@lHustonProductionsl knockdown power is a general term referring to the kinetic energy a particular round has with a particular barrel. a bullet with more kinetic energy has greater kill probability.
@davesempai Except fired bullets have too much potential energy to really knock down any soft target, the just go through or tumble at least to expel it's energy. Stopping power however is another story...
@bender79er2 Actually It was made for large coyotes, small deer, and other human sized game. It almost always meets 12+in of penetration in Ballistics gel and is a fine caliber for an intermediate rifle. Where did you study terminal ballistics? Chuck's Ballistics and Grill?
@bender79er2 really?! so if i was to use my 10/22 on you, would you run? i mean comon now, it's only a .22 lr. no harm in it right? i've seen test of .22lr shooting thru 4, half inch plywood. im sure your skin and organs are tougher than that O_o. i think you need to stop talking out of your ass.
@blaziankhmer agreed...the .22lr is no joke...people that think it is are stupid...hollywood is bullshit...bullets kill...ask the 32 people that died at Virginia Tech...shooter had a glock19 "9mm" and a walther P-22 ".22lr" shot 62 people..32 died..try telling those 32 people the 9mm and .22lr are pussy rounds.
Please not I love M-4s, M-16s and the 5.56 caliber in general. There are a lot of advantages to the round and to the rifles themselves. but I think it's clear there is no one caliber that can do it all. Now the real question is will the US ever move away from 5.56 towards one of the emerging rounds like the 6.8 SPC? Considering I have standardized on existing NATO cartridges, that may be a financial pain for me but I would love to move in that direction pending availability/affordability.
Also - regarding the AK in 7.62x39mm- what a great caliber in close to medium range fights! Many people argue the 7.62x39 round is a poor choice because of weight, bulk, and ballistics. Sub 250 yards I would be very confident with an AK in my hands and the knowledge that no matter what the enemy hides behind their is a good chance I can still reach out and touch them.
Sure in Afghanistan our soldiers are fighting a long range fight so the flatter trajectory of the 5.56 gives them an advantage with long distance situations and notably improved accuracy stemming from the tighter tolerances of the M4 - but as noted in the video above - under penetration is a serious issue they face. In any urban fighting situation the 7.62x39 would be a very formidable opponent - especially when combined with the impossible to break AK-47 and it's loose tolerances!
The M2 - It's simply amazing that John Browning's design has been in service since 1933. What a testament to his genius and the perfection of his designs! Let's not forget he also designed the M1911, Hi-Power, and the BAR. If it weren't for Mr. Browning and John Garand the United States might not be the haven of freedom it is today. Thank you both for your service to this country - we all owe you a great debt of gratitude!
LOL, "haven of freedom." Thank God for Browning and Garand for giving us weapons we'll need to use to protect ourselves from the Federal regime, the greatest threat to Freedom in the history of the world.
@Ilia1138 yes, but there's the same 'problem' with the 5.45 that the 5.56 faces. They both lack the knockdown power that many people clamor for in their weaponry. personally I think they're both perfectly good rounds for the task they were designed for.
The 5.56 and 5.45 rounds have similar penetration to M43 soviet, However the steel core 5.45/5.56 projectiles penetrate more than AP 7.62x39 due to smaller diameter....but there's a catch!
Steel core AP ammo does not expand well (5.56 doesn't frag like usual), tell me do you prefer maximum penetration (5mm) or maximum stopping power? (7.62mm)
This little dilemma is why I have abandoned intermediate rounds for shotguns and battle rifles (;
You seem to have a sharp mind for weapons, perhaps we will have another discussion when something new is developed for the infantry (That could take a while)
Thats a invalid argument/philosophy thats been spouted over the years. The 5.56 round was never "designed to wound". The resources argument doesn't take into account the effort to train/field the soldier, which can be saved if he recovers, but not is he dies.The morale argument is questionable at best (I'd rather my friend was wounded than dead). And a wounded combatant, even a badly or terminally wounded one; can still return fire and kill you. Dead is the best "combat ineffective".
"Combat ineffective" is as good as dead, maybe even better. You eat up a lot more of the enemy's resources if you wound an enemy combatant, instead of killing him. You only need one body bag for a kill - but a wound requires antibiotics, pain killers, bandages, medical attention/surgery.
A wounded combatant also creates a drop in morale, and reduces the overall combat effectiveness of remaining combatants.
An angel of death came down to Mikhail Kalashnikov and blessed him with the blue prints of AK47...Without a doubt the AK47 is a flawless battle rifle with total reliabilty and power...All around the world the most commonly used weapon of ANY category is the AK47! the americans know that the AK47 is THE most effective rifle but they wont use it cause its russian... American weapons suck...they need a lot of maintenance...ie their weapons aint rugged...delicate pussy ass 5.56 configured shithandle
@a55kika18 Incorrect. The Ak47 is an assault rifle, not a battle rifle. There is a difference. The kalashnikov pattern is the most prevalent weapon because it is very cheap to mass produce and very easy to use. The soviets handed them out like candy to anyone that wanted them. It is indeed rugged, but at a price. It sacrifices accuracy for that ruggedness.
American weapons do not 'suck.' The original m16 was indeed awful but it has been fixed. You need to do some research, not spout myths.
@davesempai accuracy does not suffer, you just need to know HOW the gun shoots to shoot at distance, I routinly shoot my mak 90 to 300 yards with iron sights, it shoots a 8.5'' group at that distance, so head shots are a no go, but it easily hits chest size targets at that range. for farther that that I grab my ar10 in .308. the ar can hit a head size target at 300yards with good ammo, but i know few that can make a headshot at 300 yards without a scope. after 300yds power in both rounds sucks
@bestbod85 i mean, you just stated what I did. Up to and past 300 yards the kalashnikov's accuracy starts to suffer, where the m16 systems can shoot more accurately at further ranges. this is not opinion, it's just how it is.
@davesempai yeah, but my point was that even tho the ar15 is more accurate, it's not by much and after 300 yards the 5.56 lacks the power to effectivly take down a threat, so the fact it's more accurate is moot, if you want accuracy AND power, go .308... and yes the original ar15 sucked, and they make better ones, but I'm not sure I want to trust my life with a weapon system that has a billion different configurations, the ak platform has not changed in decades, it just works
@bestbod85 the ak HAS changed. there are different configurations for different jobs, since no one pattern is perfect for everything. there are ak's in a myriad of calibers from 5.56, .308, and even shotgun gauges. the point I think you're trying to make is that combat these days takes place under 300 yards, so inherent accuracy is not of much use. That's why we don't use the bigger calibers that can kill at 2000 yards, because it isn't practical.
@davesempai YES, thats exactly my point!, choose the one that suites your specific need.... but what I said about the ak not changing was correct, i was not referring to the calibers, that HAS changed, I meant the way in which the rifle works has not... likewise the ar15 has ungergone many chages since they were originally fielded in vietnam.... but you get my point, great discussion! it's not often I can engage in intellegent convo with someone based on FACT, thanks again
@bestbod85 The 20 inches barrel of an M16 can be effectively let's say up to 350-400 yards. But the M4 will decrease the power eventually at the same or further range.
@davesempai The AK47 low accuracy is another myth you are spouting. I have shot my AK alongside a friend with an AR15 at Figure 11 targets 300 yards away, we both achieved similar scores.
@realgungho it's not a myth. ask anyone who knows anything about these firearms and they'll tell you the same thing. the ar15 is indeed more inherently accurate then the kalashnikov. the very design of the weapon tells you this. it's not the same as the difference between a brown bess and a springfield 1861, but enough to note.
