Future trends in firearms?

[Audrie_Dawn]

Long range fighting which needs a solid high powered, higher caliber assault rifle is not what we are doing the most of. There is a move to emphasis on MOUT and similair close quarters combat where the extra power is actually a bad thing.

Then why do we have an endless stream of people complaining that the
5.56mm lacks stopping power? From Somalia to Iraq, there have been
examples when people have been hit with 5.56mm and still continued
to fight. SS109 only works great against Soviet Motor Rifle troops wearing
armor, not turban clad morons.

It's very interesting that 5.56mm is not a legal hunting round in
many states, even with hollowpoint rounds, and Deer are roughly
the same mass as a human being.

Well, the 5.56mm round was introduced in order to cut down on recoil and make assault rifles possible. I would imagine that most militaries would want to switch back to full-power rifle rounds like 7.62mm once small-arms scale inertial compensators or other advanced anti-recoil systems become available.

[MKSheppard]

Well, the 5.56mm round was introduced in order to cut down on recoil and make assault rifles possible.

No. Tell that to the germans who made the first assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44. Fired the 7.92x33mm cartridge. By comprison,
the AK-47 fired a 7.62x39 cartridge...

[MKSheppard]

once small-arms scale inertial compensators or other advanced anti-recoil systems become available.

Or you could just join the SEALS and fire medium machine guns like
rifles...gotta love the upper body strength of God.

[Nathan F]

one trend may be sub calibre .17 cal bullets with explosive heads but this isn`t really a good idea it would be enough to piss of the target unless you criple him with the first shot

I've seen .17 rounds and heard they're becoming a bit more common commerically due to their level trajectory and cost effectiveness compared to the .22lr (or maybe it's the .22lr that's has better cost but worse trajectory? I forget).

But outside of target shooting and JHPs, I wouldn't count on seeing anyone else use it, let alone explosive-tipped versions.

A .17 caliber round isn't big enough to do any kind of serious damage unless you get directly hit in a vital area (brain, heart, etc.). It is so small, that an explosive round wouldn't be feasable, you wouldn't have enough explosive inside it to do anything more than make a small *pop* and no place to put a fuse of some sort. The .17 caliber round is good for nothing past punching holes in targets and knocking out prarie dogs at 300 yards.

[Knife]

once small-arms scale inertial compensators or other advanced anti-recoil systems become available.

Or you could just join the SEALS and fire medium machine guns like
rifles...gotta love the upper body strength of God.

Actually the recoil of the M60 is not that bad. Granted if you fire a prolonged burst, you're going to slowly move off target but the M60 is a fairly acurate weapon. IF you keep your burst to around 6to8 rounds each, then hitting a target using the assualt stance's in not that hard.

[Chardok]

The M-60 is not an easy weapon to shoulder fire by any stretch of the imagination, but it's possible, and knife is correct. they aren't deadly accurate, but that's why it's automatic.
M60 PUT DA FEER OF GOD INTO J00! CHOCKCHOCKCHOCKCHOCKCHOCK
*dead*

[Knife]

The M-60 is not an easy weapon to shoulder fire by any stretch of the imagination, but it's possible, and knife is correct. they aren't deadly accurate, but that's why it's automatic.
M60 PUT DA FEER OF GOD INTO J00! CHOCKCHOCKCHOCKCHOCKCHOCK
*dead*

sorry dude, but you need to re-read my post. I am saying that the M60 is fairly accurate. Firing short bursts, you can hit a target at medium range (300meters or so) pretty easily. Definately hit with the first round or two and the other 4 or so hitting in the general area, usually going high.

To be the most effective though, it needs to be either bipod mounted or tripod mounted, but firing from the shoulder is somewhat accurate, the under the arm method not so much and the hip method is totally inaccurate (can you say walk your rounds on target ).

[Nathan F]

I've fired an M-60 from the shoulder before, and aside from being a heavy weapon physically, it was quite manageable, if only in short bursts. Much more than 3 or 4 rounds, and you were all over the place, like any other fully automatic weapon.

