blackhawk Crew Chief in the US Army stationed in Germany. When I was 18 I was conscripted into the Germany Army but did not have to serve because I was going to college. I later joined the US Army.

I have however shot the G-36 when I was doing some training with some German units and qualifying for the German marksman award.

The G-36 is a magnificant weapon however. I really enjoyed shooting it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

I have fired a few rounds through a G36C-Commando version with open (iron) sights installed, and found it a really nice weapon with a high ROF, however, the 5.56mm round doesnt cut it for me, especially when close combat is called for...


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2007)

While the rifle is great in nearly every aspect the thing I like best about the Std. G-36 is the accuracy - pretty darn decent for an assault rifle !


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 12, 2007)

I like my C7A1 assault rifle (M16) 

its accurate, light and low recoil, and i look so sexy holding it too


----------



## Jank (Apr 12, 2007)

Anyone mention the Fabrique Nationale SCAR (*S*pecial Forces* C*ombat *A*ssault *R*ifle) yet? The Heavy (SCAR-H), chambered in 7.62 NATO looks interesting. I understand it is in current use with U.S. special forces.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2007)

From what I have heard, it has not been adopted. Even in small numbers. The whole acquisition of a new rifle was put on hold. This holds true with the acquisition of a new pistol too.


----------



## Jank (Apr 14, 2007)

Well, I know for a fact that it's currently in use although to be fair, I do not know how widespread among special forces. Do you have a source for that information? I'm not seeing anything indicating that adoption has been put on hold. It wouldn't surprise me in light of current funding issues though.

Just six months ago it was still a go.

DefenseNews.com - Extra Funds To RefineU.S. Special Forces’ Multiuse Future Rifle - 10/09/06 13:59


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2007)

I read it in American Rifleman. The whole program was put on hold.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 14, 2007)

Yea.... I know a few guys who ran this weap through some trials, and they liked the weapon, however, they preferred the shorter 253 millimeter (9.96 inch) barrel on the Mk16, but the 7.62mm round of the Mk17.... The best of both worlds??? Not likely...

Also, the sheer bulk and size of the weapon had some of the guys concerned about it CQC performance, not to mention the weight unloaded is over 7 pounds....

The M4A1 weighs in at 6 1/2 pounds with 30 rounds...


----------



## Jank (Apr 14, 2007)

I understand from the forum over at Military.com that the March 7, 2007 American Riflemen show did a segment on it on it and there was no mention of the hold.

Do you know what issue it was in?

Les, I think the M4A1 actually weighs in closer to 7.5lbs with a full load of love. You weren't looking at WIKIPEDIA were you?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 14, 2007)

No, just going off of memory.... U may be right...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2007)

Jank said:


> I understand from the forum over at Military.com that the March 7, 2007 American Riflemen show did a segment on it on it and there was no mention of the hold.
> 
> Do you know what issue it was in?
> 
> Les, I think the M4A1 actually weighs in closer to 7.5lbs with a full load of love. You weren't looking at WIKIPEDIA were you?



I don't recall and it may have been one of the other rags that I subsribe to. The idea of finding a new rifle has been ongoing for years and years. However, there was a program that was initiated wherein HK, Colt, and some other manufacturers submitted designs that were narrowed down to a handful of interim products. Colt cried foul because the submittals by HK and others were effectively modified M4s (hell they even looked like Colt's rifle). These other manufacturers claimed that the gas system was significantly modified to make use of a pushrod, thus avoiding the fouling problems with the current M4s. Colt made such a legal stink that this dem/eval program was put on hold. That is what I am referring to.

This overall search for a new weapon continues to get a modicum of funding, but with no real end in sight.


----------



## Jank (Apr 15, 2007)

Matt308 said, "_This overall search for a new weapon continues to get a modicum of funding, but with no real end in sight._"

It sounds like you are maintaining that the SCAR program has been halted, is on hold or is just a stop gap for something more permanent.

Let me know if you come across anything that indicates that the SCAR has not been selected as the replacement rifle for the special forces, or that the program has been halted as I would certainly be interested in reading it.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

I'll keep an eye out. It is apparent that various factions within DoD are vying for funding.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2007)

I'd personally not recommend such a weapon, I suspect its way too light for the round it uses. I'd much rather have the new 6.8mm weapons be deployed.

And if you want a 7.62x51mm assault rifle then there's plenty of excellent older, cheaper and proven designs out there...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

[cough] M-14 [cough]


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2007)

This is what I used in my time in the Swedish Rangers the AK4..... THE best rifle that I ever had!