@davesempai As I said, I have shot both the AR & the AK. For an assault rifle, they both do the same job to a similar effective range of 300M, they can both hit a Figure 11 easily. In combat you dont go for headshots.
@realgungho I'm not talking video game dynaimcs, I mean in real life, the ak47 is not as accurate as an m4 or m16. the recoil is more significant for one, that alone is enough to affect the accuracy. But there are many other factors, not the least prominent of which is the differences in the cartridges. Search for "AK 47 vs M16 Comparing accuracy, and penetration" and watch the top listed video.
I think PATCHED is a better word, The HK416 would solve all the problems that remain, of course the Air-force has to get new interceptors for nonexistent air-attack threats first!
these comments are fucking stupid. theres no such thing as "stopping power". 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 are two completely different rounds. they have nearly the same muzzle energy....one is just small and extremely fast and the other is fat and slow. and you all talk about how the ak is so much better then the m4 when the truth is the other way around. give me one way in which the ak is better other than a few more inches of penetration. truth is you guys dont know what the fuck your talking bout so..
@bearsfan1294 Take an m4 and dump desert sand all over it, then try to fire. Do the same with any AK. Which one fires without having to field strip first?
Now give both weapons to illiterate peasants and tell them to fight their enemies. Which one will these peasants have more success with? Two different weapons, two different purposes. One is better then the other in one way and vice versa.
Check your tone dude bro. No one cares what you THINK you know, and no one is impressed by your attitude.
@davesempai ++++1111111 GREAT comment!!! there is no best, there is only what is best for the task at hand, they are each designed for different jobs, I'm sick of dudes with bad attitude giving shit advice they picked up from cod4 too!
@assym2006 suppose say you are a marine, using ak 47 to sweep out enemies in front, your partner at the back of the building guarding the rear door to make sure that no damned terrorists escaped would have got a free ticket to heaven from you.
you do not stand in the line of fire of your own side. I was a solider in the UK army back when we used the SLR a very powerful rifle more so than the AK47 . We did not shoot our own. Your scenario is foolish.
@assym2006 true but "stopping power" is not necessarily penetrating power there is more to ballistics then speed weight (which is why hollow points were outlawed by the geneva convention)
@assym2006 suppose say you are a marine, using ak 47 to sweep out enemies in front, your partner at the back of the building guarding the rear door to make sure that no damned terrorists escaped would have got a free ticket to heaven from you.
every one go's on and on about the M16 being accurate out to 500 yards etc , etc.
I was in the UK army as a lad. Apart form in exercises all our real work was 200 yards or less. When I joined we used the SLR a true battle rifle firing the 7.62x51mm NATO. When we were forced to change to the SA80 firing the 5.62 we all thought it was terrible the round is total rubbish.
@jimothy183 Because it would have gotten stuck in the plywood. It's not intended to shoot through houses. I tested a .357 magnum once on a cinder block (like in this video) and it just left a chip in it until I finally loaded the cartridge to maximum safe level. Even then it just broke the block and didn't penetrate.
Ok dumb question of the day, is there anything that will stop a .50 Cal? I mean seriously unless you make a 10 foot wall of steel, but I'm talking normal building reinforcements, what will stop a 50 BMG without any penetration?
@adamslurch71 chobham is what the m1 abrams and Challenger Main Battle Tanks are wrapped in. you could fire nine yards worth of .50 at an MBT and it won't penetrate. It could take out ancillary systems like optics though.
you probably want something more mobile though. Enough concrete and sand will stop anything. The .50 bmg is such a heavy, powerful round that you're gonna need something heavy to stop it.
@adamslurch71 i learned in afghanistan that adobe is one of the best bullet-stopping materials there is. Don't know how much it would take to stop a .50, though
3:58 announcer says, "the rounds passed through a manikin and its frag vest..." no no no, it destroyed the manikin. why does the military always underplay things?
@adamslurch71 The military doesn't rely on sensationalism to impress. That's why. They don't cater to the unimformed, reality TV obsessed civilian market.
@adamslurch71 The pictures did not require the narrator to elaborate. Also, in the military, people have a different attitude about things and don't find much humor in the target (which represents themselves or the enemies) being obliterated.
@buckstarchaser No but it would give the realism of what you are about to do so you can prepare yourself better then thinking that all that protection will save you no matter what.
at first that sounds like a stupid question but I think I know what you are asking. and the answer is yes. sort of.
there is a bullet in development (last I checked) that is composed of different layers of different material. what the bullet hits determines how it reacts. Upon hitting flesh, the layers begin to shed, increasing the size of the wound. as the bullet hits denser flesh, more layers shed off, minimizing danger of a bullet exiting a target and hitting something on the other side.
@RoyalAlba1 probably a pistol cartridge no rifle cartridge w/ fmj bullet, unless it were like a .22lr. this why law enforcement snipers use fragmentating bullets &/or hollow point...
BTW assault rifles are selective fire because their meant to be versatile. An inability to be used effectively in full auto means you're not versatile. Battle rifle cartridges are limited (realistically) to semi automatic fire and the 7.62 isn't really combat effective in full auto. The 5.56 is really stretching the limits of what's capable in automatic firing modes.
Problem I have with the current m855 round is while it performs fine out of an m16, it's terrible out of the m4. the Mk 262 round being put into service solves that problem though, its heavier and has better ballistics. Not to mention it extends effective engagement range from 300m to 700 meters.
Notably, they replaced it with a 5.56 copy, the 5.45. Clearly the originators of the 7.62x39 design realize the utility of a light cartridge with low recoil, high velocity, flat trajectory....
The utility is you can throw it in an assault rifle with 800 RPM+ and not worry about shooting at the fuckin' clouds.
I say the 6.5 is superior to the 7.62 because it's higher velocity, higher kinetic energy, better terminal ballistics, more accurate, etc etc etc.
I'm sure they realized at the time it's a goddamn .22 with a higher powder charge, it's not designed to punch through concrete, it's designed to lay down accurate suppressive fire and be light enough for large quantities of ammunition.
How exactly is it failing in that role? Every round is designed for a purpose and thus its effectiveness can be measured by its ability to fulfill that role. The .223 is a bad-fucking-ass proven cartridge, the 7.62 is some awkward piece of shit the Ruskies replace
"If you have to rely on your assault rifle without heavy machinegun or artillery support, it better work and work the first time."
Who the fuck would want to do that? I tell you what, bro, what you're asking for is a battle rifle. All the 7.62x39 is is a more powerful round than the 5.56. That's it, that's the only advantage you obtain, with all the drawbacks that increased power entails. It's not like the US military or Remington shit the .223, they took this shit into account.
Thanks for posting the video. I've seen other tests like this where the 5.56 NATO fails to penetrate block, while the 7.62x39mm shattered the block. NATO needs to drop the 5.56 and adopt the 6.8 SPC.
The 7.62x39 is more powerful because it's a bigger round. The 5.56x45 NATO, regardless, fulfills its role as an intermediate cartridge admirably, with solid ballistics, including velocity, internal ballistics, kinetic energy output, and penetration. If you're ever confused as to why it's not as powerful as the .308....do yourself a favor and look at the cartridge dimensions.
At least the M16 can maintain a flat trajectory, high accuracy, and sustained controllability in full auto.
