Army training with new rifles

Deer hunter wrote: "I hate that chart. Bullet construction plagues the M80 round. Plus Gel =/= flesh."

Why do you hate the chart? Because it demonstrates the deficiencies of M80 ball in regards to terminal ballistics? The proof is in the pudding, or in this case, the gelatine.

M80 ball is not a wonder bullet that will "knock down" a bad guy with just a hit in the arm or other non-CNS bullet strike.

.224" diameter Vs .308" diameter = 0.084" diameter difference.

Just because it looks diminutive in your hands doesn't mean it can't tear shtuff up on a bad guy...

H2O Man,

I most certainly can swing a 9 pound rifle. I can swing an M4 with an M203 on it also, as I did for most 2007. I can swing a SAW, too. I can mount an M2 by myself. Big deal. It isn't about the rifle being too heavy to carry or "swing" on the range. It is about the heavier recoil being detrimental to fast follow-up shots, the ammo being heavier (and, as mentioned, the terminal ballistics for the standard military load are lacking) and the weapon being much longer than an M16/M4. You can say that shorter barrels don't amount to huge amounts of muzzle blast, but unless you go to Hornady TAP or one of the other reduced power loads, it does. Not to mention, when you go to such a short barrel, your muzzle velocity is little better than a 7.62x39 (which was designed for 16" barrels).

I know I am not going ot convince people who are bent on the superiority of the battle rifle concept. They are fun, but with limited exceptions (which I have already pointed out) they are of little use to the average Soldier. I still like shooting my NM M1A, but it is far from being the gun I would grab if I needed a general purpose fighting rifle.

If you want long range semi-auto, try a 6.5 Grendel. As far as I am concerned, it ihas the best characteristics of the .308, 5.56 and 7.62x39.

.224" diameter Vs .308" diameter = 0.084" diameter difference.

Click to expand...

same can be said this way:

.22 vs .224 = .004" difference!!!!

The diameter card is nonplayable here.

Oh I just love these threads.

On one side you've got H20MAN who likes M14s and posts pictures of them being used. Then on the other side you've got guys who despise the M14 for no reason, and completely ignore facts about Smith Enterprise rifles (like the 1moa at 1,000 yards thing).

I don't know if the M14 would even be ideal for wide open spaces. If you look at the M16 variations through the A2, you'll see that they're basically the perfect rifle to fight with if you're on open plains in Eastern Germany, which is what it was intended to do. They're incredibly accurate for their class of rifle, they can provide decent covering fire in full auto/ 3 shot, and they allow the individual soldier to carry more ammo per pound than most rifles. If I were going to go back to WWII and fight with any rifle ever produced for the U.S. military, it wouldn't be the M14. It would be the M16. It provides the firepower needed at the ranges soldiers REALLY fight at (about 500 yards maximum).

Bushmaster,

I hate the graph because it gets thrown around so much. FMJ in gel is rather pitiful, no matter how you slice it.

The chart doesn't tell me what happens when the bullet hits the sternum. What about a rib? Are we comparing certain vessels and certain arteries? It's not fair to do so.

Maybe I'm just against having a single artist rendition of gel results determine what we use to shoot bad guys with.

THe m-14 requires a 700 dollar stock and a thousand dollars worth of accuracy modifications to shoot well for an extended period of time.

there is a reason why the m110 is being brought in service.

Pvt. Pyle smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur.

If one rifle could do everything, then all of us here would already own at least 3 of them. Since it's no the case, we get threads like this with all sorts of arguments and 'facts' thrown around, without a whole lot of supporting evidence(which makes them opinions).

We almost always get neat pictures though, so I still like to look in on them every so often. Sometimes, like this thread, H2Oman even gets pics to us we haven't already seen. It's almost like christmas!

completely ignore facts about Smith Enterprise rifles (like the 1moa at 1,000 yards thing).

Click to expand...

I would really like to see that. As far as I know, the world record group at 1000 is something like 4.4" and it was shot with a 6.5x.284. The ballistic coefficient on even the best .308 caliber bullets (not to mention bullets that will fit in an M1A magazine when seated at a proper depth) is simply not that good for long range shooting. To consistantly shoot 1 moa at a thousand yards si impresive with any .308. to do it with an M1A? No. BS.

H20MAN will fill you in on that 1,000 yard test the Army did.

THe m-14 requires a 700 dollar stock and a thousand dollars worth of accuracy modifications to shoot well for an extended period of time.