The Ak 4 is a Swedish version of the German Heckler Koch G3 battle rifle.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 19, 2007)

Rollerblock breach design. Has a sharp recoil compared to locked breach gas piston/impingement. But in .223, how bad could it be. Wish I owned one.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 20, 2007)

I still think the M-16 is more suitable, every soldier is trained to clean his rifle atleast once a day, and to keep the receiver clean and the barrel out of the mud, so if you can follow those rules closely, you wont have so many problems,

now at 300 yards away and i am at odds with an Ak weilding man, i have a better chance at hitting him with a double tap, that he has at hitting me with one round, im sorry but i want that type of accuracy, i also want light recoil, A LIGHT WEAPON, 

and for those days i want to be stupid, i want to fire the weapon with the butt at my forehead

and the Ak cant give me that type of satisfaction


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

BTW......is only for modern assault rifles? Would a MP44 fit in here?


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2007)

The MP-44 isn't competitive with any of the assault rifles above, it was the best small-arm ever to be made when it entered service in WW2 however.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 20, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> type of accuracy, i also want light recoil, A LIGHT WEAPON,
> 
> and for those days i want to be stupid, i want to fire the weapon with the butt at my forehead
> 
> and the Ak cant give me that type of satisfaction


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2007)

Hussar, for those days when you want to be stupid reminds me of the first day on the 1000 inch range with the M1 Garand. NCO named Sgt Angel to prove an M1 couldn't hurt you held one to his groin and fired it subsequently to his stomach, his shoulder and to his chin. My recollection was that he did it one-handed.


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2007)

To his chin. He may have done it. But it fuc%in' hurt. I own one. Trust me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

You pretty much can with the M4 and M16.


----------



## Matt308 (May 8, 2007)

Yep. Wouldn't feel pleasant, but they don't kick like a .30-06. I'd love to see a video of that M1. Certainly I'm sure there is some idiot that could do it. But don't try this at home kids.


----------



## renrich (May 8, 2007)

I have a 30-06 among other rifles and fired the M1 all through basic and I don't know how he did it either. My memory may be faulty but I omitted he held it against his upper thigh also and squeezed off a round. Anyway I was impressed. Actually the Garand has a slightly less rambunctious recoil because of the gas operation versus a bolt action or in my case a lever action.


----------



## Matt308 (May 8, 2007)

The thigh. The stomach. The chest. One handed Rambo style. But on the chin or nose. That I would love to see.


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2007)

Try shooting a K98k with full power milsurp ammo, the Garand's recoil feels like a soft pad to the shoulder by comparison.


----------



## Matt308 (May 9, 2007)

Yep. Same with the Lee Enfield.


----------



## Soren (May 10, 2007)

The .303 Lee Enfield's recoil isn't nearly as powerful, and neither is the M1903 Springfield's recoil, although I do agree they do give quite a kick. 

A 198 gr bullet shoved to 785 m/s gives a big kick !


----------



## Matt308 (May 10, 2007)

Not big, but big enough!


----------



## Soren (May 11, 2007)

Something like that


----------



## lesofprimus (May 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> Try shooting a K98k with full power milsurp ammo, the Garand's recoil feels like a soft pad to the shoulder by comparison.


This I can confirm...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> [cough] M-14 [cough]



Grin. 

While I a.) do NOT have an AK of any variety and cannot speak first hand regarding anything but rep, I have 4 'battle rifles' for lack of a better description (plus a variety of rifles actioned on Springfield, Mauser 98, M700 and pre-64 when the discussion gets to recoil)

I do have an M1, and M1A1 (civilized M-14), AR10 and AR15. If something 'dreadful' happened and I could only pick one I think I would reach for the AR10 (civilized AR18 w/improvements). I don't have a scope on by preference but be persuaded depending on what was required

With factory 150/Mil 147 it is more accurate than any of my other accurate semi's except the .556 round for the AR15... still less than MOA all day long w/factory Hornady 150's... and its a lot lighter than the Garand/son of Garand. It shoots 165s very well and starts to taper off in accuracy with 200's (twist too slow with 1:10)

The close second is the M1A1 -also very accurate but at my age I want a gun bearer to carry it and the ammo until I need it.

Next would be the AR15.

I suspect I would be tempted for full auto and get in the 'assault rifle' biz but believe semi auto just fine for me.

