Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Our enemies will no longer die from lead-poisoning -- 5.56 mm cartridges go green. Unlike this headline   (navytimes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3476 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 10 Nov 2008 at 1:37 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



60 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-11-10 9:09:25 AM  
Cool, we're going to need all we can get.

/not submitter
 
2008-11-10 9:12:15 AM  
Of all the ways to `go green' out there, this is probably the most irrelevant one possible.
 
2008-11-10 9:18:32 AM  
The recent manufacture of lead-free cartridges represented an evolutionary shift for Lake City, the largest producer of small-arms ammunition used by the U.S. military. The slugs, instead of being made of lead - a metal used for centuries - now are being manufactured with a bismuth alloy.

Damn I want some!!

THey will probably call it "armor piercing" though and make it illegal or something stupid.

Oh well, I guess I will have to keep shooting MY green ammo(green tipped steel core penetrator FTW)
 
2008-11-10 9:22:07 AM  

nekom: Of all the ways to `go green' out there, this is probably the most irrelevant one possible.


It's not a huge overall concern, but is a big problem near bases and training ranges where they go through millions of rounds (that's a lot of lead in the ground water)...
 
2008-11-10 9:33:37 AM  

nekom: Of all the ways to `go green' out there, this is probably the most irrelevant one possible.


I'm sure the workers at the plant feel different
 
2008-11-10 10:10:08 AM  
They have been making bismuth shotgun shells for years as an alternative to lead/steel. They are exorbitantly expensive. I would love to see how much more this "green" campaign is costing the taxpayers. Bet they are paying at least two to three times as much now.
 
2008-11-10 12:01:43 PM  

pixistick: I'm sure the workers at the plant feel different


Maybe so, but it's not as if lead can't be worked safely.

KyngNothing: It's not a huge overall concern, but is a big problem near bases and training ranges where they go through millions of rounds (that's a lot of lead in the ground water)...


Hadn't thought about that, maybe in very large concentrations it's somewhat unfavorable.
 
2008-11-10 12:02:24 PM  

KyngNothing: nekom: Of all the ways to `go green' out there, this is probably the most irrelevant one possible.

It's not a huge overall concern, but is a big problem near bases and training ranges where they go through millions of rounds (that's a lot of lead in the ground water)...


Came here to say this. The health impact of a few million rounds in the ground and water around a village or a base is probably pretty bad.
 
2008-11-10 12:20:02 PM  

KyngNothing: nekom: Of all the ways to `go green' out there, this is probably the most irrelevant one possible.

It's not a huge overall concern, but is a big problem near bases and training ranges where they go through millions of rounds (that's a lot of lead in the ground water)...


I honestly didn't think of this either. I was just gonna make a joke about how they don't want our enemies dying of lead poisoning.

As far as those bases are concerned, though, isn't this a case of being "a day late and a dollar short"? These ranges have been active for years or even decades. Switching to non-lead ammo won't fix the problem immediately - it'll eventually bring an end to lead in the groundwater, but not until after the lead already in the berms makes its way into the water.


Is there some other way to fix this, apart from putting the ranges in the ass end of the base (which is already the case for most, if not all, stateside US Military installations with ranges)?
 
2008-11-10 1:17:53 PM  

King Something: As far as those bases are concerned, though, isn't this a case of being "a day late and a dollar short"? These ranges have been active for years or even decades. Switching to non-lead ammo won't fix the problem immediately - it'll eventually bring an end to lead in the groundwater, but not until after the lead already in the berms makes its way into the water.


This sounds an awful lot like the 'Why drill now? That won't help us for another ten years!' argument... You know, the one posited, oh, about ten years ago.
 
2008-11-10 1:30:16 PM  

nekom: Of all the ways to `go green' out there, this is probably the most irrelevant one possible.


I shoot indoors; so up yours, or something.
 
2008-11-10 1:45:18 PM  
Consider also the lead residue on the shooters themselves. Ever wonder why there's always a "no eating or drinking on the range" policy?

