Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, but correctly engineered with modern materials (like a M-14) add an upgraded Sage-like stock for the DM role.
Here's a new article by a GI medic:
Combat Medic's Advice: "Shoot the heaviest rifle round…shoot at what (you) can hit, and then shoot it again"
By Dan Zimmerman on October 9, 2014
View attachment 107165
Reader JWT writes:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...oot-heaviest-rifle-round-shoot-can-hit-shoot/
You ever been tagged by an ice pick, or scratch awl? I'd hate to take one in the 3,000fps range anywhere on my body.
Seriously.. 7.62x39.
It's .30 cal, hits with authority and is common around the world. Weight wise, its not too much more than a 5.56, penetrative capabilities, accomplished intermediate engagement requirements and simply works.
The U.S. could easily develope the perfect 7.62x39 load instead of wasting time on that 300blk, 6.8 or 6.5 nonsense.
Seriously.. 7.62x39.
It's .30 cal, hits with authority and is common around the world. Weight wise, its not too much more than a 5.56, penetrative capabilities, accomplished intermediate engagement requirements and simply works.
The U.S. could easily develope the perfect 7.62x39 load instead of wasting time on that 300blk, 6.8 or 6.5 nonsense.
The problem with this is that in an actual fight, you need to end the fight as quickly as possible. There are far too many cases of combatants taking several shots from the 5.56 and dying half a mile or more away from where they were shot after taking out a few of your guys(or you). When my life is on the line, I prefer the biggest hammer I can find. If I'm not concerned about ruining the backstrap, loin or rear hams, I want something that will blow the back out of what I am shooting. I want the lights out before the assailant hits the ground. An icepick does not provide that.You ever been tagged by an ice pick, or scratch awl? I'd hate to take one in the 3,000fps range anywhere on my body.
The problem with this is that in an actual fight, you need to end the fight as quickly as possible. There are far too many cases of combatants taking several shots from the 5.56 and dying half a mile or more away from where they were shot after taking out a few of your guys(or you). When my life is on the line, I prefer the biggest hammer I can find. If I'm not concerned about ruining the backstrap, loin or rear hams, I want something that will blow the back out of what I am shooting. I want the lights out before the assailant hits the ground. An icepick does not provide that.
The reason the 5.45x39 is "better" than the 7.62x39 is not simply velocity. It is the combination of velocity, a longer steel penetrator than in our Mil-Spec AP rounds and the hollow cavity ahead of the penetrator. Not only will the 7n6 go through steel like butter at 200 meters, it will also yaw upon entering a chest cavity, effectively tumbling after about 2.5" of penetration. They even improved it by filling the cavity with soft lead and designating it the 7n10.Blasphemy!! Of course the biggest problem with the 7.62 x 39 is the military arms designed to fire it are 3-4 MOA guns where the military guns designed to fire the 5.56 are 1-2 MOA guns. In combat is this a issue? It is for 300 yard head shots.
Honestly you dont need a new round. All we need is to accept the MK 262 Mod 1 rounds as standard, at least for the SDM.
You can carry more ammo, have better ballistics with less recoil (faster follow up shots) with a more accurate platform.
There is a reason why the Russians developed the 5.56 x 39 and it largely replaced the 7.62 x 39. Because even they where smart enough to know that a smaller, faster cartridge was better in actual combat.
My experience is people who tout the 7.62 x 39 are people who are in love with the AK, not in love with the round but they go together. The AK's claim to fame is it will always fire even full of crackerjacks. Well, this is true, you get a gun that is only designed to run for 4000-6000 rounds and not inherently accurate. This is backed up by the ammo they produce for it guaranteeing the barrel is shot in 6000 rounds. The AK's are disposable guns. This is great for internet fanboys who bash AR's as unreliable and delicate, but not so great in the real world. AR's will shoot MOA out to 600 yards with very little effort (not to say the xM-193 rounds will stop a guy at 600 yards, but I bet a MK 262 round would) Personally I think a AK would make a great choice for a urban combat role where encounters happen under 75 yards. If I was in the wide open spaces there is no way I would choose one over a AR outfitted with MK 262 ammo. I would pick cleaning my rifle once a week over a rifle only capable of 4 MOA any day of the week.
Well, the real world is made up of people like me that have used it in combat. That's where my opinions come from. I don't expect anyone to just agree with me because I said so. This forum is for debate and discussion and we can all learn something. I have no interest in being shot with a .22 short CB cap. However, if I absolutely had to pick between being shot with FMJ 7.62x39 or 5.56x45 I would take the 5.56 every single time.Fine if you are boarded up in your house with a few thousand rounds of ammo taking on the golden horde
You cant have something for nothing. You pack a .308 battle rifle you get twice the carry weight and half the amount of ammo. Slower follow up shots and a more fatigued shooter. In the real world for a real soldier up against a foe with a faster, lighter weapon you will lose.
Talk to a guy who has actually used a 5.56 in combat. I think you will find that in the real world 95% of people shot center mass with a 5.56 go down when hit.