W-W-H-H-A-A-T-T-T-T-T ? ? ? ? ? ?...Yeh...Right...


(YAWN)

...little .223s dont belong at war

Click to expand...

I don't know if the M14 would even be ideal for wide open spaces.

Click to expand...

THe m-14 requires a 700 dollar stock and a thousand dollars worth of accuracy modifications to shoot well for an extended period of time.

Click to expand...

Have terrorists poisoned our water supply?

THe m-14 requires a 700 dollar stock and a thousand dollars worth of accuracy modifications to shoot well for an extended period of time.

there is a reason why the m110 is being brought in service.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about facts, H20 Man has witty graphics to deal with anything inconvenient.

THe m-14 requires a 700 dollar stock and a thousand dollars worth of accuracy modifications to shoot well for an extended period of time.

W-W-H-H-A-A-T-T-T-T-T ? ? ? ? ? ?...Yeh...Right...

Click to expand...

That's what the actual end users have found downrange. And, ISTR, what lots of competition shooters have also found. Your results may vary from the bench at your local 100 yard range, but, whatever.

I would really like to see that. As far as I know, the world record group at 1000 is something like 4.4" and it was shot with a 6.5x.284. The ballistic coefficient on even the best .308 caliber bullets (not to mention bullets that will fit in an M1A magazine when seated at a proper depth) is simply not that good for long range shooting. To consistantly shoot 1 moa at a thousand yards si impresive with any .308. to do it with an M1A? No. BS.

Click to expand...

But the manufacturer has a picture on their website and say they did! How can they be wrong??? Why would someone who wanted to sell something to the government fib about something????

That said, mass production 118LR is good ammo, but is pushing the edge of the envelope, performance wise, to do 1 MOA at 1000 meters out of a bolt gun, much less a semi auto. Especially recent production, but it's probably talking about bit too much about the emperor's clothing to go into that. Stil a good round, even in recent batches, but they're pushing hard to get/keep production numbers high.

Anyway, if the round itself is barely capable of making the performance standard, I'm calling BS on the claim . . .

Quote:
I don't know if the M14 would even be ideal for wide open spaces.

Click to expand...

That's right, I said it. You don't need a 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge for fighting, at least not for most infantry work. If you're 600+ meters away from the enemy, you could probably position yourself better. Use the time wisely.

Is there a place for the M14 on the battlefield? YES. It's good for a DMR. Reliable, shorter magazine, longer sight plane, longer range, and more penetration. Would I equip every soldier in the US military with it? Hell no.

C'mon H20, it's not the end-all be-all of rifles.

Oh yeah, H20MAN is such an M14 fanboy that all he owns is M14s. He would never own anything different like an AR-15 or AK-47 - his commitment is that deep./sarcasm

While I'm being sarcastic...Maybe SEI shouldn't make such accurate rifles. We all know only AR variants are accurate. It doesn't matter if the Army tests them either, since SEI is just profiteering.

.224" diameter Vs .308" diameter = 0.084" diameter difference.

Click to expand...

The diameter card is nonplayable here.

Click to expand...

Sorry guys, your geometry skills are seriously lacking here. You both failed to consider that the presenting area of a bullet is two dimensional. The area of a circle is Pi X radius squared. The frontal surface area of the 7.62 is 90% larger than that of the 5.56. Put another way, the frontal surface area of the 5.56 is 53% of that of the 7.62. That sounds meaningful and significant to me.

Oh yeah, H20MAN is such an M14 fanboy that all he owns is M14s. He would never own anything different like an AR-15 or AK-47 - his commitment is that deep./sarcasm

Click to expand...

Find one picture of his that doesn't have an M14 in it and... I'll do something... can't buy you a steak really...

Point being, it's getting annoying. There's a ton of keyboard commandos on here that constantly second guess the AR-15/M16 weapons system. Come to think of it, I don't remember a soldier who served in the last 5 years who came on here and hated the M16 that much. Now the guys who shoot on a range... that's a different story.

For general combat duty, there are much better choices than the M14. For a designated marksman rifle, there are almost no better choices.

kcmarine:
"Point being, it's getting annoying. There's a ton of keyboard commandos on here that constantly second guess the AR-15/M16 weapons system. Come to think of it, I don't remember a soldier who served in the last 5 years who came on here and hated the M16 that much. Now the guys who shoot on a range... that's a different story."

For general combat duty, there are much better choices than the M14. For a designated marksman rifle, there are almost no better choices.



Well spoken....You don't have to love 'em, but don't be a hater....