Soren - On the '98 vs the '03 as for recoil - look closely to the bullet. The 198gr issue for the 98 probably does not kick more than a 200 gr 30-06 and as I recall the first round issued to the 03 was a 220gr load in the 30-03 then the 30-06 before WWI. 

If the comparison on 98 kick vs 03 in WWII then by MV and respective bullet weights for that time I could be argued for the 98 as sharper thumper - but couldn't be a significant difference.

Picking from Poll I would have to ask what am I supposed to be doing? If I'm spotting for a sniper and back up, then M-14. If it's Close Quarter downtown as the daily grind I suspect I would pick the AK from rep but likely to choose the M-16A4 by familiarity. 

I would also pick the M-16 for all around with the 62gr (1:9 twist) round as round of choice for All around as long as I could reasonably keep it clean - I've never been in places like Iraq so have no idea how it's doin there in the high dust/sand environment

For critters and scenarios likely in Texas or Oregon - AR10 for sure. Fully auto ? AR10 for me.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 13, 2007)

someone give me a good reason other than its reliability (which they've improved) why the l85a2 isn't the best!?.....plus wouldn't the m14 be better than the ak47 except maybe reliability and simplicity


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 13, 2007)

> plus wouldn't the m14 be better than the ak47 except maybe reliability and simplicity


Nope...


----------



## Soren (Jun 13, 2007)

Drgondog,

Part of the reason the K98k gives a bigger kick is the heavier bullet, no doubt, but the extra drive force the Mauser cartridge can give heavier bullets is also part of the reason. Even with 200 - 220 gr bullets the 30-06 doesn't give the kick of the 198gr sS bullet in the K98k. (Don't confuse cartridge size with available drive force!)

I'm not saying the difference is huge, but its there - and even more so when we're comparing the K98k with the Garand. (The cycling mechanism taking away abit of the recoil)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> someone give me a good reason other than its reliability (which they've improved) why the l85a2 isn't the best!?.....



You have got to be kidding right?

Having served in the military and regularly fired M-16/M-4, AK-47s and done quite a bit of training with the Brit guns including the SA80/L85 and I can tell you the L85/SA80 is the last of the 3 in that group that I would want.

The Brits that we trained with even said they dont like it...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> Drgondog,
> 
> Part of the reason the K98k gives a bigger kick is the heavier bullet, no doubt, but the extra drive force the Mauser cartridge can give heavier bullets is also part of the reason. Even with 200 - 220 gr bullets the 30-06 doesn't give the kick of the 198gr sS bullet in the K98k. (Don't confuse cartridge size with available drive force!)
> 
> I'm not saying the difference is huge, but its there - and even more so when we're comparing the K98k with the Garand. (The cycling mechanism taking away abit of the recoil)



Say what? "Drive Force" ?? - are you referring to some form of integrated impulse curve difference leading to larger 'felt' recoil between the 8x57JS and the 30-06? Otherwise F=1/2 MV>2

The commercial loading for the 150 gr 8x57JS is 2800 fps,100fps lower than the 150 gr 30-06. The military ball round for a M-1 was lower capacity and pressure resulting in 2700fps. 

So, if you compare a M98 actioned rifle with commercial 150 gr bullet in 8x57JS to the same rifle re-barreled, same weight and length, to 30-06 in commercial 150 gr - then the 30-06 will kick harder. Change the cartridge to Mil Ball issue for M-1 and the 8mm will kick harder.

Step up to 200gr for 30-06 and compare to many (RW and Norma) standard commercial for 8mm - the 8mm has about 50fps higher velocity ---> more recoil force. Compare against military issue 198gr for M98 ? not sure. The 'std' 200 gr 30-06 is 2592fps.

I have been re-loading and wildcatting for 40+ years including 8mm, and 8mm-06. It is a nice cartridge and nearly the equal of the 30-06 in commercial loads in all bullet weights under 180 and superior from 196 and up, and slightly better wrt military cartridge for K98 vs M-1 at 150gr because a.) military brass of 30-06 less capacity than commercial brass and can't be loaded to same pressures, and b.) uses less powder for same reason. 

Using a standard 30-06 round off the shelf in 1939 (or today) would not be good long term in a Garand. A M98 action is stronger than an -03 but doesn't matter under 60Kpsi.

If you re-load using Winchester brass (pretty much the most capacity of any mfr) - same primers and equivalent bullet weights and types - each to approximately 55K psi CUP - the 30-06 will be faster in every case that I have seen to date as well as my own experience up to 190gr, particularly with RL22.