/veteran
//thousands of 5.56 rounds on range days
///slashies!
 
2008-11-10 1:50:35 PM  

kob_zilla: Ever wonder why there's always a "no eating or drinking on the range" policy?


I always figured it was so you wouldn't shoot the clerk who put mayo on your hamburger even after you told them twice no mayo.
 
2008-11-10 1:50:49 PM  

daas: KyngNothing: nekom: Of all the ways to `go green' out there, this is probably the most irrelevant one possible.

It's not a huge overall concern, but is a big problem near bases and training ranges where they go through millions of rounds (that's a lot of lead in the ground water)...

Came here to say this. The health impact of a few million rounds in the ground and water around a village or a base is probably pretty bad.


Of course theres need to worry about the Depleted Uranium rounds that are widely used. Not as widely used as lead core rounds but very widely used in large caliber and anti-armor weaponry.

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq[76]
 
2008-11-10 1:51:33 PM  

sullyman: They have been making bismuth shotgun shells for years as an alternative to lead/steel. They are exorbitantly expensive. I would love to see how much more this "green" campaign is costing the taxpayers. Bet they are paying at least two to three times as much now.


it's cheaper than the cleanup. lead will seep into groundwater eventually.

also, didn't the military start doing this in 1994?
 
2008-11-10 1:55:06 PM  

kob_zilla: Consider also the lead residue on the shooters themselves. Ever wonder why there's always a "no eating or drinking on the range" policy?

/veteran
//thousands of 5.56 rounds on range days
///slashies!


No chewing gum or masticant tobacco, either. I look forward to the day when I can spit Red Man in the dirt and fire up the mini gun without worrying about lead dust.

/never shoot the 5.56; only the .223
//gaddam sexual tyrannosaurus
 
2008-11-10 1:55:50 PM  
Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq[76]

Upward swingy line doesn't automatically prove a root cause, but even if it were, that graph has a hard time with correlation
 
2008-11-10 1:57:21 PM  

kob_zilla: Consider also the lead residue on the shooters themselves. Ever wonder why there's always a "no eating or drinking on the range" policy?

/veteran
//thousands of 5.56 rounds on range days
///slashies!


Ive heard many grumblings from Military personnel who think the 5.56 rounds are not effective enough, and the US should start making weapons of the 7.62 caliber like the AK. (I cant remember the actual size of the bullet, forgive me) But now im hearing that with more recent developments in bullet tech, 5.56 bullets will be more effective because the bullets themselves will be designed to do more dmg. Like In Iraq, PMC's were hording and sharing these special bullets, that explode inside a person and besically can kill by hitting just about any point on the body. It sounds like they would be illegal, but PMC's dont care. Im not sure how we can make a bullet any mroe or less humane, but personally I want the lowest recoil bullet with the most effective impact on the enemy. Any military peoples, or gun enthusiasts care to wiegh in?
 
2008-11-10 1:59:02 PM  

wxgeek: Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq[76]

Upward swingy line doesn't automatically prove a root cause, but even if it were, that graph has a hard time with correlation


I think statistics are pure bullshiat most of the time, but you have to remember that lead poisoning is a slow process. the only immediate effects of lead poisoning are usually when it's administered at high velocity, and encased in copper.
 
2008-11-10 2:04:48 PM  

Man On Fire: wxgeek: Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq[76]

Upward swingy line doesn't automatically prove a root cause, but even if it were, that graph has a hard time with correlation

I think statistics are pure bullshiat most of the time, but you have to remember that lead poisoning is a slow process. the only immediate effects of lead poisoning are usually when it's administered at high velocity, and encased in copper.


That's DU, not lead. Lead's associated with joint problems and retardation. I don't think it causes malformations.
 
2008-11-10 2:05:24 PM  
KyngNothing: It's not a huge overall concern, but is a big problem near bases and training ranges where they go through millions of rounds (that's a lot of lead in the ground water)...