[Knife]

I've fired an M-60 from the shoulder before, and aside from being a heavy weapon physically, it was quite manageable, if only in short bursts. Much more than 3 or 4 rounds, and you were all over the place, like any other fully automatic weapon.

Place one foot slightly forward and lean into it, aim with good sight picture and good sight alignment, fire a quick burst, bye bye target.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I seem to recall an article in Popular Mechanics about five years ago that described a handgun that could accept a wide range of different calibur bullets. Was this ever developed, or am I just hallucinating the whole thing? (or neither.)

You could be talking about the Medusa, a revolver that could chamber and fire any 9mm diameter bullet (everything from .38 spl to .357 mag). It's in the Netbook of Modern Firearms.

[MKSheppard]

Actually the recoil of the M60 is not that bad. Granted if you fire a prolonged burst, you're going to slowly move off target but the M60 is a fairly acurate weapon. IF you keep your burst to around 6to8 rounds each, then hitting a target using the assualt stance's in not that hard.

Now we know why Frank Castle has a 'sixty fetish

[CmdrWilkens]

1) Sure flexibility is great...however what you are asking for would be a gross logistical and training burden.

Then snitch some 7.62mm Ball off your Bradley from the coax, etc.

How the fuck is the USMC gonna do this eh? Furthermore those rounds are what we call linked. They are a pain in the ASS to dissasemble and get into a magazine. Likewise its more than a pain in the ass to take loose rounds and try to link them. Basically for all the good it would be that they use the same round they don't both accept magazines so you have to supply seperate linked and non-linked 7.62. That's ebfore we get into the weight issue and again where are these Bradley's for the Marines? LAVs and AAAVs operate in their own units and while they might bring troops ashore (in the case of the AAAV) they aren't gonna stay with them long enough for this to be a valid logistical solution.

Here's the problem: the mission is already filled by the SAW. At that range if you want to engage with volume you are better off going with the SAW and if you want precision shooting the SAW is STILL a more stable and thus equally reliable choice.

There's a small problem with the SAW falling apart, and hence not being
as accurate as it used to be, and of course ammo requirements - it only
takes a few shots from the -14 to hit something at those distances versus
about 30+ rounds to hit it with the SAW.

1) The SAW is a lot sturdier than you give it credit for. While it does tend to jam when fed by magazine instead of link it is still an awesome piece of machinery. You did read the reviews on SFFT where they almost universally prasied the SAW right?

2) You are gonna need the same number of rounds because its all in how accurate you are as a shooter at that range. Both weapons have enough range and acuracy that it comes down to the shooter. Furthermore with the integrated bipod and heavier weight the SAW is actually more stable for more accurate mid-range fire.

Long range fighting which needs a solid high powered, higher caliber assault rifle is not what we are doing the most of. There is a move to emphasis on MOUT and similair close quarters combat where the extra power is actually a bad thing.

Then why do we have an endless stream of people complaining that the
5.56mm lacks stopping power? From Somalia to Iraq, there have been
examples when people have been hit with 5.56mm and still continued
to fight. SS109 only works great against Soviet Motor Rifle troops wearing
armor, not turban clad morons.

It's very interesting that 5.56mm is not a legal hunting round in
many states, even with hollowpoint rounds, and Deer are roughly
the same mass as a human being.

The 7.62 round isn't gonna be even that much mroe effective. Hell our body armor can already stop it and that means the rest of the world only needs to get a hold of some US personal body armor catalogs to give their forces the same protection. Furthermore people have been hit with 7.62 rounds and continued to fight, some of these things are luck of the draw and personally I'll take the extra rounds i can carry with the -16/-4.

[Sea Skimmer]

1) The SAW is a lot sturdier than you give it credit for. While it does tend to jam when fed by magazine instead of link it is still an awesome piece of machinery. You did read the reviews on SFFT where they almost universally prasied the SAW right?

Almost universally SAW's and Minimi's have been described as basically disintegrating after about 10 years of use. Lucky for FN over half the world market is already addicted to them.

