Its seems I've got it backwards, I'm not sure why any army would want their assault rifle less powerful than their battle rifles - thats backwards really.
Fuck Israel
Lighter ammunition, less recoil, more rounds in a given magazine, etc.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its seems I've got it backwards, I'm not sure why any army would want their assault rifle less powerful than their battle rifles - thats backwards really.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
most army's don't have a battle rifle anymore.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its seems I've got it backwards, I'm not sure why any army would want their assault rifle less powerful than their battle rifles - thats backwards really.
Battle rifle morphed into the sniper rifle.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
During WWII armies began to realize that most of their infantry wasn't successfully engaging targets past 300-400m. The standard rifle of the day, shooting .30-06 or rough equivalent, had ballistic effectiveness way past what most soldiers were using. Using a smaller cartridge allowed troops to carry more ammo for a given weight, had less recoil, and was still useful for the vast majority of engagements. Over time, it also saves on production costs.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its seems I've got it backwards, I'm not sure why any army would want their assault rifle less powerful than their battle rifles - thats backwards really.
Marksmanship morphed into Trainfire popup targets, where a soldier could pass by hitting only targets at 200m and closer.
Even Army snipers are only tested for record at 600m, and the SF sniper qualification (SOTIC) is only 800m.
Thankfully, the USAMU and the SDM program are reversing that trend for the small percentage of soldiers that are actually interested in shooting well.
Being in Afghanistan, with long range open-country shots as routine, probably has much more to do with the Army's newfound interest in long range marksmanship. Viet Nam era close range shooting wrecked Army's collective long range shooting abilities.
Even Army snipers are only tested for record at 600m, and the SF sniper qualification (SOTIC) is only 800m.
Thankfully, the USAMU and the SDM program are reversing that trend for the small percentage of soldiers that are actually interested in shooting well.
Being in Afghanistan, with long range open-country shots as routine, probably has much more to do with the Army's newfound interest in long range marksmanship. Viet Nam era close range shooting wrecked Army's collective long range shooting abilities.
Typical bureaucracy, preparing for your last war instead of your next war.
Yeah, a lot of "modern" training has flaws. Shooting pop-up, human shaped targets has a lot of advantages, but it also has some disadvantages...like targets that always fall at the first good hit.rdx-fx wrote:
Marksmanship morphed into Trainfire popup targets, where a soldier could pass by hitting only targets at 200m and closer.
Even Army snipers are only tested for record at 600m, and the SF sniper qualification (SOTIC) is only 800m.
Thankfully, the USAMU and the SDM program are reversing that trend for the small percentage of soldiers that are actually interested in shooting well.
Being in Afghanistan, with long range open-country shots as routine, probably has much more to do with the Army's newfound interest in long range marksmanship. Viet Nam era close range shooting wrecked Army's collective long range shooting abilities.
Or when they leave the pop-ups on the default sequence, and the 300's come up #6, #14, #24, #25...RAIMIUS wrote:
Yeah, a lot of "modern" training has flaws. Shooting pop-up, human shaped targets has a lot of advantages, but it also has some disadvantages...like targets that always fall at the first good hit.
i had to take a course for certification to maintain pop up targets during rcycle detail at hood one time. you could set the sensitivity on those things so that it would go down if you hit the ground a few feet from it
Tu Stultus Es
lol that's pretty sensitive.
you could also make it so it wont go down without 3 round burst
Tu Stultus Es
Is that setting called "Terminator mode"?
I think pop-up targets should shoot back.
use death row inmates given paintball guns ........ if they make it through .... they're free
*armiesCybargs wrote:
most army's don't have a battle rifle anymore.
Everywhere I've had to qualify, it was hit the ground below the 50m to get the dirt, rocks, and ricochet to "hit" the target. Direct hit, the round would zip through so fast, it wouldn't register.eleven bravo wrote:
i had to take a course for certification to maintain pop up targets during rcycle detail at hood one time. you could set the sensitivity on those things so that it would go down if you hit the ground a few feet from it
Then it was hit the head on the 250 and 300 to get it to register.
