WildBill45
New member
Hear, hear!
Best intermediate rifle round and why
- Thread starter iMagUdspEllr
- Start date
Hear, hear!
340 Weatherby
New member
The last time I went hunting for intermediates, I carried my 250 Savage. I didn't get a shot though.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@Crow Hunter:
1: You seem to not understand what the phrases "not much heavier" and "equivalent weight of an AK round" mean. They are slightly heavier and deadlier. I never said they were the same weight. But, it is a more than doable weight increase.
2: They don't recoil that much more for it to matter.
1) Your ability to control the recoil of a particular platform over another could have influenced your results.
2) We also don't know how hot your ammo was. You could have been using the bottom end of the 5.56x45 and the top end of the 7.62x39. We don't know.
3) Three rounds are more than enough when they are COM at close range.
4) Spraying full-auto is a fantastic way to be ineffective at all but close ranges, reload far more often than you should, and run out of bullets.
3: The 6.8 has a very flat trajectory... look it up, its certainly up there with 5.45x39 and 6.5 Grendel. So it seems that at least those three rounds have a sound advantage over the 5.56x45.
4: 7.62x39 dumps energy... it doesn't require tumbling or fragmentation like 5.56x45 does. .38 special? .38 special is a pistol round... there isn't much tumbling or yawing to be had from a pistol round. 5.56x45 just shoots straight through them... wasting what is already less energy than other rifle rounds. At a distance it hits like a pistol but it is traveling slower so it doesn't fragment either. When larger diameter bullets hit, they dump their energy even if they don't yaw or fragment.
5: I could also theorize that superior bullet construction applied to a superior round would be better than a 5.56x45 with a superior bullet design. I'm not talking about doing the best with what we have. I'm talking about actually upgrading.
6: I'm not talking about a ridiculous notion like a plasma rifle (at least not in the very near future). However, if one of these rounds really caught on in popularity (completely possible) or a military adopted it (not necessarily ours) it would be cheaper. I'm not worried about cost per round, I'm just talking about which one is a better performer than the 5.56 at being a intermediate rifle round. I mean... if cheaper means better then 7.62x39 is better than 5.56x45 and 9mm is better than .45. Do not get me wrong. I do believe that cost of ammunition is a very important factor when comparing different cartridges. But, I am asking which one is best at doing a job... not which one does it most efficiently... just best.
7:
Umm... Just as an example... .300 BLK uses standard AR-15 magazines and you can put 30 in them. They will function reliably, too. .300 BLK was designed to fit the same number of rounds in a standard AR-15 magazine. The others do reduce magazine capacity. But, most of them have their own proprietary magazines and though they are slightly bigger magazines they can carry 30 rounds, too. 6.8 SPC has 30 round magazines available for it (they are larger than AR-15 magazines, though). And, again people who shoot AKs don't complain about their magazines being massive and they contain 30 rounds.
Energy and how much of it is applied to the target determine how much of the target is destroyed. So, since most of these rounds (if not all of them) hit with more energy and apply more of that energy to the target, it would be easy for me to claim that they are deadlier than 5.56x45. Just like I know a .308 is deadlier than a 5.56x45... I know these other rounds with more stout energy levels are deadlier than a 5.56x45.
You see though, with more powerful bullets you just have to worry about hitting the chest... not hitting an artery.
I agree about getting back on target... but just like pistol shooters are able to get back on target quickly whether they are shooting 9mm or .45... so can people who shoot most of these rounds. Its a pretty workable difference because these rounds don't differ in recoil as much as you think. I imagine .458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf would be pretty stout. But, I don't know... I have seen people shoot .50 Beowulf and they weren't experiencing recoil anywhere near what I see .308 shooter's experience. I think the recoil impulse is just longer.
Or... the shooter is just shooting the same number of rounds as usual. 7.62 NATO "carbines" aren't the best close combat guns. They have a lot of recoil, they have a 33% reduction in magazine capacity, and you don't check to see if the bad guy is dead after each shot at close range. So, you end up just putting the same number of bullets in them you would anyway (which is more than likely your entire magazine if you are about to die).
1: You seem to not understand what the phrases "not much heavier" and "equivalent weight of an AK round" mean. They are slightly heavier and deadlier. I never said they were the same weight. But, it is a more than doable weight increase.
2: They don't recoil that much more for it to matter.
