Post 2.9 Official Weapon Suggestions Thread

[Lasersailor184]

Where do you come up with this stuff? It'd be nice to hear about a source other than a random blurb you probably heard from a news station at age nine

Read the book Black Hawk Down. Blatant evidence of how 5.56 blows and 7.62 is great.

Read stories from the Marine Soldiers in Vietnam who had the M14 but were forced to switch to the M16. (This includes both models at the time).

Have you used a FAL? Or a G-3? (I built many L1A1 clones before the odius "assault rifle ban")
In my experience I find the FAL to be superior in sheer durability, and maintainability. The G-3 follows, with the M-14 only having the POTENTIAL to shoot more accurately. Overall, I was less than impressed with the '14 in it's field maintainability, or ease of first time instruction.

I've had many FAL's break in my hands during testing at ranges.

I've had many G-3's jam up in humidity.

I once dropped an M14 during field tests into a muddy puddle. It was soaked. I was afraid that it wouldn't work. But the owner said "Just open the action and pour the mud out." Didn't have a single problem that entire day.

Now, you've dug the "5.56 Vs 7.62" arguement up. So just how in depth did you study this? Ever seen what a M-855 fired from an early M601 series AR-15 does?

You can fragment all the hell you want. **IF the round doesn't drop the guy in as few shots as possible, then it isn't an effective round!**

I'd rather be livershot by a M-80 ball round. (yes, feel free to ponder, and research this combination of firearm and projectile..)

I agree that the 5.56 can do more tissue damage. But tissue damage is not what worries you on the battlefield.

What worries you is whether or not the guy you ***JUST SHOT*** is going to keep shooting at you.

You have just confirmed beyond every possible doubt that you are an utter moron.

The army has been a **** up operation ever since Vietnam. Well, I shouldn't say that. There were a few Army battalions that were half decent soldiers. During vietnam that is, they've deteriorated since then.

In other words: ~20 lb BAR has limited effectiveness in full-auto from shoulder or hip; ~10 lb M-14 has zero effectiveness in full-auto from shoulder or hip.

I'm not quite sure you're getting this "**** hits the Fan" situation idea.

When under suppressive fire, would it not be prudent to resort to grenades? I always carry smoke nades in INF for that reason. I don't know how militarily sound this is but I'm sure it's a lot better than sticking ANYthing out in a firestorm. But that's just civilian me.

We're not just talking about a regular engagement. I'm talking about a SHTF situation. All real tactics fly out the window when survival becomes more important

And last thing, according to your logic, quantity>quality. Therefore, it doesn't matter what round you are using the more rounds you put on the other side is better. Therefore, 5.56>7.62 since you can always send more 5.56 down range like you put it. Actually, for that logic, they should issue .11 caliber LMGs because then a single SAW belt would fit about 400 rounds. 400 rounds blazed through even on fast ROF will give you a bit more seconds of continuous fire. And you wouldn't even need to use a fitted rifled barrel since all you need to do is make bullets go one way so overheating won't be a problem other than the expanding gas.

I never said that.

However, you just said that the 7.62 round is better then the 5.56 round.

Of course, in order for me to hold you off I'd have to hold the barrel or stock with both hands outstretched but you will not be running around with a knife out so in the event that we're both outta ammo (to be fair) and you decide to pull out your knife, I will treat my gun as a large club and club you on the head. You're not that stupid, knives aren't useful in combat. And to top that off victims make a LOT of noise after their throat is slit.

Knives are one of the most useful tools on the battlefield. But they aren't too useful at ranges exceeding 5 yards.

Thanks for proving* the total lack of worth of full auto fire in combat. Way to sink yourself. You can go **** off now.

I was proving the reason why they took off full auto on M16's *AND* why the army sucks

Oh, your mom's calling you, you haven't finished sucking her off yet...

P.S For the forum vets: What's the bet that this joker is Dj Lethal?

I don't know who that is.

{as well as standard operating procedure regarding sentry elimination techniques consisting of grabbing your stabbee from behind clasping your free hand over mouth and nose while simultaneously slashing carotid/windpipe)

The way you're really taught is to get your face so close to their neck that you can smell the blood when you cut through both carotid arteries, both Jugular's, and the wind pipe.

When you can really smell the metalic smell, then you know you've cut deep enough.

SPM- the 1/12 twist rate, with the '855 projectile will shoot fine on the range, regardless of normal atmospheric conditions (I won't consider "Vacuum" or "under water", thanks.)

