← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Chaucer

Thinking of building an AR15

Thread ID: 12040 | Posts: 53 | Started: 2004-01-26

Chaucer [OP]

2004-01-26 21:28 | User Profile

Any suggestions? I have been looking into the AR stuff seriously for the last few days? It seems that I need 4 main pieces and then some additional add ons. I have come across a few brand names --Bushmaster, Colt, DPMS, and Rockriver. Is there a large difference in quality between these companies? I don't need the top of the line, but I would like some thing fairly accurate and quality. Probably better to go with a lower market gun since this will be my first AR. I was told to invest my money on the upper if money was an issue. This shit is kind of confusing. There seems like there are a hundred different variables I can play around with on each piece.

Ideally the gun I want is something along these lines:

[url]http://www.colt.com/law/ar15a3.asp[/url]

Man, that thing looks bad ass.

I was thinking a 16 inch barrel would be good, that is what they recommend on ar15.com. What caliber should I go with, 5.56 or .223? Should I get a handle or not? What about an adjustable butt? I am tall (6'4) and big (255 pounds). I was thinking I would attach a scope later on. Ideally I would just like to use this gun for fun...things like target practice, and maybe shooting a pesty animal here and there. I intend to make this gun strictly legal.

Thanx!!

MadScienceType

2004-01-26 22:31 | User Profile

Howdy Chaucer,

So you're thinking of building a poodle-shooter?

Well, first off, you need to be familiar with the various legalities surrounding the so-called "assault weapons" if you're interested in making or buying one.

First, full-auto's out, of course, but then there's other considerations. Since 1994, the collapsible stock you mentioned is also out (at least if you want a semi-auto that takes detachable mags and has a pistol grip). See, since the '94 AW ban, your gun can have only two "evil" features out of a list of a dozen or so that were chosen pretty much at random, or whatever offended Chuckie Schumer's sensibilities (armed goyim no doubt offends that weasel).

Anyway, your basic AR-15's gonna have two evil features right off the bat, a detachable magazine and a "conspicuously protruding pistol grip" which supposedly makes it easier to "spray bullets" when firing from the hip (you can tell the idiots who wrote the legislation have never fired a gun in their lives, can't you?). So, that means you're gonna have to forego your collapsible stock if you want to remain legal, since it's also considered another evil feature. If you don't (which I don't advise, BTW), well, then of course you can ignore all that advice. Have heart, though, the '94 ban is supposed to "sunset" this September automatically unless congress passes legislation to renew it. Of course the usual jewish suspects are right there introducing it, but we'll see if our "conservative" Legislative branch will kill it or not. [sarcasm]Even if it does pass, I'm sure our equally-conservative President will veto it, even though he's yet to veto anything that's crossed his desk[/sarcasm].

If you want to wait and it does sunset, then you can put all the evil features on it that you want. like a bayonet lug (thrown into the ban because of all the drive-by bayonetings in South Central, no doubt).

If you don't want to wait, you can still have a fine weapon.

As far as quality goes, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Bushmaster, DPMS or Rock River Arms (though I have no experience with the latter, they're pretty good if the buzz is any indication). Colt has some issues in that they produce civilian sporter versions of the AR-15 that don't accept the plentiful and cheap mil-spec parts, while the others listed do, which is a real plus. Also, with Colt, the quality's not necessarily any better, but you pay more for the Colt logo. If you're planning to use the gun as a blaster and not a collector, then why pay the extra dough?

If you're going to build up the gun yourself from a parts kit, then you have a lot of choices. Look in Shotgun News and you'll see what I mean. J&T Distributing, Model 1 Sales, M&A Parts, American Spirit Arms all offer complete kits minus the lower receiver (the FFL item). Qualitywise, I do not know the difference between any of them. M&A Parts and Model 1 Sales are the ones I hear most often when folks talk about their builds, but that may be because they're the cheapest of the ones mentioned (I have heard that American Spirit Arms has lousy customer service, but no firsthand knowledge). Rock River Arms has some kits which are a little pricier, but the quality is supposedly better.

It really depends on your budget, but if I had the money, I would go for an RRA upper with a 20" heavy barrel (16.25" is the legal minimum for rifled arms) with a muzzle brake of some sort (flashiders are another "assault weapon" no-no) and either an RRA or Bushmaster lower. If you plan on mounting a scope right away, then go ahead and get the flattop. If you need the iron sights later, you can always buy a carry handle with iron sights that will mount to the flattop.

The 16.25" barrel may look sexier, but the .223 needs all the help it can get in the damage department, and cutting off 3.75" of barrel is going to reduce velocity a couple hundred FPS at least. Oh, and you may want to get a 5.56mm NATO-spec chamber instead of the .223 Rem chamber. The former is a little bit "looser" and therefore slightly less accurate (but still plenty good enough, IMO) but the "tighter" .223 Rem chamber is going to be more susceptible to jams caused by fouling, which is the last thing you want.

Try to stick with a forged, not cast, lower receiver, since they're stronger and not a whole lot more expensive and try to get an upper that's already been headspaced with a matching bolt (most kits come that way, but it doesn't hurt to ask!) since if it isn't that means you have to buy a set of headspace gauges and all that hulabaloo. You'll have to go through an FFL for the lower of course, unless you "roll your own" from a receiver blank, but then that's going to require a milling machine (mucho bucks there). Or, you can find someone willing to part with one at a gunshow for no paperwork (not likely, but you might find a "whole" gun that way).

Good luck and let us know how it goes!

P.S. If you're a big guy, you may want to buy a fixed stock with an extra 1" added to it if you've got a long reach. The fixed isn't so bad, because it has a hollow in it that you can use to store parts, guncleaning supplies, etc. Oh, and you may want to stick with a 1:9 twist on your barrel. That allows you to accurately shoot some of the mid-sized 5.56mm rounds (62 grains) but still shoot the standard 55 grain ammo as well as some of the lighter stuff like the 40 and 45 grain bullets that a faster twist, like 1:7 might rip apart. Those twists are usually needed by guys who shoot in long-range matches with heavy (for the AR-15 anyway) bullets and aren't needed for an everyday shooter you might build.

Angler

2004-01-26 23:03 | User Profile

Hi Chaucer,

ARs are nice rifles, but they are not as reliable or durable as AK variants. I won't try to talk you out of building an AR -- I own a couple myself and like them a lot -- but I'd feel bad if I didn't point out their major disadvantages in case you're not aware of them

-- flimsy, easily damaged magazines (only Thermold, Orlite, and USGI are worth buying, and all must be checked for reliability) -- gas system does not use a piston, but a gas tube that sprays filthy gas into the action in order to cycle the weapon. This means the average AR cannot go nearly as long between cleanings as other weapons without the risk of a jam (it depends on the individual AR, though) -- several tiny parts and somewhat delicate springs (e.g., the extractor spring) -- reliability is hit-or-miss: some ARs are extremely reliable, some are jam-o-matics (I was lucky in this regard) -- limited stopping power of the FMJ 5.56 round -- noise, especially with a short barrel and/or a muzzle break -- expensive

Major advantages are

-- light weight (unless you get a very heavy barrel) -- fairly corrosion-resistant (but make sure the bore and chamber are chrome-lined) -- very accurate, with flatter bullet trajectory (bullet travels farther before dropping a given amount) -- highly customizable (upper receivers can be swapped on the same lower receiver) -- currently military issue (with the exception of the M16A2's useless tri-burst feature) -- good penetration of body armor with steel-core ammo (M855 or SS-109).

So, it really depends on what you're looking for. If you want a rifle that you can run over with a tank and it'll come out firing, you should get an AK. AKs are also cheaper, as are their magazines and ammo. Imported AK magazines are ubiquitous, cheap, and nearly indestructible.

Now to answer your questions about the AR more directly:

It seems that I need 4 main pieces and then some additional add ons. I have come across a few brand names --Bushmaster, Colt, DPMS, and Rockriver. Is there a large difference in quality between these companies?

Of those brands, I strongly recommend Bushmaster. They make their standard rifles and carbines to military spec with the exception of any alternative options you select (e.g., a heavier or shorter barrel) and semi-auto-only trigger parts. (Semi-auto fire is better than full-auto fire 99% of the time anyway, contrary to popular belief.)

By the way, that gun in the picture is law-enforcement-only, thanks to our tyrannical gun control laws. However, its only legal differences from a typical "civilian" model are the flash suppressor at the end of the barrel and its collapsible buttstock. Those are illegal on non-ZOG weapons unless you have a lower receiver that was built into a weapon prior to some date in 1994 (due to the "Crime Bill" of that year). The collapsible buttstock looks cool but is fairly useless, in my opinion. The standard stock is more sturdy and has a compartment inside that lets you store a few spare parts or a small cleaning kit.

Here's some good news: that BS "Crime Bill" is supposed to expire this year (I think in October). If you already have another good rifle in your possession, perhaps you should wait until the expiration before getting your AR. That way, if you prefer the collapsible stock, you should be able to buy it legally. Much more important, you'll be able to buy the barrel with a flash hider installed. That's pretty important if you ever have to shoot at night, especially with a 16" barrel. Not only can muzzle flash advertise your position if you're in a firefight, it can temporarily blind you in the dark. If you really want an AR now, you might want to consider having a 20" barrel put on it for that reason. Also, longer barrels mean a quieter muzzle blast. The disadvantage of longer barrels is slower handling, especially in tight quarters. If this is a home defense weapon or if you live in an urban area, a 16" barrel might be better after all.

What caliber should I go with, 5.56 or .223?

Contrary to what some will tell you, these are NOT the same caliber -- though they are very, very similar. If at all possible, get a weapon with a 5.56 NATO chamber. The .223 Remington is a slightly less powerful round, and some manufacturers of weapons and ammo say that it isn't perfectly safe to fire 5.56 NATO in a .223 chamber (the latter is also known as a "SAAMI-spec chamber" -- see [url]http://www.saami.org/[/url]). Although doing so is unlikely to blow up your weapon, malfunctions due to excessive operating pressures are more likely. On the other hand, a chamber cut to 5.56 NATO specification can fire either 5.56 or .223 with no pressure issues -- the .223 might be a little less accurate than it would be in a SAAMI-spec chamber, but it's no big deal unless you're in competitive target shooting or something.

Should I get a handle or not? If you're going to put a scope on the thing, you may want to get an AR with a detachable carrying handle. However, scopes can also be put onto fixed-carry-handle AR models. That sort of thing is a matter of personal preference.

I hope that helps...if any of it isn't clear, just let me know. Also, there are others on this site who know a lot more about this stuff than I do, so they'll probably chime in at some point and agree or disagree with me or add to what I've said.

Angler

2004-01-26 23:05 | User Profile

Ah, and there's one right there: MST squeezed in ahead of me!

madrussian

2004-01-26 23:33 | User Profile

Get an AK chambered in 5.56mm. Pampering it will be the last thing you'll want to be preoccupied with if SHTF.

madrussian

2004-01-26 23:33 | User Profile

NeoNietzsche will suggest Galil.

NeoNietzsche

2004-01-26 23:41 | User Profile

Please investigate the enhancement of the AR15 with the 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge and Upper Receiver before making a decision. Greatly enhanced stopping power (115 grains @ 2600-2800 fps) and cleaner action (gas piston rather than gas tube acting on the bolt carrier).

madrussian

2004-01-26 23:47 | User Profile

Re-introducing gas piston is a tacit acknowledgement of a great importance that reliability plays, contrary to the today's claim of how not having it is good as it enhances accuracy and how the weapons get cleaned every day anyway.

NeoNietzsche

2004-01-26 23:47 | User Profile

And, yes, NN does like the Galil (AK action) for 5.56.

Angler

2004-01-27 00:30 | User Profile

If you get an AK in 5.56, you might want to try a "VEPR II" from Robinson Armament ([url]http://www.robarm.com[/url]). I have one in 7.62x39, and it's NICE. Its only real drawback is its weight. Also, mags are more expensive in 5.56 for the AK, but they're also very durable (I think they use converted Russian or Commie Bloc 5.45x39 mags).

Valley Forge

2004-01-27 02:36 | User Profile

For my next purchase, I'm trying to decide between a Springfield M1A or an AK.

Anybody have any thoughts or recommendations?

MadScienceType

2004-01-27 16:19 | User Profile

Hi VF,

Well, the choice depends on your budget. If money's no object, then I say go for the M1A, mainly due to the greater power of the .308 round and the fact that the tuned M1A's a highly accurate weapon. However, they're 3-4X more expensive (at around $1100 minimum) than an AK, and decent 20-round mags (as opposed to crappy aftermarket ones) are ridiculously expensive, mostly running up to 50 bucks each and beyond. The lowest I've ever seen them are $39.95 a pop. By contrast, used 30-round AK mags can be had for $5.99 each if you shop around and buy a dozen or so at once. Used ones, as long as they aren't rusty or anything, are fine, since the magazine construction of the typical AK mag is robust, to put it mildly. One other thing to think about in terms of an M1A is that the supply of mil-spec M-14 parts (interchange with the M1A) has dried up and most replacement parts you're gonna find for it are the more iffy aftermarket parts. If you do get an M1A, be sure and let me know so I can come play with it, m'kay?

[quote=NeoNietzsche]Please investigate the enhancement of the AR15 with the 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge and Upper Receiver before making a decision. Greatly enhanced stopping power (115 grains @ 2600-2800 fps) and cleaner action (gas piston rather than gas tube acting on the bolt carrier).

I'm all for greater power, but you've also got to factor in ammo availability and price. I don't think the 6.8mm SPC stuff is going to be very cheap or available unless the ZOG military switches over to it en masse. I guess you could have an upper in 6.8mm and another in standard 5.56mm, but then you're running into more expense. Might as well get something in .308 if you want the extra ooomph.

