Liberal Forum

RedheadedStranger » 19 Feb 2024, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 12:33 pm

What's so funny is the 5.56 was specifically designed to tumble and wound verses killing instantly... as to tie up the enemies resources on the battlefield tending to wounded casualties instead of stepping over dead ones.

Plus, the troops could carry more ammunition on their person, due to the smaller size and weight of the 5.56 cartridge.

a 5.56 is not even quite the size of a .22 cal bullet. Only behind a lot larger powder load.

The "tumbling" would ONLY make it less accurate and incapable of doing much without a fully automatic mode of operation to even come close to hitting a target. Hate to  tell the "Colonel", but his testimony is PURE **** since the barrels of an AR-15 are bored to NOT cause tumbling. If there is rifling all the way to the end of the barrel, it spins, not tumbles. To get a bullet to tumble, it takes about the last 2 inches of the barrel to be smooth bore and then an interference side barrel at bullet emergence.

RedheadedStranger » 19 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 1:06 pm

Just gonna leave this right here...


 
​​​​​

A full-auto M16 only has the cyclic rate of firing 13 rounds per second.   He must be holding the new cryonic-powered M4 cubed.  Not only will it fire 30 bullets within .5 seconds, but it ejects the brass at mach 3.
 

Skans » 19 Feb 2024, 4:29 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:29 pm

It was never designed for that.  It was deigned for its weigh (ease of carrying more ammo)t, light recoil,  flat trajectory and retention of power over longer distances. No one designs a bullet to "tumble" or "wound".

What I have always read was that the round tumbled upon impact, not when it was in flight... and that this was more pronounced in the original configuration and was somewhat remedied by the introduction of the spitzer (boat tail) configuration. The boat tail actually helped with accuracy as well.

It could be that the "meant to wound" argument came about because the military geniuses that decides to make the platform and new cartridge the standard realized after the fact that it lacked stopping power, so they had to dress it up somehow.

It's always been my understanding that the "wound instead of kill" argument was even made to the troops in combat during training as well, but I could be wrong on that one too.

 
 

Skans » 19 Feb 2024, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:33 pm

I have news for you.  .22LR, .25, .32, .380, 9mm largo, 38 special, .357, 9mm, 10mm, 44 special, 44 magnum, 45acp, 45 long colt, .223, 5.56, 5.62x39, 7 millimeter, .308, 7.62x51, etc. can all kill school children.

Zzzzzzzzzzz...
 

Skans » 19 Feb 2024, 4:29 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:29 pm

It was never designed for that.  It was deigned for its weigh (ease of carrying more ammo)t, light recoil,  flat trajectory and retention of power over longer distances. No one designs a bullet to "tumble" or "wound".

Ignorant **** twaddle.

Skans » 19 Feb 2024, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:33 pm

I have news for you.  .22LR, .25, .32, .380, 9mm largo, 38 special, .357, 9mm, 10mm, 44 special, 44 magnum, 45acp, 45 long colt, .223, 5.56, 5.62x39, 7 millimeter, .308, 7.62x51, etc. can all kill school children.

And 12 gauge, 20 gauge, knives, machetes, pipe bombs, baseball bats, etc etc...


 

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:48 pm

Ignorant **** twaddle.

You really don't know all that much about guns, do you.  That's ok if you don't, we're glad to educate you.
 

RedheadedStranger » 19 Feb 2024, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:46 pm

What I have always read was that the round tumbled upon impact, not when it was in flight... and that this was more pronounced in the original configuration and was somewhat remedied by the introduction of the spitzer (boat tail) configuration. The boat tail actually helped with accuracy as well.

It could be that the "meant to wound" argument came about because the military geniuses that decides to make the platform and new cartridge the standard realized after the fact that it lacked stopping power, so they had to dress it up somehow.

It's always been my understanding that the "wound instead of kill" argument was even made to the troops in combat during training as well, but I could be wrong on that one too.

The problem with the military's 5.56 round has more to do with it being jacketed ball ammo, or even steel core ammo as opposed to a hollow point expanding round. Unless it hits bone or vital organs, it's basically going straight through in a lot of instances.  So, yes, when it goes straight through, it only wounds.
 

Skans » 19 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 5:01 pm

You really don't know all that much about guns, do you.  That's ok if you don't, we're glad to educate you.

https://www.everydaymarksman.co/resourc ... try-rifle/

Put another way, the tumbling effect of the .22 at closer velocities made it just as effective, if not slightly more so, than the tested .30 caliber M2 ball



ibid.

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 5:26 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 5:26 pm

Put another way, the tumbling effect of the .22 at closer velocities made it just as effective, if not slightly more so, than the tested .30 caliber M2 ball

ibid.

I bet I could shoot you in the chest with a .38 from five yards or a .45 at five yards, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 
 

Skans » 19 Feb 2024, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:43 pm

A full-auto M16 only has the cyclic rate of firing 13 rounds per second.   He must be holding the new cryonic-powered M4 cubed.  Not only will it fire 30 bullets within .5 seconds, but it ejects the brass at mach 3.

I definitely wouldn't want to be in the lane next to him at the range, I can tell ya that much.