But take it to an extreme like Vietnam or Siberian planes and it starts to fail you.

 

[Rostam]

I don't know who that is.

That was an idiot that kept spouting nonsense out till one day shakken got pissed and wrote a reply 2 pages long on why he was wrong.

Don't worry though, nobody is gona waste that much energy on you.

 

[Spier]

Read the book Black Hawk Down. Blatant evidence of how 5.56 blows and 7.62 is great.

Read stories from the Marine Soldiers in Vietnam who had the M14 but were forced to switch to the M16. (This includes both models at the time).

Read after action reports from Iraq. Blatant evidence that you are full of ****. And yes, I do regard detailed reports of hundreds of kills slightly more reliable than a book. Even though the book contradicts your opinion on the subject several times.

You could also look into reports from medics in Vietnam that had to deal with friendly fire victims of 5.56 fire.

I've had many FAL's break in my hands during testing at ranges.

I've had many G-3's jam up in humidity.

I once dropped an M14 during field tests into a muddy puddle. It was soaked. I was afraid that it wouldn't work. But the owner said "Just open the action and pour the mud out." Didn't have a single problem that entire day.

Peachy.

However the 50 or so countries that adopted the FAL and G3 instead of the M14 seems to have disagreed completely with you on the point of reliability. Hell, even Israel ditched the M- 'POS' 14 the second they got the chance.

I agree that the 5.56 can do more tissue damage. But tissue damage is not what worries you on the battlefield.

What worries you is whether or not the guy you ***JUST SHOT*** is going to keep shooting at you.

And the intense hydro static shock(or whatver the latest redneck myth is) of the 7.62 it what is going to instantly stop a determined attacker in his tracks?

The army has been a **** up operation ever since Vietnam. Well, I shouldn't say that. There were a few Army battalions that were half decent soldiers. During vietnam that is, they've deteriorated since then.

Haven't the US Army pretty much won every conflict since Vietnam?

We're not just talking about a regular engagement. I'm talking about a SHTF situation. All real tactics fly out the window when survival becomes more important

Right. And spraying the sky with 7.62 is going to aid your survival you think? edit: IIRC, in BHD when two fellows are about to be overrun then the guy using the M14 is dishing out, gasp, SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIRE! Now that was absolutely an "SHTF" situation, so why would the highly trained SF operative use "n00b" mode?

But take it to an extreme like Vietnam or Siberian planes and it starts to fail you.

Yeah. Those pesky Siberian "planes". I have no idea what you are talking about right now, so I'm going to stop here.

SaraP, an assault rifle using full-power rounds is what some people like to call an oxymoron..

The term assault rifle originates with the StG-44; the StG-44 program set out to create a select-fire battle rifle, found it to be impractical due to absolutely uncontrollable recoil, and created the first true assault rifle.

The NATO nations subsequently ignored the German research and insisted on using full-power rifle rounds in their next generation of infantry rifles, producing select-fire 7.51x51mm rifles (including the M-14, the G3 and the FN FAL) which were totally useless in full-auto. Interestingly enough, the U.S. and its allies rejected the assault rifle concept for the same reason Hitler did until the StG-44 was developed behind his back and proved wildly successful: they felt that the shorter range and lethality of reduced-power rounds was an unacceptable tradeoff.

Assault rifle - select-fire, magazine fed weapon utilizing intermediate powered rounds.

That's the definition of an assault rifle(from the top of my head so it might be wrong). As you can see the M14, G3 and FAL does not qualify as assault rifles because of their full-powered bullets. That's why I pointed out that: "an assault rifle using full-power rounds is what some people like to call an oxymoron."

 

[kungpaosamuraiii]

KP, if they make a lot of noise once thier throats are slit, you didnt cut them deep enough severing a carotid artery doesnt leave even the hardiest of persons very long to make anything but a gurgling noise, and most well trained personel will know enough to not only sever this artery, but also the actual throat/windpipe, let alone a follow up stab between the ribs to silence any wind your victim may expell during his demise{as well as standard operating procedure regarding sentry elimination techniques consisting of grabbing your stabbee from behind clasping your free hand over mouth and nose while simultaneously slashing carotid/windpipe) {google:fairborne sykes/OSS methods}

Knives are EXTREMELY usefull in the field, not only for silent sentry elimination, cutting of B-wire, and a myriad of other uses, thats why i hazard to speculate that 99.9% of all fighting forces are issued some kind of edged weapon for thier field kits.