The Galil's just a jewified AK, isn't it? What did they do to make it better, anyway? Valmet's another modified AK that's pretty good from what I hear. Oh, the Veprs are nice, too, but heavy, as Angler pointed out. The .308 Vepr is a cheaper .308-cal alternative to the M1A, but you can only get the 8-round mags for it from what I understand at this time, unless you pay bucks to have someone modify them to take M1A mags, at which point you run into the expensive-magazine problem of the M1A all over again. No such thing as a free lunch I suppose.

-- flimsy, easily damaged magazines (only Thermold, Orlite, and USGI are worth buying, and all must be checked for reliability)

Thanks for reminding me of that, Angler. I forgot to mention to stay away from the cheap aluminum aftermarket mags, they're not worth bothering with. In another nod to the AK, decent mags for the AR-15 are more expensive ('bout $23-28 bucks for the Thermolds and $15-22 for the Orlites, though I hear they won't work in Bushmasters for some reason, but haven't tried it myself).

The disadvantage of longer barrels is slower handling, especially in tight quarters. If this is a home defense weapon or if you live in an urban area, a 16" barrel might be better after all.

True, but in tight quarters, I'd stick with a scattergun anyway.

Also, mags are more expensive in 5.56 for the AK, but they're also very durable (I think they use converted Russian or Commie Bloc 5.45x39 mags).

Yeah. They have different followers, but they do still work with either the 5.45x39 or the 5.56, though.

Final thoughts as to what piece to choose. Like I said, if money's no object, then the M1A is my first choice, while if money is tight, then I would choose the AK hands down for all the reasons listed here. The AR is a bit of a compromise between the two extremes, but it does have a major advantage in that it's chambered for the standard round of the military and uses the same magazines. In a hypothetical SHTF situation, then it would be nice to strip weapons, gear and ammo off a dead ZOG-merc for resupply. Unless you plan to stockpile lots of .308 or 7.62x39, then you won't have that option with the AK or M1A (unless you whack an M-60 or M-240 gunner for the .308 ammo, not something I'd recommend trying). Even if you do stockpile, it'd be nice to be able to resupply in the field. Lastly, the 5.56mm ammo's a lot lighter than either 7.62x39 or .308 so you can carry more rounds per pound. Oh well, rapidly wandering off into "what-ifs" and other hypotheticals, so I'll shut up!

Good luck!

weisbrot

2004-01-27 17:07 | User Profile

Sounds like you'll also want an easily concealed sidearm for personal protection.

I would recommend something you and the little woman can both handle easily. This jewel should be strapped to your ankle at all times:

[url]http://firearms.smith-wesson.com/store/index.php3?cat=293531&item=831462[/url]

Chaucer

2004-01-28 21:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Howdy Chaucer,

So you're thinking of building a poodle-shooter?

Well, first off, you need to be familiar with the various legalities surrounding the so-called "assault weapons" if you're interested in making or buying one.

If you don't want to wait, you can still have a fine weapon.

Good luck and let us know how it goes!

Thank you. This was very informative.

MadScienceType

2004-01-29 14:39 | User Profile

[quote=Chaucer]Thank you. This was very informative.

No problem. Let us know how it goes.

Oh, I may be wrong on the 16.25" legal minimum thing. It could actually be 16" instead. I've seen both thrown out, but never written the ATF to ask. ;)

Faust

2004-01-30 06:48 | User Profile

Chaucer,

Everyone should see this thread too.

Gun Building at home [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10563[/url]

Ausonius

2004-02-07 04:30 | User Profile

Hello OD,

Those of you who have been around awhile remember me from a few months ago. I don't purport to be an expert on everything, but I have devoted many years of study to proficiency in the use (and building) of small arms, and have established my credentials here in OD-land both through formal schooling and Real World Operations in other peoples' countries while Active Duty Army during my 10 years serving. I have an opinion on this matter, if you all are willing to listen for a spell.

Firearms are a toolbox. There is no one best firearm for everything. The AR-series designed by Eugene Stoner is an excellent design that has many uses. I won't start a 'mine-is-better-than-yours' war between us here by advocating any particular design over another, but I [I]will[/I] say that, in certain applications, the AR-series is a very effective weapon.

AR-series weapons excell in environments such as close quarters battle or where visibility is severely limited. Inside of 200 meters, it is very effective. The AR15A3 is short, light, portable, accurate, reliable and has some of the best sights ever put on a combat weapon, which make it ideal for an urban environment, such as room clearing or tunnels, where engagement distances do not often exceed a couple of hundred meters (and occur more often at rock-throwing distances than anything else). It has excellent sights, is very ergonomic and is relativly easy to maintain. The only downside that I can think of is the 5.56 NATO round itself. With the advent of body armor, and its' subsequent evolution, it has rendered the 5.56 almost ineffective unless armor piercing projectiles are used, and even that is mitigated if IVA armor is used (or IIIA and a trauma plate).

If a short, portable, powerful battle carbine is desired, [I]because it is needed[/I] and not because it looks cool, it is hard to beat the H&K 91A3. It has all of the advantages of the AR-series A3, but uses the more effective 7.62 NATO round, which negates the body armor advantage. It is much more reliable than the AR series (and the AR is no slouch), and, IMHO, is one of the toughest and well built rifles made for combat. Original design specs required that the G3 (H&K 91) be able to be air dropped from an aircraft in flight without a parachute and still be mission capable after hitting the ground. No other rifle can lay claim to such a thing, and, after using the G3 (H&K 91), qualifying with it and built several from receivers, I can testify to its' strength and reliability. It is not, however, the most ergonomic rifle designed and actually has the annoying habit of often giving the shooter, literally, a black eye.

If one cannot be obtained, and you do not need the extra barrel length (and better ballistics/effective range), I would look for the shortest version of the M1A1. This piece has the advantages of being short, portable, and is built on the venerable Garand/M14 action (one of the masterpieces of engineering of the 20th century) but is heavier than its' counterparts (the AR and 91). At first glance, this seems to be a drawback, but is actually an advantage, since during CQB, it is advantageous to have a rifle that has a stock of good, solid wood. Bashing open doors, windows etc (not to mention that oldie but goodie: the buttstroke to the head) with a rifle that has a plastic stock is a dubious issue that will likely earn you a handful of plastic chips. The ultra short M1A1 has greater weight than the collapsable-stock carbines, meaning it will be more controllable during rapid, semi-auto aimed fire. The tradeoff is velocity (and, by default, effective range.. but we're talking carbines here) and increased muzzle blast/flash, which could be an issue if you do not want to give away your position. But, chances are, they're going to know you're there anyway, so blast and flash are not really an issue, except that it'll be loud as hell and may flashblind you if your eyes are used to the dark.

I'll end this now without addressing the various other suitable designs from other countries (Galil, AK, Valmet, SKS [yes, the SKS] and FAL), mostly because I'm tired and this post is long enough.

Feel free to ask questions. Thanks for your time.

Ausonius

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-07 14:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ausonius] It [the HK91A3] is not, however, the most ergonomic rifle designed and actually has the annoying habit of often giving the shooter, literally, a black eye.[/QUOTE]

Good to hear from you again, A. - excellent remarks, in my judgment.

However, Chaucer's specification was thus:

"I would just like to use this gun for fun...things like target practice, and maybe shooting a pesty animal here and there. I intend to make this gun strictly legal."

Though both of us, A. and NN alike, would like Chaucer to optimize his self-defense/survivalist capabilities while he's at it.

So I recommended that C. look at the upcoming 6.8x43 SPC before making a final commitment to an AR-scale platform, and would continue to endorse that direction in the face of A.'s remarks, since the recoil of the 6.8 is only slightly greater than that of the 5.56, where that of the HK is going to be eye-blackeningly fierce with the combination of the powerhouse 7.62 and the snappy roller-locking mechanism (in place of a recoil-softening gas tube).

Thus, I think that the specification of a "fun gun" speaks against C.'s acquisition of the equivalent of a hard-kicking, full-bore battle rifle.

Ausonius

2004-02-07 19:53 | User Profile

Hello Neo,

Thank you for the welcome, it is good to be back.

I guess my remarks were colored by the current mindset I am in. I am literally dumping anything in the gun safe that does not have a real world application, with the exception of inherited pieces, the one or two ultra-rare ones that I have or training pieces. It was not my intention to hijack the thread.

Buying a AR15A3 series for target practice is a bit confusing to me. The AR is accurate [I]for a battle caribine[/I], but would not be my first choice for a target rifle. Since he is wanting an AR-series, I automatically assumed (shame on me) that he is wanting it to be used in the dual role of practice/defense. Nothing beats a good, well built boltgun for accuracy. I'm not being snobby here, just realistic. Part of the reason I put myself through all those schools was to be [I]able[/I] to build what I want, since I was pissed off at the low QC of what is currently out there. If I want something, I build it my damn self and the manufacturers can go to hell.

If maximum accuracy is desired, a good, solid boltgun can be built for less than the cost of a pre-ban AR series (even a postban if you purchase carefully). Example: Charles Daly has recently started importing actions, barreled actions and complete rifles from BRNO in the Czech Republic. BRNO is a venerable company with a well deserved reputation for quality. These boltguns (and actions) are milled from a solid block of tool steel, not cast. They exact duplicates of the M98 (with an upgraded, fully adjustable single stage trigger), one of the best, if not [I]THE[/I] best rifle action ever designed. Current cost for an action is around $300 dollars. Match barrel can be bought and installed by Krieger or Obermeyer (there is no real other barrel manufacturer that makes better... they hold tolerances to 1/1000 of 1/1000 of an inch.. that is one [I]millionth[/I] of an inch!) for another $400. Decent stock built to fit the shooter can be had for another 250 or so and glass can come from anywhere. Last time I checked, preban AR's were going for around $2000 depending on variant. Guaranteed, that built boltgun will turn in sub 1/2 MOA with the right ammo, in any caliber, provided the shooter does his job. Plus, it can be pressed into service as a precision rifle when and where needed.

Ausonius

2004-02-09 02:26 | User Profile

Hello Valley Forge,

I tend to post rather lengthy posts, and they ramble a bit sometimes, so I will keep this short.

My thoughts on the M1A:

Masterpiece of engineering. But the Springfield Armory ones are [I]not[/I] made of forged, milled tool steel like the original M14 or Garand. They are made of castings. High end ones, to be sure, but a casting is a casting. The metal is porous, and cannot be welded and/or heat treated in the unfortunate event of damage (or even modifications). The original M14/Garand was made of milled, forged tool steel and could use more powerful machinegun ammunition in the event that a soldier ran out of ammo for his standard battle rifle with no problems whatsoever. The Springfield M1A will beat itself to death using more powerful MG ammo and will fracture at the rear of the receiver, rendering the rifle useless and a danger to fire. Other than that, I would not hesitate to purchase a real, honest to God, semi-only M14 receiver and build it up into an as-new rifle (or find one complete and just buy it outright). The only exception to the 'M1A's-are-castings' rule are the Chinese ones that were imported into the US back in the late 80's before the ban. Those are forged steel. I believe it was Polytech that was making them.

Thoughts on the AK:

Excellent design. Will run on any type of ammunition in any environment and suffer any kind of abuse with no malfunctions. Magazines are plentiful, robust and reliable. Downsides are that the 7.62X39 is a ballistic match for a 30-30, the design itself is not very accurate (only reliable hits out to about 250 meters or so, depending on rifle, shooter and ammo.. the sniper configuration is only good to about 600 meters) and the stock is too short. For anyone close to, or over, 6 feet tall, getting comfortable on that tiny stock is an issue. One more thing: Quality control. The Romanian ones and most of the real Russian ones are good... the others are iffy at best. Lucky for you that the design is so good, crummy welds, tool marks and junky finish don't matter.

Hope this helps.

Ausonius

PS Stay away from Wolf ammunition. It is dirty, innaccurate and a waste of time/money/effort. Load your own if you buy an AK to get the most out of it accuracy-wise. Also, while writing this I was reminded of a very well done conversion that was being done to Garands awhile back, converting them to run on 7.62 NATO ammunition and M14 magazines. [I]That[/I] would be looking into and persuing.

Angler

2004-02-09 03:35 | User Profile

The only exception to the 'M1A's-are-castings' rule are the Chinese ones that were imported into the US back in the late 80's before the ban. Those are forged steel. I believe it was Polytech that was making them. I read somewhere (it might have been in Boston's Gun Bible by "Boston T. Party") that those are indeed the best receivers to get, but that many or most of them were heat treated improperly. However, I believe I also read that there is at least one company out there that will redo the heat treating of those receivers for you, making them mil-spec. I'm going by memory here and could be mistaken, but this might be something to consider anyway.

Blond Knight

2004-02-09 03:59 | User Profile

Chaucer; Before you build your ar-15, get the book "Black Magic, The ultra accurate AR- 15" by John Feamster.

I know a person who built one for varmint hunting, very accurate!! Less than 1/2 inch groups with the right loads.(Read the book!!")

Those interested in a .308 caliber may want to consider the FN-FAL. DS Arms makes some good ones.- You generaly get what you pay for.

Good luck & safe shooting.

Chaucer

2004-02-09 21:56 | User Profile

Thanx for the replies, Ausonius. The gun will also be for survival purposes, not just playing around. I should have stated this, but was hesitant to do so over the net.

Ausonius

2004-02-11 05:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Chaucer]Thanx for the replies, Ausonius. The gun will also be for survival purposes, not just playing around. I should have stated this, but was hesitant to do so over the net.[/QUOTE]

I understand your hesitation and can sympathize, there being a shortage of knowledgeable individuals out there to bounce ideas off of. Not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I humbly request that you would extend your thanks to the others who contribute many fine points to this thread. I do not claim to know everything, and their contributions carry equal weight and bring up many valid points that I did not address. Having a broad general knowledge about things that go 'bang' cannot stack up against a person who has devoted a lifetime of intense study to one particular design.

