The firearm thread

**jrandom** · 8th February 2007, 16:39

Originally Posted by patd0g

Military rifles still have bayonet lugs...

Well, um... what if the bayonet breaks? Eh? Eh?

Then I've got you and your plastic poodle-shooter right where I want 'em.

Anyway, you can't hammer in tent pegs with a bayonet. My Nagant served that purpose well the last time we went camping.

**0arbreaka** · 8th February 2007, 17:07

you'll find your entrenching tool/spade works pretty well hammering in tent pegs

btw, by plastic poodle shooter do you mean steyr?

**jrandom** · 8th February 2007, 17:30

Originally Posted by patd0g

btw, by plastic poodle shooter do you mean steyr?

Yes.

I hope I never get shot by a 5.56.

Such an undignified way to die.

It'd almost be as though I wasn't worth the extra bullet weight.

**Wolf** · 8th February 2007, 17:48

Originally Posted by Fish

I hope I never get shot by a 5.56.

Such an undignified way to die.

If you do die, that is. The round was apparently chosen because it was more likely to maim than kill, thus taking more of the enemy out of the combat (removing the injured soldier from the battleground) than killing one of them would.
The M-16's a toy as well - I was stunned that I could hold one one-handed and aim it like a pistol. You'd probably have more effect clubbing your opponent with a feather duster than with the snap-happy Lincoln Toy.

**jrandom** · 8th February 2007, 18:03

Originally Posted by Wolf

The round was apparently chosen because it was more likely to maim than kill...

Oh, pig's arse. It was chosen because it could deliver more kinetic energy on a greater number of targets within typical engagement range for a given weight of ammunition.

If we're going to beat dead horses, can we do .45 vs 9mm instead?

**doc** · 8th February 2007, 18:03

Originally Posted by Wolf

If you do die, that is. The round was apparently chosen because it was more likely to maim than kill, thus taking more of the enemy out of the combat (removing the injured soldier from the battleground) than killing one of them would.
The M-16's a toy as well - I was stunned that I could hold one one-handed and aim it like a pistol. You'd probably have more effect clubbing your opponent with a feather duster than with the snap-happy Lincoln Toy.

much better lugging one of them around all day than an SLR. All depends on what the task is aye.

"The round was apparently chosen because it was more likely to maim than kill, thus taking more of the enemy out of the combat (removing the injured soldier from the battleground) than killing one of them would."

Don't know where this came from the other one was that it was primarily designed for Artic conditions, you would die from hypothermia because of blood loss. I think young soldiers like to believe in things like this. Ask the current soldiers what they prefer and you might be surprised how simple their requirements are and it aint science. Or playstation

**Wolf** · 8th February 2007, 18:29

Originally Posted by Fish

Anyway, you can't hammer in tent pegs with a bayonet. My Nagant served that purpose well the last time we went camping.

Hmmm, must be a common thing - the stock on the one I bought looked like it had been used for hammering something...

**Wolf** · 8th February 2007, 18:37

Originally Posted by Fish

Oh, pig's arse. It was chosen because it could deliver more kinetic energy on a greater number of targets within typical engagement range for a given weight of ammunition.

OK. I was just going by what I was told. I wasn't sure of the accuracy, hence "apparently" - perhaps I should have said "allegedly".

Originally Posted by Fish

If we're going to beat dead horses, can we do .45 vs 9mm instead?

Yeah, that could be good for a laugh - and we could have a pool on how long before the thread gets consigned to PD

**doc** · 8th February 2007, 18:46

Originally Posted by Fish

Oh, pig's arse. It was chosen because it could deliver more kinetic energy on a greater number of targets within typical engagement range for a given weight of ammunition.

Yep I think that when the bean counters took over tactics, been like that ever since Vietnam era where the military couldn't use ultimate force to achieve its objective instead it was a show and tell. Meaning winning wasn't important anymore . Bravo 20 was the final wake up. Before that incident the premise was we will alway get you back. That incident bought to the world spotlight that it was now not cost effective. And highlighted in the Book Soldier 5. Recently in Afganistan 4 guys from 40 commando were world headline news in a dramatic attempt to do a Hot Casevac. Betcha the management are still trying to explain that one.

**Smokin** · 8th February 2007, 18:46

Originally Posted by Jonny Rotten

ive managed to get ahold of the importers factory in albany who recons he will do it for 495 with bag and ammo.... not bad aye

Was that a price for Joe Bloggs or a one off special for you?

**scumdog** · 8th February 2007, 20:13

Originally Posted by Fish

Oh, pig's arse. It was chosen because it could deliver more kinetic energy on a greater number of targets within typical engagement range for a given weight of ammunition.

If we're going to beat dead horses, can we do .45 vs 9mm instead?

Hmmm, I remember in the early 60's in The Amercan Rifleman and Guns & Ammo that the 223 was 'aimed' at the arctic circle scenario where even a slight wound was going to tie up people fixing you as stripping off without shelter in those conditions was ill advised, ergo it meant your buddies had to get you to shelter before they could start treating you.

Just my old memory, not always 100%.

**Dai** · 8th February 2007, 21:06

It has been common knowledge in military circles that if a man is killed it take just him/her out of the picture but if a person is wounded that up to 5 or more individuals could be tied up caring for him.

5.56 is a light round to carry. If it doesnt kill it wounds. 2 objectives covered, less weight for the soldier on the ground to carry and he doesnt have to be a crack marksman just an adequate shot.

In the American Civil war, where the standard bullet size was a .58 caliber, the most feared wound was from the lowly .22.

Why?

Because the .58 left a very large hole and the bullet was easily found and extracted. It was a fearsome wound but could be repaired.

The .22 was easily deflected and could take a zig zag path in the body of the wounded soldier. If it did so it would lead to blood poisoning and infection if not found in a few days. In those days there was no x-ray so they had to probe for the bullet. There was no antibiotics so infection was lethal.

There were a lot of Smith and Wesson #1 and #1 1/2 pistols bought by the soldieirs as personal weapons. These were chambered for the lowly .22.

The .22, the longest produced cartridge round ever. Originally produced in 1852 and still going strong pretty much unchanged.

**DUCATI*HARD** · 8th February 2007, 21:08

i got a slug gun 1000feet per sec,does that count.

**Dai** · 8th February 2007, 21:13

Originally Posted by DUCATI*HARD

i got a slug gun 1000feet per sec,does that count.

Pnuematic weapons have been around for a long time so of course your slug gun counts.

In the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon himself drafted an order that any enemy soldier caught with an "air" gun was to be executed imediately without trial.

The air rifles of the day were more accurat than the standard firearms, shot further and one couldnt identify where it was fired from as there was no puff of smoke from the powder. Hence they were an unfair weapon.