As for magazine firing, be glad you only have to worry about jams. Some nations have adapted plastic rifle magazines, which are literally eaten up by the gun; you need to strip down the gun to pull out all the plastic shards afterwards.

[Utsanomiko]

one trend may be sub calibre .17 cal bullets with explosive heads but this isn`t really a good idea it would be enough to piss of the target unless you criple him with the first shot

I've seen .17 rounds and heard they're becoming a bit more common commerically due to their level trajectory and cost effectiveness compared to the .22lr (or maybe it's the .22lr that's has better cost but worse trajectory? I forget).

But outside of target shooting and JHPs, I wouldn't count on seeing anyone else use it, let alone explosive-tipped versions.

A .17 caliber round isn't big enough to do any kind of serious damage unless you get directly hit in a vital area (brain, heart, etc.). It is so small, that an explosive round wouldn't be feasable, you wouldn't have enough explosive inside it to do anything more than make a small *pop* and no place to put a fuse of some sort. The .17 caliber round is good for nothing past punching holes in targets and knocking out prarie dogs at 300 yards.

Which is just what I said: It may be fine and dandy if you want a cheap method of plinking cans with a semi-auto carbine in your backyard, but as anything else it's just absurd.

The soldiers of tomorrow might as well carry .410 birdshot side-by-side shotguns while their at it.

[Audrie_Dawn]

Well, the 5.56mm round was introduced in order to cut down on recoil and make assault rifles possible.

No. Tell that to the germans who made the first assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44. Fired the 7.92x33mm cartridge. By comprison,
the AK-47 fired a 7.62x39 cartridge...

I suppose I could have been more clear. I meant that the reduced-power 5.56mm round was developed because NATO discovered that the full-power 7.52x51mm round was too powerful to use effectively in a full-auto rifle, not that the first assault rifles were 5.56mm.

The Germans originally intended to use full power 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds in the StG-44, but they had to develop the reduced-power 7.92x39mm "Mauser Kurtz" round instead due to excessive recoil. The Russians learned from that and designed the AK-47 for reduced-power 7.62x39mm rounds rather than their full size 7.62x54mm rounds. The U.S., on the other hand, ignored the German research and forced NATO to build a whole generation of full-power select-fire rifles (M-14, CETME, FN FAL, Heckler & Koch G3, etc), all of which were almost totally useless in full-auto due to excessive recoil before giving up and going to the 5.56mm round.

[Audrie_Dawn]

I seem to recall an article in Popular Mechanics about five years ago that described a handgun that could accept a wide range of different calibur bullets. Was this ever developed, or am I just hallucinating the whole thing? (or neither.)

You could be talking about the Medusa, a revolver that could chamber and fire any 9mm diameter bullet (everything from .38 spl to .357 mag). It's in the Netbook of Modern Firearms.

Yep, the Medusa's pretty cool. Unfortunately, it's not legal in California 'cuz it's not on the state-approved guns list...*sigh*. I really have to get out of this state.

[Audrie_Dawn]

2) You are gonna need the same number of rounds because its all in how accurate you are as a shooter at that range. Both weapons have enough range and acuracy that it comes down to the shooter. Furthermore with the integrated bipod and heavier weight the SAW is actually more stable for more accurate mid-range fire.

the other hand the sights and barrel on the SAW are not really designed for precision fire.

Long range fighting which
The 7.62 round isn't gonna be even that much mroe effective. Hell our body armor can already stop it and that means the rest of the world only needs to get a hold of some US personal body armor catalogs to give their forces the same protection. Furthermore people have been hit with 7.62 rounds and continued to fight, some of these things are luck of the draw and personally I'll take the extra rounds i can carry with the -16/-4.

Current-issue tactical body armor can protect against a limited number of hits from ordinary 7.62mm ball rounds, but not armor-piercing ones. You need Class IV armor to stop 7.62mm and .30-06 AP, but the stuff's way too heavy and bulky for infantry use. Furthermore, that spec is based on 1960s-era 7.62mm AP rounds. Given that modern 5.56mm AP performs nearly (but not quite) as well as those older AP rounds, modern 7.62mm AP should perform significantly better.