Even when I was running a shop up north, I would get the occasional customer who spent a lifetime studying, shooting, modifying, memorizing, reading about and collecting ONE particular type of firearm. If they asked me a esoteric question about "Model X" and I did not know the answer instantly, I would often be treated as a person who did not know what they were talking about and had no business building or repairing firearms. All too often, such a person could reliably be stuck into the category of "asshole".

But back to the subject of this post...

Wanting to build a firearm out of an existing receiver is an admirable persuit and I applaud your desire to do so. However, it is not like baking a cake or assembling tinkertoys. Fortunately, you have chosen a design that is largely modular and can be modified to suit the individual in a variety of ways. But you need to do your homework. Buy the technical manuals that apply to the design, buy the specific tools needed to assemble and disassemble it properly, clean it properly, spare parts needed to keep it running and in good repair (by the way, Colt made several changes to the AR design with regards to things like bolt carriers, takedown pins, etc.. older uppers often won't fit new-production lowers without mods and that sort of thing), etc, etc. You must comply with the law on top of all of this as well.

High performance, very precise weapons are much like F1 race cars: They require constant maintainence and great care, lest the level of performance falls off. I own a Steyr SSG 69 in as-issued condition. It stays in its' case all the time. I take it out to stay proficient, but when I'm done, I tear it down, scrub the hell out of it until it is absolutely spotless, inspect every part, reassemble it, coat it in preservative and re-case it until next time. It shoots into 1/4 MOA if I do my job, but that performance is finite. I expect the barrel to only last around 4000 rounds before accuracy starts to degrade, and I'm coming up on 3000 rounds now. Every single round through that rifle has been a Federal Gold Medal Match HPBT Matchking in .308 or one assembled by me with the utmost care using the best componants. No shlocky surplus ammo at all. I keep a gun book and a shot book on it that has recorded every single round fired and under what circumstances and all maintainence performed on the weapon.

A rifle used for survival will naturally be subjected to all manner of harsh weather, rough treatment, intermittant cleanings and questionable ammunition depending on your sources. Reliability and combat accuracy are more important than being able to pinwheel someone at 900 meters every time. If it were me, and I were trying to come up with one weapon that did everything you could ask of it and still function, even after, say, pissing on it to unfreeze the action in extreme cold weather (yes, I have done that), I would choose an Honest-to-God M14. Those being in short supply, I would have the next best thing, the Garand, modified to accept M14 magazines and rebarreled to .308/7.62 NATO. Parts are everywhere, ammo is plentiful, magazines are robust, the quality and design of the receiver is unqestionably superior and its' accuracy is very good, the sights being excellent. I wouldn't hunt rabbits with it, but it will do everything you could possibly ask of it and not have any significant issues. The other designs noted earlier in the thread are all acceptable, but have drawbacks in one way or another (The H&K 91 giving you a black eye, the AK having a midget stock and ho-hum accuracy/low power round, the FAL having finicky magazines, the AR having a low power round, etc..), so if I were buying/building one, I would want a modified Garand. But that's just me. :tank:

I must end this now, I'm getting the stinkeye from my wife. Seems she doesn't like me staying up late and writing posts to you guys (and gals). I'll put more down later. :D

Ausonius

MadScienceType

2004-02-11 05:25 | User Profile

I must end this now, I'm getting the stinkeye from my wife.

:glare:

LOL. I'm getting the exact same thing at the moment.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-11 07:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Chaucer]I should have stated this, but was hesitant to do so over the net.[/QUOTE]

There's been some mention of my creating a more private firearms related forum. Of course I'm completely open to doing it, but the questions I have are how much interest in such a forum is there and how exactly would those that are interested want it to be set up.

I could make it a completely public and open forum like Culture War, for example. I could make it public for anyone to read, but limit certain usergroups with the ability to post in it. I could also make it completely private, with reading and posting priveleges limited to senior members only who apply to join a special sub-user group that can access or 'see' it. Or finally it could be anything between those two extremes.

If you have the time or inclination, please give me y'all's feedback on this and I will act accordingly.

MadScienceType

2004-02-11 15:23 | User Profile

Tex,

Well, I'm all for such a forum. Perhaps it would be something along the lines of the "Members Only Miscellaneous" forum, just to keep out the casual nitwit(s). I don't think it needs to be too restricted, or it looks like there's something to hide. The only rules I would forsee being necessary are a prohibition on illegalities (like that's a big surprise) such as discussion of full-auto "how-to" posts or things that go BOOM instead of just bang. Sure, technicalities of such could be discussed, but I'd hate to see a little version of anarchy-type boards show up here. It's a fine line I guess.

Howdy Ausonius,

Good to see you around again. I've been looking into a .308 semi-auto for a while now and have mulled over the choices. Thanks for clearing up some of the fog for me. I've been leaning towards the FAL, but the good ones are expensive, of course. I hadn't considered the HK-91/G3 really because I don't know enough about them to avoid a lemon. Could you give some pointers on which manufacturer makes a decent one? I know that Hesse and Century receivers have a spotty, at best, record on quality and I have to believe that a .308 semi-auto for $299-399 has to have some sort of catch. Is the CETME a viable alternative to the HK-91/G3? Oh, and I know that both designs use a fluted chamber to help the empty out because there's no gas system. Does that tear the brass up too badly to reload? That's not a huge concern, but it'd still be nice to know beforehand.

Ausonius

2004-02-11 15:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Tex,

Howdy Ausonius,

Tex,

I've been mulling it over for a day or two now, and I'd like to see a completely open forum with regards to firearms, but posting limited to members only. Yes, this opens it up to the anti's and crazies, but that's what the 'delete' button is for. I think the tradeoff (more input vs limited viewing) is worth it. You are always going to have crazies. I won't even entertain the idea of full auto fire, unless it applies to existing, legal designs that are already present in the US and able to be owned by civillians under the Class 3 liscence. Semi-auto, revolvers or boltguns and shotguns only.

MST,

Yes, the H&K91/G3 tears the hell out of brass. It also flings the empties the better part of 50 feet (which says something about how robust the extraction/ejection system is). Of course, in a battle rifle, you will not be likely to stop and pick up empties during an engagement. Better to lay in a good supply of makings and do up your own. A word about military brass: The brass is heavier and more robust than its' civillian counterpart, and will lend itself to more reloadings than ammo bought down at Jimmy Joe Bob's Gunshop & Strip Joint (now THERE is a thought :) ). But, the primers are swaged and/or crimped in place (to better hold together during full auto fire). You need to remove this crimp to be able to reload the cases, unless you like eye surgery. Luckily, if you got a copy of Blue Press (Dillon Reloading), they make an affordable device that will remove the crimp with little effort.

The FAL is an excellent design and very ergonomic. The CETME is decent, and I would not turn one down. You are correct about the QC being spotty with some manufacturers, however, I have some news for you:

a) The 'assault weapons' (hah!) ban will sunset this year (with a little luck), meaning prices are going to take a nosedive on all the "Pre-Ban" stuff that is way overpriced and

b) Heckler & Koch is building a manufacturing plant in northern Virginia, meaning the rifles they build will not be covered under the 'assault weapons' Ban if it does not sunset. (Big-ass cheesy grin on my face right now).

So, what all this means is that, if you are willing to wait, you can get something of excellent quality (assuming you want a H&K91) from H&K at a more affordable price. If all you can swing now is about a grand or so, I would still go with the M1A from Springfield Armory, castings or no castings. If you want shorter, get one that has a 18" barrel and go blast away..

Hope this helps.

Ausonius

MadScienceType

2004-02-11 22:23 | User Profile

A word about military brass: The brass is heavier and more robust than its' civillian counterpart, and will lend itself to more reloadings than ammo bought down at Jimmy Joe Bob's Gunshop & Strip Joint (now THERE is a thought ). But, the primers are swaged and/or crimped in place (to better hold together during full auto fire). You need to remove this crimp to be able to reload the cases, unless you like eye surgery. Luckily, if you got a copy of Blue Press (Dillon Reloading), they make an affordable device that will remove the crimp with little effort.

Yeah, I blew a decapping pin one time that way. A military .308 case had slipped in my range bag somehow and I didn't check before resizing. Oh well, good thing I had a spare. Probably do like you said and lay in a goodly supply of components and crank away, plus get some of the cheap milsurp stuff for emergency use. I have some, but it's a pain because I had to sort thru it to remove the ones with creased necks (you get what you pay for). Gave the old bullet puller a workout on that one, but at least I had some projos when it was all over.

I'm not going to hold my breath over the AW ban sunsetting, but if it does, I will be a happy camper. Are there any good H&K receivers on the market as far as you know? I may try cobbling one together from an "as new" parts kit, plus I've seen "new" barrels for the H&K on the market and I need a set of .308 headspace gauges anyway.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-13 05:23 | User Profile

The optimized-round, universal rifle of the coming century:

[url]http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_6.8_uppers.html[/url]

MadScienceType

2004-02-13 15:47 | User Profile

Forged M-14 receivers.

[url]http://www.lrbarms.com/pages/2/index.htm[/url]

Pricey though...

Ausonius

2004-02-13 17:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Forged M-14 receivers.

[url]http://www.lrbarms.com/pages/2/index.htm[/url]

Pricey though...[/QUOTE]

Price be damned, if it's forged tool steel, jump on it. You'll blow that much building up any AR variant out there. From what I saw and read, it's good enough for me, and I'm snobby as hell when it comes to buying firearms. I'm just glad that someone out there is still making good stuff.

I have found that there is a reasonable amount of people out there who are willing to pay more for tools/equipment/firearms of excellent quality, so long as someone is willing to [I]build[/I] them.

Matter of fact, I would buy two barreled actions and build them up identically, and lay in a good supply of finished receivers for the inevitable future we all face. You'll appreciate them in the future when even being able to buy such things becomes impossible, giving our current political/social path.

[I]The optimized-round, universal rifle of the coming century:

[url]http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_6.8_uppers.html[/url][/I]

In a word: Yuck.

I'm a minimalist. Give me a good, solid, dependable, accurate [I]proven[/I] rifle every time . I'll more than gladly pay out the cost of ammunition getting very proficient with it than a cartridge/design that the only thing going for it, as far as I can see, is looking cool (to some people). Putting itty bitty holes in stuff and trading off power/range is not, IMHO, a good tradeoff.

The Brits had that bullpup thing in Gulf I, and dumped it in favor of the creaky old FAL when they realized the shortcomings of their shiny new carbine. This is an attempt at improving a limited design, as are all the others out there (including the 50 BMG conversion), that may very well take off and be adopted, but will not necessarily be an improvement. Remeber back in '85 when they went to the Beretta? The Colt 1911A1 is clearly superior to the Beretta in all respects, yet because Italy allowed us to stick medium range ballistic missles in their country, we not only adopted the M9, but gave them all kinds of incentives/tax breaks to build a factory here (and get around the 'will not adopt a design of foreign manufacture' regulation with regards to what the military uses).

Oh, for the halcyon days of the brown shoe army, the M14, the 1911A1, the M1919 and M2 Browning Machineguns... those were the best designs this country has ever had, with the M2 as the only survivor. I'll take the M1A, thank you very much.

Ausonius

MadScienceType

2004-02-13 18:26 | User Profile

I may have to get one of those barreled actions when I save up the pennies from my paper route.

I noticed that they're made of a high-carbon ni-chrom alloy and hardened to a pretty good depth (I took A's advice on learning more metallurgy) ;) so the strength issue should be resolved.

Not knowing a whole lot about the variants of the M-14, could you give me a rundown on the standard/rear/double-lugged receiver?

Agreed about the brown-shoe army guns. I noticed that the majority of those were designed by folks tinkering in their garages, John Moses Browning in particular. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Col. Chinn commented that the U.S. had slit its own throat in terms of small-arms development when they passed the blanket machine-gun ban in '86. I think history has shown him to be correct. If there is another JMB out there, he's probably serving 25 years' hard time for doing exactly what the original Mormon Gun Nut did in his shop over a hundred years ago. Pretty frigging sad if you ask me.

Oh yeah, the BAR was another fine design that's fallen by the wayside, but pretty darn heavy to lug around all day, I imagine.

weisbrot

2004-02-13 18:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Agreed about the brown-shoe army guns. I noticed that the majority of those were designed by folks tinkering in their garages, John Moses Browning in particular. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Col. Chinn commented that the U.S. had slit its own throat in terms of small-arms development when they passed the blanket machine-gun ban in '86. I think history has shown him to be correct. If there is another JMB out there, he's probably serving 25 years' hard time for doing exactly what the original Mormon Gun Nut did in his shop over a hundred years ago. Pretty frigging sad if you ask me.

Oh yeah, the BAR was another fine design that's fallen by the wayside, but pretty darn heavy to lug around all day, I imagine.[/QUOTE]

There was some "documentary" piece on the History Channel last night I watched for a few minutes- something about "Gangster Guns". It described how the gangsters of the 20's and 30's went from .38's to BAR's and Thompsons, making it sound like the country was rife with extended machine-gun street battles. I didn't notice much mention of Prohibition amid all the horrified pronouncements and grim musical accompaniment about how ordinary citizens could obtain weapons.

It was very light on the aspects you'd expect- technical info, how the weapons were developed, etc. Much social commentary, though, with praise for how the FBI turned into the big crime-bustin' machine that it is today.

MacDonald needs to go back and write a fourth volume on media control...

MadScienceType

2004-02-13 19:07 | User Profile

There was some "documentary" piece on the History Channel last night I watched for a few minutes- something about "Gangster Guns".

Yeah, I saw about half of it. I particularly remember the narrator talking about the National Firearms Act of 1934 (severely restricted the right of the peons to own full-autos) being an effort "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" complete with film of teary-eyed civilians carrying small coffins and fellows shoveling guns over the side of a barge. Of course, they didn't mention that by 1934, Prohibition had been repealed and the bootleggers were out of business and no longer shooting each other, kind of making the "public safety" argument moot. Of course that didn't stop them. Some things never change.

