BF2S Forums Using .50 Cal

scouseclarky wrote:

7.62 general purpose machine gun or gpmg fire creates what is know in a beating zone ( cone shaped) anything inside that zone gets turned as my instructor used to say into pink mushy stuff unfortunately you have to change the barrel every 1000 rounds as it warps due to heat and when used in sf role it can fire a lot of round

rdx-fx wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

heres something you might be able to clear up


whats the difference between the 5.56 rounds with the green tip and the 5.56 rounds without.  i always thought the ones without were the older versions of the ammo that will work with the older m16's and the ones with the green wont

you know what im talking bout

Green Tip 5.56mm is the M855, used for M249 and M4/M16's model A2/A3/A4 (not the M16A1, though)
Heavier bullet - more energy, more powder (more velocity).  M16A1 barrels don't have enough twist to stabilize it.

Standard 5.56mm was the M193, used for the M16A1. 

M193 can be used in any of the above weapons, M855 'green tip' should only be used in the newer A2+ weapons and SAW.  M16A2/A3/A4 and SAW have more than enough twist to stabilize the M193, but the M16A1 has just enough to stabilize the M193 and not nearly enough for the newer M855.

..Hmm..  y'know, you might get tumbler effect from using the M855 in an M16A1 - but your accuracy would be horrid past 100-150m....

Major_Spittle wrote:

scouseclarky wrote:

rdx-fx have you actually fire a 5.56 at a paper target then gone and checked the target after wards i have and you get normal bullet holes as well as elongated bullet holes i know the 5.56 tumbles because as a former British army medic I've seen the training videos of actual wounds inflicted by rifles like a soldier hit in the clavicle in the Falklands war it hit his collar bone and bounced around his body before exiting through his groin the damage caused by a 5.56 mm round is one of the reasons the SA-80 is the standard weapon of the British army it replaced the 7.62 mm SLR (self loading rifle)

Yeah, you shoot a bullet though jungle foliage and it will tumble and richocette.  I have shoot many many rounds.  .223 out of a rifle do not tumble in air.  Any bullet tumbling at 2500+ fps muzzle velocity would not hit anything at 100+ yards or have any downrange energy/velocity.  Anyone suggesting that the army had deployed such a gun is not very smart on the subject.

Major_Spittle wrote:

scouseclarky wrote:

rdx-fx have you actually fire a 5.56 at a paper target then gone and checked the target after wards i have and you get normal bullet holes as well as elongated bullet holes i know the 5.56 tumbles because as a former British army medic I've seen the training videos of actual wounds inflicted by rifles like a soldier hit in the clavicle in the Falklands war it hit his collar bone and bounced around his body before exiting through his groin the damage caused by a 5.56 mm round is one of the reasons the SA-80 is the standard weapon of the British army it replaced the 7.62 mm SLR (self loading rifle)

Yeah, you shoot a bullet though jungle foliage and it will tumble and richocette.  I have shoot many many rounds.  .223 out of a rifle do not tumble in air.  Any bullet tumbling at 2500+ fps muzzle velocity would not hit anything at 100+ yards or have any downrange energy/velocity.  Anyone suggesting that the army had deployed such a gun is not very smart on the subject.

whittsend wrote:

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

You understand the inherent contradiction in saying that war need not transcend human decency, I hope?

War is inevitable. It doesn't mean you have to go about it in the worst possible way.

I'll take that as a 'no'.  To concede an andvantage in war for humanitarian reasons only, is suicide.  War exists because someone believes a point is worth killing over.  If it is important enough to kill over, you can be sure that the killing will not always be nice.  While I would agree that deliberate cruelty as an end itself is wrong and uneccesary, you seem to be unwilling to concede that some cruelty is incedental, yet purposed, delibarate and necessary.   An example of this is the .50.  Giving up it's use against infantry is to concede an advantage.  If one is willing to concede an advantage in this way, one has no business going to war in the first place; if one is willing to kill over a point, than simple concern for the disposition of an enemy soldier cannot be considered more important than the point.  If it is, the point isn't worth killing over, QED.  The only way I can make this clearer to you, is to invite you to sign up and put yourself on the line.

mikkel wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Given that no other ammunition can do what the .50 can do, I guess you aren't against it after all.

You're getting closer, but you're overshooting. The world isn't black and white. Read and comprehend my posts and you'll spot my stand.

And you say you don't tapdance.

Given this:

mikkel wrote:

If extreme range is needed, and no other ammunition can do what the .50cal can do, then we're back to where I'm saying that I'm not against it if it can't be avoided.

and this:

whittsend wrote:

no other ammunition can do what the .50 can do

Then this:

whittsend wrote:

you aren't against it after all.

I know what you are thinking...you are thinking,"I said, 'if it can't be avoided!'"  But seriously, how do you think it is going to be avoided?  A sniper staring through a scope on a .50 is not going to switch weapons if his target is within range of his 7.62, and to suggest that he should is ridiculous.

Here's black and white for you:  If you are holding a weapon, regardless of your duty position, and an enemy comes into range of that weapon, you fire.  If your weapon system is not capable of taking out that soldier you MIGHT try to switch to one that is, but you will not EVER switch to one of a lesser capability, even if it is within that weapon's capability to take out the enemy.  By the time you do, you will have probably lost the shot.

If you can find a soldier with combat experience who disagrees with that I will be very surprised.  If you find me someone with no combat experience who disagrees, that person simply doesn't know.

If you do not believe that the soldier should switch weapons (i.e. that having the .50 in hand causes the incident to fall into the category of 'cannot be avoided') then I submit to you that there is NO situation in which a .50 is currently employed which you would disagree with, as few snipers carry two long arms on a mission.  If I am wrong, I invite you to illustrate with a hypothetical situation in which you believe the use of a .50 is wrong.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

scouseclarky wrote:

rdx-fx have you actually fire a 5.56 at a paper target then gone and checked the target after wards i have and you get normal bullet holes as well as elongated bullet holes i know the 5.56 tumbles because as a former British army medic I've seen the training videos of actual wounds inflicted by rifles like a soldier hit in the clavicle in the Falklands war it hit his collar bone and bounced around his body before exiting through his groin the damage caused by a 5.56 mm round is one of the reasons the SA-80 is the standard weapon of the British army it replaced the 7.62 mm SLR (self loading rifle)

Yeah, you shoot a bullet though jungle foliage and it will tumble and richocette.  I have shoot many many rounds.  .223 out of a rifle do not tumble in air.  Any bullet tumbling at 2500+ fps muzzle velocity would not hit anything at 100+ yards or have any downrange energy/velocity.  Anyone suggesting that the army had deployed such a gun is not very smart on the subject.

gun? when did artillery get in this. you were in the army right?

Major_Spittle wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

Yeah, you shoot a bullet though jungle foliage and it will tumble and richocette.  I have shoot many many rounds.  .223 out of a rifle do not tumble in air.  Any bullet tumbling at 2500+ fps muzzle velocity would not hit anything at 100+ yards or have any downrange energy/velocity.  Anyone suggesting that the army had deployed such a gun is not very smart on the subject.

gun? when did artillery get in this. you were in the army right?

This is my weapon this is my gun..... I was in Armor, we shot guns.  Big ones, little ones.  Do I have to talk about "weapons" by nomenclature on this forum now???? About deploying weapons????  The only thing military I deploy now is the P38 on my key chain.