Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting Prototype for New Military Rifle.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by sickofny View Post
    Wasn't the excuse for going to the 5.56 was that the troops could carry more ammo in the same space? Did anyone else see the size of the crap that this thing supposedly shoots?
    That’s a lot of extra weight and bulk for 4 rounds!
    Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

    Comment


      #32
      Items like uniform, MRE, boots and TP are disposable and needed to sustain troops X amount of times on the field and Y amount of times in the barracks. This is non returnable expense for MOD. Those items has only marginal value during combat operations. In the worst or best fighting of any war in last 200 years troops were without many of those things and still fought outstandingly. As long as weapons are operational and supplied with ammo fighting will go on.

      People just want better stuff then they have. It is always that "special" unit, next to your that has better boots, hotter food and more hours too sleep then you ever had.

      After a week of guard duty, day on, day off, no super uniform will change how you feel. Dry feet, hot food and thought of 8 hours sleep might keep you away from insanity.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

        Ironically, the issue boots in USMC boot camp in the mid-80's were crap. But I was actually later ISSUED expensive Danner Acadia boots a few years later. I wore the crap out of them and I still have them. AWESOME boots.



        My brother was issued these Danners, many years later:



        NOT TOO SHABBY.
        I'd hate to get a size twelve kick in the ass from those things.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Russian View Post
          Items like uniform, MRE, boots and TP are disposable and needed to sustain troops X amount of times on the field and Y amount of times in the barracks. This is non returnable expense for MOD. Those items has only marginal value during combat operations. In the worst or best fighting of any war in last 200 years troops were without many of those things and still fought outstandingly. As long as weapons are operational and supplied with ammo fighting will go on.

          People just want better stuff then they have. It is always that "special" unit, next to your that has better boots, hotter food and more hours too sleep then you ever had.

          After a week of guard duty, day on, day off, no super uniform will change how you feel. Dry feet, hot food and thought of 8 hours sleep might keep you away from insanity.
          So you're still wearing portyanki instead of socks?

          The main concern is excellence in the field. Not guard duty.

          My father's unit was glad to get experimental jungle boots issued them in WW2. Morale boosts help win wars.
          Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Barnslayer View Post

            So you're still wearing portyanki instead of socks?

            The main concern is excellence in the field. Not guard duty.

            My father's unit was glad to get experimental jungle boots issued them in WW2. Morale boosts help win wars.
            I was wearing boots and portyanki in the boot-camp, socks and jump boots in VDD training and after and back in high boots after my last transfer.
            In hot weather high boots are horrible but in cold or wet weather they are really better then boots. Wearing partyanki is like wearing 2 pair of socks on rotation- while one is drying up another is in use.
            Last edited by Russian; 10-02-2018, 10:10 AM.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post
              ...

              Seems to me rifle and handgun development is at a snail's pace compared to other weapons systems......
              Maybe that's because the basic cartridge and rifle are already effective enough and have been for over 100 years - accurate, reliable and cheap. How much deader is a guy going to be if he's shot with a caseless round, rail gun or a death beam?

              No one ever wished they didn't have a gun.

              Regards,
              Chris

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by BLAMMO!! View Post

                Maybe that's because the basic cartridge and rifle are already effective enough and have been for over 100 years - accurate, reliable and cheap. How much deader is a guy going to be if he's shot with a caseless round, rail gun or a death beam?
                Or musket?



                "Effective enough"? One could argue that getting shot with a .75 caliber ball in the chest will make you just as dead as a 30-06 or .223.

                There will always be improvements. Better trajectory, faster projectile, more accurate, more tissue damage with non-lethal hits, lighter rifle, shorter rifle, holds more rounds, lighter rounds, etc, etc, etc.

                It seems (to me) like in the 1800's, we went from flintlocks to semi-auto, magazine fed firearms. In the 1900's until now, not much has changed. As a matter of fact, I recently bought a Winchester 1907 (c.1907) in .351 Winchester. This is a magazine-fed, semi-auto rifle. The .351 has ballistics somewhere between a 30-30 and 7.62 x 39mm (all pretty close, I read).

                Winchester 1907.jpg
                So, developed around 113 years ago, arguably the only (practical) difference between this and a 'modern', most widely used military rifle in the world, an AK47, is select-fire capability and a longer magazine.

                Where have we gone with military aircraft development in the last 113 years?
                No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

                - U.S. Marines

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

                  Or musket?



                  "Effective enough"? One could argue that getting shot with a .75 caliber ball in the chest will make you just as dead as a 30-06 or .223.

                  There will always be improvements. Better trajectory, faster projectile, more accurate, more tissue damage with non-lethal hits, lighter rifle, shorter rifle, holds more rounds, lighter rounds, etc, etc, etc.

                  It seems (to me) like in the 1800's, we went from flintlocks to semi-auto, magazine fed firearms. In the 1900's until now, not much has changed. As a matter of fact, I recently bought a Winchester 1907 (c.1907) in .351 Winchester. This is a magazine-fed, semi-auto rifle. The .351 has ballistics somewhere between a 30-30 and 7.62 x 39mm (all pretty close, I read).

                  Winchester 1907.jpg
                  So, developed around 113 years ago, arguably the only (practical) difference between this and a 'modern', most widely used military rifle in the world, an AK47, is select-fire capability and a longer magazine.