[CmdrWilkens]

Long range fighting which
The 7.62 round isn't gonna be even that much mroe effective. Hell our body armor can already stop it and that means the rest of the world only needs to get a hold of some US personal body armor catalogs to give their forces the same protection. Furthermore people have been hit with 7.62 rounds and continued to fight, some of these things are luck of the draw and personally I'll take the extra rounds i can carry with the -16/-4.

Current-issue tactical body armor can protect against a limited number of hits from ordinary 7.62mm ball rounds, but not armor-piercing ones. You need Class IV armor to stop 7.62mm and .30-06 AP, but the stuff's way too heavy and bulky for infantry use. Furthermore, that spec is based on 1960s-era 7.62mm AP rounds. Given that modern 5.56mm AP performs nearly (but not quite) as well as those older AP rounds, modern 7.62mm AP should perform significantly better.

Trust me i know a little bit about the Interceptor Body Armor. With the trauma plates added the thing will stop multiple hits from 7.62 Soviet rounds. There are many anecdotal reports of this including from units in Afghanistan where a Marine was hit twice in the chest and thought a near miss had kicked up some rocks. The 7.62 Soviet has, essentially, not changed and THAT is the spec to which the Interceptor was built.

[Sea Skimmer]

Current-issue tactical body armor can protect against a limited number of hits from ordinary 7.62mm ball rounds, but not armor-piercing ones.

Not much of a threat, nations that are still using 7.62mm small arms also generally don't have the money for AP rounds. When you go to buy a five hundred million rounds a penny difference can add up to quite a sum.

You need Class IV armor to stop 7.62mm and .30-06 AP, but the stuff's way too heavy and bulky for infantry use.

Don't get too hung up what the class is, since each level actually has several subtypes which rarely get listed. There's also simply the matter that protection ratings are based off the bullet hitting a zero degrees deflection and a near vertical angle of fall. The fact that such a solid hit is going to be rare increases the actual effectiveness of the armor.

[Audrie_Dawn]

Long range fighting which
The 7.62 round isn't gonna be even that much mroe effective. Hell our body armor can already stop it and that means the rest of the world only needs to get a hold of some US personal body armor catalogs to give their forces the same protection. Furthermore people have been hit with 7.62 rounds and continued to fight, some of these things are luck of the draw and personally I'll take the extra rounds i can carry with the -16/-4.

Current-issue tactical body armor can protect against a limited number of hits from ordinary 7.62mm ball rounds, but not armor-piercing ones. You need Class IV armor to stop 7.62mm and .30-06 AP, but the stuff's way too heavy and bulky for infantry use. Furthermore, that spec is based on 1960s-era 7.62mm AP rounds. Given that modern 5.56mm AP performs nearly (but not quite) as well as those older AP rounds, modern 7.62mm AP should perform significantly better.

Trust me i know a little bit about the Interceptor Body Armor. With the trauma plates added the thing will stop multiple hits from 7.62 Soviet rounds. There are many anecdotal reports of this including from units in Afghanistan where a Marine was hit twice in the chest and thought a near miss had kicked up some rocks. The 7.62 Soviet has, essentially, not changed and THAT is the spec to which the Interceptor was built.

7.62 Soviet = 7.62x39mm. That's a low-powered assault rifle round, not a full power 7.62mm rifle round.

[Audrie_Dawn]

Current-issue tactical body armor can protect against a limited number of hits from ordinary 7.62mm ball rounds, but not armor-piercing ones.

Not much of a threat, nations that are still using 7.62mm small arms also generally don't have the money for AP rounds. When you go to buy a five hundred million rounds a penny difference can add up to quite a sum.

Which is why the stuff's useful. I'm only pointing out that he's wrong when he claims the regular-issue body armor will stop full-power 7.62mm rifle rounds and hence switching to select-fire battle rifles when the necessary anti-recoil technology is developed won't work.