You seem like an AR fan assuming I'm an AK fan. I was not comparing weapon platforms. The 5.56 is simply underpowered when shooting through cover. This is a fact supported by military testing and battlefield results. NATO forces deserve a better cartridge with more stopping power and penetration. The 6.8SPC would fill this role admirably. Why oppose an upgrade?
The .308 is is also not a 7.62x39mm. You're confusing the Russian round with the 7.62x51mm NATO. The M240 shoots this round.
I'm not confusing anything, the .308 is the inch conversion of the 7.62. It's the exact same diameter round. It's not my fault that there are two different length cartridges with the same diameter (actually 4 that I know of).
The 7.62x39 should, in any case, provide clues to why it is more powerful by looking at the cartridge dimensions....it has a significantly larger diameter resulting in more kinetic energy.
The NATO forces do have a better cartridge than the 7.62x39, it's called the 5.56. Like I said it has significantly higher velocity, high accuracy, flat trajectories, good penetration, terminal ballistics, etc...
It's ONLY drawback is a lack of "stopping power" and a lack of penetration, which is easily compensated for by the fact that you can carry significantly more ammunition and maintain a higher rate of fire with greater controllability. This is an assault rifle, dumbass.
If the US military needs a more powerful round, they've already got them. The 7.62 NATO carries significantly higher kinetic energy than either the 5.56 or the 7.62x39 with a higher velocity than the 7.62x39 and greater maximum range and terminal ballistics than either.
The US military certainly doesn't deserve the shit 7.62x39 which carries low kinetic energy for its cartridge dimensions, low velocity, comparatively high recoil...
If they need an upgrade, see 6.5 grendel, not 6.8 SPC.
Assault rifles are intended to use an intermediate cartridge. If the intermediate cartridge is incapable of high penetration or superb stopping power, this is a limitation of the fact that you're using an intermediate cartridge. Intermediate cartridges are an inherent compromise for the sake of maintaining fully automatic fire for the greatest versatility of your firearm's roles.
In that sense the 5.56 is the shit.
What drawback does the 6.5 grendel carry? That's easy, weight, cost of conversion
Frankly, I think modern armies are comically reliant on assault rifles and that all machine guns need to carry 7.62 NATO standard or heavier calibers. I also think that every squad needs a rifleman equipped with a battle rifle and that designated marksmen need to be employed in greater numbers.
That way you have the suppressive fire with the kinetic energy for stopping power, armor and cover penetration in every squad with assault capability for close quarters/flanking maneuvers.
I don't know what this fucking fixation with stopping power is all about. A pistol round in a submachine gun has shit for stopping power but its usefulness in close quarters is utterly undeniable short of the limitations of armor penetration.
The problem is somebody wanted a cure-all weapon, it's not my fault there's no such thing.
Better is a subjective term, unless used in context of application. The 7.62x39 does exactly what it was designed to do - function as an intermediate-range rifle cartridge effective up to 300m. Is it better than the 5.56 at 600m to win an accuracy contest? No. Will it punch through heavier cover within it's designed effective range? Yes.
So in an urban situation an AK-47 or an RPK can punch through buildings that an M249 cannot as easily do, nor can an M-16. I think that's important.
The ability to carry lots of ammunition is not the only consideration on a battlefield. If you can't kill your target then your ammo isn't doing its job. If one shot from a slightly larger cartridge can do the job that a 10 round machinegun burst from the other could not, then there's NO savings in weight from carrying around a larger number of underpowered cartridges. That's a power to weight trade off.
If you have to rely on your assault rifle without heavy machinegun or artillery support, it better work and work the first time.
You can argue how "good" the 5.56 is all you want. I really don't care about how good people think it is, only the terminal results, or lack thereof, of the round when used in real-world conflicts. You can call me a dumbass if you like, but I'd rather see better arms for NATO forces than make excuses for an underpowered cartridge that's overdue to be replaced.
Then I guess you must hate the 7.62x39 on account of the fact that its terminal ballistics basically amount to it tumbling straight through the body leaving a small cavity.
The 5.56 at least has a tendency to fragment, leaving a larger wound channel.
I'll say it again.....full auto, suppression, controllability. That shit is important. If it's not, why have an assault rifle in the first place? I'm of the opinion that full calibers are better than intermediate calibers....
You appear to disagree....so would you care to explain why you're in favor of a 7.62x39mm over a 7.62 NATO if that's the case?
If you're a dipshit blasting away with an AK-47 wasting rounds all over the landscape with an uncontrollable 600RPM 7.62x39mm full auto burst, chances are you aren't being very productive.
I'll bet it can chew away at concrete, so can a frag, heavy ordinance, an AT gun, artillery, etc, so who the fuck cares. Why is that an assault trooper's job?
I did not say I was in favor of 7.62x39 vs 7.62 NATO. You're making assumptions there.
The AK-47 is select-fire. It can shoot single shot as well as full auto. Also, the M-16A2 is not full auto, it is single-shot and burst. Material penetration is important for immediate response. Bad guys hide behind things.
Look, I'm only concerned with what's best for the troops, not winning a pissing contest over AK vs AR. I think the 5.56 is underpowered as a combat round and I'll stand by that.
It's not a pissing contest, it's fucking stupidity. The 5.56 is an excellent assault rifle cartridge and that's why it should remain the standard issue. I have an issue with using assault rifles as the standard issue firearm and I think it's lunacy to put it in an LMG (whoever came up with that idea should be shot).
"Bad guys hide behind things." That's the idea behind the assault rifle. First you pin them down with suppressive fire, then you send in assault teams to flank them.
You don't have to penetrate 1000m of cardboard for your rifle to be worth a shit, you put an LMG down and lay down heavy fire, lay down a few riflemen, then have a mofo run down the side with his M16 and snipe the MFers. He doesn't need to penetrate anything aside from soft tissue. And we've always got grenadiers with underslung grenade launchers. This is not even remotely an issue.
Give one motherfucker a 7.62 NATO and your penetration issue vanishes.
I can see that you're only interested in winning an argument. Very well then, to please your ego, you win, I will STFU now. I have nothing further to say as your mind is firmly set and additional discussion is a waste of my time. Good day.
The 5.56x45 is not consistent in its lethality. Sometimes it fragments, somtimes it dosen't. A 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 is much more consistent regardless of barrel length and distance. Upping the amount of grains would almost be like them applying that their round sucked in the first place and they should have adopted a heavier one. It does irk me a lot that the Americans made such an awful decision by going with the 5.56x45.
Had they designed something more ballisticly capable then the 5.56x45, then we wouldin't have the need for having a two cartridge system. The British intended to just have a .280 round because they knew their round was ballisticly capable at long ranges while still being light and low recoiling.
I suppose we are at a point and time where we can create mechanisms that soften recoil much more then a M16 can. So the recoil advantage of the 5.56x45 might be irrevelant when we start fielding those kind of weapons. I think the 7.62x39 is the best close combat round, but it's not perfect either.
It probably wouldin't solve much by going back to .45 acp since pistols see limited use. There wouldin't EBR's or M60's had they adopted a more ballisticly capable round that could have replaced both.
It is susprising. I've looked at gelatin tests of 9mm ball vs .45 acp ball and there wasen't a significant difference in how they wound. Ball ammo is always going to be limited in its killing potential. A lot of problems would be solved by allowing other types of bullet designs to be used. I suppose the reason why they still use a 1911 is because of convervastism. There are better pistols out there. While the Glock dosen't have the same romance, it is a better pistol then the 1911.
