The Guns and Ammo Thread
- Thread starter Kalessin
- Start date
Elissar said:
IF the round is in the proper length barrel, The barrel is too short, it doesn't reach the same velocity and doesn't tumble as well. Thus we get people wishing it had more stopping power.
That said, I've never talked with a soldier who'd trade their m4 for an m16 or ak.
Elissar said:
Masochist
I wouldn't be qualified to say what I would choose(if I could)
However, I know a lot of soldiers who bought and brought .40's .45's rather than rely on the army to provide a 9mm. Though I also know a few who bought glocks in 9mm.
Just from the stories I've heard I'm going to go with a .45 acp and from a great day renting all the 45's I could get my hands on I came out with a liking of the HS2000 in .45(under bastardized american name of X.treame D.uty)
euhm, no, it aint.DammitBoy said:
reload both, use them in similar bolt actions and see what flies best and furthest. it'll be the .30-06 due to larger case capacity and similar bullet.
technically speaking the 5.45x39 should have less recoil than the 5.56x45, actually.horst said:
the problem here is that you're comparing very different weaponsytems here. if you'd fire a 5.56 out of an AK102 and 5.45 out of an AK105, then you'd see that the 5.45 is actually milder. both rifles are identical, save for the caliber.
6.5mm Grendel is superior to all, as far as i'm concerned.horst said:
that said, the .223Rem, 5.56mm NATO and 5.45mm all have their uses.
SuAside said:
This is a copy/paste of an article written by an expert in the field.
---
Accuracy Facts
.308 Winchester versus .30-06 Springfield
By Bart Bobbitt
Seems to me that any time there's more metal contacting the bullet, the greater [the] chance that more variables come into play. Besides, folks who shoot highpower rifles the most accurate[ly] have very little case neck tension on the bullet anyway.
It's really easier to have uniform case neck tension by having it light in the first place; neck length doesn't come into play when this is how it's done. And ammo that's been handloaded [which is] then let set for several weeks or months will have a greater release force needed with long necks because of dissimilar materials bonding between bullet jacket and case neck/fouling. There's more area to bond when longer necks are used.
All that aside, lets go back to when the .30-06 and .308 were the only cartridges allowed in NRA match rifle matches. Both cartridges were used in barrels of equal quality as well as the same action and stocks by several top shooters in the USA. Both cartridges were used in matches at ranges from 100 through 1000 yards. Many thousands of rounds were fired in both types. Bullets from 168 through 200 grains were used with several powder, case and primer combinations.
In comparing accuracy between the .308 and .30-06, folks who used each quickly agreed on one thing: .308s were two to three times more accurate than the .30-06. In the early 1960s, it was also observed that competitors with lower classifications using .308s were getting higher scores than higher classified folks using .30-06s; at all ranges. By the middle to late 1960s, all the top highpower shooters and virtually all the rest had switched to the .308. The Highpower Committee had received so many complaints of ties not being able to be broke between shooters using the .308 and shooting all their shots in the tie-breaking V-ring, something had to be done to resolve this issue. In 1966, the NRA cut in half the target scoring ring dimensions.
At the peak of the .30-06's use as a competition cartridge, the most accurate rifles using it would shoot groups at 200 yards of about 2 inches, at 300 of about 3 inches. The 600-yard groups were 6 to 7 inches and at 1000 yards about 16 inches. As the high-scoring ring in targets was 3 inches at 200 and 300 yards, 12 inches at 600 and 20 inches at 1000, the top scores fired would have 90+ percent of the shots inside this V-ring.
Along came the 7.62mm NATO and its commercial version; the .308 Winchester. In the best rifles, 200 yard groups were about 3/4ths inch, at 300 about 1-1/2 inch. At 600 yards, groups were about 2-1/2 inch and at 1000 about 7 to 8 inches. It was not very long before the .30-06 round no longer won matches nor set any records; all it's records were broken by the .308 by a considerable margin. Some accuracy tests at 600 yards with the .308 produced test groups in the 1 to 2 inch range. These were 20 to 40 shot groups. No .30-06 has ever come close to shooting that well.