Blasphemy!! Of course the biggest problem with the 7.62 x 39 is the military arms designed to fire it are 3-4 MOA guns where the military guns designed to fire the 5.56 are 1-2 MOA guns. In combat is this a issue? It is for 300 yard head shots.
Honestly you dont need a new round. All we need is to accept the MK 262 Mod 1 rounds as standard, at least for the SDM.
You can carry more ammo, have better ballistics with less recoil (faster follow up shots) with a more accurate platform.
There is a reason why the Russians developed the 5.56 x 39 and it largely replaced the 7.62 x 39. Because even they where smart enough to know that a smaller, faster cartridge was better in actual combat.
There is also a reason why .22 caliber guns are used in all the match shooting, Because a 5.56 gun is way, way faster on the course than a .30 cal one.
My experience is people who tout the 7.62 x 39 are people who are in love with the AK, not in love with the round but they go together. The AK's claim to fame is it will always fire even full of crackerjacks. Well, this is true, you get a gun that is only designed to run for 4000-6000 rounds and not inherently accurate. This is backed up by the ammo they produce for it guaranteeing the barrel is shot in 6000 rounds. The AK's are disposable guns. This is great for internet fanboys who bash AR's as unreliable and delicate, but not so great in the real world. AR's will shoot MOA out to 600 yards with very little effort (not to say the xM-193 rounds will stop a guy at 600 yards, but I bet a MK 262 round would) Personally I think a AK would make a great choice for a urban combat role where encounters happen under 75 yards. If I was in the wide open spaces there is no way I would choose one over a AR outfitted with MK 262 ammo. I would pick cleaning my rifle once a week over a rifle only capable of 4 MOA any day of the week.
I know that adding the cannelure just about made it the best military 5.56 round out there, but I personally have no experience with it. It sounds like the real deal if your barrel twist works.Has anyone read up on the MK 262 Mod 1 ammo? It seems to me to be the quick and simple answer
My feeling is that the different segements of the military have become so specialized, that the idea of a single cartridge to cover all needs has gone the way the of the Dodo.I recently came across an article on TheFirearmBlog about an ultimate caliber, discussing the push for an new intermediate cartridge for military use, found here: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/09/30/weekly-dtic-2/. The article also linked to the OP's personal blog, with a post from late last year: http://196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-case-against-general-purpose.html. I'd like to share my own opinions as well as see what the rest of you might be thinking as far as a new military cartridge goes.
While I don't necessarily disagree with the author on many of his points, I felt that he was being a smidge too close-minded about some of the more recent developments in cartridge design as well as some of his complaints. Specifically, his dislike of the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel, in the role of a military caliber. The main issue I see with both of these calibers is that they were designed as a retro-fit conversion to an existing system, the AR-15 platform. Simply put, if Bill Alexander or Remington hadn't concerned themselves with fitting these rounds into an AR-15's action, holding to the overall PSI of 55,000, or in a stanag magazine dimension, they would be very different in O.A.C.L. as well as case capacity. Looking specifically at the Grendel, with an overall max length of 2.260" the case only holds 30-34 grains of water. Simply increasing the overall length to 3" would allow for a decent increase of capacity, but would negate any chance of utilizing the caliber without a tailored rifle design. The only downfall is that if the military decided on a brand new caliber, they would also need a new rifle design.
I agree with the author on his rejection of an ultimate, single caliber for every job, but do believe that there're superior alternatives to our current military cartridges. I also do see the utility of the 6.5 grendel, specifically in a military setting. However, it would require considerably more training on the part of the armed forces to use those benefits, and there would be considerable diminishing returns for this kind of ranged training. I still think this cartridge does hold value for the military, simply because the range would be there, if necessary, without much in the way of downsides.
He also comments on the fact that current factory offerings are anemic in velocity and performance, the grendel's SAAMI spec 30 degree complex throat, the lack of ability to utilize tracers or non lead based projectiles as well as being a straight walled cartridge. To all of these, I think he is making mountains out of mole hills. If the Grendel ever reaches mainstream acceptance, factory loads would become exponentially better, also allowing for tailor made powders and projectile combinations, simply through supply and demand. Both Barnes and Nosler make 6.5mm lead free offerings, both of which are quite effective in both expansion and penetration, though our military forces will probably never use expanding ammunition in general practice. And while a tapered case allows for more reliable extraction, the 5.56 NATO is a straight walled case, I don't see the relevance here. As for the complex throat, decide which grain weight of projectile(s) you want to use, and make a new throat to accommodate only those.
What do you guys think? Is there a caliber or cartridge to rule them all? Are my points valid or are the blog postings correct, there really is nothing better out there than the 5.56 and 7.62x51?
Geneva Convention outlawed the use of anything other than FMJ bullets for military use a long time ago.Matter of fact, yes, and it wasn't fun. Not sayin' FMJ will bounce off you, just that there are more effective loads.
Geneva Convention outlawed the use of anything other than FMJ bullets for military use a long time ago.
This is why all nations use FMJ bullets only.
Dean