YAGT: 6mm vs. 5.56mm *Poll*

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: cablegod
Give me a Springfield M14 ANY day over a puny 5.56mm. I would take my OWN guns into battle if I were set into combat, or grab one of those AK's from the other side's fallen. .223 is a prarie dog stopper, not a man stopper. I say give 'em compact 7.62mm Nato battle rifles, AND Glock 29's (10mm) for side arms.

If you issue 10mm pistols, you are going to have problems qualifying people, just because women and smaller guys arent going to deal with the recoil well and arent going to practice as much as with the 9mm. Though it would make the 10mm a more attractive caliber for civilians, as the ammo prices would drop quite a bit.

Hmmm... I'm starting to like this idea more...

Why bother going 10mm. Just go after a .40 then. Its almost the same anyway.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: thenerdguy
What im say is that the M16 needs to go, my brother who got back from iraq last year said that people had trouble taking down targets, shooting mutiple times and hitting but the target wouldnt go down.

That's because they are using armor piercing bullets on targets that aren't wearing armor. They go straight through with very little exit damage.

All US forces use FMJ ball ammunition in any combat setting (as distinguished from people performing security duties), because mushrooming or fragmenting ammunition is felt to violate the law of war in that it causes unnecessary suffering. As such, calibers like 9mm or 5.56, which can be highly effective calibers with hollowpoints, are relatively poor stoppers in practice. For noncombat details like base security or aircraft security, hollowpoints are permitted, but the actual ammo choice is highly unit-specific.

 

[thenerdguy]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: thenerdguy
hello get a american rebuilt ak 74. 5.56.

How many times must this be said. Its getting on my nerves...the AK-74 is 5.45, not 5.56. They are NOT the same.

How many times do i have to say it?

Get A moded Ak-74 at uses 5.56. Havnt you ever heard of a modded rifle???? (Hence the american rebuilt part of my post)

 

[K1052]

If you want a resonably priced AK in 5.56 look for a Romanian SAR3.

 

Originally posted by: thenerdguy

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: thenerdguy
hello get a american rebuilt ak 74. 5.56.

How many times must this be said. Its getting on my nerves...the AK-74 is 5.45, not 5.56. They are NOT the same.

How many times do i have to say it?

Get A moded Ak-74 at uses 5.56. Havnt you ever heard of a modded rifle???? (Hence the american rebuilt part of my post)

Why bother? Just get something that was designed for that round, like the M16 or M4. Guns are designed around the ammo, not the other way around.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
All US forces use FMJ ball ammunition in any combat setting (as distinguished from people performing security duties), because mushrooming or fragmenting ammunition is felt to violate the law of war in that it causes unnecessary suffering. As such, calibers like 9mm or 5.56, which can be highly effective calibers with hollowpoints, are relatively poor stoppers in practice. For noncombat details like base security or aircraft security, hollowpoints are permitted, but the actual ammo choice is highly unit-specific.

You know, since getting hit with a hollow point as compared to a FMJ round fired out of the same gun at the same range/muzzle velocity is probably going to make you suffer less (since you'll bleed out quicker), I'd say that they decrease suffering. But thats just me.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Mookow


You know, since getting hit with a hollow point as compared to a FMJ round fired out of the same gun at the same range/muzzle velocity is probably going to make you suffer less (since you'll bleed out quicker), I'd say that they decrease suffering. But thats just me.

The theory behind it (and I don't ask you to embrace it) is that in combat, shooting a person takes him out of the fight, and so it is not necessary to kill him. Fragmenting ammo is obviously much more damaging, and increases lethality, and so it is banned. For similar reasons, it is illegal to use glass bullets or glass-fragmenting mines or shells, because the glass can't be seen in an X-ray, making it much tougher to treat the victim.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: Mookow


You know, since getting hit with a hollow point as compared to a FMJ round fired out of the same gun at the same range/muzzle velocity is probably going to make you suffer less (since you'll bleed out quicker), I'd say that they decrease suffering. But thats just me.

The theory behind it (and I don't ask you to embrace it) is that in combat, shooting a person takes him out of the fight, and so it is not necessary to kill him. Fragmenting ammo is obviously much more damaging, and increases lethality, and so it is banned. For similar reasons, it is illegal to use glass bullets or glass-fragmenting mines or shells, because the glass can't be seen in an X-ray, making it much tougher to treat the victim.

That's one thing that angers me. Civies and beaurocrats whining that we're doing our job to well. The military's job is to kill, not to take someone out of a fight (that's a policing job), but to kill them. By restricting the lethality of our weapons, you increase OUR chances of dying. I hardly think the terrorist factions are restricting the use of hollow-points or .50BMG anti-personel rounds. Let us kill the best way we can.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

The theory behind it (and I don't ask you to embrace it) is that in combat, shooting a person takes him out of the fight, and so it is not necessary to kill him. Fragmenting ammo is obviously much more damaging, and increases lethality, and so it is banned. For similar reasons, it is illegal to use glass bullets or glass-fragmenting mines or shells, because the glass can't be seen in an X-ray, making it much tougher to treat the victim.

Well, I've heard that line of reasoning, but I dont agree. Military units arent there to hold hands and sing hare krishna.