Would be interested to hear any insights on why
I realise, maybe I'm attaching the wrong meaning to the words however:RAIMIUS wrote:
During WWII armies began to realize that most of their infantry wasn't successfully engaging targets past 300-400m. The standard rifle of the day, shooting .30-06 or rough equivalent, had ballistic effectiveness way past what most soldiers were using. Using a smaller cartridge allowed troops to carry more ammo for a given weight, had less recoil, and was still useful for the vast majority of engagements. Over time, it also saves on production costs.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its seems I've got it backwards, I'm not sure why any army would want their assault rifle less powerful than their battle rifles - thats backwards really.
In a typical long-running battle its desirable to cause the other team to spend time dealing with casualties.
When assaulting a position winging the guy manning a defensive position would not be much use - he needs to be out of action right away.
Weapons for SOCOM trials were 7.62 and .45 I think, 5.56 and 9mm weren't comparable
/Sh1fty
Fuck Israel
probably because they didnt up the sensitivity. they like keeping all the targets on the same level and they collect them and place them at the same time without adjusting the sensitivity on each individual target.rdx-fx wrote:
Everywhere I've had to qualify, it was hit the ground below the 50m to get the dirt, rocks, and ricochet to "hit" the target. Direct hit, the round would zip through so fast, it wouldn't register.eleven bravo wrote:
i had to take a course for certification to maintain pop up targets during rcycle detail at hood one time. you could set the sensitivity on those things so that it would go down if you hit the ground a few feet from it
Then it was hit the head on the 250 and 300 to get it to register.
Would be interested to hear any insights on why
Tu Stultus Es
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2012-07-27 10:40:23)
Great post I read on Cracked.
"Overlooking that 'gun control' has almost no effect on crime at all, 'assault rifles' are not available to the general public. It is a media created misconception that an AR-15 is a 'military style assault rifle.' Is chambered in a small caliber round and incapable of automatic fire. It is substantially less deadly than most common hunting cartridges. In fact, the .223 fired by the AR-15 is smaller than a good number of HANDGUN cartridges. 'Assault rifles' account for 0.2% of gun crime in America.
As for the specific arguments being made: If guns are innately murderous, one would think more than a tiny minority of the population would turn them on their fellow man. Canada, France, and Switzerland are also gun friendly nations and do not see the amount of gun crime America does. Even then, nations with strict gun control laws are passing America in terms of violent crime. For instance, the UK is dramatically ahead in every category of crime save gun crime.
If guns are only meant to kill people, I again posit the question 'Why do a vast majority never put a bullet in another person.' Guns are designed to kill, but function does not innately stamp intent upon the owner. I suspect a great many people own swords who do not intend to fight in the crusades.
One could argue that guns don't save lives, but it would be foolish to do so. The rate of 'hot burglaries' in the UK, for example, is 59%. In a hot burglary, the family is home and attacked in the process of robbing the house. In America, that number drops to 13%. (Dr. Gary Kleck, FSU) Rape is another crime effected by gun ownership. The rates of successful rape against unarmed women is around 32%. If the victim is armed, the chance of that rape being successful drops to 3%. Firearms are the single biggest equalizer for the elderly, the infirm, and the weak.
As to the 2nd amendment: It would be woefully irresponsible to assume everything will be totally cool forever. We, who cannot predict the economy next week, cannot possible fathom the direction our government will move in in 100 years. As Justice Alex Kozinski of the US 9th District Court said: "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
I wonder how the Syrians, the Libyans, or the Iranians feel about gun control. Some would suggest that no violet revolt can succeed with air or armor support. A tank cannot do door to door searches. A jet cannot hold a street corner. If infantry were so irrelevant, don't you think we'd stop putting soldiers in harm's way? Throughout history we see a multitude of examples of where disarmament hurt the people. All the way back to the time of Rome and earlier, oppressed peoples were forbade the use of the arms of the age. The Gothic tribes were forbidden from owning swords. People are fighting right now against tyrannical government.
Do I believe I, or even my children will have to battle an oppressive US regime? No. I truly don't. I'm not, however, so pompous to assume that we have built the only nation in the history of our planet to never, ever, see some shit. Preventing gun crime will not begin with legislation and restriction. We have a nation that glorifies violence, ignores the poor, and shirks mental health. Our education system is floundering and an entire generation of college graduates can't find jobs. Spree shooters commit these crimes to get attention, and what do we do? We plaster their face all over the internet and read their manifesto on international TV in prime time. How can we be shocked?"
