MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Thanks. But are we a little away from aircraft?
What about field care for the rifle?
What about field care for the rifle?
War winning weapons
- Thread starter paulyb102
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but a bolt action .303 will have even more stopping power, greater range and a good soldier will still get off allot of rounds ..........................
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Good stopping power, but the Garand could match it and put out more rounds.
dead parrot
Airman 1st Class
- 108
- Jul 7, 2004
From the point of view of "war-winning", no infantry light arm is going to be a candidate I don't think, because the differences between rifles just aren't that great. Maybe the Stg44 was a major step, but as with all German innovations, it was too little to late.
Would the Mustang be a good possible choice? It was the largest factor in establishing air supremacy over western Europe, thus making the invasion landings possible (or at least, a lot less costly).
Would the Mustang be a good possible choice? It was the largest factor in establishing air supremacy over western Europe, thus making the invasion landings possible (or at least, a lot less costly).
The Garand was a better overall rifle but this does not make it war winning, that's my point. Had the American troops had the Springfield .03 as standard the war would have been the same ending.
The major advantages being semi-auto, and wait, that's about it except three extra rounds. The Lee Enfield was more reliable, easier to clear and more accurate. It depends what you want.
You cannot knock the Ak-47, it wasn't copied off the Stg-44 but created from studying the design. Soviet propaganda was always going to say they created it. It's a simple look on both. There were and are many 'AK' copies the Ak-47 CZ being the Czech copy. The Ak-47 SU was the folding stock version, being much lighter.
The major thing with the Ak-47 was the reliability which far surpasses anything NATO had except the SLR (which is a beautiful gun). The Ak-47 could be dug into sand, shoved under-water or covered in mud and you could shake the gun off, clear the barrel, load and it'd fire. No such luck for the M-16 it'd have to be stripped. The effective range of the AK-47 is something like 1500m (obviously rough estimate) matched by many bolt-action rifles and the SLR.
My Dad is the best opinion I have on these guns, having handled the SA-80, M-16, SLR and AK-47. Sa-80, too light, unreliable, under-powered, basically crap. M-16 good weight not too light and easy to carry. 5.56mm isn't really powerful enough but could make do. Reliability leaves something to be desired. SLR, brilliant, perfect weight, gives some feel to the rifle. Easy to maintain, reliable, 7.62mm gives good hitting power and very easy to handle. Pistol grip makes for easy holding while guard.
Ak-47 basically the same as the SLR but he doesn't like the handling as much but prefers the reliability.
The firing mechanism in the AK-47 is the same as in the SVD Dragnov.
The major advantages being semi-auto, and wait, that's about it except three extra rounds. The Lee Enfield was more reliable, easier to clear and more accurate. It depends what you want.
You cannot knock the Ak-47, it wasn't copied off the Stg-44 but created from studying the design. Soviet propaganda was always going to say they created it. It's a simple look on both. There were and are many 'AK' copies the Ak-47 CZ being the Czech copy. The Ak-47 SU was the folding stock version, being much lighter.
The major thing with the Ak-47 was the reliability which far surpasses anything NATO had except the SLR (which is a beautiful gun). The Ak-47 could be dug into sand, shoved under-water or covered in mud and you could shake the gun off, clear the barrel, load and it'd fire. No such luck for the M-16 it'd have to be stripped. The effective range of the AK-47 is something like 1500m (obviously rough estimate) matched by many bolt-action rifles and the SLR.
My Dad is the best opinion I have on these guns, having handled the SA-80, M-16, SLR and AK-47. Sa-80, too light, unreliable, under-powered, basically crap. M-16 good weight not too light and easy to carry. 5.56mm isn't really powerful enough but could make do. Reliability leaves something to be desired. SLR, brilliant, perfect weight, gives some feel to the rifle. Easy to maintain, reliable, 7.62mm gives good hitting power and very easy to handle. Pistol grip makes for easy holding while guard.
Ak-47 basically the same as the SLR but he doesn't like the handling as much but prefers the reliability.
The firing mechanism in the AK-47 is the same as in the SVD Dragnov.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
which is amazingly simple..................
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Most things Russian are. The major advantage of the 5.56mm was it's lighter weight and works fine for most infantry roles. You really only need a 7.62mm in machine guns to serve as support weapons.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
The whole point of infantry weapons is to kill...- We used to call the M-16 the 'boy, oh boy, the Lincoln Toy...' after a Toy manufacturer. It was very light compared to it's predessors, with a 750 rpm firing-rate, but in heavy bush, couldn't stand-up to abuse as readily as an SLR. If a 5.56mm round passed thru your leg muscle, for example, it would leave a nasty little hole and give you quite a limp....if a .308 went thru the same place, it would leave a nasty little hole going in, shatter your femur and blow a hole the size of a small fist out the back...alot more incapacitating. For memory, the 5.56mm travels around 3400 fps, the 7.62mm /.308 at around 2800 fps, but almost twice the 'hitting-power'....the range for both is about the same....