*side note* not defending lasersailors ludicrous claims, but i will defend the knife as a standard field issue article till bitter end*

Oh, well, that's awesome/horrific. I was not aware of this...

Thanks BW!

Well in that case disregard my post.


Anyways, I never said that 5.56 was better than 7.62 because that's not my area. Hell, none of this is my area but maybe a few logic points that I may or may not prove to make sense or lack thereof.

I was saying that you seem to be saying that 7.62 is better for killing but in a "SHTF" situation one would spray all their rounds opposite of incoming fire (duh) but if one sprays everything that way it would be wise to have as many rounds as possible because since none of the bullets is hitting anything there's no point in using an effective round.

For instance, if we had a .50 battle rifle that had a magazine capacity of 5 rounds and it fired 500 rpm than in about a third of a second or one and two thirds or something or rather, one will have fired off his or her entire magazine. No one will contest the killing power of .50 except maybe elephant hunters, some of which use 7.62 and others use 20mm, but since none of those rounds hit anything no one dies and he or she is out of ammo. Therefore, the killing power of .50 caliber is a moot point making my .11 caliber or 2.78mm round far superior to 12.7mm.

I think this logic applies more to pencil lead, .5mm allows a pencil to hold more but is more easily broken while .7mm allows less but breaks less too. However, if used correctly .5mm won't break much and both 'calibers' do the exact same thing so in this case less is more.

 

[spm1138]

But take it to an extreme like Vietnam or Siberian planes and it starts to fail you.

He's on about the very first AR15's sent over with Project Agile.

Their rifling was designed for civilian .223 ammunition. When used with M193 they were very unstable in flight and as a result did some truly fascinating things to the human body when they hit.

Unfortunately also as a result they got fairly innacurate at range when the air temp hit zero degrees celcius.

They fixed that problem pretty quickly though.

 

[Gnam]

This is ridiculous. The entire thread has gotten bogged down by one moron and his Megazord M14 BS. Hey Lasersailor, why don't you tell us more about this mythical "****HitsTheFan" situation? It sounds more like the scene in the Matrix where Mouse gets gunned down carrying dual thompsons than real life combat. You're literally saying that the only purpose to full auto fire is making noise and scaring people. And you seem to forget that people are perfectly capable of returning fire while behind cover. It's not like all the enemy soldiers are just going go "*gasp* how can it be!!? he has a...a....AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON!!!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!" and disapear just like that, or cower defenselessly out of sight. A firefight ultimately comes down to 2 groups behind cover shooting at eachother, and the only thing that's going to save you is shooting them before they shoot you. Of course, they might duck their heads initially, but pretty quickly they're going to figure out that you can't hit anything. While you're firing **** into the sky they're taking advantage of the ample time provided them by your complete inability to hit anything to make the minimal effort necessary to aim and nail you. It doesn't even matter if they're using single shots or not. If both sides are shooting full auto under the same cirumstances, one side with M16A1s and one side with M14s, the M16A1s are going to win, because unlike, you, they will actually hit things with their full auto. Controlability is important in full auto. End of story. But even then, the M14 is not currently issued with full auto so it matters even less.

Don't get caught up in the myth of snipers carrying automatic sidearms. This is the sort of thing that comes from the gaming world. Military snipers usually work in teams, with one of them being equipped with a sniper rifle, and one with a carbine or assault rifle. The whole Sniper + PDW thing really comes from people being super practical in games, but it's flawed since I'm yet to see a game where "sniper" doesn't mean "single person acting on his own thinking he's ultra cool because he can shoot people in the balls WITH A SCOPE!!!1" Real men use iron sights

I'm aware that automatic sidearms are not usually used by snipers. I think the PDWs are more for the HK69-ers or specialists (ie if there's ever missions where you have to rescue a helicopter pilot or something, a PDW would be a good mandatory weapon for the pilot). But, since Inf does have a free loadout system, we might as well let ****ty snipers weigh themselves down with extra weapons they shouldn't need. If Inf's system is accurate enough then automatic sidearms should be more trouble than they're worth to a sniper. Still, I don't think the PDWs are that important for all I care they could get ditched for Inf 3.0, but if they're in the armory and the team has time, might as well add 'em.

 

[cleve-ntt]

5.56 rounds are weak inneffective pieces of ****. It takes roughly 3-6 5.56 rounds to effectively drop a man.

