Ideal Assault rifle cartridge.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ignoring the 1,000 yard target for the moment (Mr. Irwin) because I can't see that far without looking twice, I don't think an assault rifle cartridge, or basic infantry rifle cartridge, to be more specific, is necessarily such a compromise. The thing is, it can't be everything. So there isn't so much compromise there after all. Is the 5.56 or 7.62x39 better? I don't know but they're both pretty good. Still, they don't need to be everything to all people because you still get to use other cartridges that work even better. In fact, in some armies, the sniper doesn't even use the 7.62 NATO. He has something that someone thinks is better.

I wonder how well the average soldier did in 1890 on 1,000 yard targets with iron sights?
 
"I wonder how well the average soldier did in 1890 on 1,000 yard targets with iron sights?"

Probably not all that well. But that wasn't what was important (so they thought), especially given the state of military marksmanship training at that time. At some points, the training allocation was 24 rounds PER YEAR.

What was important was the belief that these men could turn into long-range bringers of death at the drop of a hat despite, as I said, tons of evidence to the contrary.

And it was nearly 80 years before they even started to come to the realization that no, that's simply not all that realistic.
 
I think we all can agree that any benefits of a different intermediate cartridge are not substantial enough to warrant reworking the entire inventory.
 
Crow Hunter: MCLMM
Click to expand...

:D

That description doesn't apply to me.

But I know where they can be found.;)

Just hope they don't gank me for trying to help guys here. Although it might generate some interesting Hall of Fame momements....;)
 
Being as there is no reason, in law, of use of the Hollow Point round for our military forces, why not change to HP as a CQB load? Works better.

Going back to the Brits in 1949, the .280. in the full auto a short Bull Pup carbine. Enfield EM-2 / Rifle, Automatic, caliber .280, Number 9 Mark 1.

This cartridge beats out both the 5.56 and the 7.62X39, now! 140g projectile.

I saw this rifle demoed on a Pathe News clip in the Movies as a 15 year old in the UK.

The nattily dressed gent, fired it (the EM2) resting on his chin, one handed, full auto.

You can still find the demonstration of the Pathe News reel in Google. 600 yd holes in steel helmets! What a mistake!
 
Somewhere in one of Ian Skennerton's books (I think it was him), he made reference to the effect on steel helmets at some range and said "of those bullets that hit the helmet," suggesting that long range shooting, even at not a very long range, is harder than sometimes suggested.

Also, concerning the experimental British rifles, according to a provisional manual for them that I have a copy of somewhere, adoption as a bullpup was not necessarily a given. The manual illustrated both bullpups and normal configurations as well as a nattily battle-dressed, necktie wearing man.

But this thread is about cartridges. You know, I think a few AR-15s have been made in 7.62x39 (magazines are a problem) and lots of AK-type rifles in 5.56. I have no idea if the cartridges work any better in different "platforms."

I was misunderstanding Mr. Irwin's earlier comments. But military history is full of ideas which are neat, logical and wrong. Some of them refuse to die and apparently the 1000 yard, or 600 meter (or pick a number) battlefield rifle range is one of them. I realize that combat would never happen in a place like this but just go out your front door to the middle of the street, looking both ways first, and tell me how far you can see in any direction, nighttime included.
 
Well, if I walk up to the top of my community (to the road) and look up the street I can see about 700 yards, roughly 2/5ths of a mile (as read off my odometer).

That's only because the road swales and then goes up a slight incline, making the viewing plane a lot longer than what it would otherwise be.

I can see people at that distance.

Years ago a friend and I painted a concrete garden gnome (about 3 feet tall) orange and dropped it in a field on his parent's farm (LOTS of buffer zone, no worries).

We pulled back about 400 yards and with one of us spotting and the other shooting, we were quickly able to get repeated hits on it with my run of the mill Chinese SKS.
 
6.5 MPC

Uses 5.56 brass; can shoot up to 120gr bullets; I get around 2700 FPS with 100gr AMAX's out of a 20" bbl.

That or just stick with the 5.56....great round, if you actually shoot it enough to know what it can do.
It always suprises me.