Actually did you know that the Russian 9mm is much more larger and much more effective but can hold just as much rounds in the gun as the nato 9mm does. !!!
Not only is the 1911 less reliable then modern pistols, it's more complex and expensive to make. Another thing is that it's single action only. Some will argue that it's ridiclous to use a single action only pistol when you have double action pistols. There's no worrying about a safety with a double action pistol or accidently killing somebody because the trigger is so light.
If we were to switch pistol calibers, I wouldin't want a .45 acp. You can't tell me we aren't capable of producing stuff better then A 100 year old cartridge. Pistols are hardly used or issued now a days. I think I remember reading an article that the Marines wanted M4's instead of M9 Berettas.
The .308 is more "deadlier" but overly powerful for an infantry rifle. I know that no matter how big a round is, it won't guarantee a one shot one kill. You fire as many rounds as it takes to kill the enemy regardless of caliber.
It really sounded ridiclous when I heard it too. A wounded enemy dosen't mean they are out of the fight. It's probably more work for the winning side to have to take wounded prisoners. They are better off dead.
The .280 was a lot better round then the 5.56x45 was and we didn't adopt it. The 5.56x45 was actually just going to be an inturn for when we adopted flechette rounds. That never happened. New rounds like the 6.8 and 6.5 grendel beat the 5.56x45 ballisticly. The 5.56x45 will still fail at longer ranges no matter how heavy you make it. You'll need that 7.62x51 to make up for its short comings. I'm not so sure the 5.56x45 is the ONLY rifle round that can penetrate a kevlar helmet at 500 yards.
I wish you'd included more of the results/commentary for the 7.62x39, (AK), round. What is there still makes a powerful point, though. Even the M249 couldn't match the AK's performance, since the SAW is handicapped by the 5.56 round it fires.
There was a lot more to the vid, but there is a 10 minute time limit on youtube. Included were tests of heavy weapons against bunkers, such as the at4 and 30mm chain gun.
Through wall, the manikin with the fragmentation vest. through the second wall, though the manikin with out a vest, through the locker room, out of the structure, in the court, and NOTHING BUT NET!
the /k/ board on 4chan. years and years ago. the original video is almost 20 minutes long IIRC, but youtube only allows 10 minutes, so I chopped it down.
in my opinion Rk 95 and Rk 62 are the best assault rifles the power of a ak and accurate as an m16 how can you top that ? check it out on wikipedia :)
test would be rather different if they were using m855 ammo
mtnred5439 3 months ago
@mtnred5439 they are
davesempai 3 months ago
@mtnred5439 i think you mean M855A1
HunterKiller308 2 weeks ago
fuck the m16
theboredman1 4 months ago
7.62x39 baby!!!
6613197192 4 months ago
@lHustonProductionsl knockdown power is a general term referring to the kinetic energy a particular round has with a particular barrel. a bullet with more kinetic energy has greater kill probability.
duh.
davesempai 5 months ago
@davesempai Except fired bullets have too much potential energy to really knock down any soft target, the just go through or tumble at least to expel it's energy. Stopping power however is another story...
rrabit44 2 months ago
Sorry, I meant 5.56
bender79er2 7 months ago
.556 is a worthless piece of crap. It was designed for killing squirrels and beavers and small shit like that. Not for people or people size animals
bender79er2 7 months ago
@bender79er2 Actually It was made for large coyotes, small deer, and other human sized game. It almost always meets 12+in of penetration in Ballistics gel and is a fine caliber for an intermediate rifle. Where did you study terminal ballistics? Chuck's Ballistics and Grill?
sluginsaddlebuckshot 6 months ago
@bender79er2 really?! so if i was to use my 10/22 on you, would you run? i mean comon now, it's only a .22 lr. no harm in it right? i've seen test of .22lr shooting thru 4, half inch plywood. im sure your skin and organs are tougher than that O_o. i think you need to stop talking out of your ass.
blaziankhmer 6 months ago
@blaziankhmer agreed...the .22lr is no joke...people that think it is are stupid...hollywood is bullshit...bullets kill...ask the 32 people that died at Virginia Tech...shooter had a glock19 "9mm" and a walther P-22 ".22lr" shot 62 people..32 died..try telling those 32 people the 9mm and .22lr are pussy rounds.
usmc2076 5 months ago
Awesome vid
bender79er2 7 months ago
Please not I love M-4s, M-16s and the 5.56 caliber in general. There are a lot of advantages to the round and to the rifles themselves. but I think it's clear there is no one caliber that can do it all. Now the real question is will the US ever move away from 5.56 towards one of the emerging rounds like the 6.8 SPC? Considering I have standardized on existing NATO cartridges, that may be a financial pain for me but I would love to move in that direction pending availability/affordability.
KeepTahoeRad 8 months ago
Also - regarding the AK in 7.62x39mm- what a great caliber in close to medium range fights! Many people argue the 7.62x39 round is a poor choice because of weight, bulk, and ballistics. Sub 250 yards I would be very confident with an AK in my hands and the knowledge that no matter what the enemy hides behind their is a good chance I can still reach out and touch them.
KeepTahoeRad 8 months ago
Sure in Afghanistan our soldiers are fighting a long range fight so the flatter trajectory of the 5.56 gives them an advantage with long distance situations and notably improved accuracy stemming from the tighter tolerances of the M4 - but as noted in the video above - under penetration is a serious issue they face. In any urban fighting situation the 7.62x39 would be a very formidable opponent - especially when combined with the impossible to break AK-47 and it's loose tolerances!
KeepTahoeRad 8 months ago
The M2 - It's simply amazing that John Browning's design has been in service since 1933. What a testament to his genius and the perfection of his designs! Let's not forget he also designed the M1911, Hi-Power, and the BAR. If it weren't for Mr. Browning and John Garand the United States might not be the haven of freedom it is today. Thank you both for your service to this country - we all owe you a great debt of gratitude!
KeepTahoeRad 8 months ago
@KeepTahoeRad
LOL, "haven of freedom." Thank God for Browning and Garand for giving us weapons we'll need to use to protect ourselves from the Federal regime, the greatest threat to Freedom in the history of the world.
themandylionofedessa 7 months ago
an AK is a wrecking ball. I buy cinder blocks for range targets. Double tap and you just have a pile of dust...
MrBallistics 8 months ago
More like DOD ammo.
eDiesel18 9 months ago
So in other words, when you truly have to kill EVERYONE inside a structure hop on the .50 and let er rip!
SpencerAK74M 11 months ago 8
5.45 7N10 penetrates more than 7.62M43
Ilia1138 11 months ago
@Ilia1138 yes, but there's the same 'problem' with the 5.45 that the 5.56 faces. They both lack the knockdown power that many people clamor for in their weaponry. personally I think they're both perfectly good rounds for the task they were designed for.
davesempai 11 months ago
@davesempai Well, a little stopping power is a contentious issue, i think that modernizated 5.45/5.56 will out perform 6.5/6.8.
But nobody can say that the 5.45 / 5.56 have small killability(In our russian term)
Ilia1138 11 months ago
@Ilia1138 agreed on the last point.
davesempai 11 months ago
@Ilia1138
The 5.56 and 5.45 rounds have similar penetration to M43 soviet, However the steel core 5.45/5.56 projectiles penetrate more than AP 7.62x39 due to smaller diameter....but there's a catch!