And I'd certainly buy a MacDonald book on that subject.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-13 22:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ausonius]

[I]The optimized-round, universal rifle of the coming century:

[url]http://www.impactguns.com/store/barrett_6.8_uppers.html[/url][/I]

In a word: Yuck.

I'm a minimalist. Give me a good, solid, dependable, accurate [I]proven[/I] rifle every time. I'll more than gladly pay out the cost of ammunition getting very proficient with it than a cartridge/design that the only thing going for it, as far as I can see, is looking cool (to some people). Putting itty bitty holes in stuff and trading off power/range is not, IMHO, a good tradeoff.[/QUOTE]

You have a point, A., about "proven" in that this is, in part, a new firearm. Otherwise I find your dismissal somewhat facile in view of Chaucer's stated aim of acquiring a "fun gun" that would also serve as a survivalist weapon. The 6.8 is a carefully-balanced/optimized design that makes .270 Winchester size holes with non-expanding ammo and has the explosive capability of a .243 Winchester with a slightly larger expanding bullet at a slightly lower velocity. This is achieved with "fun gun" levels of recoil and the consequent extreme enhancement of firepower potential from a hi-cap magazine (for which your golden oldies are not designed) should things come to that. 115 grains at 800m/s gives up little or nothing in realistic long-range capability unless one is a professional sniper.

Ausonius

2004-02-14 02:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]You have a point, A., about "proven" in that this is, in part, a new firearm. Otherwise I find your dismissal somewhat facile in view of Chaucer's stated aim of acquiring a "fun gun" that would also serve as a survivalist weapon. [/QUOTE]

Chaucer amended his original specifications:

[QUOTE]Chaucer Thanx for the replies, Ausonius. The gun will also be for survival purposes, not just playing around. I should have stated this, but was hesitant to do so over the net. [/QUOTE]

A rifle that is meant for survival is something that, literally, you are betting your life on. That it is fun to shoot is a secondary consideration. It must be a rifle meant primarily for battle that has acceptable accuracy and is tough enough to survive everything the environment and the operator can throw at it, yet still have a cartridge capable of neutralizing an opponant at whatever distances may be required. Small calibers cannot do that and 'fun' takes a backseat to survivability every time. I find nothing facile in my comments.

[QUOTE]The 6.8 is a carefully-balanced/optimized design that makes .270 Winchester size holes with [U]non-expanding ammo [/U] and has the explosive capability of a .243 Winchester with a slightly larger [U]expanding[/U] bullet at a slightly lower velocity.[/QUOTE]

Non-expanding ammo that has the explosive capability of the .243 Winchester with a slightly larger expanding bullet? What, exactly, does this mean? It cannot be both at the same time and sounds self-contradictory to me, plus, the .243 is just a .308 necked down to .24 caliber. Fairly good round, but I would hardly classify it as a barn burner, and certainly not 'explosive'.

[QUOTE]This is achieved with "fun gun" levels of recoil and the consequent extreme enhancement of firepower potential from a hi-cap magazine (for which your golden oldies are not designed) should things come to that. [/QUOTE]

M1919 .30 caliber Machinegun (and variants): Uses disintigrating link belt.
M2 HB Flex .50 caliber MG: Uses disintigrating link belt.
M14/M1A .30 caliber semiautomatic rifle: Uses 20 round detachable box magazines.
M1911A1 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol: 8 round detachable internal box magazine.
Browning Automatic Rifle (aka: BAR) .30 caliber semi or fully automatic rifle: 20 round detachable box magazine (plus, it has a rate of fire regulator).

At what point are any of these "golden oldies" hampered by a non-highcap magazine (1911A1's do not need high capacity magazines.. one shot is good enough)? Besides, anyone who has carried a M16 variant in their lives for more than 15 minutes knows that a 30 round magazine is [I]not[/I] loaded to capacity for fear of feeding malfunctions. 28 or 27 rounds is the norm. Using a 20 rounder to full capacity is okay, for some strange reason. Sertorius can back me up on this one. An 8 round advantage does not seem like a tradeoff that I would want to settle for. Additionally, since the cases and projectiles are larger, this means that less rounds will fit in your standard 30 round magazine, negating even further the rounds-per-magazine advantage. Furthermore, recoil is manageable at any level by anyone who has the will to go out and practice their craft (this includes professional soldiers for whom killing is a very real possibility), so long as they approach it intelligently and work up incrementally. This means unlearning all your bad habits and starting over with a good target rifle in .22 Long Rifle caliber for most folks.

[QUOTE]115 grains at 800m/s gives up little or nothing in realistic long-range capability unless one is a professional sniper.[/QUOTE]

This is anything [I]but[/I] realistic. 800 m/s translates into just over 2600 f/s, with a 115g projectile [meters X conversion factor of 3.2808 = feet]. The 7.62 NATO round achieves 2600 f/s with a 168g projectile, meaning: it will retain greater velocity and killing power at greater ranges than that 115g projo. Using the same 115g projo in the 7.62 case gives us, conservatively, just over 3000 f/s, which still beats the 6.8mm handily.

One thing that you forget is that that small projectiles, when accelerated to high velocity, shed that velocity very quickly. The forces acting on any projectile in flight are tremendous, and increase on a logrithmic scale (or, if you prefer, they increase exponentially) the faster they go. Putting it simply, and without going into all the math in gruesome detail, the smaller projectiles slow down faster than their larger cousins (for a thorough explanation of how projectiles in flight behave, read [I]Understanding Firearm Ballistics [/I] by Robert A. Rinker, Mulberry House Printing, P.O. Box 2180, Apache Junction, AZ 85217. Toll free at 1-888-738-1567). Saying that any potential target at distances beyond which you, personally, are not comfortable is not realistic is just self defeatist.

Once upon a time, These United States taught their fighting men how to [I]SHOOT[/I], by God. After WW2, there was a switch in training and doctrine, on the squad level, from an Honest-to-God [I]Rifleman[/I] in support of an automatic weapon to this "more is better" wasteful philosophy (I refer to it as 'half-assism', but I digress). Throw more bullets out there and chances are you will hit something. The only way to throw more bullets is to make them smaller, so your troops can carry more. The US does not teach its' fighting men how to shoot anymore, and for proof I offer two things:

a) They have issued small-caliber carbines, not real rifles, to troops and

b) Practice distances are limited to 500 meters, with most of the encouragement on hitting the closer ones every time, since on the standard 40/40 qual course, the vast majority of misses occur past 300 meters. [Meaning: the drill sergeants only want their troops to qualify, not get a perfect score. With Basic Training cut from 3 months to 2 months, they have limited time to teach their trainees what they need to know. There simply is not enough time to teach them how to shoot properly, and, therefore, they give them carbines that are relatively easy to shoot, and hit with, out to 300 meters.]

Real rifles are reserved for specialized troops: snipers. I don't want to make every soldier into a sniper, but I would like to see our fighting men taught how to shoot once again. All the talk of 'force multipliers' is just an excuse to buy more doo-dads instead of teaching soldiers the art of battle like they are supposed to be taught. If they really believed in what they preach, they would encourage real marksmanship and give our soldiers back real rifles. I have already stated that the AR series has a legitimate reason for existance, but that reason does not include general issue.

I will, however, give two votes of approval to this new 6.8mm cartridge... it has indicated to me that the 'more and smaller is better' trend is starting to reverse itself. A rifle with anything of caliber .27 is a step in the right direction, and the lower recoil pulse of the cartridge/rifle itself. Not because it is easier on the shooter (though that is a pleasant side effect), but because recovery time from shot to shot is decreased for the troop who may be required to carry it. This does not mean I am contradicting myself with regards to heavier caliber cartridges. A real rifleman will not be put off by the heavier recoil, and, because he is a real rifleman, a secondary shot at his target will not be required because of the greater killing power of his rifle. John Garand originally designed his masterpiece (and, by default, the M14/M1A, since it uses the same receiver and engineering) to use the .270 Winchester, but wartime pressures forced him to adapt it to 30-06. The .270 shoots flatter and is an excellent cartridge, but ammo interchangeablity was more important than a marginal increase in ballistics.

Ausonius

PS The Instructors Certification hanging on my wall behind me bears the name, amongst others (authorizing its' issuance to me) "Neil K. Morris". He is lauded copiously in the book "Sniper" by Mark Spicer, himself an accomplished marksman and sniper. I know my craft.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-14 06:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ausonius]Chaucer amended his original specifications:[/QUOTE]

Which were, in summary, as I stated them.

[QUOTE]Non-expanding ammo that has the explosive capability of the .243 Winchester with a slightly larger expanding bullet? What, exactly, does this mean?[/QUOTE]

It means that you are having difficulty reading this evening. Let me separate the statements for clarity:

1)The 6.8 is a carefully-balanced/optimized design that makes .270 Winchester size holes [i.e., 6.8 is .270] with non-expanding ammo...

2)...and [the 6.8] has the explosive capability of a .243 Winchester[,] with a slightly larger expanding bullet [i.e., the .270/6.8/115 is slightly larger than .243/6.0/100] at a slightly lower velocity [i.e., 800-850m/s is slightly slower than 900m/s].

[QUOTE]Sounds self-contradictory to me, plus, the .243 is just a .308 necked down to .24 caliber. Fairly good round, but I would hardly classify it as a barn burner, and certainly not 'explosive'.[/QUOTE]

.243 hunting rounds, as do others of similar velocity, turn the internal organs of deer-sized animals into "soup" as if exploded.

[QUOTE] * M1919 .30 caliber Machinegun (and variants): Uses disintegrating link belt. * M2 HB Flex .50 caliber MG: Uses disintegrating link belt. * M14/M1A .30 caliber semiautomatic rifle: Uses 20 round detachable box magazines. * M1911A1 .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol: 8 round detachable internal box magazine. * Browning Automatic Rifle (aka: BAR) .30 caliber semi or fully automatic rifle: 20 round detachable box magazine (plus, it has a rate of fire regulator).

At what point are any of these "golden oldies" hampered by a non-highcap magazine (1911A1's do not need high capacity magazines.. one shot is good enough)?[/QUOTE]

The machine guns are hampered when they have to be employed "from the march" in an emergency (unlike the current Minimi SAW which uses M16 magazines or is mounted with a 200 round tank), and the pistol is not even in the firepower ballpark with a 28-round assault rifle. The M14 and the BAR cannot place the majority of their eight-fewer rounds in the vicinity of the target area under full-auto except in the hands of an exceptionally capable operator.

[QUOTE]An 8 round advantage does not seem like a tradeoff that I would want to settle for.[/QUOTE]

The effective advantage is more like 20 rounds (actually delivered to the vicinity of the target area in the minimal amount of time to establish fire superiority).

[QUOTE]Furthermore, recoil is manageable at any level by anyone who has the will to go out and practice their craft (this includes professional soldiers for whom killing is a very real possibility), so long as they approach it intelligently and work up incrementally. This means unlearning all your bad habits and starting over with a good target rifle in .22 Long Rifle caliber for most folks.[/QUOTE]

Less recoil means more firepower = more bullets in target vicinity per unit time no matter who is operating the weapon. This is the historic reason for intermediate-power cartridges and the balancing therein of their barrel-deflecting recoil with their potency on target so as to achieve fire superiority.

[QUOTE]This is anything [I]but[/I] realistic. 800 m/s translates into just over 2600 f/s, with a 115g projectile [meters X conversion factor of 3.2808 = feet]. The 7.62 NATO round achieves 2600 f/s with a 168g projectile, meaning: it will retain greater velocity and killing power at greater ranges than that 115g projo.[/QUOTE]

I did not say otherwise. The implication of these numbers is that the 6.8 is a 600-meter killer and the 7.62 is good out to 1000. Which is to say, once again, that the difference is significant only to a professional sniper - which, as it turns out (and not coincidently it would seem) is what you were.

[QUOTE]Saying that any potential target at distances beyond which you, personally, are not comfortable is not realistic is just self defeatist.[/QUOTE]

A 2500 meter head-shot requires a .50 BMG round - thus a judgment as to the suitability of a target in terms of range is always involved for any given weapon.

[QUOTE]Once upon a time, These United States taught their fighting men how to [I]SHOOT[/I], by God. After WW2, there was a switch in training and doctrine, on the squad level, from an Honest-to-God [I]Rifleman[/I] in support of an automatic weapon to this "more is better" wasteful philosophy (I refer to it as 'half-assism', but I digress). Throw more bullets out there and chances are you will hit something.[/QUOTE]

This was the synoptic analysis of the Germans, the British, and the Americans from actual battlefield experience, long before there was any change in training philosophy and practice away from traditional marksmanship.

[QUOTE]Real rifles are reserved for specialized troops: snipers.[/QUOTE]

And thus you make my point, as above, in regard to Chaucer's requirements - which, I take it, do not involve sniper duty in open country such as to indicate the necessity for being kicked by a firepower-sacrificial 7.62.

[QUOTE]I have already stated that the AR series has a legitimate reason for existence, but that reason does not include general issue.[/QUOTE]

And the lessons of battle are indicating that the optimum battlefield compromise is not that between a submachine gun and battle rifle productive of the well-established Stg44/AK47/AR15 intermediate-cartridge weapons, but rather that between these now-traditional assault rifles themselves and the old full-power battle rifle, as embodied in the 6.8 SPC round and rifle.

[QUOTE]I will, however, give two votes of approval to this new 6.8mm cartridge... it has indicated to me that the 'more and smaller is better' trend is starting to reverse itself. A rifle with anything of caliber .27 is a step in the right direction, and the lower recoil pulse of the cartridge/rifle itself. Not because it is easier on the shooter (though that is a pleasant side effect), but because recovery time from shot to shot is decreased for the troop who may be required to carry it.[/QUOTE]

So far, so good.

