-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
M-16 vs M-4 vs What?
- Thread starter Fly Navy
- Start date
This is not meant to be a treatise on ballistics, but a quickie primer on the barest basics of the meaning of "barrel twist".
Most of you "old guys" who were around "back in the day" learned what your issue service rifle barrel twist was .... If you hung around long enough to be issued the M14 as a replacement for the M1, you were required to memorize the fact that the barrel twist of the M14 was 1 in 12.
Most AR-style shooters recall that the M16A1 had a barrel twist of 1 in 12 (although the original AR15 had a 1 in 14 twist !!! ). The latest M16A2 of course has a barrel twist of 1 in 7.
The idea is still the same - a heavier bullet needs a tighter twist!
Most of you "old guys" who were around "back in the day" learned what your issue service rifle barrel twist was .... If you hung around long enough to be issued the M14 as a replacement for the M1, you were required to memorize the fact that the barrel twist of the M14 was 1 in 12.
Most AR-style shooters recall that the M16A1 had a barrel twist of 1 in 12 (although the original AR15 had a 1 in 14 twist !!! ). The latest M16A2 of course has a barrel twist of 1 in 7.
The idea is still the same - a heavier bullet needs a tighter twist!
Geoff08 said:
Are you kidding??? Do we MIND ??? You've made ONE POST SINCE JOINING IN 2003??? Heck, I am glad we finally found out what will bring you out of that Arizona desert and lend us the benefit of your experience.
A4s- I appreciate the warm welcome. I do actually spend time on the site, but I read without even logging in. I've found that you can learn more by keeping your mouth shut and searching/reading than by posting worthless comments-not a knock on anyone in particular.
Flynavy- I understand where you are coming from with the ballistics of a 5.56 vs a 7.62x39. I know that the round has the tendency to become unstable and cause trauma inside the body (much like the Soviet answer to the 5.56, the 5.45). The thing I was referring to though, was the energy upon impact (stopping power). I was just reading a ballistics chart that said at 200 yds, the difference in energy is 150-200 ft-lbs. The 5.56 can and will be lethal especially when it is in areas that are usually wounding areas, but the ability to stop an attacker now is more important when defending/attacking a position.
The best story I know is a Marine who fired 8 rounds into the chest of an attacking Somali, and he said "it looked like he was being shocked with electricity, but he kept running."
You have a good point about the ballistics, but I think it can be argued either way. The best hope is something like the 6.8mm? that is in development for the M16.
Flynavy- I understand where you are coming from with the ballistics of a 5.56 vs a 7.62x39. I know that the round has the tendency to become unstable and cause trauma inside the body (much like the Soviet answer to the 5.56, the 5.45). The thing I was referring to though, was the energy upon impact (stopping power). I was just reading a ballistics chart that said at 200 yds, the difference in energy is 150-200 ft-lbs. The 5.56 can and will be lethal especially when it is in areas that are usually wounding areas, but the ability to stop an attacker now is more important when defending/attacking a position.
The best story I know is a Marine who fired 8 rounds into the chest of an attacking Somali, and he said "it looked like he was being shocked with electricity, but he kept running."
You have a good point about the ballistics, but I think it can be argued either way. The best hope is something like the 6.8mm? that is in development for the M16.
Though not Geneva convention many contactors are running around with 5.56 flangable rounds thath (Im not sure exactly how) have increased lethality though not sure what it does for stopping power.
The story I read was a guy that shot an Insurgent in the ass and it killed him. Not normally a mortal wound even with a 7.62
The story I read was a guy that shot an Insurgent in the ass and it killed him. Not normally a mortal wound even with a 7.62
Geoff08 said:
I don't usually buy into "stopping power" because it doesn't have a whole lot of scientific basis. It's also a vague descriptor. That's just me though. You obviously seem pretty educated about it and it's your opinion. I'll respect that.
On the 6.8mm, I saw they were testing it, not sure how or if it will come into general service though. Any takers?
