The firearm thread

[Jonny Rotten]

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

seemed to be an on going price.....it was at the sportsway gun shed factory shop in albany.

no 38 peirmark drive.....just off bush road...there is a sign out front that says guns and ammo... the guy is there wednesday thursday friday who i talked to....

[Wolf]

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.

And they were a damn sight quieter than a regular firearm.

They were looked upon as "assassin's weapons", hence the immediate execution - the bloke with the air rifle was not deemed to be a "soldier" and so was accorded no rights.

I've seen some pictures of antique air rifles - would utterly love one (now that Napoleon's troops are nowhere near...) It would probably take ages to build up the pressure in the reservoir with the squeeze bulb - another argument for the "assassin" theory, considering a soldier could probably load and fire several times to one sneaky shot from the air rifle.

A good pneumatic can be quite an imposing weapon - 10 pumps of a fairly modern pneumatic was enough to drive a .22 waisted slug an inch and a half into a seasoned round post so I sure as hell wouldn't want to get shot by it.

Regrettably we didn't have a .22lr on hand for a comparison shot into the same post.

[scumdog]

And they were a damn sight quieter than a regular firearm.

They were looked upon as "assassin's weapons", hence the immediate execution - the bloke with the air rifle was not deemed to be a "soldier" and so was accorded no rights.

I've seen some pictures of antique air rifles - would utterly love one (now that Napoleon's troops are nowhere near...) It would probably take ages to build up the pressure in the reservoir with the squeeze bulb - another argument for the "assassin" theory, considering a soldier could probably load and fire several times to one sneaky shot from the air rifle.

A good pneumatic can be quite an imposing weapon - 10 pumps of a fairly modern pneumatic was enough to drive a .22 waisted slug an inch and a half into a seasoned round post so I sure as hell wouldn't want to get shot by it.

Regrettably we didn't have a .22lr on hand for a comparison shot into the same post.

Love using air-weapons, the pump-up models especially so as there's no jarring or 'twang' from the piston/spring, just an uncanny lack of movement of te rifle.

[pritch]

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.

Sorry, he was right.

It's true the greater number of rounds for the weight was a consideration but I seem to recall the equation says that it takes seven people to look after a wounded enemy so the generals prefer wounding him to killing him. (Or her?)

The soldiers at the sharp end don't give a shit about that though, they just want to put him on his arse and a 7.62 does that a lot faster than a 5.56.

[Wolf]

Love using air-weapons, the pump-up models especially so as there's no jarring or 'twang' from the piston/spring, just an uncanny lack of movement of te rifle.

Yeah, my piston model jars the rifle forward in a kind of "anti-recoil" that shakes the barrel.
Always wanted a Walther LG-3 pneumatic air pistol (competition target pistol) and one of their competition pneumatic air rifles.

I have a .177 Walther CP-99 CO2-powered pistol (made by Umarex, these days). Would dearly love a P-99 chambered for 9mm.

[Wolf]

The soldiers at the sharp end don't give a shit about that though, they just want to put him on his arse and a 7.62 does that a lot faster than a 5.56.

I read a good essay by American motorcycle and firearm enthusiast Chuck Hawk suggesting that the military should switch to .243 Winchester rounds - being more lethal than the .223 but not as heavy as the .308/7.62x51. He had some good points - the flat trajectory, ability to penetrate scrub better than a .223, doesn't kick as hard as a 7.62 (great for trainees or conscripts) and so forth.

I certainly agree the .243 is a great calibre, my Miroku was a beauty to shoot and sodding accurate. Would like a Mauser actioned rifle in .243 - there are a few around.

[jrandom]

Sorry, he was right.

With all due respect, no, he wasn't.

I seem to recall the equation says that it takes seven people to look after a wounded enemy so the generals prefer wounding him to killing him. (Or her?)

We've covered this before in other threads. Ad fucking nauseam.

What do you think soldiers do with a dead guy? Leave him there?

they just want to put him on his arse and a 7.62 does that a lot faster than a 5.56.

No it doesn't.

I've never shot a man, but I've shot plenty of things on four legs with a variety of rifles, and I've observed that a 30-caliber FMJ can punch a neat little hole through a non-vital part of something without killing it, or even stopping it, just as easily as a 22-caliber can. Bullet construction is much more important than weight or caliber when it comes to the severity of the wounding effect in medium-sized game (like humans).