"Overlooking that 'gun control' has almost no effect on crime at all, 'assault rifles' are not available to the general public. It is a media created misconception that an AR-15 is a 'military style assault rifle.' Is chambered in a small caliber round and incapable of automatic fire. It is substantially less deadly than most common hunting cartridges. In fact, the .223 fired by the AR-15 is smaller than a good number of HANDGUN cartridges. 'Assault rifles' account for 0.2% of gun crime in America.
As for the specific arguments being made: If guns are innately murderous, one would think more than a tiny minority of the population would turn them on their fellow man. Canada, France, and Switzerland are also gun friendly nations and do not see the amount of gun crime America does. Even then, nations with strict gun control laws are passing America in terms of violent crime. For instance, the UK is dramatically ahead in every category of crime save gun crime.
If guns are only meant to kill people, I again posit the question 'Why do a vast majority never put a bullet in another person.' Guns are designed to kill, but function does not innately stamp intent upon the owner. I suspect a great many people own swords who do not intend to fight in the crusades.
One could argue that guns don't save lives, but it would be foolish to do so. The rate of 'hot burglaries' in the UK, for example, is 59%. In a hot burglary, the family is home and attacked in the process of robbing the house. In America, that number drops to 13%. (Dr. Gary Kleck, FSU) Rape is another crime effected by gun ownership. The rates of successful rape against unarmed women is around 32%. If the victim is armed, the chance of that rape being successful drops to 3%. Firearms are the single biggest equalizer for the elderly, the infirm, and the weak.
As to the 2nd amendment: It would be woefully irresponsible to assume everything will be totally cool forever. We, who cannot predict the economy next week, cannot possible fathom the direction our government will move in in 100 years. As Justice Alex Kozinski of the US 9th District Court said: "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
I wonder how the Syrians, the Libyans, or the Iranians feel about gun control. Some would suggest that no violet revolt can succeed with air or armor support. A tank cannot do door to door searches. A jet cannot hold a street corner. If infantry were so irrelevant, don't you think we'd stop putting soldiers in harm's way? Throughout history we see a multitude of examples of where disarmament hurt the people. All the way back to the time of Rome and earlier, oppressed peoples were forbade the use of the arms of the age. The Gothic tribes were forbidden from owning swords. People are fighting right now against tyrannical government.
Do I believe I, or even my children will have to battle an oppressive US regime? No. I truly don't. I'm not, however, so pompous to assume that we have built the only nation in the history of our planet to never, ever, see some shit. Preventing gun crime will not begin with legislation and restriction. We have a nation that glorifies violence, ignores the poor, and shirks mental health. Our education system is floundering and an entire generation of college graduates can't find jobs. Spree shooters commit these crimes to get attention, and what do we do? We plaster their face all over the internet and read their manifesto on international TV in prime time. How can we be shocked?"
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
uh last i checked the fsa was mostly defected army units, not a 'civilian militia' in the 2nd amendment sense. libya iirc was similar in some respects, but there's also the whole tribal thing that really doesn't exist in the us to the same level. this isn't even mentioning the extensive arms supply from outside powers which happened in libya. and egypt kind of speaks for itself. the guy makes some reasonable points but that's a really really bad one.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Depends what you mean by 'smaller'.In fact, the .223 fired by the AR-15 is smaller than a good number of HANDGUN cartridges.
Fuck Israel
By weight of bullet, and diameter of bullet, 5.56x45 is smaller than most pistols.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends what you mean by 'smaller'.
55-77gr bullet, for 5.56x45, versus 115-230gr for 9mm to .45 ACP pistol.
By kinetic energy, it is closer to a pistol than a rifle
(5.56x45 62gr = 875 ft lbs, 9x19 115gr pistol 425 ft lbs, .45 ACP 230gr pistol 525 ft lbs)
as compared to my 7mm Rem Mag hunting rifle, at 180gr and 3616 ft lbs.
Even the relatively weak .308/7.62x51 is around 2500 ft lbs of energy.
.44 Magnum pistol (240gr @ 1400 fps) is over 1000 ft lbs