At 1000 yards, where both the .30-06 and .308 were allowed in Palma matches, the .308 was the clear-cut most accurate of the two. If top shooters felt the .30-06 was a more accurate round, they would have used it - they didn't. In fact by the early 1970s, the scoring ring dimensions on the 800 - 1000 yard target were also cut in about half due to the accuracy of both the .308 Win. over the .30-06 and the .30-.338 over the .300 H&H when used in long range matches.
Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge.
Military arsenals who produced match and service ammo in both 7.62mm and 30 caliber have fired thousands of test rounds/groups with both. They also found out that with both ammo types, the smallest groups were with the 7.62 by about 50 to 60 percent. M1 rifles in 7.62 shot about twice as small of groups as .30 M1s at all ranges. When the M14 was first used, there were some .30-06 M1 rifles that would shoot more accurately. It took the service teams several years to perfect the methods of making M14s shoot well, but when they did, they shot as good as M1s in 7.62.
There will always be folks who claim the .30-06 is a more accurate cartridge. All I have to say to them is to properly test .308 vs. .30-06 and find out. Theory is nice to think about; facts determine the truth.
---
Mr. Bobbitt did not submit this article to Sniper Country, but rather to the rec.guns newsgroup on February 7, 1997. He has authored many postings to rec.guns, and is highly qualified to comment on a variety of shooting-related topics. Among his many distinctions within the shooting community, he once fired a 20-shot, 3.325" group at 800 yards.
interesting, but i'd like to see some emperical proof, if you don't mind. though googling it seems quite a few people seem to agree on that.DammitBoy said:
i'll be the first to admit i'm certainly not an experienced long range marksman though. still, i know for a fact that comparing similar ammo, that the .30-06 shoots flatter. (though flatter doesn't mean more accurately)
SuAside said:interesting, but i'd like to see some emperical proof, if you don't mind. though googling it seems quite a few people seem to agree on that.
The general consesus is that the 30-06 while an excellent round, just 'goes funny' at times. While the .308 stays dramatically more consistent.
Yeah, it's mostly observational - but the tell is in the fact, nobody even tries to compete with the 30-06 anymore.
If it was more accurate, everybody would be shooting it at matches.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Well I got to this party late it seems but I will go ahead and post what I got
Sorry if the first pic is a bit blurry, it is from before my first move and I only had a camera phone back in then.
Assorted shotguns and rifles in that picture mainly. Nothing really special that stands out. They were all my Grandfathers and much to his brothers anger he left them to me when he died.
The M1 Carbine would definitely be my favorite of all the ones I have. No shops around here carry the ammo anymore so I have to mail order it and that is a bitch but it is very fun to shoot.
Do not have any funds right now to expand my collection but when I get a job the first thing I am going for is going to be an AR-15 with a 90 round barrel mag.
After that I think it will be a new handgun and I am liking what I see of the Glock 17 and the 33 round mag available for it.
Sorry if the first pic is a bit blurry, it is from before my first move and I only had a camera phone back in then.
Assorted shotguns and rifles in that picture mainly. Nothing really special that stands out. They were all my Grandfathers and much to his brothers anger he left them to me when he died.
The M1 Carbine would definitely be my favorite of all the ones I have. No shops around here carry the ammo anymore so I have to mail order it and that is a bitch but it is very fun to shoot.
Do not have any funds right now to expand my collection but when I get a job the first thing I am going for is going to be an AR-15 with a 90 round barrel mag.
After that I think it will be a new handgun and I am liking what I see of the Glock 17 and the 33 round mag available for it.