1) Your ability to control the recoil of a particular platform over another could have influenced your results.
2) We also don't know how hot your ammo was. You could have been using the bottom end of the 5.56x45 and the top end of the 7.62x39. We don't know.
3) Three rounds are more than enough when they are COM at close range.
4) Spraying full-auto is a fantastic way to be ineffective at all but close ranges, reload far more often than you should, and run out of bullets.
3: The 6.8 has a very flat trajectory... look it up, its certainly up there with 5.45x39 and 6.5 Grendel. So it seems that at least those three rounds have a sound advantage over the 5.56x45.
4: 7.62x39 dumps energy... it doesn't require tumbling or fragmentation like 5.56x45 does. .38 special? .38 special is a pistol round... there isn't much tumbling or yawing to be had from a pistol round. 5.56x45 just shoots straight through them... wasting what is already less energy than other rifle rounds. At a distance it hits like a pistol but it is traveling slower so it doesn't fragment either. When larger diameter bullets hit, they dump their energy even if they don't yaw or fragment.
5: I could also theorize that superior bullet construction applied to a superior round would be better than a 5.56x45 with a superior bullet design. I'm not talking about doing the best with what we have. I'm talking about actually upgrading.
6: I'm not talking about a ridiculous notion like a plasma rifle (at least not in the very near future). However, if one of these rounds really caught on in popularity (completely possible) or a military adopted it (not necessarily ours) it would be cheaper. I'm not worried about cost per round, I'm just talking about which one is a better performer than the 5.56 at being a intermediate rifle round. I mean... if cheaper means better then 7.62x39 is better than 5.56x45 and 9mm is better than .45. Do not get me wrong. I do believe that cost of ammunition is a very important factor when comparing different cartridges. But, I am asking which one is best at doing a job... not which one does it most efficiently... just best.
7:
Crow Hunter said:
Umm... Just as an example... .300 BLK uses standard AR-15 magazines and you can put 30 in them. They will function reliably, too. .300 BLK was designed to fit the same number of rounds in a standard AR-15 magazine. The others do reduce magazine capacity. But, most of them have their own proprietary magazines and though they are slightly bigger magazines they can carry 30 rounds, too. 6.8 SPC has 30 round magazines available for it (they are larger than AR-15 magazines, though). And, again people who shoot AKs don't complain about their magazines being massive and they contain 30 rounds.
Energy and how much of it is applied to the target determine how much of the target is destroyed. So, since most of these rounds (if not all of them) hit with more energy and apply more of that energy to the target, it would be easy for me to claim that they are deadlier than 5.56x45. Just like I know a .308 is deadlier than a 5.56x45... I know these other rounds with more stout energy levels are deadlier than a 5.56x45.
You see though, with more powerful bullets you just have to worry about hitting the chest... not hitting an artery.
I agree about getting back on target... but just like pistol shooters are able to get back on target quickly whether they are shooting 9mm or .45... so can people who shoot most of these rounds. Its a pretty workable difference because these rounds don't differ in recoil as much as you think. I imagine .458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf would be pretty stout. But, I don't know... I have seen people shoot .50 Beowulf and they weren't experiencing recoil anywhere near what I see .308 shooter's experience. I think the recoil impulse is just longer.
Crow Hunter said:
Or... the shooter is just shooting the same number of rounds as usual. 7.62 NATO "carbines" aren't the best close combat guns. They have a lot of recoil, they have a 33% reduction in magazine capacity, and you don't check to see if the bad guy is dead after each shot at close range. So, you end up just putting the same number of bullets in them you would anyway (which is more than likely your entire magazine if you are about to die).
semi_problomatic
New member
Since this has tuned into another argument about the infallible 5.56...
For examples of M855 ineffectiveness, you can look at some of the live fire accidents that have occurred. One notable incident occurred in 1991, when then Lieutenant Colonel David H. Petraeus was shot in the chest by an M855 round from an M249 squad automatic weapon. He walked out of the hospital several days after the accident. Had the round performed optimally, he likely would have been killed.
The author witnessed a soldier shot in the shoulder from a distance of 75 meters during a night live fire exercise and the soldier was walking around smoking a cigarette twenty minutes after the accident. A soldier in the author’s battalion had a negligent discharge with an M249 squad automatic weapon, during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, in a closed space of a building. Poorly instructed, he disassembled the weapon before unloading it and the weapon fired at the cyclic rate, firing approximately 100 rounds. From a distance of three meters, four soldiers where hit in the extremities and none sustained life threatening wounds.