Yet it takes only one 7.62 round to effectively drop a man.

Hey, I know very little about ammo and the like, but I was talking to the air cadets guy and he was saying that 556 was better than 762 because the 762 went in one side and out the other, only (only??) making a hole. 556 spins and totally ****s up the insides of the poor guy on the other end.

Not amazingly sure about this tho.


And lasersailor, you say the army is crap. I aint saying its not crap, but:

1. Its been around for longer than you have.
2. It has lots of money to pay good people to think up good tactics and devise good training.
3. They kicked @$$ in Iraq - in the "proper" battlefield situations.

I mean, I have no idea about how crap they are or arent, but the above points tell me they are not crap.

Based on your arguments you treat the soldier as a thinking individual human, who sees his own life as something special.
From what I gather they "break your spirits". According to sources the soldier works as a team, and is a drilled, trained, selfless fighting "machine". Not some **** you see in movies.

I aint backing these points, just saying what I have heard and believe to be true.

TBH I dont know what an M14 is, so I can't really pretend to argue about that!

 

[kungpaosamuraiii]

It's the rifle in his sig.

It's nice, but according to most people it's amazingly outclassed by other rifles.

According to Lasersailor184 it amazingly outclasses all other rifles.

 

[cleve-ntt]

Bah, looks like some really old world war 2 thing.

Is this another "they never make 'em like they used to..." type of argument?

 

[Lasersailor184]

3. They kicked @$$ in Iraq - in the "proper" battlefield situations.

Just like to quickly point out that it was the marines who kicked ass in Iraq. Both times.

The Army trailed so far behind that they almost didn't fight at all (In the first one).

Hey, I know very little about ammo and the like, but I was talking to the air cadets guy and he was saying that 556 was better than 762 because the 762 went in one side and out the other, only (only??) making a hole. 556 spins and totally ****s up the insides of the poor guy on the other end.

The 7.62's transfer a lot of energy to the target. This leads to knock down power.

The 5.56's fragment and create a lot of damage. While this creates some serious wounds, it doesn't do jack **** for you on a battlefield, only afterwards.

 

[Spier]

The 7.62's transfer a lot of energy to the target. This leads to knock down power.

The 5.56's fragment and create a lot of damage. While this creates some serious wounds, it doesn't do jack **** for you on a battlefield, only afterwards.

Exactly what is this mythical "knock down power" you speak of? Feel free to write a few paragraphs on the subject just to educate us.

 

[cleve-ntt]

Okay, i was treatying the "army" as a generic term for ground forces.

And 556 would surely cause target to cripple in pain?

The problem with 762 would be that the round would go through the flesh and out - only really transferring energy if it hits something hard (bone, wall) flesh aint hard.

 

[Meplat]

Egads. He's dug up "Energy Transfer". Nice, twenty dollar term there. So tell me, of the following which 7.62MM load transfers more energy to a soft target- US M-80 ball, US M-118 Special Match, or the West German NATO spec 7.62MM?

Now tell me WHY.



I'll cut to the chase. near all 7.62NATO ball rounds poke 7.62MM holes through people. Decent sized temporary wound channel, and a Bic Pen sized permanent wound channel.

5.56MM NATO, and SEATO loadings are far more destructive, when a PROPER twist/sectional density combination is used (1/12, with M-193 ball, or 1/12 with M-855 for the ones you REALLY like)

Tissue damage kills. Poking a hole in a non critical area of a human being will annoy them and they MAY die. Using a projectile that expends all it's energy within the target, generating a larger amount of tissue damage IS what generates stops. With few exceptions, 7.62MM NATO ball rounds do NOT do this.

Meplat-

 

[kungpaosamuraiii]

Actually, if the round penetrates a lot of the power will be still be in the round rather than translating into stopping power.

If you want "knock down power" get a musket. 14.5mm lead ball ammo... literally. Of course, you won't hit them but you only need to get the enemy to hide from fire right?

 

[jaunty]

Lets see... do you want 20 rounds that might knock a guy down but not kill him, or 30 rounds that liquify internal organs. I think I know which I'd be going for.

 

[SaraP]

Egads. He's dug up "Energy Transfer". Nice, twenty dollar term there. So tell me, of the following which 7.62MM load transfers more energy to a soft target- US M-80 ball, US M-118 Special Match, or the West German NATO spec 7.62MM?

Now tell me WHY.