A lot of ranges will clean up hte lead once a year or so, at least around here they do. All it takes is a front end loader and a screen. The one I know of here keeps the solid lead slugs and sells them for cheap back to reloaders. The FMJ rounds are sent back to a manufacturer for recycling.

You'd think the military would have a similar program in place.
 
2008-11-10 2:05:59 PM  

vinnydoz007: Ive heard many grumblings from Military personnel who think the 5.56 rounds are not effective enough, and the US should start making weapons of the 7.62 caliber like the AK.


Your comments are anachronistic. The "AK-47" shoots a 7.62 cartridge. Its also visually nearly identical to its replacement, the AK-74, in-productions since, wait for it, 1974, that shoots a 5.45mm cartridge.

To be sure, there are still a lot of 7.62 arms and ammo out there, but its important to the debate to realize that the then-USSR saw the same advantages to a smaller cartridge that the USA did and make a similar move.
 
2008-11-10 2:06:34 PM  

vinnydoz007:
Ive heard many grumblings from Military personnel who think the 5.56 rounds are not effective enough, and the US should start making weapons of the 7.62 caliber like the AK. (I cant remember the actual size of the bullet, forgive me) But now im hearing that with more recent developments in bullet tech, 5.56 bullets will be more effective because the bullets themselves will be designed to do more dmg. Like In Iraq, PMC's were hording and sharing these special bullets, that explode inside a person and besically can kill by hitting just about any point on the body. It sounds like they would be illegal, but PMC's dont care. Im not sure how we can make a bullet any mroe or less humane, but personally I want the lowest recoil bullet with the most effective impact on the enemy. Any military peoples, or gun enthusiasts care to wiegh in?


That's about right, I may be wrong about the following:
The original 5.56 rounds did insane damage because they "tumbled" end over end at the target, through the years as the guns were made more and more accurate, this behavior stopped and now they just leave a hole.
The rounds that PMC's used were illegal for military use, but PMC's are not military, so it's fine.
The 7.62 does so much more damage because you are made of meat, and when the bullet passes through you it causes ripples like water, at a certain point those ripples cause massive damage, the 5.56 is just too small and too fast to cause that much damage.
 
2008-11-10 2:06:37 PM  

Satan_Sunburn: King Something: As far as those bases are concerned, though, isn't this a case of being "a day late and a dollar short"? These ranges have been active for years or even decades. Switching to non-lead ammo won't fix the problem immediately - it'll eventually bring an end to lead in the groundwater, but not until after the lead already in the berms makes its way into the water.

This sounds an awful lot like the 'Why drill now? That won't help us for another ten years!' argument... You know, the one posited, oh, about ten years ago.


Came here to say this.

nekom:
Maybe so, but it's not as if lead can't be worked safely.


I don't think that was his only argument - I figure the workers at the plant don't find it irrelevant because it's their work and to some their environmental contribution?
 
2008-11-10 2:08:34 PM  
high velocity bismuth poisoning doesn't have quite the same ring to it...
 
2008-11-10 2:08:54 PM  
Oh, and forgot to mention, that by the Geneva convention, only "ball" ammunition is legal. All the special "more damaging" rounds are fine for Law Enforcement, sporting, etc. but are not technically allowable for war fighting.
 
2008-11-10 2:10:01 PM  
Herbie555: Doh! Self-pwning, should have said "Hague Convention", not Geneva.
 
2008-11-10 2:14:06 PM  

DaStompa: vinnydoz007:
Ive heard many grumblings from Military personnel who think the 5.56 rounds are not effective enough, and the US should start making weapons of the 7.62 caliber like the AK. (I cant remember the actual size of the bullet, forgive me) But now im hearing that with more recent developments in bullet tech, 5.56 bullets will be more effective because the bullets themselves will be designed to do more dmg. Like In Iraq, PMC's were hording and sharing these special bullets, that explode inside a person and besically can kill by hitting just about any point on the body. It sounds like they would be illegal, but PMC's dont care. Im not sure how we can make a bullet any mroe or less humane, but personally I want the lowest recoil bullet with the most effective impact on the enemy. Any military peoples, or gun enthusiasts care to wiegh in?