Beyond that I can load a 8mmx57JS faster and stay within safe pressures 

So, if not 1/2 MV>2 what is 'drive force'? It really is a new term for me. 

The only thing I can think of is the benefit derived by having a larger bore derived from same case with a larger bullet. My 338-06 will drive a 225g Nosler Accubond at 2600 fps w/61.0 gr H414 which is more than a 200gr bullet in an 8x57JS. Same case as 30-06 necked up

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2007)

Bill, you're using American commercial ammunition thats why. American 8x57mm loads are grossly underloaded, go buy some fullpower European ammunition.

Go to reloadersnest.com, they've got some good handloads you can try.

In strong actions the 8x57mm IS can be safely loaded up to 58 - 60,000 psi MAP, the same or slightly more than the 30.06.

A 154gr bullet in the 7.92x57mm IS will be driven up to 3,000 + fps, and 200gr bullets will do up to 2,700+ fps.

Here's some hot loads you can try (All 56,000 psi MAP or less):
Real Guns - Handload Data - 8x57mm JS Mauser

The Germans themselves back in WWII used uploaded types of 7.92x57mm ammunition, mostly for use in aircraft guns, although snipers "Borrowed" them for an extra 150m of effective range. These rounds were designated "V-patronen", the V stood for Improved and drove the std. 12.8g (198gr) sS projectile to 868 m/s (2850 fps).

154gr 7.92x57mm Turkish Surplus ammunition does around 2,950 fps on average in the Gewehr 98.

As to what I meant with drive force, well thats the amount of force the cartridge can get out of a bullet at different weights - the 8x57mm cartridge has a larger surface area to push on, leading to better acceleration with different bullet weights. The higher the bullet density the lower the acceleration decceleration and vice versa.

PS: Drive force isn't a general term in the gun world, hence why you haven't heard it before.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 16, 2007)

Making new terminology are we Soren lol???


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2007)

Yup 

No, its a word often used by physicists in other contexts.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill, you're using American commercial ammunition thats why. American 8x57mm loads are grossly underloaded, go buy some fullpower European ammunition.
> 
> Go to reloadersnest.com, they've got some good handloads you can try.
> 
> ...



First - what possible source could you be referring to to state with a straight face that the 8mm can be loaded to same or higher pressures as the 30-06"

I'll pick two actions - and FN600 and a M700 Remington. Show me a relaible source (any one will do for starters) that has tested these two in a statistically meaningful manner which supports this interesting statement? Same Brass, primers and bullet weight - vary the powder to achieve relative burn rates

Second - the greater diameter of the 8mm WILL enable a higher velocity somewhere in the middle range of bullet weights like 180-198gr but doesn't at the lower range.

Here is a factory 30-06 - one of the world famous 'light loads' so disdained by 8x57JS lovers - MV= 3,100 fps which is higher than your reload 8mm. Find a factory load in 8mm that is faster? 

https://www.hornady.com/shop/?page=ballistics/popup&product_sku=85199

we can one-up each other on re-loads if you wish. I have both my eyes and all my fingers because I do pay attention to pressure signs. I have a couple of actions that individually (not in ANY way recommended by Mfr) that are probably capable of 70K psi but I'm not going there just to chase hot reloads.

You may seek any reload data you wish. I noticed your source mentioned 56K (+) so you perhaps overlooked a little bit what the max pressure was or could be for those loads - I would be suspicious of the "+" as well as pulling a load from a website. 

I'll stick with Nosler 5th Edition and Hogdon, Speer and Barnes because the loads are all lab tested - and in some cases with some rifles I have seen some pressure signs even with these

On the factory loads I was quoting to you for the 8x57JS I used Norma and RW which I believe are still made 'somewhere in Europe"?? Both were hotter than Remington and Hornady factory rounds.