I wouldn't mind having a rifle that shoots 7.62X39 either. I am particular on my guns, so the average run-of-the-mill AK won't cut it for me. I would need something a bit nicer.
 
we are in Afghanistan, where YoungSon has repeatedly reported that the Taliban are smart,
well disciplined, and have learned to start engagements at the magic 400m point.

Guess where the soldier's main battle rifle has now run out of gas for immediate/effective engagement?
Click to expand...

I always found that argument rather silly. They leaned to start engagements at the Magic 400M.

Think about that. Afgan's use AKs. Are you saying the AKs are more accurate at extended range then the M4/M16?

Anyone who buys that BS has little experience with either rifle.

Of course that's not a whole lot different then saying 6.8's tear down mud walls and 223s bounce off.
 
we are in Afghanistan, where YoungSon has repeatedly reported that the Taliban are smart,
well disciplined, and have learned to start engagements at the magic 400m point.

Guess where the soldier's main battle rifle has now run out of gas for immediate/effective engagement?
Click to expand...
I always found that argument rather silly. They leaned to start engagements at the Magic 400M.

Think about that. Afgan's use AKs. Are you saying the AKs are more accurate at extended range then the M4/M16?

Anyone who buys that BS has little experience with either rifle.
Click to expand...

I have both, and have shot and been shot at by both.
I have not been shot by either -- and don't want to.

But I'll give you first-hand testimony as to the 400-yard effectiveness of the 7.62x39 from someone else:

The round sounds like a buzz-saw going past your ear and it WILL go straight through an S-Band RADAR
array that you are fixing from 400+ Meters.

The next round that hits YOU in your Level 3 Armor in the non trauma plate area breaks 3 ribs.
The next round hits you in the back between #5 and # 8 Thoracic vertebrae breaking several bones.
You'll take several months to fully recover from the rib shot. Your back is porked forever.

The good news is that body armor saved your life.

The BETTER news is that the GIRL on the Coast Guard Cutter moored next to the landing craft
you are on opens up with a 25mm chain gun and obliterates the sniper's position along with
the entire story of the building the sniper was firing from.

She's barely 20, cute and visits you at Bethesda Medical.
Click to expand...


But I'm going to ask you one question, ...and one question only.

Have you been to Afghanistan?
 
Last edited:
I haven't but my wife's cousin is there now. Only he's not in the army.

Thank you Mr. Irwin for responding to my question. I think you cheated a little but that's OK. From where I sit, if I turn around, I can see, probably, a thousand yard. Before they built that huge building, I could even see the tower at the Air & Space Museum at Dulles, which might have been three or four miles. Could I hit anything at a 1,000 yards? Probably not. Who could?

The designated marksman should be able to, don't you think. But he won't have a 5.56 or shouldn't, anyway. And the designated marksman isn't even a sniper. He doesn't go to sniper school or anything like that. His job is to cover the battlefield beyond which other rifleman won't make hit, or I assume it is. Folks here forget how lavish the army can sometimes be with equipment, even to units that have little or no use for it, or so I am informed.

I'm looking again and, boy, making a hit at that distance would be an achievement because nothing is holding still. It would seem that putting lead on the target at 1,000 yards takes some training on the part of the target.
 
But I'll give you first-hand testimony as to the 400-yard effectiveness of the 7.62x39 from someone else:
Click to expand...

Was that 7.62X39 or 7.62X54R? The range and effect on target sounds alot more like the X54R than the X39. Not arguing, just wondering out loud.

To the point about starting outside the 400m engagement range. Yes, there are lots of examples that I have read about that happening in Afghanistan. But the Taliban are starting that 400m engagement with PKMs or even DShKs, not AK's and it is more of an area of effect fire rather than point target engagement.

They aren't doing that with AK's, those are crew served weapons. Which is what our troops usually answer with in kind.:D
 
But I'm going to ask you one question, ...and one question only.

Have you been to Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

No Sir, mine was in SE Asia.

What that has to do with anything is beyond me. Phyics apply regardless whether you're in Afghan or New Jersey.