From, again: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331
If you scroll down to page 33 you can read all about 5.56's performance, and some of the cartridges on the poll here.
But if you want, and if the discussion contenues about how great the 5.56 is, I'll be forced to keep citing paragraphs from these studies...basically stating how and why there are so many rounds that perform substantially better with little modifications to existing platforms and minor increases in weight for vast increases in performance.
For examples of M855 ineffectiveness, you can look at some of the live fire accidents that have occurred. One notable incident occurred in 1991, when then Lieutenant Colonel David H. Petraeus was shot in the chest by an M855 round from an M249 squad automatic weapon. He walked out of the hospital several days after the accident. Had the round performed optimally, he likely would have been killed.
The author witnessed a soldier shot in the shoulder from a distance of 75 meters during a night live fire exercise and the soldier was walking around smoking a cigarette twenty minutes after the accident. A soldier in the author’s battalion had a negligent discharge with an M249 squad automatic weapon, during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, in a closed space of a building. Poorly instructed, he disassembled the weapon before unloading it and the weapon fired at the cyclic rate, firing approximately 100 rounds. From a distance of three meters, four soldiers where hit in the extremities and none sustained life threatening wounds.
From, again: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331
If you scroll down to page 33 you can read all about 5.56's performance, and some of the cartridges on the poll here.
But if you want, and if the discussion contenues about how great the 5.56 is, I'll be forced to keep citing paragraphs from these studies...basically stating how and why there are so many rounds that perform substantially better with little modifications to existing platforms and minor increases in weight for vast increases in performance.
Last edited:
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@semi-problematic: While I am not a fan of the 5.56x45s low energy delivered to the target... most of those stories you described involved being hit in the extremities. I would imagine that a .50BMG could hit you in the arm and you would lose the arm... but a tourniquet would keep you from losing your life. Most rifle rounds still need to hit the chest (and head of course) to get quick kills.
semi_problomatic
New member
Read the report then. And if you got hit in the shoulder with a .50, aint no torniquet gonna stop that bleeding. Maybe a chitosan dressing...or 10...
Everybody wants to make guesses, nobody want to read facts
Everybody wants to make guesses, nobody want to read facts
Last edited:
L_Killkenny
New member
I'm far from thinkin the 5.56 is infallible but at the same I'm far from thinkin it's a bad choice. For most military applications it makes a great deal of sense.
BUT IT'S NOT AN INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE! It's bad enough turning every "assault" rifle thread into a 5.56 against the world thing but to top it off it has no bearing on this particular thread. It can't be the best intermediate if it's not one to start with.
LK
BUT IT'S NOT AN INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE! It's bad enough turning every "assault" rifle thread into a 5.56 against the world thing but to top it off it has no bearing on this particular thread. It can't be the best intermediate if it's not one to start with.
LK
That's an arguable point, although I think I understand what you're saying. There is a built-in problem in this thread in that "intermediate" is such a vague term and it wasn't stated in the original post (or was it?) exactly what the intended application was to be. But it certainly isn't a pistol round and it's more powerful than a .30 carbine.
Crow Hunter
New member
Mine in Red again.
According to you sig line, you have a top of the line 5.56 rifle. Get a bunch of ammo and take a good shooting course with it. See if you can borrow someone elses AK or other caliber round and try that as well. (Alot of the good schools will let you rent guns in their "armory" and all you have to do is provide the ammo.
See for yourself what the difference is.
Otherwise this is a lot of mental self gratification.
@Crow Hunter:
1: You seem to not understand what the phrases "not much heavier" and "equivalent weight of an AK round" mean. They are slightly heavier and deadlier. I never said they were the same weight. But, it is a more than doable weight increase. I guess not. In engineering school they told us that something with greater mass was affected by gravity to a greater amount. Have you personally carried around 210+ rounds of either of those rounds around? I have carried both AK & 5.56 rounds. I can carry nearly 2x as many 5.56 mags with the same comfort as I can AK mags. Both due to size and weight of the magazines and ammunition. Don't forget the phrase "Ounces are pounds and pounds are pain". But you are free to do whatever you want or theorize from your couch. Go out and try it for yourself and see. I do it with just a chest harness/optic/water, I can't imagine doing it with a full military load out. Those guys are a lot tougher than I am.