Here is another factory load for 165Gr 30-06 at 2802fps

https://www.hornady.com/shop/?page=ballistics/popup&product_sku=85159

I noticed that the Max load tested by Nosler #5, for 8mmx57JS, for the 180gr NBT was 49.0 gr Varget at 2669fps w/24"bbl

The Nosler max load for 30-06 was 2872fps for 24" for the 180gr NBT using 61 gr RL22 - hotter than the Hornady Light Mag and way hotter than the fastest reload in Nosler (only this example). This is my personal Elk load when I'm not using the 338-06 w/225gr accubond

As to "drive force" (your first reason for using that phrase was to 'demonstrate' why the 8mm kicked more...) that doesn't float as far as recoil is concerned - the recoil force is still 1/2 MV>2 until you show me the math on some nebulous pressure distribution that proves that the 30-06 bullet
accelerates much slower initially then picks up velocity much faster 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2007)

You just want to argue Bill, I get it ! There's nothing to argue about though cause the 8x57mm JS is faster than the 30.06 - esp. with heavier rounds. I'd like you to show me any 30.06 load that drives a 198gr bullet to 2,850 fps like the 8x57mm can please ! And mind you this was a load used operationally by the Germans ! But still don't get started about lab testing, its as good as any testing done by yourself, so your mentioning of it is completely and utterly pointless.

Turkish 154gr 8x57mm surplus ammunition will on average do 2,950 fps in the Gewehr 98, with no pressure signs what so ever. 3,100 isn't an anomaly with Turkish 154gr ball either, and still no pressure signs.

And here's a recipe for how to drive a 200gr Sierra Match king bullet to ~2,700 fps in the 8x57mm JS: Load 10023 detail in caliber 8x57 JS

As to recoil, well recoil rises with KE or momentum, they're directly connected - the bigger the KE at the muzzle, the bigger the recoil = Newtons law. Drive force = max possible MV with x bullet mass. The higher possible MV with x bullet mass the higher the recoil.

PS: I have never found any of the loads that I've acquired from the reloading sites to be much off or at all dangerous so again you made a completely pointless remark.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2007)

Soren said:


> You just want to argue Bill, I get it ! There's nothing to argue about though cause the 8x57mm JS is faster than the 30.06 - esp. with heavier rounds. I'd like you to show me any 30.06 load that drives a 198gr bullet to 2,850 fps like the 8x57mm can please ! And mind you this was a load used operationally by the Germans ! But still don't get started about lab testing, its as good as any testing done by yourself, so your mentioning of it is completely and utterly pointless.
> 
> Turkish 154gr 8x57mm surplus ammunition will on average do 2,950 fps in the Gewehr 98, with no pressure signs what so ever. 3,100 isn't an anomaly with Turkish 154gr ball either, and still no pressure signs.
> 
> ...



To your last statement - How would you KNOW whether they were dangerous? Have you ever used strain gauges on a rifle? I HAVE, as well as chronograph closely when I work up to max loads - neither sufficient unto themselves to guarantee safety but far better that 'spray and pray'. Do you spray and pray?

Simply stated, and repeated once again, the 30-06 is faster with the 150 and 165 and the 8x56JS is faster in 190 and above. They are both close in the 170-180gr range.

And no, 2950 avg is NOT the same as 3100fps!!! Not in my world and probably not in Czech world - can't comment on German world or the world you live in? Which world do you live in?.

Recoil may 'rise' with mass x Velocity but what we have been talking about is Force which by the way is how you measure RECOIL - IT ain't MOMENTUM - it is FORCE.. Force equal mass x Acceleration - NOT mass x velocity. The KE of 30-06 with 150gr > KE of 8x57JS because the Mass is the same and the Velocity is greater for the 06 betweeen the two loads. 

RECOIL FORCE = 1/2x mass x (VELOCITY)squared ----->not MV in the case of rifle ballistics. If we were talking about Gyrojet rocket rounds from the 60's in which we had a round that was constantly accelerating then it would be F=Ma at the point it left the barrel

If you have a FACTORY load which is greater than the Hornady load - post it... but for simple people like me don't try to imply that a Czech load at 2950 is faster than the Hornady Light Mag load at 3100. I did my best counting toes, ears and fingers (plus other appendages) and I still can't reconcile your supercilious statements>

I am to take from your avatar that you have some link to being a sniper - and I give you benefit of the doubt that a.) you do reload and b.) you know something about ballistics. But.......

People will think You are arguing for arguing sake. 

Go back to any post I have made and see for yourself - I have NEVER CLAIMED THAT A 30-06 with 190gr and above can be LOADED SAFELY FASTER THAN A 190 gr (OR ABOVE) load AT SAFE PRESSURES THAN AN 8x57JS. I have maintained and CONTINUE to maintain that the 30-06 is faster across the board than the 8x57JS for equivalent pressures for rounds equal to or under 165Gr. 

