|
|
|
12-30-2019, 04:46 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,502
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky4968
I don’t want to flame anyone. But I wish people knew the difference between the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
|
I don't. But which have we signed? And have we signed away anything?
__________________
Formerly Model520Fan
|
12-30-2019, 04:50 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,479
Likes: 236
Liked 28,940 Times in 14,012 Posts
|
|
There is some misunderstanding of the rifling situation evident. The original M16 rifling twist was 1:14, which was OK when using the M193 round with the 55 grain bullet. But it was soon discovered that bullet stabilization was poor under very low temperature conditions such as found in the Arctic, so the twist was changed to 1:12 which solved the low temperature problem. However, in the meanwhile the M249 SAW appeared, and for it to reach full effectiveness at longer ranges, a heavier 62 grain bullet with a steel penetrator was developed (M855). But that created another logistical problem having two rounds (M193 and M855) in the supply system which were not fully interchangeable, as the 1:12 twist of the M16 barrel was inadequate to stabilize the heavier M855 bullet. So around 1982, the decision was made to go with the M855 round as standard for both the M16 and the M249. But of course that required that the M16's barrel be changed to a faster twist, 1:7, to achieve bullet stability when firing the M855 round. Actually, a 1:9 twist is adequate to stabilize the M855 (62 grain bullet) round (and even heavier bullets). However, a 1:9 twist is inadequate to stabilize the M856 tracer round, so the choice was made to use the 1:7 twist for the M16 and M4. And so it remains. No problem in using the early M193 round in a 1:7 twist barrel. I'm not sure the old M193 round is still in production for US military use, but I doubt it. Up until around 2006, the USAF used M193 ammunition for training, but then adopted a lead-free frangible bullet training round for that purpose. The current round is the improved M855A1 round which reportedly produces somewhat better lethality performance against both soft and hard targets than the original M855 round. But that is another story.
Last edited by DWalt; 12-30-2019 at 06:48 PM.
|
12-30-2019, 05:08 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,761
Likes: 1,224
Liked 5,801 Times in 2,354 Posts
|
|
Basically it lacks range and punch, nobody has been able to make it work in a machine gun. Hence troops have to carry 2 types of ammunition-so much for standardization. There have been complaints in the current conflicts that it is ineffective against enemies who use drugs.
Last edited by BLACKHAWKNJ; 12-30-2019 at 05:10 PM.
|
12-30-2019, 06:26 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,479
Likes: 236
Liked 28,940 Times in 14,012 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model520Fan
I don't. But which have we signed? And have we signed away anything?
|
The US was not a signatory to the Hague Convention (the one which addresses use of expanding bullets, etc.) and is legally not bound by its provisions. Nonetheless, it largely observes them as a matter of policy, mainly to avoid being portrayed as a bad guy. Further, the Hague Convention provisions apply only to combatants who are signatories. However, al Quaeda, Isis, etc. are not signatories so are not protected by it. In the recent past, the US is moving away from the former position that it will use only FMJ projectiles in combat. For example, the new M1153 9mm cartridge adopted by the US military - it uses a 147 grain HP bullet.
Last edited by DWalt; 12-30-2019 at 10:55 PM.
|
12-30-2019, 08:36 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 3,439
Likes: 37
Liked 5,413 Times in 1,756 Posts
|
|
The AR-type rifle and the5.56 cartridge have been standard US military issue for 50+ years now. Allow me to repeat that -- 50+ years.
Let that sink in.
Now, do you suppose that's because the rifle and cartridge are so lousy?...
__________________
Pisgah
|
12-30-2019, 10:45 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 2,735
Liked 1,373 Times in 573 Posts
|
|
My father was career 82nd Airborne and had a combat role in Vietnam along with several of his close army friends. I had some time to discuss the M16/5.56 with these people. To a man, they thought the M16 was an excellent rifle and much prefered it over the M14.
I hope that when the army decides to replace this rifle, they don't screw it up. I get it that technology moves on but I would prefer an AR that works over something with three computers that does not.
|
12-30-2019, 10:51 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,479
Likes: 236
Liked 28,940 Times in 14,012 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAM-BAM
We have Riflemen, Designated Markmen and Snipers in the field using (I think) 3 different calibers 5.56 7.62 and .338 Lapua.... not to mention .50BMG.
|
And also .300 Win Mag.
|
12-31-2019, 12:21 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 19,817
Likes: 24,223
Liked 28,980 Times in 10,766 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalt
And also .300 Win Mag.
|
...and now, 6.5 Creedmoor.
__________________
Release the Kraken
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|