Steel core AP ammo does not expand well (5.56 doesn't frag like usual), tell me do you prefer maximum penetration (5mm) or maximum stopping power? (7.62mm)
This little dilemma is why I have abandoned intermediate rounds for shotguns and battle rifles (;
dukenukemthreed 9 months ago
@dukenukemthreed
I will chose 5.45 in all types of combat.
for close quarters battle i prefer bayonet.
Ilia1138 9 months ago
@Ilia1138
I like your style!
By the way I'm guessing you must be Slavic/Russian? (I'm part Yugo) Just a hunch!
What do you think of the Saiga 12 and H&K G3?
dukenukemthreed 9 months ago
@dukenukemthreed My father is russian, mother is half russian half mordvin. so i'm 70%Russian.
Saiga 12
pluses- Very reliable gun, shoot in different conditions, it is very easy to learn.
minuses - butt is non ergonomic.
G3
pluses - more ergonomic than FN FAL, and more reliable in my opinion.
minus - sights do not fit into such a powerful cartridge.
Ilia1138 9 months ago
@Ilia1138
You seem to have a sharp mind for weapons, perhaps we will have another discussion when something new is developed for the infantry (That could take a while)
Its been a good chat.
dukenukemthreed 9 months ago
@dukenukemthreed
Thanks.
Ilia1138 9 months ago
Thats a invalid argument/philosophy thats been spouted over the years. The 5.56 round was never "designed to wound". The resources argument doesn't take into account the effort to train/field the soldier, which can be saved if he recovers, but not is he dies.The morale argument is questionable at best (I'd rather my friend was wounded than dead). And a wounded combatant, even a badly or terminally wounded one; can still return fire and kill you. Dead is the best "combat ineffective".
flatspin11 1 year ago
"Combat ineffective" is as good as dead, maybe even better. You eat up a lot more of the enemy's resources if you wound an enemy combatant, instead of killing him. You only need one body bag for a kill - but a wound requires antibiotics, pain killers, bandages, medical attention/surgery.
A wounded combatant also creates a drop in morale, and reduces the overall combat effectiveness of remaining combatants.
SmokingSevens 1 year ago
Was the mannequin ok?
maxnmonica 1 year ago
An angel of death came down to Mikhail Kalashnikov and blessed him with the blue prints of AK47...Without a doubt the AK47 is a flawless battle rifle with total reliabilty and power...All around the world the most commonly used weapon of ANY category is the AK47! the americans know that the AK47 is THE most effective rifle but they wont use it cause its russian... American weapons suck...they need a lot of maintenance...ie their weapons aint rugged...delicate pussy ass 5.56 configured shithandle
a55kika18 1 year ago
@a55kika18 Incorrect. The Ak47 is an assault rifle, not a battle rifle. There is a difference. The kalashnikov pattern is the most prevalent weapon because it is very cheap to mass produce and very easy to use. The soviets handed them out like candy to anyone that wanted them. It is indeed rugged, but at a price. It sacrifices accuracy for that ruggedness.
American weapons do not 'suck.' The original m16 was indeed awful but it has been fixed. You need to do some research, not spout myths.
davesempai 1 year ago 19
@davesempai accuracy does not suffer, you just need to know HOW the gun shoots to shoot at distance, I routinly shoot my mak 90 to 300 yards with iron sights, it shoots a 8.5'' group at that distance, so head shots are a no go, but it easily hits chest size targets at that range. for farther that that I grab my ar10 in .308. the ar can hit a head size target at 300yards with good ammo, but i know few that can make a headshot at 300 yards without a scope. after 300yds power in both rounds sucks
bestbod85 1 year ago
@bestbod85 i mean, you just stated what I did. Up to and past 300 yards the kalashnikov's accuracy starts to suffer, where the m16 systems can shoot more accurately at further ranges. this is not opinion, it's just how it is.
davesempai 1 year ago
@davesempai yeah, but my point was that even tho the ar15 is more accurate, it's not by much and after 300 yards the 5.56 lacks the power to effectivly take down a threat, so the fact it's more accurate is moot, if you want accuracy AND power, go .308... and yes the original ar15 sucked, and they make better ones, but I'm not sure I want to trust my life with a weapon system that has a billion different configurations, the ak platform has not changed in decades, it just works
bestbod85 1 year ago
@bestbod85 the ak HAS changed. there are different configurations for different jobs, since no one pattern is perfect for everything. there are ak's in a myriad of calibers from 5.56, .308, and even shotgun gauges. the point I think you're trying to make is that combat these days takes place under 300 yards, so inherent accuracy is not of much use. That's why we don't use the bigger calibers that can kill at 2000 yards, because it isn't practical.
2 different weapons, 2 different uses.
davesempai 1 year ago
@davesempai YES, thats exactly my point!, choose the one that suites your specific need.... but what I said about the ak not changing was correct, i was not referring to the calibers, that HAS changed, I meant the way in which the rifle works has not... likewise the ar15 has ungergone many chages since they were originally fielded in vietnam.... but you get my point, great discussion! it's not often I can engage in intellegent convo with someone based on FACT, thanks again
bestbod85 1 year ago
@bestbod85 The 20 inches barrel of an M16 can be effectively let's say up to 350-400 yards. But the M4 will decrease the power eventually at the same or further range.
1stmdcap17 1 year ago
@davesempai The AK47 low accuracy is another myth you are spouting. I have shot my AK alongside a friend with an AR15 at Figure 11 targets 300 yards away, we both achieved similar scores.
realgungho 1 year ago
@realgungho it's not a myth. ask anyone who knows anything about these firearms and they'll tell you the same thing. the ar15 is indeed more inherently accurate then the kalashnikov. the very design of the weapon tells you this. it's not the same as the difference between a brown bess and a springfield 1861, but enough to note.
davesempai 1 year ago
@davesempai As I said, I have shot both the AR & the AK. For an assault rifle, they both do the same job to a similar effective range of 300M, they can both hit a Figure 11 easily. In combat you dont go for headshots.
realgungho 1 year ago
@realgungho I'm not talking video game dynaimcs, I mean in real life, the ak47 is not as accurate as an m4 or m16. the recoil is more significant for one, that alone is enough to affect the accuracy. But there are many other factors, not the least prominent of which is the differences in the cartridges. Search for "AK 47 vs M16 Comparing accuracy, and penetration" and watch the top listed video.
davesempai 1 year ago
@davesempai
Define fixed?
I think PATCHED is a better word, The HK416 would solve all the problems that remain, of course the Air-force has to get new interceptors for nonexistent air-attack threats first!
dukenukemthreed 9 months ago
@davesempai
When it comes to the AK-47 being inaccurate, I blame most of it on the round, not the barrel flex issue.
~2300 FPS for the 7.62X39 Poor sectional density
~3000 FPS for the 5.56X45 Good sectional density
~2900 FPS for the 5.45X39 Good sectional density, close to 5.56 numbers, but not quite.
Maybe AK's should come chambered in 7mm-08. Or do you think it'd be somewhat of a waste of a good round.
mikeb1444 7 months ago
@davesempai Speaking of myths, the AK 47 is only as accurate as it's operator within the effective range it was designed for, as with any weapon.
rrabit44 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@a55kika18 You are a moron.
DillontehHAXer 1 year ago
these comments are fucking stupid. theres no such thing as "stopping power". 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 are two completely different rounds. they have nearly the same muzzle energy....one is just small and extremely fast and the other is fat and slow. and you all talk about how the ak is so much better then the m4 when the truth is the other way around. give me one way in which the ak is better other than a few more inches of penetration. truth is you guys dont know what the fuck your talking bout so..
bearsfan1294 1 year ago
@bearsfan1294 Take an m4 and dump desert sand all over it, then try to fire. Do the same with any AK. Which one fires without having to field strip first?