Attachments
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
The 5.56mm is still powerful enough to kill and to punch through most body armor. It has more punch than the Russian 5.45mm and also their 7.62mm I think. But it's light weight allows a soldier to carry ALOT more ammo than was possible with the 7.62mm NATO round.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and the AK's amazingly easy to maintain, it will keep going after anything really as it's so simple...................
The NATO 5.56mm hasn't got the hitting power of any 7.62mm. Nowadays the idea isn't to kill, but to injure. That is why the 5.56mm is used more in NATO.
The 5.56 could kill if hit in the right areas. One step further from Gemhorses' example, if a 5.56 goes into your gut it will go straight through and leave a clean hole (if missing your spine). A 7.62 will go in and basically rip your gut out.
The range on the M-16 is 400m (estimate) and on the SLR it is 1500m.
I'm sorry LG, your idea of being able to carry "ALOT" more because it is lighter (refering to 5.56) is bull. In the Gulf the British standard forces carried four clips of SLR, 20 rounds in each clip. That is enough for any combat situation. If you are going to over load yourself with rounds you probably could carry an extra two clips of 5.56 but to get that far you aren't suitable for combat anyway, too heavy.
The Delta Force in the Battle of Black Sea (Mogadishu ~ Black Hawk Down) complained that their titanium tipped 5.56 from the CAR-15s they were using was not killing who they fired upon but going straight through. While the SAW carriers were obliterating their enemies with the 7.62.
Yes I know the SAW is an infantry support weapon but the Delta Force had to hit who they were shooting at about 6 times before they were dead, with a SLR you could do it once or twice in the body and they'd be dead.
The 5.56 could kill if hit in the right areas. One step further from Gemhorses' example, if a 5.56 goes into your gut it will go straight through and leave a clean hole (if missing your spine). A 7.62 will go in and basically rip your gut out.
The range on the M-16 is 400m (estimate) and on the SLR it is 1500m.
I'm sorry LG, your idea of being able to carry "ALOT" more because it is lighter (refering to 5.56) is bull. In the Gulf the British standard forces carried four clips of SLR, 20 rounds in each clip. That is enough for any combat situation. If you are going to over load yourself with rounds you probably could carry an extra two clips of 5.56 but to get that far you aren't suitable for combat anyway, too heavy.
The Delta Force in the Battle of Black Sea (Mogadishu ~ Black Hawk Down) complained that their titanium tipped 5.56 from the CAR-15s they were using was not killing who they fired upon but going straight through. While the SAW carriers were obliterating their enemies with the 7.62.
Yes I know the SAW is an infantry support weapon but the Delta Force had to hit who they were shooting at about 6 times before they were dead, with a SLR you could do it once or twice in the body and they'd be dead.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
If by SAW you mean the M249 in is also chambered in the 5.56mm. The range on the M16A2 is considerably higher, 800-900m. And many troops, like the airborne and the Marines are required to carrying everything they need for three days on their backs. Carrying around 3 days worth of 7.62mm doesn't help anything.
Three days worth of ammo means nothing, it depends what they expect. You could carry plenty of 7.62 ammo, just as much as 5.56. The carrying weight is a dead argument for the 5.56.
The 400m range isn't the complete range, on any M-16 you could probably get it to 1000m. But with that you probably could get the SLR to 2000-3000m.
The SAWs were using 7.62 in the Battle of the Black Sea. Which is a deadlier calibre of round.
The 400m range isn't the complete range, on any M-16 you could probably get it to 1000m. But with that you probably could get the SLR to 2000-3000m.
The SAWs were using 7.62 in the Battle of the Black Sea. Which is a deadlier calibre of round.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
We carried 4 x 20 round magazines plus a full one on the rifle, with the SLR. Plus the rest of our gear. Furthermore, we didn't throw away the mags when finished, as supply-drops were cases of ammo, which we then reloaded our mags from. US troops biffed their M-16 clips when empty. In fact, the way we were trained is nothing like you see in 'movies', jungle-training was most intense, as your life preservation skills were honed to being a 'ghost' in the jungle, where all six senses were working...you could literally 'smell' your enemy, by what he ate, smoked excreted...- Probably why Kiwi SAS had the highest prices on their heads by the Vietcong...Try pig-hunting in NZ with some of our Maori guys, and you'll get the picture...or Deerhunting with a .22, by rolling in some cattle crap and stalking the deer from downwind for the head-shot...I prefer 7.62 x 51 for the reach and hitting-power, but a silenced .22 is my favourite around here for all game except Pig....ballistically speaking, a .22 is just as deadly as a .45, they just riccochet around the insides tearing vitals...
