Best modern infantry rifle page 6 alternate history discussion electricity in india voltage

###########

Click to expand…It filled a perceived need before the advent of the M855A1 5.56mm cartridge. But now that we have the M855A1 the 6.8mmSPC is fairly pointless. Past a certain range (500m?) it suffers a significant drop in velocity and energy, so it’s an even worse choice for a machine-gun or SAW than 5.56mm. The projectile is squat, fat, and not terribly aerodynamic (relatively speaking). I’m unaware of any terminal ballistic studies on it, so I have no idea about it’s wounding. It’s short ogive leads to potential accuracy issues, as does it’s lower muzzle velocity. It’s important to remember that it’s development was driven by the 5.56-hater mafia hp gas. (There are still people who ridiculously proclaim that the M14 would be a better choice than an M16.) In defense of the 6.8, though, we’re really never going to come up with something truly impressive when we have to fit it through a magazine well that was designed for 55-grain 5.56mm.

So I’ll respectfully disagree with CalBear, and choose M855A1 over 6.8mm. Handily. It helps that I can carry twice as much, but also 5.56mm has a long proven track record of use in ARs. Which is what I would be carrying- AR/M16/M4. But I should probably bow out of the 6.8-bashing. I really don’t know it’s ballistics well enough. So I’ll limit myself to calling it now pointless.

But I’ll reiterate that Joules is not stopping power. It certainly helps, but it isn’t equivalent. And unfortunately you’ll find gas vs diesel truck that a lot of that rank idiocy I mentioned earlier revolves around the spouting of energies. The M855A1 was designed to reliably tumble within three inches of penetration (within 1 inch in some tests) and fragment, to retain the wounding potential that it’s predecessors had out of a 20-inch barrel. It’s vicious, not unlike the original 55 grain out of a 20-inch barrel, on which here is a dated but nonetheless fun reference. Chapter 4, specifically. [I should probably disclose that I know Ron Bellamy- he was one of my professors at USUHS.] Tumbling and fragmenting results in a greater fraction wd gaster battle of the projectile’s energy being delivered to the target, thus causing a larger temporary cavity, as opposed to just passing through. (Note that the .223/5.56 in that video is worst case- the 55 grain out of a carbine-length barrel. Almost as ifthe test was almost designed to make 5.56 look bad…) A larger temporary cavity has a better chance of intersecting something vital. (That’s why Joules does not equal wounding- terminal ballistics is far more complex than that.) Also, multiple projectiles- in the form of fragments- are more likely to intersect a major vessel or other vital structure than is a single projectile. But there’s only so much you can do out of a 14.5-inch barrel, and the M855A1 had to meet it’s other design goal of having better penetration than the M855, and even 7.62x51mm ball. That’s why it has that mild steel tip.

The 6.5mm Grendel is a different matter. It was designed to duplicate 7.62x51mm ballistics out of a normal-sized AR. In other words, it was meant to be a long-range cartridge. And it did succeed- the bullet drop over distance is essentially identical to the 7.62. But, wow, that’s a steep neck. I have to wonder about feeding reliability, again. If it could be proven reliable r gasquet, and to have decent wounding, I might prefer an AR in 6.5mm Grendel. (I did mention that I’m a 6.5mm fanboy, didn’t I?)

It filled a perceived need before the advent of the M855A1 5.56mm cartridge. But now that we have the M855A1 the 6.8mmSPC is fairly pointless. Past a certain range (500m?) it suffers a significant drop in velocity and energy, so it’s an even worse choice for a machine-gun or SAW than 5.56mm. The projectile is squat, fat, and not terribly aerodynamic (relatively speaking). I’m unaware of any terminal ballistic studies on it, so I have no idea about it’s wounding. It’s short ogive leads to potential accuracy issues, as does it’s lower muzzle velocity. It’s important to remember that it’s development was driven by the 5.56-hater mafia. (There are still people who ridiculously proclaim that the M14 would be a better choice than an M16.) In defense of the 6.8, though j gastrointest surg, we’re really never going to come up with something truly impressive when we have to fit it through a magazine well that was designed for 55-grain 5.56mm.