Now give both weapons to illiterate peasants and tell them to fight their enemies. Which one will these peasants have more success with? Two different weapons, two different purposes. One is better then the other in one way and vice versa.
Check your tone dude bro. No one cares what you THINK you know, and no one is impressed by your attitude.
davesempai 1 year ago
@davesempai ++++1111111 GREAT comment!!! there is no best, there is only what is best for the task at hand, they are each designed for different jobs, I'm sick of dudes with bad attitude giving shit advice they picked up from cod4 too!
bestbod85 1 year ago
So was this test done with M193 ammo or M855 ammo also was the AK ammo lead core or steel core?
14WhiteAmerican88 1 year ago
@14WhiteAmerican88 m855 and lead core, standard infantry cartridges.
davesempai 1 year ago
so AK 47 owns the M16.
assym2006 1 year ago
@assym2006 not really. the m16 is a lot more accurate. they may both be assault rifles but they were designed with different uses in mind.
davesempai 1 year ago
@assym2006 suppose say you are a marine, using ak 47 to sweep out enemies in front, your partner at the back of the building guarding the rear door to make sure that no damned terrorists escaped would have got a free ticket to heaven from you.
happydurians 1 year ago
@happydurians
rule No 1 FRIENDLY FIRE IS NOT FRIENDLY EVER
you do not stand in the line of fire of your own side. I was a solider in the UK army back when we used the SLR a very powerful rifle more so than the AK47 . We did not shoot our own. Your scenario is foolish.
assym2006 1 year ago
@assym2006 army doesn't stand in the line of fire however he asked about marines (aka the few the proud the washed up on the beach) lmao
14WhiteAmerican88 1 year ago
@14WhiteAmerican88
marines don't shot each other either (well they not supposed too). Any soldier given a choice will take the round with the most stopping power.
assym2006 1 year ago
@assym2006 true but "stopping power" is not necessarily penetrating power there is more to ballistics then speed weight (which is why hollow points were outlawed by the geneva convention)
14WhiteAmerican88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assym2006 suppose say you are a marine, using ak 47 to sweep out enemies in front, your partner at the back of the building guarding the rear door to make sure that no damned terrorists escaped would have got a free ticket to heaven from you.
happydurians 1 year ago
@assym2006 wrong.
jgtheman84 1 year ago
@jgtheman84
every one go's on and on about the M16 being accurate out to 500 yards etc , etc.
I was in the UK army as a lad. Apart form in exercises all our real work was 200 yards or less. When I joined we used the SLR a true battle rifle firing the 7.62x51mm NATO. When we were forced to change to the SA80 firing the 5.62 we all thought it was terrible the round is total rubbish.
assym2006 1 year ago
@assym2006 yeah it is substantially weaker.
jgtheman84 1 year ago
@assym2006 the 7.62 is just so much larger than the 5.56 that you cant even compare the two.
jgtheman84 1 year ago
Damn, why didn't they test the 9mm?
jimothy183 1 year ago
@jimothy183 Because it would have gotten stuck in the plywood. It's not intended to shoot through houses. I tested a .357 magnum once on a cinder block (like in this video) and it just left a chip in it until I finally loaded the cartridge to maximum safe level. Even then it just broke the block and didn't penetrate.
buckstarchaser 1 year ago
Ok dumb question of the day, is there anything that will stop a .50 Cal? I mean seriously unless you make a 10 foot wall of steel, but I'm talking normal building reinforcements, what will stop a 50 BMG without any penetration?
adamslurch71 1 year ago
@adamslurch71 Chobham armor.
davesempai 1 year ago
@davesempai Ok now would that work against an M2 Browning?
adamslurch71 1 year ago
@adamslurch71 chobham is what the m1 abrams and Challenger Main Battle Tanks are wrapped in. you could fire nine yards worth of .50 at an MBT and it won't penetrate. It could take out ancillary systems like optics though.
you probably want something more mobile though. Enough concrete and sand will stop anything. The .50 bmg is such a heavy, powerful round that you're gonna need something heavy to stop it.
davesempai 1 year ago
@adamslurch71 i learned in afghanistan that adobe is one of the best bullet-stopping materials there is. Don't know how much it would take to stop a .50, though
silence12574 1 year ago
3:58 announcer says, "the rounds passed through a manikin and its frag vest..." no no no, it destroyed the manikin. why does the military always underplay things?
adamslurch71 1 year ago
@adamslurch71 The military doesn't rely on sensationalism to impress. That's why. They don't cater to the unimformed, reality TV obsessed civilian market.
mcorbin2316 1 year ago
@mcorbin2316 Im just saying call it as it is, nothing more. and for reality TV you want reality get off the couch and go outside.
adamslurch71 1 year ago
@adamslurch71 The pictures did not require the narrator to elaborate. Also, in the military, people have a different attitude about things and don't find much humor in the target (which represents themselves or the enemies) being obliterated.
buckstarchaser 1 year ago
@buckstarchaser No but it would give the realism of what you are about to do so you can prepare yourself better then thinking that all that protection will save you no matter what.
adamslurch71 1 year ago
Fuck the AK-47.
SuperUsinfantry 1 year ago
bullets are made for one purpose, to kill....
doodskie999 1 year ago
damn that .50 ripped that room up
the 240G looks like a nice squad auto
bottle2lip 1 year ago
XYNTA
p1ram1dol41k 1 year ago
our troops need m-16 in 7.62x39mm. they mke them,just fully auto versions. plus, them troops can us enemy ammo
motlencore89 1 year ago
XYNTA!
Gaga416D 1 year ago
This test doesn't take into account distance. Firing from 200 yards away is going to have less penetration than 20 yards.
Icix1 1 year ago
does anybody know if there exists FMJ bullets that go thru a human body without going into another body standing behind it??
RoyalAlba1 1 year ago
at first that sounds like a stupid question but I think I know what you are asking. and the answer is yes. sort of.
there is a bullet in development (last I checked) that is composed of different layers of different material. what the bullet hits determines how it reacts. Upon hitting flesh, the layers begin to shed, increasing the size of the wound. as the bullet hits denser flesh, more layers shed off, minimizing danger of a bullet exiting a target and hitting something on the other side.
davesempai 1 year ago
can citizens buy that ? whit a permit
RoyalAlba1 1 year ago
i just said it's in development, not even out yet. even when it does come out it will be very expensive.
davesempai 1 year ago
@davesempai do you know who is making it?
akshooter762 1 year ago
can't remember, it was on the history channel. they them testing it on slabs of beef and the damage it caused.
davesempai 1 year ago
@RoyalAlba1 you want that double kill
motlencore89 1 year ago
@RoyalAlba1 probably a pistol cartridge no rifle cartridge w/ fmj bullet, unless it were like a .22lr. this why law enforcement snipers use fragmentating bullets &/or hollow point...
SymAmineC8H11N 1 year ago
BTW assault rifles are selective fire because their meant to be versatile. An inability to be used effectively in full auto means you're not versatile. Battle rifle cartridges are limited (realistically) to semi automatic fire and the 7.62 isn't really combat effective in full auto. The 5.56 is really stretching the limits of what's capable in automatic firing modes.
Redfingers 2 years ago
Problem I have with the current m855 round is while it performs fine out of an m16, it's terrible out of the m4. the Mk 262 round being put into service solves that problem though, its heavier and has better ballistics. Not to mention it extends effective engagement range from 300m to 700 meters.