Jack The Knife
It Wandered In From the Wastes
DammitBoy said:
Also, NATO choosing the 7.62x51mm as a standard should be a good indication of which is better.
remember the whole Sellier & Bellot ammo talk we had a while back?
how some people said S&B was crap, but that i found it damn good?
well, turns out there's some history to that:
first off, old ammo is indeed crap. low standards, lots of fliers.
then, S&B was bought out by a certain firm, i cannot recall, but i think it might have been RWS. as a result, the mother corporation had the S&B machines upgraded and better ammo was produced.
then, that corporation has been bought out by RUAG (which also holds Geco, Rottweil and Norma). i don't need to tell you that Norma & Geco makes good ammo... machines were upgraded again.
so now they produce really good bang for buck... especially the non-tox pistol ammo is beautiful (in my gun at least).
i toyed with the idea of getting one myself, but here authentic ones are too expensive for what you actually get, imo.
how some people said S&B was crap, but that i found it damn good?
well, turns out there's some history to that:
first off, old ammo is indeed crap. low standards, lots of fliers.
then, S&B was bought out by a certain firm, i cannot recall, but i think it might have been RWS. as a result, the mother corporation had the S&B machines upgraded and better ammo was produced.
then, that corporation has been bought out by RUAG (which also holds Geco, Rottweil and Norma). i don't need to tell you that Norma & Geco makes good ammo... machines were upgraded again.
so now they produce really good bang for buck... especially the non-tox pistol ammo is beautiful (in my gun at least).
indeed.Cromlech said:
i toyed with the idea of getting one myself, but here authentic ones are too expensive for what you actually get, imo.
haha, no. sorry, that's not the way it works.Jack The Knife said:
Jack The Knife
It Wandered In From the Wastes
SuAside said:
I don't see what's wrong with that notion.
The 7.62x51 was developed to make automatic fire more controllable, easier to feed and so, and so.
(though, one could argue how easy full auto on a G3 is to control)
It is good for sniping purposes, also.
It is an all round better round.
They wouldn't have developed it and made it standard if the .30-06 didn't have draw backs.
As I understand it, it was the USA who pushed forward to make the 7.62mm standard in the first place.
(even though they continued to use the .30-06)
I don't think mine is a moot point, but I do believe that Dammitboy's point about people not using it in competitions anymore is better.
Competitors always use the best available allowed.
Edit: How does it work then?
Everything I've read on the 7.62mm NATO round says that choosing it instead of an intermediate round was not the smartest mode, as it's overpowered. For instance, the 7mm British (EM-2) is said to have been a much better choice.
I can't say I disagree, as the EM-2 looks damn sexy and the EM-1 is even better. Wooz disagrees, but I think it's very Fallouty in an European setting.
I can't say I disagree, as the EM-2 looks damn sexy and the EM-1 is even better. Wooz disagrees, but I think it's very Fallouty in an European setting.
Jack The Knife
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Agreed.
That seems to be the case, since 5.56mm is the new standard for assault rifles.
It is a pity the Americans yelled the highest in this matter.
The EM-2 looks great, and looked very promising. Wonder why bullpup isn't used more.
That seems to be the case, since 5.56mm is the new standard for assault rifles.
It is a pity the Americans yelled the highest in this matter.
The EM-2 looks great, and looked very promising. Wonder why bullpup isn't used more.
Jack, as all things on a global scale, it's a matter of politics.
europe wanted to move on to intermediate bullets, but the USA wanted to continue using full power rifle rounds. nothing else could be trusted enough to put a man down. so, fine, NATO was forced into accepting 7.62x51 which is basically an updated and shortened .30-06.
europeans however were axed on getting an intermediate round, and were trying it out in several forms. one of them being .280 British. the FN FAL was designed with it in mind for instance. it had to be redesigned for 7.62x51, which was quite a bit more powerful than initially expected.
the americans then realised that they wanted full auto guns and started pumping out M14's, which were a huge failure in full auto. as often quoted "first shot is on target, second over their heads and from the third on, you're turning your gun into an anti-aircraft gun". so, full auto was useless and removed from common use.
