I've deleted several posts trying to turn this into a political discussion. Keep it on topic or I'll shut the thread down and start taking names.
It's a tad bit more complicated, the effectively tumble in human flesh a 5.56 round has to be going so fast, if it's fired from a short barrel then it kind of complicates that. Though I don't have the specific stats of it on hand.
Not "bogus", merely oversimplified.The statement was that they needed a more accurate ammo because they were using a barrel that was an inch shorter. That is bogus.
USMC is not concerned with head shot performance. The temporary cavity produced by virtually any centerfire varmint bullet will cause the cranium to burst open.No offense, but generally speaking, the people who are the biggest detractors of using the 5.56 round in combat are those who have never been in combat themselves, and like you, think of it as a varmint round. However, once you've seen the 5.56 remove the back of someone's head, you get the impression it's not bad as a combat round.
I was taking a class from an instructor who also teaches military from time to time. His thought on the AR was that people who used it have a very polarized view of it. There were those who absolutely loved it and those that absolutely hated it. Just passing it along. It's a moot point to me. I live in the controlled zone of CA so we can't have an AR unless we neuter it to the point that it is no longer an effective self defense weapon.You've never seen an M4 used in combat I take it.
No offense, but generally speaking, the people who are the biggest detractors of using the 5.56 round in combat are those who have never been in combat themselves, and like you, think of it as a varmint round. However, once you've seen the 5.56 remove the back of someone's head, you get the impression it's not bad as a combat round.
Not "bogus", merely oversimplified.
Shorter barrels usually produce lower muzzle velocity, leading to lower velocities downrange. At some engagement ranges in Afghanistan that causes the bullet to go transonic before it hits the target, a real detriment to accuracy.
While they may start out slower, heavier bullets with better ballistic coefficients retain velocity better than initially faster bullets with poor ballistic coefficients.
All I know is what I read on the internet.So they are going from the faster and lighter 62 gr M855 to the slower and heavier 62 gr. SOST rounds? Sorry. You lost me there. Apparently, I am missing something else that is oversimplified.
I will wait until somebody releases the ballistic coefficients and actual muzzle velocity of the new round and the muzzle velocity of the M855 from the same platform before I am ready to believe that this is actually happening. I realize that it is theoretically possible, but I also realize that it may be happening beyond the effective range of the SCAR, which is about 500 meters.If so the SOST may have a lower muzzle velocity then the M855 but maybe be faster at some point down range.
Wow, fabulous argumentationwait all you ar guys say the 223 is plenty powerful enough
why would they possibly need more deadly rounds?