Re: XM-8 Rifle

From: Rupert Boleyn (rboleyn_at_paradise.net.nz)
Date: 06/06/04 

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:57:34 +1200

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:51:49 GMT, "ssnark@bangserver.na"
<ssnark@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I'm not sure which ballistic tables or calculator you're
> using but last I looked in my range book the 7.62 NATO was
> doing about 2250fps from the muzzle of an M1A Supermatch and
> the 30-06 was doing about 2700fps from the muzzle of a Match
> M1 Garand. Which sure seems like a significant difference
> according to the ballistic calculator I'm using.

The original spec for the 7.62x51mm was 2700 ft/s with a 150 grain
bullet. 2250 ft/s is terribly slow, as most civilian loads will do up
around 2800 ft/s.

> I disagree, with the exception of MOUT and close jungle type
> warfare I think that the statistics you quote reflect
> findings after WWII done by the US Army (who wanted to
> change to smaller lighter weapons at the time) and in my
> limited experience in warfare (Southeast Asia, Panama, El
> Salvador, Columbia, parts of Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan)
> do not necessarily apply given modern training techniques
> The part about difficulty in shooting under combat versus
> range conditions may hold some truth. But the rest is
> probably rationalization rather than reality. Most of the
> problems I've noted have been in learning to ID a target
> through heat mirages, dust, and other environmental/weather
> conditions that make target acquisition difficult. Skills
> that can be taught and learned.

If good aimed fire is so effective compared to less carefully aimed
mass-fire how come machineguns are so much more effective than rifles,
and always have been?

> My experience as one of those Soldiers is quite the opposite
> and most of those I served with were of a similar opinion.
> The US Army has apparently also come to that conclusion and
> issues M14 rifles designated to unit marksmen (M24 and M21
> rifles go to snipers) for the express purpose of engaging
> targets at a distance.

'Designated unit marksmen' (the same sort of guys the Soviets issued
SVDs to) are not your basic grunt, and giving a long-range semi-auto a
one guy or two per platoon or even squad is very different from them
being the generally issue weapon. 

-- 
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
    ... Spirit of Truth wrote: ... target moving away or towards the source". ... of c-v and c+v in the above sense was used by Michelson in MMX. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Conservation Nazis
    ... >> So you wern't telling the truth - again. ... >> Different people and organisations target different issues. ... How would you feel if your pet cats ... I'd rather attack the nazis directly but I do attack the government on ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Blind Cal student sues Target
    ... to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but ... I'm all for helping the blind, ... Couldn't this guy go to a Target and get a customer service person to ... easy or obvious things to accommodate. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: OT- (and long) The Limbaugh Syndrome
    ... but a powerful squeezing of the truth. ... Limbaugh is a partisan radio personality who funds himself via commercial advertising. ... he IS a political target just like Pickens and Simmons. ... You didn't get the "hint" so let me spell it out for you: I think you need to take your argument back to your think-tank for a review. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Quantcast