Fly Navy said:
The 6.8mm is the next best thing since sliced bread to come along in the field of military cartridges for shoulder weapons in a long time. It was hoped it would overcome any residual M-16/M-4 maintenance and reliability issues, overheating (especially in the M-4s), and the less than stellar stopping power and penetrating capabilities of the Remington .223 (5.56mm NATO) cartridge. I personally think the 5.56mm NATO was a HUGE mistake and one can only speculate on how many U.S. casualties have resulted from using a less than man-stopping cartridge since its inception. We need a true "Assault rifle" cartridge --- not a "varmint cartridge" for the troops.
The biggest problem with its adoption, as I see it, are the millions and millions of 5.56 NATO cartridges already purchased and in the system. Let the bean-counters figure out a way to sell them or eat them and maybe we'll get a replacement. There is significant interest withing the military establishment to return to a .45 ACP sidearm --- BUT: I think the real reason we are still issuing a 9mm instead of a .45 ACP is too many 9mm's in the system --- but that's just me. By the way ... I fired my XD .40 S&W yesterday at the range --- and I think a 9mm has more recoil !!! Maybe I shall stick with the .45 ACP ??
The good news is that you can buy a conversion top end from Barrett --- bring along $1590 for the conversion or $2700 for the complete rifle.
Interestingly, the 6.8mm is also .270 caliber. I'm not going to look it up tonight, but I believe that was one of the cartridge options being considered by the Army when the M-1 Garand was undergoing trials in the '30's. What do you think was the final clincher in staying with the .30-06??? That's right --- so many 30-06 cartridges already in the system .... so the more things change, huh ..... ?????
I agree with Fly Navy. I don't much buy into stopping power.
You can shoot someone in the chest with a .22 short and kill them if you hit just right, conversely, you can pepper someone in the chest w/ 7.62 and they might live until they bleed out...
It is all about round placement, not round size/round energy
In my opinion, when you are talking about rifles that can penetrate body armor at 600+ yards, stopping power, especially for MOUT conditions, is a little overrated.
As FlyNavy said, it is mostly all "he said, she said." You could fire a thousand rounds and kill your intended target in one shot with all of them, but let Superman take two rounds to the arm and not die, and everyone screams "stopping power!!!"
I buy into the "stopping power" argument a little more when talking about pistols, notably the difference between the 9mm and the .45, but IMO, nearly all rifles rounds are going to have enough muzzle velocity and energy to be effective at stopping a man-sized target.
You can shoot someone in the chest with a .22 short and kill them if you hit just right, conversely, you can pepper someone in the chest w/ 7.62 and they might live until they bleed out...
It is all about round placement, not round size/round energy
In my opinion, when you are talking about rifles that can penetrate body armor at 600+ yards, stopping power, especially for MOUT conditions, is a little overrated.
As FlyNavy said, it is mostly all "he said, she said." You could fire a thousand rounds and kill your intended target in one shot with all of them, but let Superman take two rounds to the arm and not die, and everyone screams "stopping power!!!"
I buy into the "stopping power" argument a little more when talking about pistols, notably the difference between the 9mm and the .45, but IMO, nearly all rifles rounds are going to have enough muzzle velocity and energy to be effective at stopping a man-sized target.
Bajastylee
Registered User
Well I may not be Marine but I am in the U.S. Army Infantry and had to use my M4 in combat and it is an outstanding weapon. Especially out here in the Ghan. I have never had a jam or any kind of problem with it. And for those of you that have been on the ground you know how important mobility is and the M4 is really the only realistic weapon for out here. Especially when crawling in and out of these little buildings (the doors are no more than 4' tall and 3' wide on average). And every Marine that I have talked to out here wishes they had our weapon. Now in Iraq it may be different because of the size of the buildings and what not. But as far as I am concerned the M4 is the only way to go.
And oh yeah just so you guys know there is still a war going on over here in Afghanistan, despite what you read in the news.
And oh yeah just so you guys know there is still a war going on over here in Afghanistan, despite what you read in the news.
Bajastylee said:
You are forgiven on the first ...
)kidding, of course) BTW, my Dad was Army -- 101 AB, WW2. He told me to go into the Navy .... The second item: how would you feel about an AR-style (maybe M-4?) in 6.8 mm ???
Fly Navy said:
Even the cooks jumped ..... he said even guys who were AWOL in England came back and took their hits so they could "make the jump"...