                  Where have we gone with military aircraft development in the last 113 years?

                  The problem with firearms development is John Moses Browning died.
                  Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Barnslayer View Post


                    The problem with firearms development is John Moses Browning died.
                    Here, here!
                    No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

                    - U.S. Marines

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

                      Or musket?



                      "Effective enough"? One could argue that getting shot with a .75 caliber ball in the chest will make you just as dead as a 30-06 or .223.

                      There will always be improvements. Better trajectory, faster projectile, more accurate, more tissue damage with non-lethal hits, lighter rifle, shorter rifle, holds more rounds, lighter rounds, etc, etc, etc.

                      It seems (to me) like in the 1800's, we went from flintlocks to semi-auto, magazine fed firearms. In the 1900's until now, not much has changed. As a matter of fact, I recently bought a Winchester 1907 (c.1907) in .351 Winchester. This is a magazine-fed, semi-auto rifle. The .351 has ballistics somewhere between a 30-30 and 7.62 x 39mm (all pretty close, I read).

                      Winchester 1907.jpg
                      So, developed around 113 years ago, arguably the only (practical) difference between this and a 'modern', most widely used military rifle in the world, an AK47, is select-fire capability and a longer magazine.

                      Where have we gone with military aircraft development in the last 113 years?
                      The 351 is a slightly hotter 357 more or less. They make custom 351 ammo from 357 Rem Max cases with an extra chamfer on the rim. Excellent northeast woods deer round. The French used these in WWI with extended magazines. They were in the back seats of aircraft before they started mounting guns on planes. There are several reports of German planes being shot down by the back seaters with 1907's in 351.
                      I have a number for a guy in Westchester who a couple of years ago had tons of 351 ammo from the very last run of them Winchester did. PM me if you want his number.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by sickofny View Post

                        The 351 is a slightly hotter 357 more or less. They make custom 351 ammo from 357 Rem Max cases with an extra chamfer on the rim. Excellent northeast woods deer round. The French used these in WWI with extended magazines. They were in the back seats of aircraft before they started mounting guns on planes. There are several reports of German planes being shot down by the back seaters with 1907's in 351.
                        I have a number for a guy in Westchester who a couple of years ago had tons of 351 ammo from the very last run of them Winchester did. PM me if you want his number.
                        I just read that the French made some into select-fire and extended their mags. Whether it's closer to a .357 magnum or 7.62 x 39mm is up to you. These stats are from Wiki (I'm in a rush), so take them for what you will. The point was that we're using the same firearm technology for 120 years, without many improvements.

                        I deleted the lighter loads of each round to try to compare to the 180 gr. .351

                        7.62 x 39mm (16")
                        10.0 g (154 gr) SP 641.3 m/s (2,104 ft/s) 2,056 J (1,516 ft⋅lbf)
                        .351 cal. (20")
                        180 gr (12 g) 1,870 ft/s (570 m/s) 1,400 ft⋅lbf (1,900 J)
                        .30-30
                        170 gr (11 g) FP 2,227 ft/s (679 m/s) 1,873 ft⋅lbf (2,539 J)
                        .357 mag. (4")
                        J)
                        158 gr (10 g) JHP Federal 1,240 ft/s (380 m/s) 539 ft⋅lbf (731 J)
                        Last edited by Dan 0351; 10-02-2018, 11:34 AM.
                        No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

                        - U.S. Marines

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post

                          I just read that the French made some into select-fire and extended their mags. Whether it's closer to a .357 magnum or 7.62 x 39mm is up to you. These stats are from Wiki (I'm in a rush), so take them for what you will. The point was that we're using the same firearm technology for 120 years, without many improvements.

                          I deleted the lighter loads of each round to try to compare to the 180 gr. .351

                          7.62 x 39mm (16")
                          10.0 g (154 gr) SP 641.3 m/s (2,104 ft/s) 2,056 J (1,516 ft⋅lbf)
                          .351 cal. (20")
                          180 gr (12 g) 1,870 ft/s (570 m/s) 1,400 ft⋅lbf (1,900 J)
                          .30-30
                          170 gr (11 g) FP 2,227 ft/s (679 m/s) 1,873 ft⋅lbf (2,539 J)
                          .357 mag. (4")
                          J)
                          158 gr (10 g) JHP Federal 1,240 ft/s (380 m/s) 539 ft⋅lbf (731 J)
                          All true but put that same 357 in a 20" barrel and your easily over 1800 fps

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by BLAMMO!! View Post
                            How much deader is a guy going to be if he's shot with a caseless round, rail gun or a death beam?
                            I read that the rail gun will leave you twice as dead, and the death beam makes you so dead you were never even born.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Banzai View Post

                              I read that the rail gun will leave you twice as dead, and the death beam makes you so dead you were never even born.
                              Sure but if a 5.56 doesn't kill you, it will make you wish your papa never met your mama.
                              No one ever wished they didn't have a gun.

                              Regards,
                              Chris

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by BLAMMO!! View Post

                                Sure but if a 5.56 doesn't kill you, it will make you wish your papa never met your mama.
                                Give it enough time and you just described most married couples without any help from firearms

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X