2: They don't recoil that much more for it to matter. You know this for a fact? You have tested it? You have experience with all of these rounds?
1) Your ability to control the recoil of a particular platform over another could have influenced your results. Yes, the AR is much easier to control in recoil that the AK, however, the milled AK with full mags was significantly heavier than the 416 and thusly more resistant to recoil, but I was being shoved all over the place with the AK and I have much more experience shooting an AK than an AR. (I have owned an AK since 1997 and only owned an AR since 2000.)
2) We also don't know how hot your ammo was. You could have been using the bottom end of the 5.56x45 and the top end of the 7.62x39. We don't know.Actually, if anything, it was the opposite. 5.56 XM193 and Wolf 123gr. The Wolf was noticeably less pushy than the Norinco ball and South African M43 that I usually shoot with my personal AK.
3) Three rounds are more than enough when they are COM at close range. Maybe, if they hit in the right spot. There was also a significant difference in round dispersal on the target between the two. With the 416, they were in a basketball sized roughly circular group on the steel. With the AK, they were stitched diagonally and I had actually cheated with the AK and started at the bottom left corner of the target trying to control the recoil. I was using this as an illustration that the recoil in rounds of a size larger than 5.56 require more effort to control. The fact that I was pushed nearly over the berm but could empty an entire magazine of 5.56 into the target in 2 bursts was an eye opener for me. For reference, I can take a MP5 and put a full magazine in the target without stopping, amost write my name.Recoil does matter to ME anyway. If you can do better and you feel that it isn't a problem, drive on.
4) Spraying full-auto is a fantastic way to be ineffective at all but close ranges, reload far more often than you should, and run out of bullets.You misconstrued my comment. I was using that as an illustration of recoil control. The physics don't change on semi-auto. They just slow down.
3: The 6.8 has a very flat trajectory... look it up, its certainly up there with 5.45x39 and 6.5 Grendel. So it seems that at least those three rounds have a sound advantage over the 5.56x45. I am sure it does have a "flat" trajectory. It also retains more energy downrange than the 5.56. I specifically stated that there are rounds in your list that are superior to the 5.56 with one or possibly more attributes, but none of them are superior in all.
4: 7.62x39 dumps energy... it doesn't require tumbling or fragmentation like 5.56x45 does.Seriously?There is no "magic" difference between how different rounds work. All spitzer FMJ of identical construction behave the same way in identical media. You can influence it by contstructing the round differently (like Soft point rounds or VLD bullets, changing center of gravity etc, but they still are affected by physics the same way. .38 special? Again, you missed the point, The 7.62x39 yaw characteristics are such that it travels point forwards for nearly 14 inches before it starts to yaw, sometimes further. When that happens it leaves the exact same wound profile as a .38 special pistol round. A .30 or so caliber or so hole straight through..38 special is a pistol round... there isn't much tumbling or yawing to be had from a pistol round. 5.56x45 just shoots straight through them...No it doesn't. It does the same thing as all other Spitzer FMJ rounds do, if it is in the media long enough and has enough speed upon entering, it starts to slow down and since the back of the bullet is heavier than the front, it doens't slow down as quickly and the bullet switches ends. When it switches ends, if the bullet is going fast enough the bullet breaks at the cannelure and separates into many smaller projectiles. ALL SPTIZER FMJ BULLETS DO THIS!!! The only difference is how quickly this happens and whether the bullet can handle this transverse load and comes apart. Generally the heavier the round, the more it will resist this and the deeper it will penetrate before starting to because it has greater inertia. You can influence this by making the nose of the bullet significantly lighter than the back end so that it will start to slow earlier and yaw much faster. This will keep the yaw inside the body of the target rather than causing a punch through. wasting what is already less energy than other rifle rounds. At a distance it hits like a pistol but it is traveling slower so it doesn't fragment either. When larger diameter bullets hit, they dump their energy even if they don't yaw or fragment. Seriously man. Look this stuff up. There is no magic based on "larger diameter" bullets. The difference is if they are constructed "correctly" (ie heavy base, light nose, thin jacket) their heavier weight means they will resist slowing down longer and retain the energy to do this flip much further out than the lighter 55gr/62gr 5.56 projectile. This is the reason the 77gr MK262 was developed. Heavier/longer bullet retains more of it's energy and extends the effective range of the round.