[QUOTE]This does not mean I am contradicting myself with regards to heavier caliber cartridges. A real rifleman will not be put off by the heavier recoil, and, because he is a real rifleman, a secondary shot at his target will not be required because of the greater killing power of his rifle.[/QUOTE]

This assumes that he has an exposed target. Battlefield operational analysis has indicated to all the major combatants, beginning with the Germans in the Spanish Civil War, that more casualties are inflicted by throwing more ammo into the general vicinity of an enemy who is, rather, returning fire from concealed positions. And if you can move while directing this enhanced assault rifle fire into the general enemy position, rather than blasting the atmosphere with your battle rifle, your capability is thereby multiplied. The STG44, for example, was wonderfully capable in this regard - however, subsequent experience has shown that 7.92x33/7.62x39 is too much of a compromise in terms of range/trajectory and that 5.56x45 lacks stopping power and penetration. Hence the 6.8x43.

[QUOTE]PS: The Instructors Certification hanging on my wall behind me bears the name, amongst others (authorizing its' issuance to me) "Neil K. Morris". He is lauded copiously in the book "Sniper" by Mark Spicer, himself an accomplished marksman and sniper. I know my craft.[/QUOTE]

And I will happily defer to your expertise in this respect when Chaucer indicates that he, too, wants to be a sniper.

Angler

2004-02-14 06:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Forged M-14 receivers.

[url]http://www.lrbarms.com/pages/2/index.htm[/url]

Pricey though...[/QUOTE] Holy crap! I want one...BAD. Thanks for posting that link!!

Angler

2004-02-14 07:50 | User Profile

I'm no expert and have never been in (armed) combat, but nearly everything I've read on the subject leads me to believe that full-auto fire is almost always less effective than rapid semi-auto fire in a magazine-fed, shoulder-fired weapon. The reasons seem to be the same as those which, in the most extreme example, make full-auto fire in a pistol almost completely useless except at point-blank range.

If you have a 30-round magazine, you get maybe 2-3 seconds of "shooting time" (not necessarily all at once, of course) before you have to change magazines. If your magazine suddenly runs dry and your enemies aren't ALL dead, that could mean trouble, especially if it's a close-range fight. That's obviously much more likely to happen with full-auto fire.

Furthermore, what's the number of rounds an average infantryman carries? Maybe 8-10 magazines of 30 rounds each, right? Even when doing rapid semi-auto shooting, ammo goes fast. Again, I can't speak from experience, but if I were in combat without a belt-fed weapon, I would want to make every round count -- especially if I were in a small group and far from resupply.

As for larger caliber versus smaller, my main concern with the smaller-caliber weapons is their difficulty with penetrating certain forms of cover. The 5.56 NATO round is actually excellent at penetrating body armor -- it might even be better than 7.62 NATO at certain distances, judging by body armor specification charts I've seen. But 5.56 is generally much worse at penetrating materials such as glass, wood, and concrete, and that's obviously a major disadvantage. I currently own several weapons in 5.56x45 and 7.62x39, but I find myself wishing more and more that I had something in .308.

My $0.02, FWIW

Ausonius

2004-02-14 16:05 | User Profile

Neo..

I have several problems with your post:

[QUOTE]It means that you are having difficulty reading this evening. Let me separate the statements for clarity:

1)The 6.8 is a carefully-balanced/optimized design that makes .270 Winchester size holes [i.e., 6.8 is .270] with non-expanding ammo...

Thank you for clarifying the statement, but no need to be a snide ass*ole while going about it. I read just fine, thanks. But back to your post: It sounds like a promo statement from the website or literature from the manufacturer trying to schill their stuff. Broken down like this, it says to me:

*Our rifle uses a .27 caliber projectile, so it puts .27 caliber holes in stuff when the bullet does not expand (duh) and

*If you use expanding bullets, they will expand (which is what expanding bullets of any caliber do anyway when pushed to a certain velocity. Again, duh).

I find the offhand comparison to an obviously superior round (.270 Winchester) disingenuous. "Hey, this GREAT round uses projectiles with a diameter of .270, and so does OURS, so it must be good too!" This is the equivalent of saying: "The Mercedes 700-series sedan uses 4 wheels, and so does OURS!" Additionally, I have hunted my whole life, and at no point have I ever seen any internal organs of a deer 'liquified' by the .243 Winchester. The .243/.308 round (or any round of comperable power.. at some point later in your post, you confuse middle-class power cartidges with full-power cartridges, but we'll get to that) is rotating at around 250,000 r/m while in flight. If the thin jacket material is breached in any way (as in: striking an object composed mostly of water, IE animals), the projectile disintigrates like an over-revved helicopter flywheel. This is not "exploding", since projectile manufacturers have come up with a way to construct a bullet as to have it deform in a controlled manner (mostly through clever uses of alloys and thicknesses of guilding material, but I digress) as the bullet slows down and encounters more resistant material. This is where the classic mushroom effect comes from. In fact, if the projectile is moving fast enough, the shock wave preceeding a projectile in flight actually makes a hole in the material before the projectile ever stikes it, allowing it greater penetration before expansion begins. This is all covered in [I]Rinker[/I], as well as other works.

[QUOTE]The machine guns are hampered when they have to be employed "from the march" in an emergency (unlike the current Minimi SAW which uses M16 magazines or is mounted with a 200 round tank), and the pistol is not even in the firepower ballpark with a 28-round assault rifle. The M14 and the BAR cannot place the majority of their eight-fewer rounds in the vicinity of the target area under full-auto except in the hands of an exceptionally capable operator[/QUOTE]

You have never heard of the 1919A4. Granted, it was an effort to make the GPMG more portable, but it worked, and that's what mattered. Without getting on my soapbox too much, the Army went to the M60, an obvious piece of junk, in an effort to promote the 'more is better' philosophy. At least the Marines went with the FN MAG58, which is nothing more than a BAR (creaky old golden oldie) receiver flipped upsidown and converted to belt feed after realizing that the M60 sucked. I take exception to the 'cannot place the majority of their 8 fewer rounds in the vincinity of the target area' remark. You obviously have not read the reports from Aberdeen and Sand Hook Proving Grounds from when the BAR was being tested prior to approval. The BAR is exceptionally accurate when fired in the prone. And firing more, smaller caliber projectiles to achieve the same ends out of the SAW, while trading off power for capacity, is not a good trade. Plus, GPMG's and LMG's are area [I]effect weapons[/I], not point weapons like rifles.

[QUOTE]The effective advantage is more like 20 rounds (actually delivered to the vicinity of the target area in the minimal amount of time to establish fire superiority). [/QUOTE]

Provided the operator has been taught how to shoot, and not just spray rounds in the general vincinity of the bad guys, as is our current doctrine.

[QUOTE]Less recoil means more firepower = more bullets in target vicinity per unit time no matter who is operating the weapon. This is the historic reason for intermediate-power cartridges and the balancing therein of their barrel-deflecting recoil with their potency on target so as to achieve fire superiority. [/QUOTE]

Less recoil does not mean more firepower. The recoil pulse has nothing to do with how many rounds your box magazine holds. The rest of your statement is not accurate. The Germans came up with the MP43/MP44, which was promptly stolen by the russians. The Germans wanted something that was easy to operate that had reasonable power that they could give to a conscript with little training and allow him to be at least reasonably effective to offset the numerical advantage of the Soviets. As proof, I offer the many historical works that tell of how the Germans could not make the MG42 fast enough (with its unbelieveable cyclic rate) to help negate the numerical advantage. Dressing up the 'we're outnumbered, so we need a way to put more bullets downrange' argument with "balancing therein of their barrel-deflecting recoil with their potency on target so as to achieve fire superiority" is not accurate.

[QUOTE]I did not say otherwise. The implication of these numbers is that the 6.8 is a 600-meter killer and the 7.62 is good out to 1000. Which is to say, once again, that the difference is significant only to a professional sniper - which, as it turns out (and not coincidently it would seem) is what you were. A 2500 meter head-shot requires a .50 BMG round - thus a judgment as to the suitability of a target in terms of range is always involved for any given weapon. [/QUOTE]

I said nothing about a 2500 meter head shot. Oversimplifying a point I made for the purpose of making your counter more effective it is not fair. Apparently, I did a rather poor job of making that point, since you did not get it. My point is/was that [I]ANYONE[/I] is capable of hitting anything out to, and including 800+ meters, provided that they receive proper training. But, due to time constraints and the (bad) shift in our training and doctrine, our fighting men are no longer taught how to shoot this effectively. It's a crying shame too, since who ever heard of an army that does not teach their soldiers how to shoot?

[QUOTE]And thus you make my point, as above, in regard to Chaucer's requirements - which, I take it, do not involve sniper duty in open country such as to indicate the necessity for being kicked by a firepower-sacrificial 7.62. [/QUOTE]

I did nothing of the sort. My point was that soldiers are treated like children, with anyone who demonstrates the slightest ability in small arms proficiency encouraged to persue sniping. The current mode of thought is that the troops are incapable of being trained with 'real' rifles, and therefore are not worthy of them. Col. Jeff Cooper makes my point better than I ever could. I suggest you read him.

[QUOTE]This assumes that he has an exposed target. Battlefield operational analysis has indicated to all the major combatants, beginning with the Germans in the Spanish Civil War, that more casualties are inflicted by throwing more ammo into the general vicinity of an enemy who is, rather, returning fire from concealed positions. And if you can move while directing this enhanced assault rifle fire into the general enemy position, rather than blasting the atmosphere with your battle rifle, your capability is thereby multiplied. The STG44, for example, was wonderfully capable in this regard - however, subsequent experience has shown that 7.92x33/7.62x39 is too much of a compromise in terms of range/trajectory and that 5.56x45 lacks stopping power and penetration. Hence the 6.8x43.[/QUOTE]

Not to get snobby, but you think I'm some green boot? I know all of the above, and, I make the argument that the greater penetration/range of the 7.62 (which is, in itself, an intermediate power compromise cartridge that is still edged out by its' parent, the 30-06) will get through that cover more efficiently than any other 'compromie of a compromise' cartridge. A compromise means neither side gets what they want. I hesitate to think of what a 'compromise of a compromise' means...

We already [I]have[/I] a rifle that is the finest implement of battle ever designed in the history of the world, the M14/M1A. In my eyes, the whole situation is just 'fixing something that isn't broke'.

[QUOTE]And I will happily defer to your expertise in this respect when Chaucer indicates that he, too, wants to be a sniper.[/QUOTE]

Funny. Most of the firearms training I received while in school, prior to my instructors certification, was exactly the same training that the average boot received up until the second world war... The rest was job-specific esoterica, but shooting is shooting is shooting. The passage of decades does not change the mechanics of it. I still say being very proficient in the use of small arms trumps firepower.

Ausonius

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-14 22:57 | User Profile

A.,

[QUOTE=Ausonius]I have several problems with your post:[/QUOTE]

As do I with yours - so let's go through it.

[QUOTE]Thank you for clarifying the statement, but no need to be a snide ass*ole while going about it. I read just fine, thanks.[/QUOTE]

In fact you don't read just fine, A., as evidenced by your additional, previous error in referring to Chaucer's specification as if his amendment had not been made prior to your remarks to which I was responding. Not wanting to be an "asshole," I didn't make a point of this not terribly significant further evidence of your inattention. And we won't linger overly long over further instances, below.

[QUOTE]But back to your post: It sounds like a promo statement from the website or literature from the manufacturer trying to schill their stuff. Broken down like this, it says to me:

*Our rifle uses a .27 caliber projectile, so it puts .27 caliber holes in stuff when the bullet does not expand (duh) and

*If you use expanding bullets, they will expand (which is what expanding bullets of any caliber do anyway when pushed to a certain velocity. Again, duh).

I would have assumed that someone of your presumed exposure to these matters would have appreciated the significance of these comparisons. The significance, for our purposes, of the .270 size hole is that stopping-power complaints from the battlefield fall off sharply as 7mm/.280 FMJ diameter is closely approached and exceeded. Thus the 6.8 can be reasonably expected to be much more satisfactory than the tiny 5.56mm in this now crucial respect. The 6.8 also meets the minimum energy criterion (900 ft.lbs.) for reliable kills on human-equivalent animals at the specified 330yard/300meter idealized battlefield limit by being the rough equivalent of the .243 Winchester in this capacity.

[QUOTE] Additionally, I have hunted my whole life, and at no point have I ever seen any internal organs of a deer 'liquified' by the .243 Winchester.[/QUOTE]

Then it seems that you are behind the curve on bullet selection these days. Those who are not commonly refer to the organs as having been "souped".

I won't waste time reproducing your explanation of the obvious about bullets not literally exploding.

[QUOTE]You have never heard of the 1919A4. Granted, it was an effort to make the GPMG more portable, but it worked, and that's what mattered.[/QUOTE]

Yes, they put a shoulder stock on it and so it was merely more portable - but this is to damn it with faint praise. And it nevertheless suffered from the lack of hi-cap magazine capability in its reliance on an exposed belt picking up shit while being transported in ready condition.

[QUOTE]I take exception to the 'cannot place the majority of their 8 fewer rounds in the vicinity of the target area' remark. You obviously have not read the reports from Aberdeen and Sand Hook Proving Grounds from when the BAR was being tested prior to approval. The BAR is exceptionally accurate when fired in the prone.[/QUOTE]

Battlefield experience with the BAR indicated that, as I wrote earlier, exceptionally capable personnel were required to make effective use of a weapon having a weight twice that of a battle rifle. A large man was needed to carry it for distance and to balance the recoil from stationary offhand fire, there being no prospect of target-vicinity moving fire without the use of a belt brace which unacceptably diminished the capacity of the regulation webbing. Yes, the BAR served adequately as a base-of-fire squad automatic rifle, fired from the prone position. So let's commend it to Chaucer, despite its serious lack, for such purpose, of a hi-cap magazine, when he decides that he wants to man an SAW.