Range and penetration are the only advantages of 30-caliber bullets in a military context. Terminal ballistics don't enter into it.

[Dai]

....What do you think soldiers do with a dead guy? Leave him there?


......

Too fucking right they do.

Its after a battle that the pioneers, grave registration etc become involved.

I've been on active service and if my buddy goes down we were taught to make him comfortable, if time and circumstances permit, and leave him. If it is fatal the worst thing one can do is to hang around. It means that the person or persons who shot him are probably still around and you could be next.

A soldiers major responsibility is to stay alive.

[0arbreaka]

I am a mine of useless information

yes your are

[Dai]

yes your are

Glad you agree.

[jrandom]

I've been on active service and if my buddy goes down we were taught to make him comfortable, if time and circumstances permit, and leave him...

I was kind of trying to make the point that in terms of a unit's effectiveness in battle, speaking from a purely uneducated standpoint, I don't really see how wounding a soldier would be any better than killing him.

Heck, unless the wound is particularly disabling, that guy can still present a threat. Better if he's dead. As you point out, his buddies are going to keep shooting back - they're not going to suddenly down guns and carry him away on a stretcher.

The original question was whether the 5.56 NATO cartridge was selected for terminal ballistics advantages. I call bullshit to that idea. If it's more likely to wound than kill, that's a disadvantage due to reduced effectiveness.

Some quotes from the relevant Wikipedia page:

... there had been criticism that the 7.62 mm round was too powerful for modern assault rifles, causing excessive recoil, and that the weight of the ammunition did not allow for enough "firepower" in modern combat.

Controllability of recoil and total round count for a given weight. Nothing to do with needing a smaller round to wound instead of kill.

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the round, especially the first-round kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation. Typically, this only becomes an issue at longer ranges (over 100 meters) but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch barrel of the U.S. military's M4 Carbine can be particularly prone to this problem. At short ranges, the round is extremely effective, and its tendency to fragment reduces the risk to bystanders when used at close range. However, if the round is moving too slowly to reliably fragment on impact, the wound size and potential to incapacitate a target is greatly reduced...

It's all about incapacitation of the target. Whether or not the bad guy dies is entirely beside the point. More damage when the bullet hits is always a good thing. If you could parcel the ballistics of a .50BMG into a .223-sized package, I suspect the US military would love to hear from you.

The whole 'wounded soldiers take up more resources' argument was simply never a factor in the establishment of the 5.56x45 cartridge standard. It might make some sort of intuitive sense during armchair analysis, but it didn't have any influence on actual military planning.

[Dai]

A very much improved arguement.

I agree that the difference between incapacitating or killing a soldier would never have been a deciding factor in the development of a round.

The "bean counters" would have more say as the cost resources for the 5.65mm would be considerably less than the 7.62mm. Just in propellant alone the difference between a 5.56 at about 17gns of powder and a 7.62 with 30 gns (a guess here) would be a major cost saving.

How many live rounds are the NZ Army allowing their soldiers to fire per year?

When I first joined in the 1970's I was in the Artillery. 105mm Howitzer. Each round then was over $100 and some days we could go through 50 rounds.

I digress again.

Later

[mikey]

Learnt how to convert an SLR to full auto with a matchstick when I was in the army. Haven't tried it myself thou.

Was given a full auto conversion piece of metal for my Ruger 10/22 by a friend. Turned out to be pretty useless.

what good is a auto 22? worried the french are going to invade? just buy a 50 round banana mag. i dont run out. or reload fuk all.

[Dai]

what good is a auto 22? worried the french are going to invade? just buy a 50 round banana mag. i dont run out. or reload fuk all.

The American rifle AR180 was chambered for .22. It was capable of punching a hole through reinforced concrete. Why? Because it was so accurate the rounds all hit the same place.

Also full auto .22 guns are real FUN.

Almost as much fun as FULLY SUPPRESSED FULL AUTO .22 firearms.

Not to say I would ever use a fully auto firearm in this country.

To own a 50 round banana mag you need to have an E cat licence.

[Wolf]

Also full auto .22 guns are real FUN.

A friend of mine had a Stirling .22 semiauto, poked a matchstick into a hole in the side, squeezed the trigger, there was a loud but brief fart sound and the 16-shot mag was empty. The hole in the clay bank he was shooting (at around 25-30m range) was the size of an old ten-cent piece.

Didn't have time to have a lot of fun...