Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Now this is disappointing...
E.T
Quote-o-matic
in Zocalo v2.0
5.56x45 stops to 20cm of pine.
Start watching after 3 min.
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0[/url]
I guess it's designers (well, it was just picked from existing cartridges) preferred open ground shooting instead of forest!
Now if those idiot politicians wouldn't be pushing Finland to NATO which might cause dropping of 7,62x39mm when three fourths of land area is covered by forests.
Start watching after 3 min.
[url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0[/url]
I guess it's designers (well, it was just picked from existing cartridges) preferred open ground shooting instead of forest!
Now if those idiot politicians wouldn't be pushing Finland to NATO which might cause dropping of 7,62x39mm when three fourths of land area is covered by forests.
Comments
[IMG]http://shop.wizardschest.com/prodimg/170225.jpg[/IMG]
Impressive video though. I'm for low caliber myself, but that's only because I prefer precision over penetration power and I don't care for the recoil.
Definitely.
nuff said. :p
Jake
7.62 Russian is a crap cartridge, always has been.
:D
Worf
And when you consider circumstances in which it was designed to be used single fire being last option of safety isn't that bad... at winter with gloves and cold fingers moving some stiffer switch only one stop forward wouldn't be the easiest thing.
But for burst accurasy [url=http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm]HK G11[/url] would be much better than anything...
[i] But, when firing the three-round bursts, second and third cartridges are feed and fired as soon as the chamber is ready for it, and third bullet leaves the barrel PRIOR to the moment when the housing becomes to its rearward position.[/i]
Neither I would call operating mechanism which allows high temperature combustion gases to heat up important and rather fine tolerance parts and deposit junk onto them as exactly good... it's no wonder that it isn't used widely outside "AR-15 family".
[QUOTE=shadow boxer;173631]go 7.62 NATO, problem solved and then some. You can use NATO ammo but real ammo and not the pussy rifle 5.56. You also gain in accuracy, speed and power.
7.62 Russian is a crap cartridge, always has been.[/QUOTE]7.62x51 would be good in case of uncertain target size but for military use 6.5mm Grendel could be better. While muzzle energy is "only" at level of 7.62x39 its bullet has very high ballistic coefficient and retains its speed (and energy) long.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel[/url]
As for the firepower, the first part of that video clearly shows that the AK47 couldn't hit the proverbial broad side of a barn. The M16 grouped its shots much better and is much more accurate. In my opinion, the latter is much more deadly in the hands of a trained soldier. The AK47 was designed for soldiers with little to no training who are just spraying bullets at short distances. The fact that it can better shoot through bricks and wood is, to me, irrelevant because it can't hit its target effectively. Also, if you look at the video, the bullet doesn't penetrate the wood that well, only throwing splinters. While this would likely ruin someone's day, it might not be effective enough for a clean kill. And killing, is the name of the game.
Another rifle using the heavier ammunition of the AK (or something similar) still has a problem with recoil and therefore accuracy. In other words, if you are accurate and hit your enemy cleanly and in a vital area the first time, it doesn't really matter how powerful the weapon is.
[quote]Indeed, I read that most M16s now issued to US troops don't even have the fully automatic function.
In my opinion, the latter is much more deadly in the hands of a trained soldier.[/QUOTE]And the reason for it is because that automatic mode wasn't really effective and just wasted ammunition...
No doubt about that in open field shooting.
But do you think it's same in forest where over 100 meter open line of fire would be in class of "dream on" and 50m closer to reality... makes better longer range accuracy kinda irrelevant.
[QUOTE]And killing, is the name of the game.[/QUOTE]Depends entirely on situation and enemy.
If there's no "instant hurry" wounded enemy is actually much better than dead enemy from military perspective because it binds more enemy's resources... just discarding wounded soldiers along the way wouldn't exactly motivate others to fight with great gusto.
Great scene. :D
No, it's not. A dead soldier lies on the ground and does nothing. A wounded soldier requires one or more other soldiers to drag them away from the front line, as well as resources behind the lines to provide immediate medical care followed by long term medical care.
[QUOTE=Biggles;173748]No, it's not. A dead soldier lies on the ground and does nothing. A wounded soldier requires one or more other soldiers to drag them away from the front line, as well as resources behind the lines to provide immediate medical care followed by long term medical care.[/QUOTE]
In both cases, I'd say, it totally depends on the situation.
[QUOTE=Messiah;173749]As usual, Biggles is correct...[/QUOTE]
You know, Messiah, we'll never get to see a portrait of him if we keep doing this. :D
Why oh why must you keep encouraging him? Nothing good will come of it! :p
I'm sure if enough people with AK47s were spraying enough bullets into said barn, they would eventually find their target... if they were close enough. ;) Seriously though, in the type of combat you are referring to, I think accuracy would be more important than ever. When an enemy combatant comes out from behind his cover to fire, I would much rather have an accurate weapon I only have to fire a few times, rather than another that I have to waste ammunition with the hope of maybe hitting the target.
[QUOTE=Biggles;173748]No, it's not. A dead soldier lies on the ground and does nothing. A wounded soldier requires one or more other soldiers to drag them away from the front line, as well as resources behind the lines to provide immediate medical care followed by long term medical care.[/QUOTE]
Point taken. However, this mostly applies if we are talking about soldiers. Modern warfare more and more seems to fought by insurgents (at least on one side) rather than by trained soldiers. While insurgents care for their wounded, for sure, it is far more easy to simply replace that wounded person with another. And with current US policy, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of replacements to their respective causes.
I don't know is AK47 just so damn "loosely" built (big country, big tolerances... like it's said) or what's the problem but I've never said I would want that particular gun.
During military service (no AK47s here) we had shooting test to 0.5m size targets from 150m with target visible various times and magazine changes after two shots, three shots from knee position and three shots from 50m while standing (target is god damn big from that distance) for total of twelve shots. It wasn't that hard to put most of them nearer center than edges. (IIRC got most inside ~30cm circle)
With better sights I would expect still better accuracy... accurate aiming isn't that easy when that small post (or what it's called in English) in front sight is well wider than target.
We didn't shoot much but once some unnecessary cartridges when some were still aligning sights. Last three I shot in single fire mode waiting only gun to settle from recoil jump and bullets went to 10cm vertical line so for rapid single shot fire recoil isn't problems.