5: I could also theorize that superior bullet construction applied to a superior round would be better than a 5.56x45 with a superior bullet design. I'm not talking about doing the best with what we have. I'm talking about actually upgrading. Yes it would. No arguement there.
6: I'm not talking about a ridiculous notion like a plasma rifle (at least not in the very near future). However, if one of these rounds really caught on in popularity (completely possible) or a military adopted it (not necessarily ours) it would be cheaper. I'm not worried about cost per round, I'm just talking about which one is a better performer than the 5.56 at being a intermediate rifle round. I mean... if cheaper means better then 7.62x39 is better than 5.56x45 and 9mm is better than .45. Do not get me wrong. I do believe that cost of ammunition is a very important factor when comparing different cartridges. But, I am asking which one is best at doing a job... not which one does it most efficiently... just best. Again, I based my comments as a civilian shooter in the US. Projections for future US military developments/uses are outside of my realm of influence or knowledge. Saying that, I believe the next innovation will be one of cartridge construction, not caliber.
7:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow Hunter
You can't take a box that holds 30 .22" diameters and stick 30, .30" diameters or .45" diameters in it.
Umm... Just as an example... .300 BLK uses standard AR-15 magazines and you can put 30 in them. They will function reliably, too. .300 BLK was designed to fit the same number of rounds in a standard AR-15 magazine.I was not aware of that, but looking at the pictures, the case is the same diameter as the 5.56 and that is what determines how many rounds you get in there. The others do reduce magazine capacity. But, most of them have their own proprietary magazines and though they are slightly bigger magazines they can carry 30 rounds, too. 6.8 SPC has 30 round magazines available for it (they are larger than AR-15 magazines, though). And, again people who shoot AKs don't complain about their magazines being massive and they contain 30 rounds. You obviously don't have nor have ever carried AK magazines. I can get six 5.56 mags in the same footprint of 3 AK magazines. And they are much more difficult to handle than AR mags.
Energy and how much of it is applied to the target determine how much of the target is destroyed. So, since most of these rounds (if not all of them) hit with more energy and apply more of that energy to the target, it would be easy for me to claim that they are deadlier than 5.56x45. Just like I know a .308 is deadlier than a 5.56x45... I know these other rounds with more stout energy levels are deadlier than a 5.56x45. Again, you need to do more research. In particular, go to Lightfighter.net and READ. Read Pat Roger's account of his use of the the much vaunted M-14 and the 7.62X51 against a Viet Cong mortar crew in Vietnam and why he has such a low opinion of "more deadly".
You see though, with more powerful bullets you just have to worry about hitting the chest... not hitting an artery.
I agree about getting back on target... but just like pistol shooters are able to get back on target quickly whether they are shooting 9mm or .45... so can people who shoot most of these rounds. Its a pretty workable difference because these rounds don't differ in recoil as much as you think. Actually, I don't just think. I KNOW there is a difference.How much experience do you have shooting? I imagine .458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf would be pretty stout. But, I don't know... I have seen people shoot .50 Beowulf and they weren't experiencing recoil anywhere near what I see .308 shooter's experience. I think the recoil impulse is just longer. Those big rounds kick similar to a 12ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow Hunter
The quick answer, those guys are finding that it takes just as many rounds of 7.62X51 from a SCAR H to drop someone as it does with a 5.56 from a SCAR L or M4. The difference is they can't carry as many rounds.
Or... the shooter is just shooting the same number of rounds as usual. 7.62 NATO "carbines" aren't the best close combat guns. They have a lot of recoil, they have a 33% reduction in magazine capacity, and you don't check to see if the bad guy is dead after each shot at close range. So, you end up just putting the same number of bullets in them you would anyway (which is more than likely your entire magazine if you are about to die).
You base this on personal experience....?
I don't have any experience shooting people, so when I want to learn more about it, I go and listen to people who do.
Go read it for yourself and see. These guys are professionals. I am talking about guys on the tip of the spear here. They were getting good COM shots at many different ranges and the guys kept getting back up with the "chest shots" only that should have dropped them in their tracks according to your theory. They saw NO IMPROVEMENT at normal engagement ranges. Outside of "normal infantry ranges" there is a definite improvement. Heavier rounds have more energy and keep it longer. But these guys don't do "sniper duels".