THAT I can get behind.
davesempai 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Notably, they replaced it with a 5.56 copy, the 5.45. Clearly the originators of the 7.62x39 design realize the utility of a light cartridge with low recoil, high velocity, flat trajectory....
The utility is you can throw it in an assault rifle with 800 RPM+ and not worry about shooting at the fuckin' clouds.
I say the 6.5 is superior to the 7.62 because it's higher velocity, higher kinetic energy, better terminal ballistics, more accurate, etc etc etc.
Redfingers 2 years ago
I'm sure they realized at the time it's a goddamn .22 with a higher powder charge, it's not designed to punch through concrete, it's designed to lay down accurate suppressive fire and be light enough for large quantities of ammunition.
How exactly is it failing in that role? Every round is designed for a purpose and thus its effectiveness can be measured by its ability to fulfill that role. The .223 is a bad-fucking-ass proven cartridge, the 7.62 is some awkward piece of shit the Ruskies replace
Redfingers 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If you have to rely on your assault rifle without heavy machinegun or artillery support, it better work and work the first time."
Who the fuck would want to do that? I tell you what, bro, what you're asking for is a battle rifle. All the 7.62x39 is is a more powerful round than the 5.56. That's it, that's the only advantage you obtain, with all the drawbacks that increased power entails. It's not like the US military or Remington shit the .223, they took this shit into account.
Redfingers 2 years ago
Thanks for posting the video. I've seen other tests like this where the 5.56 NATO fails to penetrate block, while the 7.62x39mm shattered the block. NATO needs to drop the 5.56 and adopt the 6.8 SPC.
PhoenixBird9000 2 years ago
The 7.62x39 is more powerful because it's a bigger round. The 5.56x45 NATO, regardless, fulfills its role as an intermediate cartridge admirably, with solid ballistics, including velocity, internal ballistics, kinetic energy output, and penetration. If you're ever confused as to why it's not as powerful as the .308....do yourself a favor and look at the cartridge dimensions.
At least the M16 can maintain a flat trajectory, high accuracy, and sustained controllability in full auto.
Redfingers 2 years ago
You seem like an AR fan assuming I'm an AK fan. I was not comparing weapon platforms. The 5.56 is simply underpowered when shooting through cover. This is a fact supported by military testing and battlefield results. NATO forces deserve a better cartridge with more stopping power and penetration. The 6.8SPC would fill this role admirably. Why oppose an upgrade?
The .308 is is also not a 7.62x39mm. You're confusing the Russian round with the 7.62x51mm NATO. The M240 shoots this round.
PhoenixBird9000 2 years ago
I'm not confusing anything, the .308 is the inch conversion of the 7.62. It's the exact same diameter round. It's not my fault that there are two different length cartridges with the same diameter (actually 4 that I know of).
The 7.62x39 should, in any case, provide clues to why it is more powerful by looking at the cartridge dimensions....it has a significantly larger diameter resulting in more kinetic energy.
Redfingers 2 years ago
The NATO forces do have a better cartridge than the 7.62x39, it's called the 5.56. Like I said it has significantly higher velocity, high accuracy, flat trajectories, good penetration, terminal ballistics, etc...
It's ONLY drawback is a lack of "stopping power" and a lack of penetration, which is easily compensated for by the fact that you can carry significantly more ammunition and maintain a higher rate of fire with greater controllability. This is an assault rifle, dumbass.
Redfingers 2 years ago
If the US military needs a more powerful round, they've already got them. The 7.62 NATO carries significantly higher kinetic energy than either the 5.56 or the 7.62x39 with a higher velocity than the 7.62x39 and greater maximum range and terminal ballistics than either.
The US military certainly doesn't deserve the shit 7.62x39 which carries low kinetic energy for its cartridge dimensions, low velocity, comparatively high recoil...
If they need an upgrade, see 6.5 grendel, not 6.8 SPC.
Redfingers 2 years ago
Assault rifles are intended to use an intermediate cartridge. If the intermediate cartridge is incapable of high penetration or superb stopping power, this is a limitation of the fact that you're using an intermediate cartridge. Intermediate cartridges are an inherent compromise for the sake of maintaining fully automatic fire for the greatest versatility of your firearm's roles.
In that sense the 5.56 is the shit.
What drawback does the 6.5 grendel carry? That's easy, weight, cost of conversion
Redfingers 2 years ago
Frankly, I think modern armies are comically reliant on assault rifles and that all machine guns need to carry 7.62 NATO standard or heavier calibers. I also think that every squad needs a rifleman equipped with a battle rifle and that designated marksmen need to be employed in greater numbers.
That way you have the suppressive fire with the kinetic energy for stopping power, armor and cover penetration in every squad with assault capability for close quarters/flanking maneuvers.
Redfingers 2 years ago
I don't know what this fucking fixation with stopping power is all about. A pistol round in a submachine gun has shit for stopping power but its usefulness in close quarters is utterly undeniable short of the limitations of armor penetration.
The problem is somebody wanted a cure-all weapon, it's not my fault there's no such thing.
Redfingers 2 years ago
Better is a subjective term, unless used in context of application. The 7.62x39 does exactly what it was designed to do - function as an intermediate-range rifle cartridge effective up to 300m. Is it better than the 5.56 at 600m to win an accuracy contest? No. Will it punch through heavier cover within it's designed effective range? Yes.
So in an urban situation an AK-47 or an RPK can punch through buildings that an M249 cannot as easily do, nor can an M-16. I think that's important.
PhoenixBird9000 2 years ago
The ability to carry lots of ammunition is not the only consideration on a battlefield. If you can't kill your target then your ammo isn't doing its job. If one shot from a slightly larger cartridge can do the job that a 10 round machinegun burst from the other could not, then there's NO savings in weight from carrying around a larger number of underpowered cartridges. That's a power to weight trade off.
PhoenixBird9000 2 years ago
If you have to rely on your assault rifle without heavy machinegun or artillery support, it better work and work the first time.
You can argue how "good" the 5.56 is all you want. I really don't care about how good people think it is, only the terminal results, or lack thereof, of the round when used in real-world conflicts. You can call me a dumbass if you like, but I'd rather see better arms for NATO forces than make excuses for an underpowered cartridge that's overdue to be replaced.
PhoenixBird9000 2 years ago
Then I guess you must hate the 7.62x39 on account of the fact that its terminal ballistics basically amount to it tumbling straight through the body leaving a small cavity.
The 5.56 at least has a tendency to fragment, leaving a larger wound channel.
I'll say it again.....full auto, suppression, controllability. That shit is important. If it's not, why have an assault rifle in the first place? I'm of the opinion that full calibers are better than intermediate calibers....
Redfingers 2 years ago
You appear to disagree....so would you care to explain why you're in favor of a 7.62x39mm over a 7.62 NATO if that's the case?
If you're a dipshit blasting away with an AK-47 wasting rounds all over the landscape with an uncontrollable 600RPM 7.62x39mm full auto burst, chances are you aren't being very productive.
I'll bet it can chew away at concrete, so can a frag, heavy ordinance, an AT gun, artillery, etc, so who the fuck cares. Why is that an assault trooper's job?
Redfingers 2 years ago
I did not say I was in favor of 7.62x39 vs 7.62 NATO. You're making assumptions there.
The AK-47 is select-fire. It can shoot single shot as well as full auto. Also, the M-16A2 is not full auto, it is single-shot and burst. Material penetration is important for immediate response. Bad guys hide behind things.