[QUOTE]Less recoil does not mean more firepower.[/QUOTE]

Other things being equal, it does.

[QUOTE] The recoil pulse has nothing to do with how many rounds your box magazine holds.[/QUOTE]

Obviously - but firepower is rounds delivered to the target vicinity per unit time.

[QUOTE] The rest of your statement is not accurate. The Germans came up with the MP43/MP44, which was promptly stolen by the Russians. The Germans wanted something that was easy to operate that had reasonable power that they could give to a conscript with little training and allow him to be at least reasonably effective to offset the numerical advantage of the Soviets.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, A., but your account betrays a near-complete ignorance of the episode, which was as I have summarily recounted it from a reading of multiple authoritative and detailed resources. Your portrayal of the event could only very generously be said to account for the later creation of the Volksturmgewehr.

[QUOTE]As proof, I offer the many historical works that tell of how the Germans could not make the MG42 fast enough (with its unbelieveable cyclic rate) to help negate the numerical advantage. Dressing up the 'we're outnumbered, so we need a way to put more bullets downrange' argument with "balancing therein of their barrel-deflecting recoil with their potency on target so as to achieve fire superiority" is not accurate.[/QUOTE]

These remarks are incoherent, though it seems that you are, in part, confusing the issue of the requirements for optimizing a machine gun with those for an assault rifle.

[QUOTE]I said nothing about a 2500 meter head shot. Oversimplifying a point I made for the purpose of making your counter more effective it is not fair.[/QUOTE]

I effectively illustrated the obvious point missing from your remarks that consideration of target range is an aspect of the appropriate employment of any weapon. I should have made the further observation that personal limitations are, likewise and to the contrary, always a consideration - particularly for such as our civilian, Chaucer. Your remark was to the unqualified effect that overcoming oneself in unspecified degree was simply a matter of morale and training, and you now recognize, as below, the necessity for a qualification:

[QUOTE]Apparently, I did a rather poor job of making that point, since you did not get it. My point is/was that ANYONE is capable of hitting anything out to, and including 800+ meters, provided that they receive proper training.[/QUOTE]

Yes, a poor job, since there was no prior specification or implication, except by virtue of the suspicion that you were/are a sniper, that the semi-precise figure of "800+ meters" qualified your point. My point, on the other hand, then, is that an 800+ meters capability in a weapon implies the sacrifice of the optimum combination 250 yard point-blank-range/600 meter limit-of-deliverable-lethality/10lb.maximum recoil capability which is more important for military and civilian-survivalist purposes.

[QUOTE]My point was that soldiers are treated like children, with anyone who demonstrates the slightest ability in small arms proficiency encouraged to pursue sniping. The current mode of thought is that the troops are incapable of being trained with 'real' rifles, and therefore are not worthy of them. Col. Jeff Cooper makes my point better than I ever could. I suggest you read him.[/QUOTE]

I do. And I "carry," every day, Cooper's "..this is the weapon you will carry...". I am also intrigued by his suggestion for a "Thumper".

[QUOTE]Not to get snobby, but you think I'm some green boot? I know all of the above,...[/QUOTE]

Not to judge from your mistaken account, above, of the origins of the MP's/Stg44.

[QUOTE]...and, I make the argument that the greater penetration/range of the 7.62 (which is, in itself, an intermediate power compromise cartridge that is still edged out by its' parent, the 30-06) will get through that cover more efficiently than any other 'compromise of a compromise' cartridge. A compromise means neither side gets what they want. I hesitate to think of what a 'compromise of a compromise' means...[/QUOTE]

Inattention has struck again. But first, yes, the 7.62 Nato is slightly down on power from the 30-06, but it is so little so that it is still properly regarded as a full-power battle rifle cartridge that is all but useless in firepower-generating full-auto. It's a supremely accurate sniper/target rifle round that will also, as you say, penetrate cover more effectively than a lesser cartridge. The 6.8, however, is not that much less of a cartridge (.243 Winchester equivalent), and it is not a "compromise of a compromise" in the negative sense your remark suggests. You are inattentively contradicting yourself in so saying, since you earlier acknowledged that this "compromise" was away from such compromise as was the case previously and that the 6.8 represented a step in the right direction.

[QUOTE]We already have a rifle that is the finest implement of battle ever designed in the history of the world, the M14/M1A. In my eyes, the whole situation is just 'fixing something that isn't broke'.[/QUOTE]

If you wish to conduct an assault, as opposed to sniping or statically defending a position, the M14/M1A is far less than the optimum weapon. And the M16/AR15 unfortunately went too far in the opposite direction. So now we are very fortunate, at long last, to have the 6.8x43 as an optimized compromise - the product of the lessons learned from experience with the shortcomings of both the traditional assault rifle and the now-obsolete full battle rifle.

[QUOTE]Funny. Most of the firearms training I received while in school, prior to my instructors certification, was exactly the same training that the average boot received up until the second world war... The rest was job-specific esoterica, but shooting is shooting is shooting. The passage of decades does not change the mechanics of it. I still say being very proficient in the use of small arms trumps firepower.[/QUOTE]

And this is why the Russians "stole" the Stg44 (merely 7.92x33) for their AK47 (merely 7.62x39), and the British for their EM-2 (merely 7.0x43) - and the Americans for their M16 (the "poodle shooter" as labeled by Cooper, whom I've evidently not read, in your judgment).

madrussian

2004-02-14 23:11 | User Profile

I've already seen this claim many times, but what's the extent of Russians' "stealing" Stg44? They look similar, the cartridge is "intermediate" for both of them. Anything else?

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-14 23:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]I've already seen this claim many times, but what's the extent of Russians' "stealing" Stg44? They look similar, the cartridge is "intermediate" for both of them. Anything else?[/QUOTE]

A. here again betrays his lack of all but the most general familiarity with the episode. The Stg44 was not "promptly stolen" by the Russians in the sense one would take from such phrasing as meaning the reproduction of an essential duplicate. The Russians were extremely impressed with the concept, and Kalashnikov started working on a gas-piston, rotating-bolt design (instead of the tipping-bolt Schmeisser design) to make use of the slightly more powerful (123@710 vs 125@685) 7.62x39 round. The AK47 was ready for issue in '47.

The AK and Stg shared a looseness of tolerances for the sake of reliability of function, a short sight radius for enhanced target-acquisition speed, and a 30-round magazine. But the AK locked its magazine by rotation, where the Stg locked by direct insertion. The AK used its selector lever to close off the exposed slot behind the bolt where the Stg left the slot exposed to the elements. The AK's handguard used wood, the Stg's, stamped metal - the AK's bolt handle was on the right, the Stg's on the left - AK, ambidextrous mag release; Stg, left side.

I would say that the Russians "stole" the Stg in the sense that the Germans "stole" the T-34 to create the Panther Pzkw V.

Ausonius

2004-02-15 03:07 | User Profile

Neo,

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Your insults, condescension and derision aside, you sound well read. However, you also sound like that's how you have spent all your time: reading. I suggest you get some real world experience before betting your life on anything.

Ausonius

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-15 04:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ausonius]Neo,

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]

But what will your disagreement be based upon, now that we have learned that evidence and logic do not support your orientation?

[QUOTE]Your insults, condescension and derision aside,...[/QUOTE]

I confess that I do now allow myself to condescend to and deride those who have initiated such toward myself in this venue - but the fact is that the only insult worthy of the name during this exchange was one of your own employment. I note and regret that you nevertheless feel "insulted" and must thus put this to the account of your exposure to what must have been an embarassingly unanswerable analysis of your position.

[QUOTE]...you sound well read. However, you also sound like that's how you have spent all your time: reading.[/QUOTE]

Yes, our typical experience of persons who sound well-read is of persons who do little but read. An unfortunate aspect of the down-breeding of the race.

[QUOTE] I suggest you get some real world experience before betting your life on anything.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the sound advice. I trust that you, as have I before you, will adhere to sensible practices in this and all respects.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-15 15:25 | User Profile

ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION:

HISTORY AND PROSPECTS

Revised 11/1/2004

Introduction

First, I need to define what I mean by an "assault rifle", as there are various definitions around. The one I use is:

"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres".

This has some clear implications for the ammunition such weapons are chambered for. First, it excludes all weapons designed around pistol cartridges (i.e. sub-machine guns - SMGs) as they only generate around 500 joules muzzle energy and cannot meet the range requirement. Second, it excludes the traditional "full power" military rifle/MG cartridges such as the .303", the .30-06, the 7.92x57 and the 7.62x51 NATO (typically firing 10-12g bullets at 750-850 m/s, and developing around 3,000-4,000 joules), as these are so powerful that their recoil is uncontrollable in fully-automatic fire from the shoulder. Assault rifles therefore need to be designed around a cartridge intermediate in power between pistol and full-power rifle rounds; in practice, in the 1,250-2,500j range depending on the calibre.

Attempts have been made to extend the effective range of SMGs by developing more powerful cartridges for them. However, there is a limit to the degree to which this can be achieved as the basic API blowback mechanism used by most SMGs is not suited to high-powered ammunition. Attempts have also been made to design automatic rifles around full-power cartridges, perhaps the most famous example being the German FG 42 paratroop rifle in 7.92x57. Some of the early rifles in 7.62x51 NATO, such as the American M14, were also capable of fully automatic fire, but the recoil problem made them incapable of accurate fire on full-auto and they cannot be classified as assault rifles.

There are basically two approaches to designing a suitable intermediate cartridge with the appropriate compromise between long range and light recoil. One is to retain the same 7.6-7.9mm calibre as the full-power round, but with a shorter cartridge case firing a lighter bullet at a lower muzzle velocity (lets call these "full calibre assault rifle", or FCAR, rounds). The other is to reduce the calibre while retaining the same, or a higher, velocity (reduced calibre, or RCAR rounds).

FCAR rounds score well in the traditional methods of measuring stopping power (which are dominated by calibre and bullet weight) and also by being less affected by the bullets striking foliage etc on their way to the target. However, they have a relatively steep trajectory and a rapid velocity loss due to the short, fat bullets, which quickly reduces their effectiveness at long range.

A decision to reduce the calibre raises the immediate question; by how much? At the large end of the RCAR scale (7mm), bullet weight and muzzle velocity can be much the same as in the FCAR cartridges, but the better ballistic coefficient due to the longer and more slender bullet will reduce velocity loss and improve long-range performance. However, there is potentially some loss in stopping power. As the calibre decreases, so the recoil and the ammunition weight become lighter and the velocity can be higher, thereby flattening the trajectory; all good things. The downside is that the stopping power becomes more controversial (relying on velocity rather than calibre and bullet mass; which according to combat reports sometimes works, sometimes doesn't) and the long-range performance begins to decrease again as small-calibre bullets generally have poorer sectional density ratios, and thereby ballistic coefficients, than large-calibre ones.

Different nations have made different choices in developing assault rifles, and the purpose of this article is to describe and analyse them in order to examine the future prospects for this type of weapon.

Development before World War 2

The elements of an assault rifle were in place surprisingly early in the history of automatic weapons. Self-loading rifles were developed before the end of the 19th Century and the first selective fire (semi or full auto) rifle using a medium-power cartridge was probably the Italian 6.5mm Cei-Rigotti, developed between 1900 and 1905, but this was not adopted.

The first service weapon which can be identified as conforming to the specification of an assault rifle dates back to the First World War; the Russian Federov Avtomat of 1916. This was a selective fire weapon using a short-recoil action and was chambered for a military rifle cartridge of intermediate calibre and power - the 6.5x50SR Arisaka - large quantities of Japanese rifles in this calibre having been acquired by Russia. This was an excellent choice, as the cartridge combined moderate recoil with a good long-range performance, but only about 3,000 Avtomats were made. They were used in action in the Russian Civil War and thereby earned their place in small-arms history.

Elsewhere at this time, the prevalence of trench warfare and the associated close fighting had focused attention on short-range automatic weapons, in complete contrast to the prewar obsession with accurate long-range rifle fire. This resulted in three different lines of development: pistols which were modified with longer barrels and stocks and sometimes adapted to fully-automatic fire; purpose-designed SMGs; and the Pedersen Device (which replaced the bolt in the US Springfield Rifle with an automatic mechanism to fire small .30 cal (7.62x20) rounds developing less than 400 joules; it was never used in anger). Interest in assault rifles disappeared from view until the Second World War.

Pistol-based carbines were a natural extension of the occasionally recurring fad for equipping pistols with detachable shoulder stocks in order to permit more accurate aiming. Longer barrels further extended the effective range (partly through increased velocity, partly because of the longer sight base) and so weapons such as the Mauser C96 and P08 produced carbine derivatives, usually only capable of semi-automatic fire. These were relatively expensive to make, however, so the future in short-range automatics lay with the much simpler API blowback SMG. The first of these (if you discount the curious twin-barrel Villar Perosa) was the Bergman MP18 in 9x19 Parabellum calibre, which was the ancestor of the Thompson, the MP 38/40, the Sten Gun, the PPSh and so on.

Attempts to improve the power and range of the small automatics, such as the use of the 9x25 Mauser Export round in the Solothurn and Kiraly SMGs (which saw some service), and the development of the Mannlicher Carbine in 7.62x32 and of the Swiss 7.65x35, did not catch on. In fact, despite the evidence that most shooting during WW1 was at short range, armies continued to show an interest in full-power rifle/MG rounds. The Japanese Army even planned to replace their 6.5x50SR cartridge with a new 7.7x58 calibre, although they never completed the changeover. The Italians were similarly caught at the start of WW2 part-way through a change from their 6.5x52 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to a 7.35x51 calibre.