According to you sig line, you have a top of the line 5.56 rifle. Get a bunch of ammo and take a good shooting course with it. See if you can borrow someone elses AK or other caliber round and try that as well. (Alot of the good schools will let you rent guns in their "armory" and all you have to do is provide the ammo.
See for yourself what the difference is.
Otherwise this is a lot of mental self gratification.
L_Killkenny
New member
Not arguable at all. I've stated elsewhere in this thread that it's true, there is no definitive answer as to what "intermediate" is but it's a fact that the all .22 cal centerfires are near the bottom of the list and the .223/5.56 is middle of the pack between them is indisputable. In the hunting realm you have varmint calibers, medium game calibers and large game calibers. Again, while there is no line in the sand, the .223 falls squarely into varmint calibers and is, weakest to strongest, #7 outta 65 or so rifle rounds in my older Lee book. Intermediate would indicate middle and the .223 is no where near the middle.
The .223 may be an intermediate pipsqueak but it's far from an intermediate rifle round.
LK
I was surprised to see all the 6.5x55 Swede recommendations! I have three rifles chambered for the venerable Swede caliber (Ruger M77, Swedish Mauser and semi-auto Ljungman), and all of them are extremely accurate and easy to shoot. The only downside is the dearth of ammunition choices. I reload, but I wish gobs of surplus ammo were around to make this a bit more economical to shoot.
L_Killkenny
New member
Now see there ya go just being silly. I never said I didn't like the .223. In the realm of military arms it offers advantages over a good number of it's competition and does the job it's intended to do. What's not to like? But a .300 mag does the job it's intended to do too, does that make it an intermediate rifle round?
Can't speak for the Kurz but yes, I'd have a hard time callin the .30 carbine an intermediate rifle round.
LK
Can't speak for the Kurz but yes, I'd have a hard time callin the .30 carbine an intermediate rifle round.
LK
L_Killkenny
New member
That would be fine Rick if the title said anything about military rounds or if the majority of the cartridges listed by the OP were common military cartridges. It didn't and most of the aren't.
LK
LK
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@Crow Hunter:
1: Nope, I have not carried that many rounds. However, I am willing to take a hit to weight in order to carry a round that does a better job (less shots required means you can afford to have fewer rounds). So you can carry 6 AR magazines comfortably but only three AK magazines with equal comfort?
2: I have personally shot an MP5, a Thompson, a SCAR, an AR, an AK, a .30-06, and a M82A1. Judging by the energy levels (which is a very good indication of what the recoil is like because mv=mv) they are perfectly manageable to shoot when you choose to aim and fire... not rattle off rounds as if that will help you hit the target better. If you are firing anything full-auto you will not hit the target half-the time at 50 yards. I commend your ability to control the recoil of an AR so well. However, it would be easier to not have to empty your magazine to stop the bad guy.
1) "...shoved all over the place with the AK..." I do not have that kind of experience when I shoot my friend's AK.
2) Okay. I will take your word for it.
3) No, three rounds are enough when they are COM at close range. If that isn't enough... then it shows how pathetic the 5.56x45 is. Pistol rounds need to poke holes and make people bleed out slowly or hit vital organs/CNS to get rapid incapacitation. Rifle rounds hit with such large amounts of energy that they do not need to actually touch an organ to damage it. And, after three chest shots I would hope that your rifle killed them or put them into shock from all of their vital organs being traumatized THREE times. Because, you know... shock is triggered by rapid drops in blood pressure to your vital organs.
Hey, actually, let's say I take your word for it on this one. How many rifle shots do I need to kill someone if I hit them in the chest at 25 yards? Let's say it is random distribution but they are all in the chest. And, then tell me what cartridge could I expect to use that will reduce that number of required shots to 3?
Also, MP5 recoil is very light. You are basically shooting what is already an easily controllable pistol round in something that handles and weighs similar to a rifle. I can't do better than you with an AR in full-auto. However, if you are firing semi-auto then recoil is not the mountain you are making it out to be. These are not full-house rifle rounds. So, yes, I will drive on, I would rather hit the target with a more effective round than having to hit the target multiple times (more than three at 25 yards?). I do not believe I need to step into .308 territory to achieve that (but apparently you think so).
4) The physics don't slow down. The rifle comes to a rest between shots because you are actually aiming... rather than spraying. Recoil will marginally slow down your ability to make follow-up shots... but if you are actually aiming... most of your time is spent doing that and a fraction of that is spent recovering from recoil. And, again... I do not seem to have the recoil issues you have with AKs.