I'll cut to the chase. near all 7.62NATO ball rounds poke 7.62MM holes through people. Decent sized temporary wound channel, and a Bic Pen sized permanent wound channel.

5.56MM NATO, and SEATO loadings are far more destructive, when a PROPER twist/sectional density combination is used (1/12, with M-193 ball, or 1/12 with M-855 for the ones you REALLY like)

Tissue damage kills. Poking a hole in a non critical area of a human being will annoy them and they MAY die. Using a projectile that expends all it's energy within the target, generating a larger amount of tissue damage IS what generates stops. With few exceptions, 7.62MM NATO ball rounds do NOT do this.

Meplat-

On the other hand, you’re comparing a modern-design 5.56mm to a just barely post-WWII 7.62mm design. It's what the military uses right now, of course, but do keep in mind that an upgraded 7x62.51mm designed to take advantage of the latest developments in wound ballistics would be much more lethal.

 

[Meplat]

Sara- *LAUGHS* I could just use some 100odd year old technology hunting loads as well. Nothing like a 180 grain jacketed softpoint. Tremendously effective, and "battle proven". (at least against cute furry critters).

Personally, I doubt you'll see much improvement regarding a 7.62X51MM service load. Maybe something along the lines of the "Match King" projectile, replacing or substuititing for the M-118, but overall, the basic ball round will be pretty much unchanged. Why? with the exception of sniper's armaments, the 7.62X51 is all but relegated to use in automatic weapons, of the GPMG class or higher. In some cases a one second burst on a target would result in 100 odd hits. (GAU-2/M-134, high rate, allowing for "spool up".) With that kind of saturation, a projectile's terminal ballistics are at best a secondary concern to the target.

Meplat-

 

[SaraP]

Sara- *LAUGHS* I could just use some 100odd year old technology hunting loads as well. Nothing like a 180 grain jacketed softpoint. Tremendously effective, and "battle proven". (at least against cute furry critters).

Personally, I doubt you'll see much improvement regarding a 7.62X51MM service load. Maybe something along the lines of the "Match King" projectile, replacing or substuititing for the M-118, but overall, the basic ball round will be pretty much unchanged. Why? with the exception of sniper's armaments, the 7.62X51 is all but relegated to use in automatic weapons, of the GPMG class or higher. In some cases a one second burst on a target would result in 100 odd hits. (GAU-2/M-134, high rate, allowing for "spool up".) With that kind of saturation, a projectile's terminal ballistics are at best a secondary concern to the target.

Meplat-

I was thinking that they might develop an improved 7.62x51mm round if they end up readopting the M-14 as a designated marksman rifle. The Marine Corps seems to like that idea a lot.

 

[ecale3]

The United Stated is not the only country on the planet capable of developing new ammunition. With the amount of countries that still do or have recently used weapons like the G3 and the FAL (and what was it the UK called it the L1A1?) i'm sure someone took the time to update their ammo.

Also Sara, aren't designated marksmen usually issue better quality ammunition than your standard grunt? Snipers use match grade ammo, wouldn't markemen be issued something of similar quality.

And i would like to see that M14 DMR in INF so bad, a suppressed, semi-auto, 7.62mm rifle with excellent accuracy and a roughly 700-800m effective range (unsuppressed as i doubt it has that kind of range when the suppressor is on).

and this comment by Lasersailor "Knives are one of the most useful tools on the battlefield. But they aren't too useful at ranges exceeding 5 yards." is flat out rediculous. You're talking about a knife being useful in a gunfight, which is just plain retarded.

*On a side note- I think your being a little harsh towards us snipers jaunty, some of us know about two-man sniper teams and stalking. Moving every shot or two instead of grabbing a sniper rifle cause its cool and playing with one like its an AR makes you 1337 or whatever other bull you see online.

 

[SaraP]

Also Sara, aren't designated marksmen usually issue better quality ammunition than your standard grunt? Snipers use match grade ammo, wouldn't markemen be issued something of similar quality.

Depends on the tactical doctrine of the military in question.

And i would like to see that M14 DMR in INF so bad, a suppressed, semi-auto, 7.62mm rifle with excellent accuracy and a roughly 700-800m effective range (unsuppressed as i doubt it has that kind of range when the suppressor is on).

Dunno about the modernized DMR, but the M14/M21 always used full-power ammunition even with the Sionics suppressor -- the suppressor was intended to mask the visual and acoustic signal of the rifle rather than to reduce it.