Look, I'm only concerned with what's best for the troops, not winning a pissing contest over AK vs AR. I think the 5.56 is underpowered as a combat round and I'll stand by that.
PhoenixBird9000 2 years ago
It's not a pissing contest, it's fucking stupidity. The 5.56 is an excellent assault rifle cartridge and that's why it should remain the standard issue. I have an issue with using assault rifles as the standard issue firearm and I think it's lunacy to put it in an LMG (whoever came up with that idea should be shot).
"Bad guys hide behind things." That's the idea behind the assault rifle. First you pin them down with suppressive fire, then you send in assault teams to flank them.
Redfingers 2 years ago
You don't have to penetrate 1000m of cardboard for your rifle to be worth a shit, you put an LMG down and lay down heavy fire, lay down a few riflemen, then have a mofo run down the side with his M16 and snipe the MFers. He doesn't need to penetrate anything aside from soft tissue. And we've always got grenadiers with underslung grenade launchers. This is not even remotely an issue.
Give one motherfucker a 7.62 NATO and your penetration issue vanishes.
Redfingers 2 years ago
I can see that you're only interested in winning an argument. Very well then, to please your ego, you win, I will STFU now. I have nothing further to say as your mind is firmly set and additional discussion is a waste of my time. Good day.
PhoenixBird9000 2 years ago
Good gtfo.
Redfingers 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
The 5.56x45 is not consistent in its lethality. Sometimes it fragments, somtimes it dosen't. A 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 is much more consistent regardless of barrel length and distance. Upping the amount of grains would almost be like them applying that their round sucked in the first place and they should have adopted a heavier one. It does irk me a lot that the Americans made such an awful decision by going with the 5.56x45.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
The M193 wasen't perfect so that's why they change to the M885. The penetration wasen't so good on the M193. A .22 lr has killed a lot of people.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Upping the grains would probably fix some of the problems. Even with 20 inch barrel, the M885 won't fragment past
150m anyways. They originally wanted to create a 6mm SAW round because the 5.56x45 was lacking in that area, but they didn't because of logistics.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
I don't think it's the worst round. I just think there are rounds that do the job better new and old.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Had they designed something more ballisticly capable then the 5.56x45, then we wouldin't have the need for having a two cartridge system. The British intended to just have a .280 round because they knew their round was ballisticly capable at long ranges while still being light and low recoiling.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
It's so much a question of money, it's politics. The military wastes millions of dollars each year so I'm sure they afford it.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
I suppose we are at a point and time where we can create mechanisms that soften recoil much more then a M16 can. So the recoil advantage of the 5.56x45 might be irrevelant when we start fielding those kind of weapons. I think the 7.62x39 is the best close combat round, but it's not perfect either.
esh325 2 years ago
I suppose if recoil is a big deal then they could reduce the powder charge of the .308. That's what the Spanish did atleast.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
It probably wouldin't solve much by going back to .45 acp since pistols see limited use. There wouldin't EBR's or M60's had they adopted a more ballisticly capable round that could have replaced both.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
It is susprising. I've looked at gelatin tests of 9mm ball vs .45 acp ball and there wasen't a significant difference in how they wound. Ball ammo is always going to be limited in its killing potential. A lot of problems would be solved by allowing other types of bullet designs to be used. I suppose the reason why they still use a 1911 is because of convervastism. There are better pistols out there. While the Glock dosen't have the same romance, it is a better pistol then the 1911.
esh325 2 years ago
Actually did you know that the Russian 9mm is much more larger and much more effective but can hold just as much rounds in the gun as the nato 9mm does. !!!
grunticus09 2 years ago
I'm a bit confused by what you are saying. The Russians replaced their 9x18 makarov round with the 9x19 parabellum round.
esh325 2 years ago
thats not true, your probably confused with a copy. they still use the makarov.
grunticus09 1 year ago
Not only is the 1911 less reliable then modern pistols, it's more complex and expensive to make. Another thing is that it's single action only. Some will argue that it's ridiclous to use a single action only pistol when you have double action pistols. There's no worrying about a safety with a double action pistol or accidently killing somebody because the trigger is so light.
esh325 2 years ago
If we were to switch pistol calibers, I wouldin't want a .45 acp. You can't tell me we aren't capable of producing stuff better then A 100 year old cartridge. Pistols are hardly used or issued now a days. I think I remember reading an article that the Marines wanted M4's instead of M9 Berettas.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
I suppose any intermediate cartridge can have provide that quickness.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
The .308 is more "deadlier" but overly powerful for an infantry rifle. I know that no matter how big a round is, it won't guarantee a one shot one kill. You fire as many rounds as it takes to kill the enemy regardless of caliber.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
All rounds will kill things. It just depends how good they are at it.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
It really sounded ridiclous when I heard it too. A wounded enemy dosen't mean they are out of the fight. It's probably more work for the winning side to have to take wounded prisoners. They are better off dead.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
The .280 was a lot better round then the 5.56x45 was and we didn't adopt it. The 5.56x45 was actually just going to be an inturn for when we adopted flechette rounds. That never happened. New rounds like the 6.8 and 6.5 grendel beat the 5.56x45 ballisticly. The 5.56x45 will still fail at longer ranges no matter how heavy you make it. You'll need that 7.62x51 to make up for its short comings. I'm not so sure the 5.56x45 is the ONLY rifle round that can penetrate a kevlar helmet at 500 yards.
esh325 2 years ago
Comment removed
MountainRecluse 2 years ago
I wish you'd included more of the results/commentary for the 7.62x39, (AK), round. What is there still makes a powerful point, though. Even the M249 couldn't match the AK's performance, since the SAW is handicapped by the 5.56 round it fires.
sonofliberty78 2 years ago
There was a lot more to the vid, but there is a 10 minute time limit on youtube. Included were tests of heavy weapons against bunkers, such as the at4 and 30mm chain gun.
davesempai 2 years ago
with the .50 cal its no question, there gonna go through what ever you put in front of it
Dafroft 2 years ago
what about the Sun?
davesempai 2 years ago
idk, try it
Dafroft 2 years ago
Through wall, the manikin with the fragmentation vest. through the second wall, though the manikin with out a vest, through the locker room, out of the structure, in the court, and NOTHING BUT NET!
YOUPOINT09 2 years ago
i love this video reminds me of rock and roll girls with guns
gasdorf 2 years ago
the guy sounds like a robot ...
3 round burst
and a burst
a single burst
hummm i though a burst means 3 shots
then he says 10 bursts
this is very bursty
gasdorf 2 years ago
a burst just means multiple successive shots. it can be anywhere from 2 to 200. some mp5 sub-machine guns have 2 round bursts as do many rifles.
davesempai 2 years ago
awesome video, where did you find this??
wavelength1970 2 years ago
the /k/ board on 4chan. years and years ago. the original video is almost 20 minutes long IIRC, but youtube only allows 10 minutes, so I chopped it down.
davesempai 2 years ago
in my opinion Rk 95 and Rk 62 are the best assault rifles the power of a ak and accurate as an m16 how can you top that ? check it out on wikipedia :)
NarowAR07 2 years ago
is that Finish shit?
zheka1780 2 years ago
there is no such thing as "finish shit" finns makes the best of the best ;)
NarowAR07 2 years ago
rk95 or rk62 can't be better than AK-10x series. It's like saying China's Nokias is better than Nokia's from Finland.
zheka1780 2 years ago