So I’ll respectfully disagree with CalBear, and choose M855A1 over 6.8mm. Handily. It helps that I can carry twice as much, but also 5.56mm has a long proven track record of use in ARs. Which is what I would be carrying- AR/M16/M4. But I should probably bow out of the 6.8-bashing. I really don’t know it’s ballistics well enough. So I’ll limit myself to calling it now pointless.

But I’ll reiterate that Joules is not stopping power. It certainly helps, but it isn’t equivalent. And unfortunately you’ll find that a lot of that rank idiocy I mentioned earlier revolves around the spouting of energies. The M855A1 was designed to reliably tumble within three inches of penetration and fragment, to retain the wounding potential that it’s predecessors had out of a 20-inch barrel. It’s vicious, not unlike the original gasco abu dhabi address 55 grain out of a 20-inch barrel, on which here is a dated but nonetheless fun reference. Chapter 4, specifically. [I should probably disclose that I know Ron Bellamy- he was one of my professors at USUHS.] Tumbling and fragmenting results in a greater fraction of the projectile’s energy being delivered to the target, thus causing a larger temporary cavity, as opposed to just passing through. (Note that the .223/5.56 in that video is worst case- the 55 grain out of a carbine-length barrel. Almost as ifthe test was almost designed to make 5.56 look bad…) A larger temporary cavity has a better chance of intersecting something vital. (That’s why Joules does not equal wounding- terminal ballistics is far more complex than that.) Also, multiple projectiles- in the form of fragments- are more likely to intersect a major vessel or other vital structure than is a single projectile. But there’s only so much you can do out of a 14.5-inch barrel, and the M855A1 had to meet it’s other design goal of having better penetration than the M855, and even 7.62x51mm ball. That’s why it has that mild steel tip.

The 6.5mm Grendel is a different matter. It was designed to duplicate 7.62x51mm ballistics out of a normal-sized AR. In other words, it was meant to be a long-range cartridge. And it did succeed- the bullet drop over distance is essentially identical to the 7.62. But, wow, that’s a steep neck. I have to wonder about feeding reliability, again. If it could be proven reliable, and to have decent wounding, I might prefer an AR in 6.5mm gas station Grendel. (I did mention that I’m a 6.5mm fanboy, didn’t I?)

Click to expand…Heckler koch got it right with the XM8 rifle. That design had fantastic ergonomics. If it was based around a gas operating system like the AN-94s, that would be superior to most rifles in most circumstances. (Long range sniping would be the exception) The nikonov mechanism fires two bullets in a very tight grouping, which gas city indiana can very effectively suppress enemy soldiers. Research from WW2 indicated you needed a certain number of bullets (within a certain amount of time) passing near a man before he would take cover.

5.56x45mm is an okay round, but the M855 pattern has decreased lethality from the original M193. The army kept messing around with its twist rate after the vietnam war, when they should have just left it alone. The M193 bullet would fragment more violently (and at greater range!) than the M855. Supposedly, the new M855A1 rounds have solved this problem, but not everyone electricity deregulation map is convinced. The army had too many conflicting requirements for it, including a lead free construction.

Click to expand…The XM8 had no relationship with the Nikonov system, but is instead a remodeled G36 with an essentially identical operating system, which was in turn based on the Stoner AR-18. The G36, of course, has its own problems with the poorly positioned charging handle and the overly bulky sights that carried over to the XM8 concepts. Moreover, the Nikonov system was designed to allow better shot placement when penetrating body armor (ceramic armor can only resist a few shots in the same spot at best) and had nothing to do with suppression effects. In fact, the extremely high initial rate of fire means that it would be very difficult to hear the individual bullets passing because they would be so close together. Also, using a Nikonov rifle in a semi-automatic mode – like soldiers would in almost all combat they would engage in – would make it just as accurate as any other rifle, and the reversed recoil system would improve upon the ability of soldiers to make follow-up shots, which is the single most important part of tactical shooting.

In my opinion, the best military rifle today is the Remington ACR. It uses a short-stroke gas piston system very similar to the G36 gastroenterology/SA80/AR-18 and has the best ergonomics and handling of any widely available rifle. In addition, it avoids the additional weight of the Nikonov recoil system, the effect of which can be rivalled by advanced muzzle compensators for a much smaller weight penalty. Moreover, the modularity of the system means that rifles can be easily converted, with appropriate parts, to fire any intermediate cartridge that can fit in an AR-15 magazine well, including 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 7.62 x 39mm.