That's about right, I may be wrong about the following:
The original 5.56 rounds did insane damage because they "tumbled" end over end at the target, through the years as the guns were made more and more accurate, this behavior stopped and now they just leave a hole.
The rounds that PMC's used were illegal for military use, but PMC's are not military, so it's fine.
The 7.62 does so much more damage because you are made of meat, and when the bullet passes through you it causes ripples like water, at a certain point those ripples cause massive damage, the 5.56 is just too small and too fast to cause that much damage.


interesting. Yes Ive heard this many times before. so I understand the basic effect of increasing bullet size, less accuracy, possibly larger recoil, but why doesnt the US start producing higher caliber weapons, to content with the AKs that most of our enemies use. I guess tradition can be a hard thing to break.

Herbie555: Oh, and forgot to mention, that by the Geneva convention, only "ball" ammunition is legal. All the special "more damaging" rounds are fine for Law Enforcement, sporting, etc. but are not technically allowable for war fighting.


Yes I knew this was some law. Id be curious to know the argument for how one bullet is more humane over another, when in war, the objective of the bullet would be to kill the enemy. I understand that there are weapons out there that can maim, and not kill, like certain types of land mines, but for bullets? Really can there be a humane way to put metal into a persons body at a high velocity?
 
2008-11-10 2:14:30 PM  

filth: Man On Fire: wxgeek: Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq[76]

Upward swingy line doesn't automatically prove a root cause, but even if it were, that graph has a hard time with correlation

I think statistics are pure bullshiat most of the time, but you have to remember that lead poisoning is a slow process. the only immediate effects of lead poisoning are usually when it's administered at high velocity, and encased in copper.

That's DU, not lead. Lead's associated with joint problems and retardation. I don't think it causes malformations.


I was speaking of heavy metals used in ammunition in general.

Herbie555: vinnydoz007: Ive heard many grumblings from Military personnel who think the 5.56 rounds are not effective enough, and the US should start making weapons of the 7.62 caliber like the AK.

Your comments are anachronistic. The "AK-47" shoots a 7.62 cartridge. Its also visually nearly identical to its replacement, the AK-74, in-productions since, wait for it, 1974, that shoots a 5.45mm cartridge.

To be sure, there are still a lot of 7.62 arms and ammo out there, but its important to the debate to realize that the then-USSR saw the same advantages to a smaller cartridge that the USA did and make a similar move.


I disagree with that. I think they just monkey-saw, monkey-did. figuring we were doing it the right thing, and had good reasons for it.

Whatthefark: KyngNothing: It's not a huge overall concern, but is a big problem near bases and training ranges where they go through millions of rounds (that's a lot of lead in the ground water)...

A lot of ranges will clean up hte lead once a year or so, at least around here they do. All it takes is a front end loader and a screen. The one I know of here keeps the solid lead slugs and sells them for cheap back to reloaders. The FMJ rounds are sent back to a manufacturer for recycling.

You'd think the military would have a similar program in place.


that cleans up the big chunks, but not the particulate stuff. that all gets washed away. and don't think the military cleans up anything they aren't forced to. the Philippines are still pissed at us because we didn't clean up the crap we dumped there during Vietnam (agent orange and worse)

/MEGA POST
 
2008-11-10 2:14:55 PM  
Don't we use Depleted Uranium instead of lead for just this reason?
 
2008-11-10 2:24:53 PM  

sullyman: They have been making bismuth shotgun shells for years as an alternative to lead/steel. They are exorbitantly expensive. I would love to see how much more this "green" campaign is costing the taxpayers. Bet they are paying at least two to three times as much now.


I own a FN PS90 (fires a 5.7mmx28 round). The Lead Free SS195 costs exactly the same as the "regular" SS197.