3: The problem is that the 5.56x45 isn't as good as some of these other rounds in the important categories of: trajectory, penetration, and lethality. They take a hit to weight, recoil, availability, and cost. But, like I already refuted, availability and cost would go away if one of these rounds was adopted. And, availability and cost are not attributes of performance. So you have three "wins" vs two "losses". And, I believe most people would take a slight hit to weight and recoil if they got a substantial improvement in trajectory, penetration, and lethality.
So, it seems your opinion is that none of these rounds offer enough improvement in those three categories for it to outweigh the increases in weight and recoil. Many people might disagree with you. So, let me ask, if you couldn't pick 5.56x45... which one would you? 5.45x39?
4: No there is no magic. Its called surface area. More of that leads to more drag. More drag leads to faster deceleration. Faster deceleration leads to quicker energy transfer to whatever is inducing the drag. Slo-mo vids of ballistics gelatin confirms this idea of mine.
The initial energy transfer from when the bullet changes medium is where larger diameter rounds have the advantage. They will hit more like a sledgehammer and less like an ice-pick. (These are similes again, don't go over-simplifying and get into how an AK round is only ~2-3 times the mass of an AR round and the difference in diameter is only ~2.06mm).
Yup, they both do it. But, one obviously transfers more energy quicker than the other. (Definitely not worried about damage caused due to the bullet yawing when the majority of damage caused by rifle rounds is the enormous transfer of energy).
5: Cool. But, you feel that none of these rounds are a worthy upgrade?
6: I'm not sure exactly how that would work because the military isn't allowed to use "inhumane hollow-point ammunition".
7: I haven't seen a 6 magazine carrier designed for AK magazines so I would imagine that is why. I consider 6 AR magazine pouches obnoxious, though (I would just rather be flatter).
"Ummm.... Seriously, do more research." Kay... when you explain to me why I have to use my rifle like a pistol. Pistols are so weak you have to hit vital organs to stop someone rapidly. Rifles don't need to because they can remotely damage blood vessels and organs. I mean... if I still have to directly hit vital organs... then the best rifle round is a .22lr. Its, very light-weight, pierces organs, the ammo is cheap, the ammo is easy to find, and the rifle is lighter, too.
"Actually, I don't just think. I KNOW there is a difference.How much experience do you have shooting?" There is a difference but it is easily controllable. You can see my signature. It isn't a big difference. Which is especially true when you grip the pistol with proper form. That is why professional shooters look like they shoot .22s when they shoot their .45s.
"They saw NO IMPROVEMENT at normal engagement ranges." Were they wearing kevlar and plates? That could have been a factor. I have seen plates take 10 5.56x45 shots AFTER taking a 7.62x54R shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVW6AZOZng&list=UUZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ&index=4&feature=plcp
Start watching at 14:20.
But, that is when body armor is involved. In that case its better to riddle them with shots hoping that some shots miss their plates or use a caliber that can just charge right through the plate (but that wouldn't be an intermediate round for sure).
I'm not worried about shooting people with body armor, though. They are the good guys.
I applied to lightfighter.net. I can't read anything until they approve me, though.
1: Nope, I have not carried that many rounds. However, I am willing to take a hit to weight in order to carry a round that does a better job (less shots required means you can afford to have fewer rounds). So you can carry 6 AR magazines comfortably but only three AK magazines with equal comfort?
2: I have personally shot an MP5, a Thompson, a SCAR, an AR, an AK, a .30-06, and a M82A1. Judging by the energy levels (which is a very good indication of what the recoil is like because mv=mv) they are perfectly manageable to shoot when you choose to aim and fire... not rattle off rounds as if that will help you hit the target better. If you are firing anything full-auto you will not hit the target half-the time at 50 yards. I commend your ability to control the recoil of an AR so well. However, it would be easier to not have to empty your magazine to stop the bad guy.
1) "...shoved all over the place with the AK..." I do not have that kind of experience when I shoot my friend's AK.
2) Okay. I will take your word for it.
3) No, three rounds are enough when they are COM at close range. If that isn't enough... then it shows how pathetic the 5.56x45 is. Pistol rounds need to poke holes and make people bleed out slowly or hit vital organs/CNS to get rapid incapacitation. Rifle rounds hit with such large amounts of energy that they do not need to actually touch an organ to damage it. And, after three chest shots I would hope that your rifle killed them or put them into shock from all of their vital organs being traumatized THREE times. Because, you know... shock is triggered by rapid drops in blood pressure to your vital organs.