I did mean the four plus one clip in the rifle. Obviously you're better at the ideas because yours is first hand, mine being second hand experience.
Another thing with the SLR clips was every 3 days they must be emptied to release the mag spring. This is the same for most guns though. The SLR is one, if not the, best rifles ever and its 7.62mm contributed largely to this.
I don't doubt that the Kiwi SAS had the greatest price on their heads, the odds of killing one is highly unlikely. The SAS are very highly trained, and were secondly tested in the Jungles of Indonesia in the 1950s.
You'll have probably picked this up, Gemhorse from your service with the SLR. The pistol grip made for very good handling while on guard, set the butt into your hip and lean back, holding the pistol grip. That's what my dad says he did. 8)
Another thing with the SLR clips was every 3 days they must be emptied to release the mag spring. This is the same for most guns though. The SLR is one, if not the, best rifles ever and its 7.62mm contributed largely to this.
I don't doubt that the Kiwi SAS had the greatest price on their heads, the odds of killing one is highly unlikely. The SAS are very highly trained, and were secondly tested in the Jungles of Indonesia in the 1950s.
You'll have probably picked this up, Gemhorse from your service with the SLR. The pistol grip made for very good handling while on guard, set the butt into your hip and lean back, holding the pistol grip. That's what my dad says he did. 8)
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
I don't know where in the world you are getting a figure of 2,000-3,000m. 7.62mm sniper rifles are hard-pressed to maintain a range of 1,200m. SAW is an acronym standing for Squad Automatic Weapon. The only weapon I am familiar with that actually carries that designation is the M249 which is chambered for the 5.56mm NATO round. It does have a big brother, the M240 chambered for the 7.62mm round but this has never been called a SAW. Could you be more specific with the weapon you are refering to?
I don't where you get the sniper rifle figures stretching for 1,200m. That's bull, my friend. The published figures are for estimates, for a start. Longer range achieved through drop shots, and general higher range shots. The SLR and AK-47 both achieve 1,500m with ease.
Mistake on my part involving the the Battle of the Black Sea, it was the M-60. Anywho, that wasn't the point trying to be made. The point was the CAR-15 was unable to kill the enemy due to the 5.56.
Mistake on my part involving the the Battle of the Black Sea, it was the M-60. Anywho, that wasn't the point trying to be made. The point was the CAR-15 was unable to kill the enemy due to the 5.56.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
My personal experience of the SLR's range was basically out to a km. The easiest way to judge this was to hold a match out at arms length, and the lighting-tip was about the height of a man at a kilometre...and you could certainly hit one at that range, using the open adjustable sights [just keep you face about 6 inches back from the rear-sight, or you dent it on the recoil !] - I would say it's effective range woul be way beyond that if you had scopes fitted, without a doubt. - Also, the AK-47's range is far less, due to the cut-down round of 7.62 x 39 , as opposed to the SLR's 7.62 x 51. I believe there's an M-14 that's a 7.62 x 39... - I found that on guard at attention, you could slip the pistol-grip into your right pocket and the top would stay rested between your shoulder tit, to rest your arm abit ! - Shifting guns here, I believe the .50 was really the best heavy MG of the War [ and beyond...] There was a NZ-born chap who in Australia during the War, invented a shoulder-carried version of the .50. - Called the 'Constant Reaction Gun' [CRG] SR Model 5, it's total weight 31 lbs, including a 10 lb barrel, could be fed from the left or right and had a cyclic rate of 650 rpm....it was half the weight of the Browning .50... -They worked on improvements, and developed an aircraft version, but it wasn't ready by War's end...this could have been a WAR-WINNING WEAPON ...I've got a photo somewhere here, I'll try and dig it out...
Attachments
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
http://www.snipercentral.com/
This site has some excellent info on sniping weapons. However, few 7.62mm weapons are capable of beyond 1200m. A purpose designed sniping round like the .338 Lapua is capable of extending that to 1600m. And in case you doubt the site, the guy who runs it is a US Army sniper and has fired most of the rifles he describes.
This site has some excellent info on sniping weapons. However, few 7.62mm weapons are capable of beyond 1200m. A purpose designed sniping round like the .338 Lapua is capable of extending that to 1600m. And in case you doubt the site, the guy who runs it is a US Army sniper and has fired most of the rifles he describes.