Also, even a small cost increase would offset the rather high cost of cleanup at many ranges. Range workers, especially indoors, typically have elevated lead levels. Since all my local ranges are indoors, I'm all for lead free ammo. Also the cost of lead is going up.

And they don't use bismuth in these.
 
2008-11-10 2:27:20 PM  

DaStompa: vinnydoz007:
Ive heard many grumblings from Military personnel who think the 5.56 rounds are not effective enough, and the US should start making weapons of the 7.62 caliber like the AK. (I cant remember the actual size of the bullet, forgive me) But now im hearing that with more recent developments in bullet tech, 5.56 bullets will be more effective because the bullets themselves will be designed to do more dmg. Like In Iraq, PMC's were hording and sharing these special bullets, that explode inside a person and besically can kill by hitting just about any point on the body. It sounds like they would be illegal, but PMC's dont care. Im not sure how we can make a bullet any mroe or less humane, but personally I want the lowest recoil bullet with the most effective impact on the enemy. Any military peoples, or gun enthusiasts care to wiegh in?

That's about right, I may be wrong about the following:
The original 5.56 rounds did insane damage because they "tumbled" end over end at the target, through the years as the guns were made more and more accurate, this behavior stopped and now they just leave a hole.
The rounds that PMC's used were illegal for military use, but PMC's are not military, so it's fine.
The 7.62 does so much more damage because you are made of meat, and when the bullet passes through you it causes ripples like water, at a certain point those ripples cause massive damage, the 5.56 is just too small and too fast to cause that much damage.


None of this is true. In either quoted post.

Ick.
 
2008-11-10 2:28:38 PM  

vinnydoz007: DaStompa: vinnydoz007:

interesting. Yes Ive heard this many times before. so I understand the basic effect of increasing bullet size, less accuracy, possibly larger recoil, but why doesnt the US start producing higher caliber weapons, to content with the AKs that most of our enemies use. I guess tradition can be a hard thing to break.


Not at all, if you've ever tried to carry hundreds of rounds of ammo, the lighter ammo makes you a more effective fighter, you can carry more bullets, shoot more things, more shooty is better than less shooty any way you slice it (unless its horribly inaccurate)

Generally when you shoot someone they are not a happy person, but may survive, the difference is a shot through the arm with a 5.56 and the guy may get away, on the other end of the spectrum a .50 cal would blow the person apart pretty much no matter where you hit him. Most of the "complaints" about 5.56 I think are usually "misses" where the shooter cant believe he missed, or firing at people high on drugs (like the infamous black hawk down situation) who literally will not go down until their bodies give out.

In house-to-house fighting you want the ability to punch through walls and kill people in one shot, heavier ammo gives you that but also has the problem with blowing through a few buildings down the street and hitting innocents, its a mixed bag no matter what you do.
 
2008-11-10 2:31:00 PM  

vinnydoz007: Like In Iraq, PMC's were hording and sharing these special bullets, that explode inside a person and besically can kill by hitting just about any point on the body. It sounds like they would be illegal, but PMC's dont care. Im not sure how we can make a bullet any mroe or less humane, but personally I want the lowest recoil bullet with the most effective impact on the enemy. Any military peoples, or gun enthusiasts care to wiegh in?


the 5.56 does absurd amounts of damage because when it tumbles and all bullets do) its long body and small diameter causes it to fragment producing several different irregular wound channels.

The PMCs were probably using frangible bullets similar to what hunters use, like polymer tipped hollow points. Which is strange. Why is it more human to kill animals with bullets designed to fragment and expand, but its unethical to shoot people with them?
 
2008-11-10 2:34:17 PM  

Man On Fire: Herbie555: To be sure, there are still a lot of 7.62 arms and ammo out there, but its important to the debate to realize that the then-USSR saw the same advantages to a smaller cartridge that the USA did and make a similar move.

I disagree with that. I think they just monkey-saw, monkey-did. figuring we were doing it the right thing, and had good reasons for it.