Hey, actually, let's say I take your word for it on this one. How many rifle shots do I need to kill someone if I hit them in the chest at 25 yards? Let's say it is random distribution but they are all in the chest. And, then tell me what cartridge could I expect to use that will reduce that number of required shots to 3?
Also, MP5 recoil is very light. You are basically shooting what is already an easily controllable pistol round in something that handles and weighs similar to a rifle. I can't do better than you with an AR in full-auto. However, if you are firing semi-auto then recoil is not the mountain you are making it out to be. These are not full-house rifle rounds. So, yes, I will drive on, I would rather hit the target with a more effective round than having to hit the target multiple times (more than three at 25 yards?). I do not believe I need to step into .308 territory to achieve that (but apparently you think so).
4) The physics don't slow down. The rifle comes to a rest between shots because you are actually aiming... rather than spraying. Recoil will marginally slow down your ability to make follow-up shots... but if you are actually aiming... most of your time is spent doing that and a fraction of that is spent recovering from recoil. And, again... I do not seem to have the recoil issues you have with AKs.
3: The problem is that the 5.56x45 isn't as good as some of these other rounds in the important categories of: trajectory, penetration, and lethality. They take a hit to weight, recoil, availability, and cost. But, like I already refuted, availability and cost would go away if one of these rounds was adopted. And, availability and cost are not attributes of performance. So you have three "wins" vs two "losses". And, I believe most people would take a slight hit to weight and recoil if they got a substantial improvement in trajectory, penetration, and lethality.
So, it seems your opinion is that none of these rounds offer enough improvement in those three categories for it to outweigh the increases in weight and recoil. Many people might disagree with you. So, let me ask, if you couldn't pick 5.56x45... which one would you? 5.45x39?
4: No there is no magic. Its called surface area. More of that leads to more drag. More drag leads to faster deceleration. Faster deceleration leads to quicker energy transfer to whatever is inducing the drag. Slo-mo vids of ballistics gelatin confirms this idea of mine.
The initial energy transfer from when the bullet changes medium is where larger diameter rounds have the advantage. They will hit more like a sledgehammer and less like an ice-pick. (These are similes again, don't go over-simplifying and get into how an AK round is only ~2-3 times the mass of an AR round and the difference in diameter is only ~2.06mm).
Yup, they both do it. But, one obviously transfers more energy quicker than the other. (Definitely not worried about damage caused due to the bullet yawing when the majority of damage caused by rifle rounds is the enormous transfer of energy).
5: Cool. But, you feel that none of these rounds are a worthy upgrade?
6: I'm not sure exactly how that would work because the military isn't allowed to use "inhumane hollow-point ammunition".
7: I haven't seen a 6 magazine carrier designed for AK magazines so I would imagine that is why. I consider 6 AR magazine pouches obnoxious, though (I would just rather be flatter).
"Ummm.... Seriously, do more research." Kay... when you explain to me why I have to use my rifle like a pistol. Pistols are so weak you have to hit vital organs to stop someone rapidly. Rifles don't need to because they can remotely damage blood vessels and organs. I mean... if I still have to directly hit vital organs... then the best rifle round is a .22lr. Its, very light-weight, pierces organs, the ammo is cheap, the ammo is easy to find, and the rifle is lighter, too.
"Actually, I don't just think. I KNOW there is a difference.How much experience do you have shooting?" There is a difference but it is easily controllable. You can see my signature. It isn't a big difference. Which is especially true when you grip the pistol with proper form. That is why professional shooters look like they shoot .22s when they shoot their .45s.
"They saw NO IMPROVEMENT at normal engagement ranges." Were they wearing kevlar and plates? That could have been a factor. I have seen plates take 10 5.56x45 shots AFTER taking a 7.62x54R shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVW6AZOZng&list=UUZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ&index=4&feature=plcp
Start watching at 14:20.
But, that is when body armor is involved. In that case its better to riddle them with shots hoping that some shots miss their plates or use a caliber that can just charge right through the plate (but that wouldn't be an intermediate round for sure).
I'm not worried about shooting people with body armor, though. They are the good guys.
I applied to lightfighter.net. I can't read anything until they approve me, though.