Why was this? Probably because the need for a full-auto rifle was generally resisted, on the grounds of economy (automatic rifles being much more expensive and requiring more maintenance than bolt-action ones), and also the fear that soldiers would just spray ammunition around at a great rate, causing increased cost and supply problems (this latter concern was, of course, fully justified, but has been addressed by improving supply arrangements). So even the one nation wealthy enough to afford an automatic rifle - the USA - restricted the M1 Garand to semi-auto fire, and full-power rounds biased towards MG use prevailed. Incidentally, the USA did of course have the Browning Automatic Rifle in service, but that was too heavy to be a rifle replacement and was used as a light machine gun.

There had been some efforts towards considering intermediate calibres, with the US Ordnance Board sponsoring comparative trials in the early 1930s of the effectiveness of different rifle cartridges using anaesthetised pigs and goats to assess wounding effectiveness. They concentrated on a .25 (6.35mm), a .276 and the existing .30. The .25 (8g at 820 m/s, for 2,700 joules) most impressed the testers, but the Board chose the .276 Pedersen (7x51) a medium-power round developing 2,400 joules, which would have made an effective assault rifle cartridge. At this point, the top brass insisted on the new rifle being chambered for the .30-06 (7.62x63), so another opportunity was lost.

There was one rather odd American development not followed by any other country - the M1 Carbine. This was a light, semi-automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate, straight-cased 7.62x33 round. It was not originally intended for front-line troops, but more as a self-defence weapon for second-line units, on the sensible grounds that it was much easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. The M2 version came with a full-auto option, and thereby comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly.

World War 2 and after - the Assault Rifle Emerges

The modern line of assault rifle development started with the Germans, with the MP43/44 (later renamed StG 44 for Sturmgewehr or assault rifle). This followed the FCAR route, shortening the usual 7.92x57 K98 rifle/MG case to 33mm, and loading a lighter bullet at a reduced velocity. Keeping the same calibre was a matter of production convenience; it had previously been calculated that a 7mm calibre would be ideal. Despite initial opposition from Hitler, this was the weapon the Army wanted to back-up their MG 42 GPMGs, and it was produced and used in quantity. However, the end of the war stopped the direct line of development of this significant weapon.

Next to emerge was the Soviet Simonov SKS, made in large numbers in various countries but now almost forgotten due to the fame of its successor, the Kalashnikov AK 47. Both weapons were chambered for a new 7.62x39 M1943 cartridge, but the SKS was not an assault rifle, being capable of semi-automatic fire only. There is still some sensitivity about the connection between the AK 47 and the StG 44, but two things are clear; despite the apparent similarity, the AK 47 was not a direct copy as it uses a quite different mechanism, but on the other hand Kalashnikov and his team must have known about the StG 44 and it is difficult to believe that they were not influenced by it.

The AK 47 and its ammunition (also used in the RPD light MG) so dominated the assault rifle field until the late 1960s that it is sometimes difficult to remember that there were other developments, one of which saw service. This was the Czech vz52 rifle chambered for their 7.62x45, a superior cartridge to the AK-47's in terms of range, but it was soon replaced by the vz52/57 (chambered for the 7.62x39) in the interests of commonality with the rest of the Warsaw Pact. The vz52 was only semi-auto, but the Czechs were working on a selective fire weapon based on the round when the changeover to the Russian calibre took place; this assault rifle was the vz58. Other nations also experimented with short-case FCAR rounds, particularly the French and the Swiss. Cartridges such as the Swiss 7.65x38 MP and 7.5x38, the French 7.65mm Model 48 (7.92x35 - the French also experimented with calibres up to 9mm), and the unusual Spanish 7.92x40 CETME Model 53 (which used a lightweight but highly streamlined bullet) were all unsuccessful contenders during the 1950s.

Another which very nearly saw service was the British EM2 bullpup rifle, initially chambered for a new 7x43 cartridge (later slightly modified as the .280/30) which fired its 8.4g bullet at 730 m/s, for a muzzle energy of 2,240 joules. Unlike the AK 47, which continued to be supplemented by the full-power 7.62x54R Nagant cartridge in MGs and sniper rifles, this was a carefully-judged attempt to produce a weapon which could replace both the 9mm SMG and the full-power .303 rifle in one compact package. A GPMG based on the Bren mechanism but with belt feed, the TADEN, was also developed to use this round and replace both the Bren and the Vickers MMG. It appears to have been very successful and other NATO countries (Canada and Belgium, at least) were very interested in the concept. The British and Belgians made great efforts to meet the objections of the US Army, who thought it wasn't powerful enough, first by stepping up the loading to 2,700 joules, then by developing a longer cartridge (the 7x49 - which actually saw service with Venezuela in the FN FAL rifle). Despite this, the Americans insisted on NATO adopting a common round which had to be of .30 calibre and powerful enough to replace the .30-06 in MGs - which meant by definition that it could not be used in an assault rifle. So the 7.62x51 was adopted, which apart from being half an inch shorter than the .30-06 cartridge represented no progress whatsoever over this fifty-year old design. American experiments were made in the late 1950s with a range of smaller calibres, such as the .22/30 NATO, the .25" Winchester (6.35x48), the .25/30 NATO (6.35x51) and the .27 NATO (6.85x51), but these led to nothing.

Frustratingly for the intermediate-calibre supporters, the US Army realised after initial experience in Vietnam that they had made a mistake and went to the other extreme in adopting the M16 rifle and its tiny .223 (5.56x45) cartridge, developed from Remington commercial hunting rounds which had been designed for taking small game such as rabbits. Much controversy arose about its effectiveness in stopping a determined enemy, but what was clear was that the long-range performance of the little bullet (designated M193) was poor. In the next competition for a new NATO rifle cartridge held in the late 1970s, the 5.56mm was duly adopted but in the new Belgian SS109 loading (M855 being the US version), which has a heavier bullet at a lower muzzle velocity and thereby achieves a better long-range performance.

Rather surprisingly, the Russians followed suit and adopted a new 5.45x39 7N6 cartridge for their next-generation rifle, the AK 74. This is no more powerful than the 5.56 NATO although it does have the uplifting feature of a hollow bullet tip, designed to bend on impact and thereby encourage tumbling in the target's body. Despite this attempt to maximise the wound severity, it is understood that in some quarters the older AK 47 round is still preferred.

More recently, the Chinese have begun to introduce a 5.8x42 calibre for assault rifles and LMGs. The ballistics seem little different from the 5.56mm and 5.45mm weapons, although it is claimed that it outperforms both of them, with penetration superior to the SS109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange.

Finally, the 5.7mm FN has achieved some sales, in both the FiveSeven pistol and the P90 SMG. However, despite its improved range performance, this 5.56x28 cartridge only develops 550 joules and is really a 9mm pistol round replacement, so doesn't qualify as an assault rifle.

Experimental Efforts

Despite the domination of the 5.56mm NATO round (in much of the world) and the Kalashnikov family (in the rest), experiments with new assault rifle and ammunition concepts have of course continued, even with the occasional competition being held. Some of the experiments have been with conventional ammunition, others have been more exotic.

Perhaps the most interesting and instructive series of experiments took place in the UK in the late 1960s, when thorough attempt was made to design an ideal military small-arms round. This started with calculations of the bullet energy required to inflict a disabling wound on soldiers with various levels of protection. The energy varied depending on the calibre, as a larger calibre required more energy to push it through armour. For example, it was calculated that while a 7.62mm bullet would need 700 joules to penetrate modern helmets and heavy body armour, a 7mm would require 650j, a 6.25mm 580j, a 5.5mm 500j and a 4.5mm 320j (this last figure looks wrong and should probably be 420j). This figures applied at the target; muzzle energies would clearly have to much higher, depending on the required range and the ballistic characteristics of the bullet.

A range of "optimum solutions" for ballistics at different calibres was produced. These resulted in muzzle energies ranging from 825 joules in 4.5mm to 2,470j in 7mm. More work led to a preferred solution; a 6.25mm calibre with a bullet of 6.48g at 817 m/s, for a muzzle energy of 2,160 joules. The old 7mm EM2 case was necked down to 6.25mm for live firing experiments, although had the calibre been adopted a new cartridge would probably have been designed. Tests revealed that the 6.25 cartridge matched the 7.62 NATO in penetration out to 600m and remained effective for a considerably longer distance, while producing recoil closer to the 5.56mm.

As related in The .256 British, at much the same time, the US Army was looking to develop a new squad automatic weapon (SAW). The 7.62mm was too powerful, the 5.56mm didn't have a sufficiently long range, so a 6x45 round was developed which proved satisfactory but was not adopted because of concerns about putting a multiplicity of calibres into service. The Russians in recent years have also offered weapons in a new 6mm calibre which appears to be considerably more powerful than the 5.45mm, but no sales seem to have been secured so far.

The Swiss experimented with at least two cartridges in the late 1970s before adopting the 5.56mm NATO; the 5.56x48 Eiger and 6.45x48 GP 80. The 5.56mm fired a 3.7g bullet at 1,050 m/s for 2,040j (considerably more than the 5.56mm NATO) while the 6.45mm managing to propel its 6.3g bullet at 900 m/s for 2,550j. With the benefit of hindsight, a heavier bullet at a more moderate velocity might have provided a better general-purpose loading for the 6.45mm.

Despite concerns about the stopping power of the 5.56mm, some experimenters have worked with even smaller calibres. The British proffered a 4.85x49 (actually, 5mm) round for the NATO contest which chose the 5.56mm, the H&K G11 (described below) used a 4.7mm. Calibres of 4.6, 4.3, 3.5 and 3mm (and possibly more - or less) have been tried, mainly during the 1960s and 1970s. It is difficult to imagine that such cartridges could do anything to improve on the 5.56mm's range and stopping power. There is also the capillary problem with the really small bores; any water which gets into the barrel will be difficult to dislodge.

The more exotic experiments have proceeded in different directions, with different aims in mind. Some attempts have been made to improve the hit probability of conventional 7.62mm cartridges with multi-ball loadings, using two (duplex) or three (triplex) lightweight bullets stacked on top of each other. One of these, the US M198 duplex, was even accepted for service. A "salvo-squeezebore" (firing several stacked conical projectiles which were squeezed down to a smaller calibre by a muzzle attachment) was developed for the .50" BMG, but versions which have appeared in 7.62mm NATO appeared to have been made for their novelty value.

Others have attempted to achieve the same aim by using flechette technology (in principle, a scaled-down APFSDS tank gun round - APersFSDS?) to achieve an extremely short flight time and flat trajectory resulting from a muzzle velocity of around 1,400 m/s. This gives such weapons an almost ray-gun like performance, with allowances for range, wind-drift and target movement being hardly needed at normal battle ranges. This was first seriously proposed in the American Special Purpose Infantry Weapon project of the late 1960s, in which several manufacturers produced weapons using basically similar ammunition firing 1.8mm diameter darts. Accuracy was not as good as conventional rifles, however, and the cost of the ammunition was very high. Attempting to achieve everything in one weapon by building in a grenade launcher didn't help, either, and the project foundered. One hopes that the same fate doesn't befall the OICW.

Flechette weapons were revived by two of the competitors in the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) contest of the late 1980s. This contest was intended to improve the poor hit probability achieved by average soldiers in the stress of battle, which using the M16 was only guaranteed (pH = 1.0) at up to 45m, and dropped to a pH of 0.1 (one shot in ten) by 220m. The theory was that firing three slightly dispersed shots in quick succession should enable the pH to be doubled, and several different weapon concepts were prepared.

The Colt ACR contender was simply an improved M16A2 firing a duplex cartridge, H&K submitted the caseless G11, while AAI and Steyr offered weapons firing flechette rounds, the Steyr ammunition being plastic-cased. Although all of the weapons apparently performed well and did increase the hit probability, none of them managed to double it.

Finally, there was at least one attempt at a multi-flechette weapon; the .330" Amron Aerojet, which contained three flechettes within its 8.38x69 light-alloy case.

Other experiments have looked at different cartridge types to suit novel gun designs. Perhaps the most bizarre was the "folded path" ammunition, stemming from a desire to make the cartridge as short as possible to speed up the firing cycle. These were made in many calibres, including 5.56mm. Another try was the Hughes Lockless (also made in calibres up to 30mm) which concealed the bullet within a flat, rectangular plastic case. This was designed to slot sideways into a simple gun action.

The closest to adoption of all of the exotics was the caseless cartridge, in the form of the Heckler & Koch G11 rifle. It was actually about to be adopted by the German Army to replace the 7.62mm G3 (Germany never having adopted the 5.56mm NATO) when the Cold War ended and the Berlin Wall came down. Military re-equipment spending promptly halted. H&K were financially ruined by the cancellation of the G11 and fell into the hands of Royal Ordnance, where they have earned their keep by sorting out the long-running problems of the British Army's SA-80 rifle, but that's another storyÃ¢â¬Â¦

Caseless ammunition has obvious benefits. It is much lighter and more compact (no metal case), and it is unnecessary to arrange for the extraction and ejection of the fired case (perhaps the principal source of weapon jams). The disadvantages are that it is much more vulnerable to damage (which H&K got around by supplying the ammo in sealed plastic see-through packs which clipped directly to the gun) and the propellant is more likely to "cook-off" in a hot chamber; a problem exacerbated by the fact that a brass cartridge case makes an efficient job of transporting heat from the gun. Despite this, H&K (or rather Dynamit Nobel) cracked the problem by developing a new heat-resistant kind of propellant and produced a battle-worthy weapon.

Current plans

Despite all of these experiments, new weapons currently planned for adoption are relatively conventional, at least as far as the assault rifle element is concerned. The US Army currently appears to favour the M4, a carbine version of the M16 with a shorter barrel. The H&K G36 is probably the current market leader and has been adopted in modified form as the rifle element of the OICW. The G36 is also forming the basis of the XM8, which is being developed to replace the M16/M4 family. Both of these weapons are going against the trend by having a conventional instead of bullpup layout. This is preferred by many as it is easier to switch sides and use left-handed, but it carries the penalty of a shorter barrel for the same overall length. Compactness for manoeuvring weapons in AIFVs or helicopters, or for use in close-quarters fighting, is evidently considered important as most new developments are bullpups. These include the Israeli Tavor, the SAR-21 from Singapore and the FN2000. The last of these (a modular system, as is common nowadays, with various add-ons being optional) gets over the left-handed problem by ejecting the spent cases forwards and downwards.