I will also tell you that necking up a 30-06 to 338 will overshadow the 8x57JS at 200gr and above - we can now dabble in the effect of "Drive Force" and show simply that the greater case capacity of the 30-06 will have a difference when you step up to 8mm or .338 - but that isn't our argument

I HAVE ZERO idea what your background is but on one hand you sound knowledgeable and the next you make some silly statements about Physics and Engineering. 

If you don't compare pressures then you aren't working to a common benchmark of FACT based discussion. People Get KILLED [email protected]#@#$king around with maz/overmax loads

But, since you don't want to play in that sandbox let's jo go to what you can buy in Germany or America

FACT - 30-06 in a PUBLISHED factory max load is 3,100 fps. Hornady Light Mag is what I postulate

FACT - the best 8x57JS published load you have shown for a rifle is 2950 fps as best in Czech military ball load. Get a faster load

FACT - both the RECOIL and MOMENTUM in a same action and same weight rifle firing both rounds will experience MORE RECOIL and MOmentum in the 30-06 at THAT Muzzle Velocity.

FACT - the 8x57JS in 198gr in FACTORY will exceed a 190 or 200 gr FACTORY 30-06 in both Momentum AND Recoil Force for the publishedd maximum 8x57JS facory ammo.

IF you consider this arguing "just to make an argument" - then I stand guilty as charged!

Having said that I really want to know what engineering and ballistics expertise you bring to this argument. At one moment you sound intelligent and fact based and others you sound ?? but not fact based in your arguments. Tell me at least that you have at least a BS degree in Aerodynamics or Performance for your arguments in that field - or have a long base of experience in ballistics.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 17, 2007)

> Recoil may 'rise' with mass x Velocity but what we have been talking about is Force which by the way is how you measure RECOIL - IT ain't MOMENTUM - it is FORCE.. Force equal mass x Acceleration - NOT mass x velocity. The KE of 30-06 with 150gr > KE of 8x57JS because the Mass is the same and the Velocity is greater for the 06 betweeen the two loads.


I agree 100% with Bill on that one...


> I am to take from your avatar that you have some link to being a sniper - and I give you benefit of the doubt


Actually, its his signature that shows the sniper, his avatar is of the Ta 152H....


> If you don't compare pressures then you aren't working to a common benchmark of FACT based discussion. People Get KILLED [email protected]#@#$king around with maz/overmax loads


And I know a couple of fellas that only have 9 and 8 digits because of this...


----------



## Soren (Jun 17, 2007)

I have plenty of experience with ballistics, I've been shooting firearms since I was a boy and I've been in the military for over 20 years straight. I'm not a gun expert but I know my fair share on the subject, and to be honest I think your knowledge on the subject is lacking in some areas Bill.

First of all its TURKISH ball ammunition, not Czech, and like I said it'll do 3,100 fps in the Gewehr 98 (740 mm barrel). So in my experience the 8x57mm JS round is as fast or faster than the 30-06 with different weight bullets, with heigher weight bullets the 8x57mm is always markedly faster. 

And as to your recoil explanation, well all I can say is you're being awfully anal. We're saying the exact same thing - fact is the higher the KE at the muzzle the higher the recoil.

As to my "Degree" in aerodynamics, well I'm an educated engineer and have been studying this field for a long long time now and I'd say I know all the basics, alot of the complex and alot more - am I an expert in the field ? No, I'd need alot more experience with the modern aerodynamics programs of today and there are still some complex characteristics I need to learn about. But since you asked what statements about aerodynamics of mine is it you find to be incorrect ?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> I have plenty of experience with ballistics, I've been shooting firearms since I was a boy and I've been in the military for over 20 years straight. I'm not a gun expert but I know my fair share on the subject, and to be honest I think your knowledge on the subject is lacking in some areas Bill.
> 
> First of all its TURKISH ball ammunition, not Czech, and like I said it'll do 3,100 fps in the Gewehr 98 (740 mm barrel). So in my experience the 8x57mm JS round is as fast or faster than the 30-06 with different weight bullets, with heigher weight bullets the 8x57mm is always markedly faster.
> 
> ...



Soren - are you by chance, with your 20+ years of gun expertise, aware of the effect of longer barrels on velocity? 

And based on that knowledge you would state that TURK (or any nationstate you choose) 8x57JS 154 gr ammunition will get within 150fps of the loads I cited? With 24 inch barrel?