That's a bit simplistic. Nations don't make a move like that just to copycat. Looking at modern warfighting, the data says that most engagements are happening at shorter ranges. 7.62 is useful for longer ranges or punching through hard cover, but there's a limit. Neither is going to punch through the mud brick walls of an Iraqi house in Fallujah.

More importantly, the doctrine of fire control finally reflects reality so military planners now acknowledge the need for fighters to carry larger quantities of ammunition. WWI, WWII, Korea, and even Vietnam were mostly fought under the training and doctrine that soldiers should be taking only slow controlled shots to conserve ammunition. Reality in the field usually saw that this approach was impractical, but the weapon system didn't really reflect this reality until the change to the 5.56.

Do a GIS on "us solders Iraq" or Afghanistan, and get a good look at the daily loadout of a ground fighter. I usually count 6-8 30-round magazines, minimum. Many carry more. That can be an extra 10+ lbs on top of all the other gear. Now imagine doubling that for a heavier cartridge. Now imagine trying to move, run, shoot, or otherwise operate with that kind of load.

Interestingly, the new weapon systems in development (at least what I can learn from the Discovery channel, etc.) seem to be trying to address both needs: Special ammunition for when you really need to "reach out and touch" someone, and air-burst munitions for killing over the top of cover instead of having to punch through it, coupled with lighter arms and even further reductions in ammunition weight. (Caseless munitions, disposable mags, etc.)
 
2008-11-10 2:35:44 PM  
DaStompa are you basing you firearm and bullet knowledge from Call of Duty? You don't want to penetrate walls because you might accidentally kill civilians or friendlies. You should just stop talking.

7.62 Russian is a crappy round, it just happens to be cheap. Theres a reason that people say you have difficulty hitting the broad side of a barn from the inside with an AK.
 
2008-11-10 2:38:50 PM  
Thank you everyone for your responses. I appreciate you input. Except Spade since apparantly his only job is to point where things are incorrect, and not explain them at all. Way to participate.
 
2008-11-10 2:40:15 PM  

Hollis the Utile: DaStompa are you basing you firearm and bullet knowledge from Call of Duty? You don't want to penetrate walls because you might accidentally kill civilians or friendlies.


There is a distinct difference between spraying a building and hoping to hit something and putting two or three rounds a foot or so in from a window opening you just saw someone pop out of.
 
2008-11-10 2:41:56 PM  
Ha-ha, Subby! MODERATPWN3D!!!1

/got nuthin'
 
2008-11-10 2:46:50 PM  

tshetter: Of course theres need to worry about the Depleted Uranium rounds that are widely used. Not as widely used as lead core rounds but very widely used in large caliber and anti-armor weaponry.

upload.wikimedia.org
Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq[76]


yeah up until then they never treated cancer they just shot you in the head. There was no cancer in Iraq and no gays in Iran.
 
2008-11-10 2:56:17 PM  

DaStompa: There is a distinct difference between spraying a building and hoping to hit something and putting two or three rounds a foot or so in from a window opening you just saw someone pop out of.


They can do that with 5.56. Also, thats what they have .50 cal and .30 cal support weapons for. Not to mention grenades.

Or just wait till he pops back out again.

and I think the ROE generally prohibits the shoot blindly into buildings.
 
2008-11-10 2:59:49 PM  

Yes I knew this was some law. Id be curious to know the argument for how one bullet is more humane over another, when in war, the objective of the bullet would be to kill the enemy. I understand that there are weapons out there that can maim, and not kill, like certain types of land mines, but for bullets? Really can there be a humane way to put metal into a persons body at a high velocity?


The reason landmines are designed to maim has nothing to do with being 'humane'
 
2008-11-10 3:00:58 PM  
Is a bismuth alloy really any cheaper than just using the softest steel they can find and replacing the weapons as they wear out? I ask because of this. (new window)
 
2008-11-10 3:21:32 PM  
Fark yeah Bismuth!
 