but then it dawned on americans, that they needed a lighter round. (the russians and even the nazi germans had already seen that coming ages ago).
so americans push NATO to accept the 5.56x45mm. turns out, it's an anemic round that cannot be trusted to penetrate jungle foilage and so on. FN-H makes a modification of the round and makes it a tiny bit better. but it's still below average, i'd say.
now, the americans are investigating 6.8mm and 6.5mm options, due to the poor performance of the 5.56mm.
guess what? the .280 british was a lot closer to that whole crap than 7.62 or 5.56mm ever were.
so you see, saying that NATO only accepts the best is fucking dumb in general...
political issues and imbalance in the alliance will always remain a problem for NATO weapons acceptance. afterall weapons and ammo are tested to meet certain parameters, but those are set mostly politically and are hardly ever unbiased. they reflect doctrine of a particular nation or group of nations and might really turn out to be the wrong parameters to start with.
imagine a full automatic FAL in .280 British, with a magazine of about 25-26 rounds. pretty much one & a half times the weight and energy of a 5.56mm, in the same weight league as the modern 6.5mm Grendel bullets. yet, a lot less recoil than a 7.62x51mm.
quite frankly, if that had been a NATO standard back then, we'd probably still be using those with only minor changes...
do note that you shouldn't take the late EM-2 developed cartridges as a reference. it's bullocks, since the concept had then already be raped to appease the americans (larger case, larger diameter (.30),...)
europe wanted to move on to intermediate bullets, but the USA wanted to continue using full power rifle rounds. nothing else could be trusted enough to put a man down. so, fine, NATO was forced into accepting 7.62x51 which is basically an updated and shortened .30-06.
europeans however were axed on getting an intermediate round, and were trying it out in several forms. one of them being .280 British. the FN FAL was designed with it in mind for instance. it had to be redesigned for 7.62x51, which was quite a bit more powerful than initially expected.
the americans then realised that they wanted full auto guns and started pumping out M14's, which were a huge failure in full auto. as often quoted "first shot is on target, second over their heads and from the third on, you're turning your gun into an anti-aircraft gun". so, full auto was useless and removed from common use.
but then it dawned on americans, that they needed a lighter round. (the russians and even the nazi germans had already seen that coming ages ago).
so americans push NATO to accept the 5.56x45mm. turns out, it's an anemic round that cannot be trusted to penetrate jungle foilage and so on. FN-H makes a modification of the round and makes it a tiny bit better. but it's still below average, i'd say.
now, the americans are investigating 6.8mm and 6.5mm options, due to the poor performance of the 5.56mm.
guess what? the .280 british was a lot closer to that whole crap than 7.62 or 5.56mm ever were.
so you see, saying that NATO only accepts the best is fucking dumb in general...
political issues and imbalance in the alliance will always remain a problem for NATO weapons acceptance. afterall weapons and ammo are tested to meet certain parameters, but those are set mostly politically and are hardly ever unbiased. they reflect doctrine of a particular nation or group of nations and might really turn out to be the wrong parameters to start with.
imagine a full automatic FAL in .280 British, with a magazine of about 25-26 rounds. pretty much one & a half times the weight and energy of a 5.56mm, in the same weight league as the modern 6.5mm Grendel bullets. yet, a lot less recoil than a 7.62x51mm.
quite frankly, if that had been a NATO standard back then, we'd probably still be using those with only minor changes...
do note that you shouldn't take the late EM-2 developed cartridges as a reference. it's bullocks, since the concept had then already be raped to appease the americans (larger case, larger diameter (.30),...)
Jack The Knife
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I am well aware of that. I did mention USA pushing to get the 7.62 as a NATO standard. They thought the M14 was the answer.SuAside said:
SuAside said:
That, I have never said! I said competitors only accepts the best. As in; competitors in a shooting match.
The comment was on which of the rounds, .30-06 or 7.62 was the better. Both American made. And the Americans chose the 7.62 as the standard. That is not a moot point.