LOL
 

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 5:21 pm

https://www.everydaymarksman.co/resourc ... try-rifle/

The article you quote summarizes what I've been saying:

" In general, it can be stated that if the combined weight of rifle and ammunition is fixed at 15 lbs, a man carrying the Cal .21 rifle would have an expectation of killing about 2-1/2 times as many targets as with the M-1 rifle. The range at which this occurs depends on the amount of charge. The 0.6 charge rifle is most effective at the short ranges because of the lighter ammunition. The 1.0 charge is most effective at the longer ranges because of its flatter trajectory. The final curves of the relative overall expected number of kills show that rifles with heavy charges are preferable at the longer ranges, but those with the lighter charges are made preferable at the short ranges. It is beyond the scope of the present report to state which is the optimum rifle, for this would depend on the most probably combat range…it might be concluded that a rifle that is more effective at ranges up to 500 yards should be favored over one that is more effective at ranges greater than 500 yards."

Focus on "killing about 2.5 times as many target as the M1" at shorter ranges.   I don't know why it references a .21 caliber rifle, as I'm not familiar with such.  I'll assume that's a typo referring to .22.  But, the article seems to have been written in 1966?
 

RedheadedStranger » 19 Feb 2024, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 6:38 pm

I bet I could shoot you in the chest with a .38 from five yards or a .45 at five yards, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

You'd miss with both.

Skans » 20 Feb 2024, 8:56 am » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 8:56 am

The article you quote summarizes what I've been saying:

" In general, it can be stated that if the combined weight of rifle and ammunition is fixed at 15 lbs, a man carrying the Cal .21 rifle would have an expectation of killing about 2-1/2 times as many targets as with the M-1 rifle. The range at which this occurs depends on the amount of charge. The 0.6 charge rifle is most effective at the short ranges because of the lighter ammunition. The 1.0 charge is most effective at the longer ranges because of its flatter trajectory. The final curves of the relative overall expected number of kills show that rifles with heavy charges are preferable at the longer ranges, but those with the lighter charges are made preferable at the short ranges. It is beyond the scope of the present report to state which is the optimum rifle, for this would depend on the most probably combat range…it might be concluded that a rifle that is more effective at ranges up to 500 yards should be favored over one that is more effective at ranges greater than 500 yards."

Focus on "killing about 2.5 times as many target as the M1" at shorter ranges.   I don't know why it references a .21 caliber rifle, as I'm not familiar with such.  I'll assume that's a typo referring to .22.  But, the article seems to have been written in 1966?

with heavy charges are preferable at the longer ranges, but those with the lighter charges are made preferable at the short ranges.

Hence the conversion from Battle Rifle and Machine Gun to Assault Rifle.

Based on detailed WW1 studies by German analysts.

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 9:04 am

Hence the conversion from Battle Rifle and Machine Gun to Assault Rifle.

Based on detailed WW1 studies by German analysts.

Assault Rifles ARE machine guns, by definition. Particularly by German definition.   The only real difference between a "battle rifle" and an "Assault Rifle" is that the assault rifle uses smaller, lower-power cartridges.  Battle rifles aren't much bigger or heavier than assault rifles.
Battle Rifle (FN FAL)

Assault Rifle (FN FNC)

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 9:04 am

Hence the conversion from Battle Rifle and Machine Gun to Assault Rifle.

Based on detailed WW1 studies by German analysts.

The Germans also wanted the 12 gauge pump shotgun banned from use in combat because it was so effective and destructive as well.


 

From what I understand, they developed the "machine pistol" (submachine gun) to counter it in the trenches when the Allies refused to quit using it.

 
 

Skans » 20 Feb 2024, 8:56 am » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 8:56 am

The article you quote summarizes what I've been saying:

" In general, it can be stated that if the combined weight of rifle and ammunition is fixed at 15 lbs, a man carrying the Cal .21 rifle would have an expectation of killing about 2-1/2 times as many targets as with the M-1 rifle. The range at which this occurs depends on the amount of charge. The 0.6 charge rifle is most effective at the short ranges because of the lighter ammunition. The 1.0 charge is most effective at the longer ranges because of its flatter trajectory. The final curves of the relative overall expected number of kills show that rifles with heavy charges are preferable at the longer ranges, but those with the lighter charges are made preferable at the short ranges. It is beyond the scope of the present report to state which is the optimum rifle, for this would depend on the most probably combat range…it might be concluded that a rifle that is more effective at ranges up to 500 yards should be favored over one that is more effective at ranges greater than 500 yards."

Focus on "killing about 2.5 times as many target as the M1" at shorter ranges.   I don't know why it references a .21 caliber rifle, as I'm not familiar with such.  I'll assume that's a typo referring to .22.  But, the article seems to have been written in 1966?

The 5.56 round isn't quite a .22 cal, but a .2188+ caliber. That's the why in the reference.

R.Suave » 20 Feb 2024, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 9:00 am

You'd miss with both.

With your caved in narrow assed chest, you may be right.
 

R.Suave » 19 Feb 2024, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 4:48 pm

Ignorant **** twaddle.

I am guessing your stance is he is incorrect concerning the military wanting a lighter weapon.