I set the foundation for a rational argument by citing velocities for a 24" barrel and you come back to me with ballistics for a 740mm (`29") barrel??? which should yield 35-50fps increment for each extra inch of length?

And then you describe me as anal when I delineate the difference between Force and Momentum? 

Do the math for ballistics between Force and Kinetic Energy

F= 1/2x Mx (V)>2 and you say that is the same as MxV ?

So, using your engineering background *1/2 x M x(V) squared = M x V*?

next step : divide both sides of equation by M yielding

1/2 (V)squared = V??----> "And as to your recoil explanation, well all I can say is you're being awfully anal. *We're saying the exact same thing *- fact is the higher the KE at the muzzle the higher the recoil."

Fact - the higher the KE at the muzzle the higher the recoil.

NOT Fact - "We're saying the exact same thing" 

In my world one half of Velocity squared is not the same as Velocity

Soren - you are a smart guy and don't have to resort to trickery to win an argument - just stick to the facts and jump me when I don't have facts, I can actually learn even at my age.. but you tried to slip one through with the 740 mm barrel length when we were talking pure and verifyable ballistics of two separate cartriges for same boundary conditions. 

As to your aero knowledge, you don't make many mistakes that I can see but every once in awhile a few 'clankers' resonate which caused me to ask the question. And don't get me wrong - I've been out of the performance and strucures biz for 30 years and only in aerodynamics for two years. 

Like you I am not prepared to dive into an in-depth discussion of hypersonic boundary layer separation using Chaos Theory - not at the real and practical level.

Last but not least, depending on your definition of Expert - I may be one, or not depending on your point of view. If the definition is fire and field strip every military firearm in use today - nope.. last count is six. I have never set the headspace on a Ma Duece or any light/heavy machine gun of any type.

If the definition is ballistics, propellants reloading and the ability to field strip about any modern commercial firearm - yes by experience or ability to find it in my reference library if I haven't seen it before. I build my own stocks - both from straight blank and semi-inletted - rifle and shotgun, including sidelocks. I can re-barrel and headspace a new barrel and used to have a lathe which I used to thread and turn barrel blanks or use to take up some threads after re-chambering for some nebulous wild cat.

I shot Expert in pistol and rifle and ranked as lifetime NRA Master in International Skeet. (I can't SHOOT Master anymore - I'm too old and slow) I have competed and competed well in both Columbaire and Box Flyers domestically and internationally, winning seven HOA in major shoots of 3 days or more in places like Guadalajara, Dallas and Madrid. I have hunted big game and birds on four continents. This is not bragging - there are many better shooters than me, but this is my qualification resume to discuss any of the above subjects intelligently with you

I know more about all of these subjects than most people - but I might not meet your standards for expertise and we can leave it at that.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2007)

Listen lets bury the Hatchet here Bill, I think we're coming to agreement in the end anyways.

This whole argument started because we BOTH were nitpicking, you might as-well admit it - and yes I know I do it sometimes myself I admit, and I think everybody here on the forum knows it as-well.

I didn't try to sneak anything passed you Bill, I made clear from the start that that the Turkish factory milsurp ammo would do 3,100 fps in the Gewehr 98. And yes I know what effect the barrel lenght mostly has on velocity with rifle-rounds and bigger, but even with a 600mm barrel it isn't hard to reach 3,100 fps with the 154gr Turkish stuff, it really isn't.

Firing the 7.92mm 12.8 gram sS FMJ-BT projectile in the 8x57 IS at 785 m/s is only utilizing 69 - 70% of the cartridge's pressure potential.

About the 30-06 being faster with light bullets, well you might be right, 3,200 fps is faster than any 7.92x57mm round I've shot through a 60cm barrel so far - I've come very close though.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2007)

nuff said -hoist one for the nit pickers - Prosit

Regards,

Bill


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 19, 2007)

Dunno if anyone's already put this one forward (probably; it would take me an hour to read this whole thread), but what about the M4? Weapon of choice for US Special Forces and the D boys, easier to handle than a -16, and mostly steel. Almost as accurate as a -16A2, just as accurate at short range.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2007)

Well as a former US Army soldier who has used the M4 and fired the AK on many occasions I can say the AK is much better.

Give me an AK or a G-36.


----------



## MacArther (Jun 19, 2007)

DerAlder, what are your thoughts on the X8 assault rifle that will _someday_ replace something else?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2007)

I honestly dont have an oppinion on it. I think more testing is required on it but it should be an excellent weapon when it is fielded.


----------