The ball ammo for the AK when sighted in at 100 yards drops about 65 inches at 400 yards and has a drift in a 10 MPH Wind is 32 inches.

The military 62 ball ammo for the M4/M16 when sighted in at 100 yard drops 34 inches at 400 yards and drifts about 20 in a 10 mph wind.

Past 400 the balistics are more profound, giving the advantage to the 223.

Think about it.

You ever wonder why you don't see 7.62X39 at rifle Service Rifle matches, where you shoot 200, 300, 600 and 1000.

The 223s are winning those matches.

Again saying the 7.62X39 out shoots the 5.56 at extended ranges is silly at best.

There is no where on God's Green Earth, Afghan, Vietnam, New Jersey, Wyoming or anywhere else is that going to happen.
 
You know, some Scottish infantry unit had a pipe tune "Farewell to Kabul," or something like that, written in the 19th century. So they've been at it a long time. The British, yes, but I'm referring to the Afgans. After all, they never left, except for the young lady at the bank who is Afgani and looks exactly like my daughter.

The point I'm making here is that the Afgans, while not necessarily natural born fighters and marksmen, are at least well practiced. That will make a difference. Supposedly they'd shoot at an airplane with anything they had, just to see if they could hit it. You may even know someone like that yourself.

Say, did Alexander the Great ever make it to Afganistan?
 
Again saying the 7.62X39 out shoots the 5.56 at extended ranges is silly at best.

There is no where on God's Green Earth, Afghan, Vietnam, New Jersey, Wyoming or anywhere else is that going to happen.
Click to expand...

Five years in continuous combat must have left YoungSon in obvious
misunderstanding of both the facts of physics and Taliban tactics.

I will so inform him, ...so he can inform them
 
Last edited:
I wasn't discussing Afghan "staying power" To understand that ideal you need to read Mao, who says its not about winning, its the enemy's will to fight. Mao suggest to be successful you need to be committed to an extended war of 10 years or more. That is why no one has stayed in Afghan, not because the the abilities of the Afghan Soldier.

I was discussing the Range & Accuracy comparison between the AK 7.62X39 and M4/M16 5.56.

However if one wishes to look at the marksmanship ability of the Taliban Soldier here is an excellent study.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/
 
Say, did Alexander the Great ever make it to Afganistan?
Click to expand...

Yeah but he didn't stay long... He turned south for India.


And as for the 400 meter taliban sniper thing:

A very close friend of mine was there and told me that they found everything you could imagine. Soviet machine guns, lee enfields, G3's, mosin nagants. The insurgents don't exclusivly use AK's. Now He said they would take fire from 600 yards or so but it was mostly harrasing fire. It rarely got close.

Thats just what I was told. I haven't been to Afganistan personaly.
 
I was discussing the Range & Accuracy comparison between the AK 7.62X39 and M4/M16 5.56.
Click to expand...
I believe you have forgotten the third leg of the stool -- terminal ballistics.
The 5.56 simply doesn't have it past 400 yards.

And since the issue is incoming via multiple rounds, not just onesy-twosies, terminal ballistics
count big time once they arrive and simple pattern statistics take their toll.

I am dumfounded by this basic lack of understanding.
 
Moving to 600 with both rounds.

The 7.62X39 drops 212 inches, and drifts 86 in. KE = 265 ft lbs.

The 5.56 drops 110 inches and drifts 52 inches KE = 249 fl lbs.

Now explain to me how that extra 16 ft lbs of energy out weighs the advantage of 100 feet less drop and 34 inches less drift.

We don't even have to discuss the advantage of the sights on M4/M16 over the AK.

I recommend you take both rifle/ammo combination, run them through a chronograph, put the numbers in the in a ballistic calculator and see what happens.

Then take both to a rifle match. Talk them into letting you shoot the 600 yard stage with both rifles (the stage is 20 rounds, shoot ten with the M16 and 10 with an AK).

Then come back and tell me the AK has an advantage over the M16 at extended ranges.

I am dumfounded by this basic lack of understanding
Click to expand...

I've have been shooting High Power for over 35 years, and have been teaching sniper schools dern near that long. That's where I get my "basic lack of understanding".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top