Whether it was the best choice if you consider possibilities other than the 2 mentioned, I doubt.
SuAside said:
I only said it was promising. It was regarded as promising. It would probably be a better starting point when developing an ideal round than the 7.62.
The 5.56mm again is overkill small in my opinion. I fully agree that the 6.5mm is probably a better balance.
As the situation is now I would stay true to my trusted AG3 in a combat situation rather than using the 5.56mm. It just feel safer.
hey Johnny, welcome back!
two X-Fives? sjeez, talk about overkill!
also, i'd say that "X-Five Tactical" kinda beats the purpose in my opinion. wouldn't tactical mean to be actually useful and carried in a time of real need? an X-Five however is heavy and mostly made for accuracy, rather than sheer reliability.
anyhow, doesn't change the fact that they're awesome guns.
i find it so sad that i can't own suppressors though... seriously, many countries show that it's not a real problem, while it has a lot of benefits (including healthbenefits).
anyhow, i'm about to request a metric fuckton of new gun permits, which means i'll probably have them by next year. it'll be great. did a lot of saving and now money has to roll!
that said, i also recently bought a Mosin Nagant M/27 (a fin, Tikka 1939). it's really awesome. doesn't look like much, but doesn't leave the 0-ring at 100m with irons! (not me shooting though, but a friend of mine who specialises in surplus long arms)
at longer range, i think my K31 still wins though, but i think that the M/27 would surely hold its own.
two X-Fives? sjeez, talk about overkill!
also, i'd say that "X-Five Tactical" kinda beats the purpose in my opinion. wouldn't tactical mean to be actually useful and carried in a time of real need? an X-Five however is heavy and mostly made for accuracy, rather than sheer reliability.
anyhow, doesn't change the fact that they're awesome guns.
i find it so sad that i can't own suppressors though... seriously, many countries show that it's not a real problem, while it has a lot of benefits (including healthbenefits).
anyhow, i'm about to request a metric fuckton of new gun permits, which means i'll probably have them by next year. it'll be great. did a lot of saving and now money has to roll!
that said, i also recently bought a Mosin Nagant M/27 (a fin, Tikka 1939). it's really awesome. doesn't look like much, but doesn't leave the 0-ring at 100m with irons! (not me shooting though, but a friend of mine who specialises in surplus long arms)
at longer range, i think my K31 still wins though, but i think that the M/27 would surely hold its own.
The X Five Tacticals with the threaded barrel were remarkably hard to get hold of around here for a long time. I placed orders with several distributors, and after about three months, I got one. I forgot to cancel my outstanding orders, and two weeks later, I got another one.
"Tactical" as applied to handguns or almost anything else these days, is more of a marketing gimmick then anything else. The idea of a large offensive suppressed pistol went out with the HK Mark 23. Since I am not a Ninja or in a Delta Force Recon Seal, it's size has not been an issue for me. If I needed a more compact platform, I have a regular 226 Tactical or a USP Compact.
The K31 straight bolts look like nice guns. I trend towards more modern firearms, but I wouldn't cry if a K31 found it's way under the tree.
I've got two new rifles you would probably appreciate, if I can find my camera; an SPR clone built off of an LMT lower and a Larue upper, and a Knights Armament E3, which, at the moment, is fairly rare.
"Tactical" as applied to handguns or almost anything else these days, is more of a marketing gimmick then anything else. The idea of a large offensive suppressed pistol went out with the HK Mark 23. Since I am not a Ninja or in a Delta Force Recon Seal, it's size has not been an issue for me. If I needed a more compact platform, I have a regular 226 Tactical or a USP Compact.
The K31 straight bolts look like nice guns. I trend towards more modern firearms, but I wouldn't cry if a K31 found it's way under the tree.
I've got two new rifles you would probably appreciate, if I can find my camera; an SPR clone built off of an LMT lower and a Larue upper, and a Knights Armament E3, which, at the moment, is fairly rare.