All of these weapons are chambered for the usual 5.56x45 NATO. The problem with short barrels in this calibre is that they reduce the muzzle velocity, and the 5.56mm bullets rely on a high impact velocity to tumble and fragment. At lower velocities the bullets will not fragment and much of the wounding potential is lost. In the normal 20" (51 cm) barrel the fragmentation distance is around 200m, but in the short carbine barrel it can be as low as 50-100m, depending on the bullet. The controversy over the effectiveness of the M4 in Afghanistan matches that of the reliability of the luckless British SA80.

The USA has been developing the OICW (Objective Infantry Combat Weapon), also known as the SABR and the XM29. This combines a short-barrelled 5.56mm with a self-loading low-velocity 20mm gun. The heart of the weapon is a laser rangefinder coupled to a fire-control computer linked to optronic sights and an electronic fuze-setter. This complex and extremely expensive fire control system means that the gunner can fire a 20mm shell to explode directly over the target at anything up to 1,000m. However, it has not proved possible to reduce the weight from 8.2 kg to the target 6.8 kg, so development has been temporarily shelved in favour of the XM8 and the XM25, which is a 25mm self-loading grenade launcher. The French are experimenting with a similar (and even bulkier) system, the PAPOP, which has a 35mm grenade element, while the Australians are basing theirs on the Metal Storm technology, in which the grenade shells are stacked within the barrel. Such systems are undoubtedly impressive but whether they will still work when they are several years old, especially after having being kicked around a combat zone for a few weeks, remains to be seen.

The Lessons

What conclusions can we draw from all this, and what does the future hold?

Two conclusions about the present situation seem pretty clear. One is that there would be financial and logistical benefits in having only one military rifle/MG cartridge. The other is that it wouldn't hurt to have a rifle cartridge with more reliable hitting power than the 5.56mm. As it happens, both conclusions point in the same direction; towards a cartridge intermediate in power between the 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO.

Such an "ideal" cartridge would need to combine a long-range effectiveness comparable with the 7.62mm, with a recoil light enough to permit controlled, full-auto fire. Is it possible to achieve this? The evidence suggests strongly that it is. The British aimed to do this with the 7x43 cartridge half a century ago, and by all accounts succeeded admirably. This gives us an upper calibre limit. I don't think that a useful increase in performance over the 5.56mm can be achieved with anything smaller than 6mm calibre, which gives us the lower limit. We need to specify a bullet sectional density ratio of about .230 in order to retain velocity better than the 7.62mm (whose 9.33g bullet has an SDR of 0.217 - the 5.56mm SS109 bullet has an SDR of 0.174) and thereby deliver the long-range performance we want. We also need a muzzle energy of no more than 2,500 joules to provide the right balance of power and recoil. Taking into account that smaller calibres need less energy to penetrate armour, this works out as the following range of choices in common calibres:

7mm/.276": bullet weight 8.4g (130 grains) at 770 m/s (2,525 fps) = 2,500j

6.85mm/.270": bullet weight 7.9g (122 grains) at 784 m/s (2,570 fps) = 2,430j

6.5mm/.258": bullet weight 6.9g (106 grains) at 820 m/s (2,690 fps) = 2,330j

6.35mm/.25": bullet weight 6.5g (100 grains) at 834 m/s (2,736 fps) = 2,260j

6mm/.24": bullet weight 5.9g (91 grains) at 854 m/s (2,800 fps) = 2,150j

Any of the above options would do, but for the sake of argument let's take the 6.5mm. A cartridge of this calibre would be smaller than the more powerful 6.5mm Arisaka. If a similar case diameter were retained then length could be reduced to about 45mm. In fact, the case diameter and length would be similar for all of the above cartridges.

So, we have our ideal military general-purpose assault rifle and MG cartridge - the "6.5x45 GP" - and we could have had it many decades ago. What are the chances of such a cartridge being adopted now? Until very recently, it would have been reasonable to assess these as zero; too many resources have been invested in the current weapon systems to throw all of those out of the window and start again. However, recent reports indicate that the US SOCOM is testing a more powerful cartridge designed to fit in the M16 action. This is the 6.8x43 Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) which fires a 115 grain bullet at 2,650 fps from a 16.5 inch barrel (7.45g at 808 m/s = 2,430j); very similar to the 'ideal' 6.85mm listed above. The cartridge case is based on the old .30 Remington commercial round, with a larger diameter than the 5.56x45 to increase the case capacity. This round develops 55% more muzzle energy than the 62 grain SS109/M855 loading at the muzzle, rising to 84% better at 550m due to its superior ballistic coefficient. Even standard 5.56mm magazines can be used, with some modifications to the lips and follower and with capacity reduced from 30 to 25 rounds. If this is adopted for US Special Forces and proves successful, then it stands a chance of being used more widely. This is the most promising development in military rifle ammunition for about half a century, and clearly has the potential to replace both the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 rounds. Time will tell if this is yet another false dawn.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-15 16:13 | User Profile

From:

German Automatic Weapons of WWII

Robert Bruce

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sturmgewehr 44

Development

It had become apparent in the opening months of the war that the fire-power of the German infantry company was not all that it should be. Their Karabiner 98k rifles, firing a formidable 7.92mm x 57mm cartridge, had been designed by Mauser just before the turn of the century. Although dependable, accurate and hard-hitting, these slow, bolt action rifles, with a magazine capacity of only five rounds, could not deliver the volume of fire that was necessary in the assault. They were also quite expensive to make, both in quality steel and machine tool time.

Firing at over 500rpm, the MP38 series sub-machine guns were a step in the right direction; but, due to the puny ballistics of the 9mm Parabellum pistol ammunition, they had little penetrating power and lethality, and were ineffective beyond 200 meters. While the excellent MG34 general purpose machine gun could spray rifle-calibre slugs at a rate of 900rpm out to 1,000 meters and beyond, it was heavy, ungainly, and too finely made for real battlefield efficiency. Clearly, the ideal weapon would be a combination of the best features of all three; but - as the paratroops learned when issued with the FG42 - the laws of physics make both pistol and rifle cartridges unsuitable for use in a multipurpose shoulder arm.

Kurz Patrone

Since 1934 the Germans had been experimenting with various small calibre cartridges, including a 7mm version resembling the American .22cal "Hornet." By 1938 the decision was made to have Polte-Werke Munition Fabriken refine and produce their ballistically and industrially efficient "7.9mm Infanterie Kurz Patrone" (infantry short cartridge). Polte had taken the standard German 7.92mm x 57mm (8mm Mauser) service cartridge and shortened the case to 33mm; the propellant load was reduced by approximately 50%, and the bullet itself was shorter and lighter (though still 7.92mm diameter). Performance of the new intermediate cartridge is said to have been quite good, and its slightly modified standard dimensions meant that existing machinery could be readily adapted for its manufacture.

At about the same time, the highly respected small arms designer Hugo Schmeisser was set to work at Haenel to develop a "Karabiner" (carbine) utilizing the new short cartridge. The goal was to combine light weight with selective semi-automatic/automatic operation, for high effectiveness at realistic combat ranges. This was an outgrowth of studies begun in World War I, which showed that most small arms action takes place at between 50 and 300 meters' range - and thus that the extreme accuracy and long range of the traditional service rifle were needlessly expensive luxuries.

Battle reports from the civil war in Spain repeatedly cited those critical moments in a firefight when "fire superiority" was decisive. This is the almost metaphysical turning point of an engagement when troops either press forward or retreat, based on their instinctive perceptions of the effectiveness of their outgoing fire and that of incoming rounds. But mere volume was not enough, German observers insisted; the fire had to be "hard-hitting" as well. Not surprisingly, these assertions were echoed in early World War II battle reports from German units in action in Poland, France, and later in North Africa and Russia.

[Emphasis mine, NN]

Faust

2004-02-18 14:22 | User Profile

Hey, one could go for the .50 Beowulf cartridge fo more stopping power.

Alexander Arms .50 Beowulf Article [url]http://www.gunblast.com/50Beowulf.htm[/url]

Alexander Arms .50 Beowulf Kit Item: IE-225733 Price: $679.99

Ammo $24.99/Box

[url]http://www.cabelas.com/information/HuntingOptics/AlexanderArms.50BeowulfEntryKit0018846.html[/url]

But I would away from wildcats for the most.

I thimk I would go with 120 gr 7.62x39mm or a 75 gr .223 to add some stopping power to an AR.

But one cannot help but love the good old M-14! :D

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-21 01:20 | User Profile

"In WWII the American rifleman was, on average, probably the best marksman in the war. In combat, this hurt rather than helped him. Trained as he was to make every shot count, he would often lie in wait for Germans to show a clear target, which in places like Hedgerow country, was rare. Consequently, many accounts often mention the fact that American troops would go through intense combat without firing their rifles. This is not due to cowardice by any means, but rather because they were just following their training.

"The reality of combat, that most people advocating .308/7.62x51 or larger for service rifles like to ignore, is that the role of the rifle squad is to fix and suppress the enemy to allow maneuver on your terms, so that you may bypass the enemy or destroy him by close action or indirect fires. This requires a large quantity of suppressive fire, both from supporting machine guns, and from rifles, utilizing rapid semi-automatic fire or short automatic bursts. While the ability to accurately shoot the enemy when he presents himself (and have him go down with one or two shots) is also critical, it is not the most important role. American troops were not trained to do this, and their rifle was appropriate to what they were trained for, not what they had to do. Their problem was complicated by the fact that the BAR was no big help in the sustained fire role and the various marks of the .30 Browning were less than convenient to handle at the squad and platoon level.

"German Troops, on the other hand, were willing and able to put out double the lead as Americans, having both an excellent machine gun and riflemen who were trained to fire at any appropriate moment. Statistically speaking, whether they were on the attack or defence, they gave better than they got by a factor of 2 to 1 against American troops, because of better utilization of available firepower."

Angler

2004-02-21 07:41 | User Profile

I just don't see how sustained suppressive fire is feasible from anything other than a belt-fed (or drum-fed) weapon. A 30-round mag lasts maybe 2 seconds on full auto. For an individual soldier carrying 10 mags, that amounts to a total of 20 seconds of "suppression time." Once that gets used up, the soldier is unarmed unless he get access to resupply. It seems more prudent to use a fire rate of maybe 2 rounds per second for suppressive fire. Rounds coming at that rate from a number of rifles will still keep heads down.

Furthermore, even if ammo supply is essentially unlimited, lightweight assault rifles can't tolerate the heat of extended auto fire like open-bolt subguns or heavy machineguns can.

My understanding is that attempts to use the M16A1 in an "squad automatic weapon" capacity were unsuccessful, probably for the reasons given above.

Even if one can't see the enemy directly, aimed fire can still be used. Rapid semiauto fire can be used to cover, in a somewhat raster-like fashion, areas in which the enemy is believed to be hiding.

A recent Army study, "Rapid Semiautomatic Fire and the Assault Rifle," concluded that rapid semiauto fire is the ideal fire rate even in close quarters (at greater distances the fire rate should presumably be lower):

[url]http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001smallarms/westrom.pdf[/url]

Here's a former Marine NCO's comments on rates of fire in combat:

[url]http://www.military-sf.com/ROF.htm[/url]

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-21 13:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler] I just don't see how sustained suppressive fire is feasible from anything other than a belt-fed (or drum-fed) weapon.[/QUOTE]

Why are you trying to "see how sustained suppressive fire is feasible from anything other than a belt-fed (or drum-fed) weapon."? Who said that it is?

[QUOTE]Furthermore, even if ammo supply is essentially unlimited, lightweight assault rifles can't tolerate the heat of extended auto fire like open-bolt subguns or heavy machineguns can.[/QUOTE]

Again, who said or implied that they can?

[QUOTE]A recent Army study, "Rapid Semiautomatic Fire and the Assault Rifle," concluded that rapid semiauto fire is the ideal fire rate even in close quarters (at greater distances the fire rate should presumably be lower):[/QUOTE]

And what is the Army's ideal weapon for delivering this ideal fire rate, if not the 6.8x43 Special Purpose Cartridge upper receiver adapted to the M16 lower receiver? Or will they will simply go with the G36/XM8 in 5.56? Do you know of any prospect of a 7.62 general-issue individual weapon?

Angler

2004-02-21 23:28 | User Profile

I wasn't commenting on any particular caliber in particular, NN. I wasn't even really following your debate with Ausonius very closely. My comments about suppressive fire were in response to the authors whose writings you posted. For example:

"The reality of combat, that most people advocating .308/7.62x51 or larger for service rifles like to ignore, is that the role of the rifle squad is to fix and suppress the enemy to allow maneuver on your terms, so that you may bypass the enemy or destroy him by close action or indirect fires. This requires a large quantity of suppressive fire, both from supporting machine guns, and from rifles, utilizing rapid semi-automatic fire or short automatic bursts. While the ability to accurately shoot the enemy when he presents himself (and have him go down with one or two shots) is also critical, it is not the most important role." I disagree with the views expressed in the above paragraph. The purpose of rifle fire is to kill the enemy, not "suppress" him (except momentarily, as when breaking contact). Of course maneuvers are important, but to imply that they are more important than shooting the enemy at the earliest possible opportunity seems nonsensical. The longer one's enemy stays alive, the greater the danger one is in. Only hits on the enemy count. Shredded foliage and flying dirt do not.

Regarding the 6.8x43: It looks like a decent compromise between the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51. My only reservation about depending on a 6.8x43 for survival would be a lack of availability, unless the military decides to switch from the 5.56.