2008-11-10 3:35:18 PM  

Fook: Yes I knew this was some law. Id be curious to know the argument for how one bullet is more humane over another, when in war, the objective of the bullet would be to kill the enemy. I understand that there are weapons out there that can maim, and not kill, like certain types of land mines, but for bullets? Really can there be a humane way to put metal into a persons body at a high velocity?

The reason landmines are designed to maim has nothing to do with being 'humane'


im aware. Thats my point. I know that certain type of landmines are illegal in warfare because they seek to maim, rather than kill. My point is what argument can be made that one type of bullet, is less humane than another. Isnt every bullet meant to kill? I mean in a fire fight, do you think soliders are thinkin, ok if I hit him here, he wont die, but will be in lots of pain and drain the resources of his army. No.
 
2008-11-10 4:08:55 PM  
Military Cartridges- a primer

7.62x54R- Russian rimmed black powder cartridge that made the transition to smokeless, primary Russian rifle round of WWII, still used by the Ruskies and friends in certain machine guns and for sniping. Ballistically similar to a 30-06, punches a medium size hole clean through any unarmored person in its path, causes modest hydrostatic shock. Almost always full metal jacket. Lots of recoil, shoulder fired full auto is a no-go. Will punch through a concrete wall, straight through a car, etc., effective range way out there, 900 yards-ish. Mosin Nagant, Druganov, etc.

7.62x39- "Intermediate" cartridge, meaning halfway between pistol and rifle. Same diameter bullet as the the 7.62x54R, shorter, tapered cartridge for less recoil at the expense of lower projectile weight and less range. DOES NOT TUMBLE. Punches a medium size hole clean through most unarmored people, mild hydrostatic shock. Will punch through a concrete wall, straight through a car, etc. Max range 300-400 yds, mostly because of inaccurate rifles. SKS, AK, etc. Military always uses FMJ projectiles, JHP's common for civilians though. Most JHP's don't expand reliably, Wolf Military Classic fragments nicely, though.

5.54x39- Knock off of NATO 5.56x45, replacement for 7.62x39. Even less recoil thanks to a lighter projectile. The Projectile is intentionally unbalanced so that it will tumble, but only after impacting something, causing a large, irregular wound channel. Doesn't penetrate for shiat. Effective range 300-400 yds. AK74 and relatives.

30-06/7.62x63- US cartridge of WWI - Korea, ballistics similar to 7.62x54R (e.g., moderate hole through and through anything that isn't wearing armor plate and some things that are). M1 Garand, 1903 Springfield, M1919 Browning, etc. No longer in US military inventory.

.308/7.62x51- 95% of the ballistic performance of the 30-06 (punches a hole) with less weight and a shorter case, which makes for smaller, lighter magazines and receivers, slightly lighter recoil. Great round for aimed shots at long ranges, too much recoil for shoulder fired full auto. Popular NATO cartridge 1960's-1980's, M14, M40, FAL, G3, etc. M14, M40 still in US military use.

.223/5.56x45- "Intermediate" cartridge, very high velocity, very light projectile, shoulder fired full auto is easily controlled, but as it turns out current American riflemen almost never go full auto as it's generally less effective than aimed fire. High velocity and RPM's cause the bullet to fragment violently when striking a person, cutting them up badly- but only to 175 yds with an M16 20" barrel, 100 yds with the more common M4 16". Past that fragmentation is unreliable and a small .22 cal hole is punched. Max effective range 500 yrds. Penetration sucks unless using SS109 steel core bullets, which do not fragment and thus cause relatively small diameter wounds. Current NATO favorite, used by M16, M4, M249, SA80, AK101, etc.
 
2008-11-10 4:11:28 PM  
Wow, that should make absolutely no difference in relation to the tons and tons of depleted uranium we have scattered about the region.

Depleted uranium, the gift that keeps on giving.
 
2008-11-10 4:12:55 PM  
ETA- The M4 has a 14.5" barrel, I was thinking about my civilian clone at 16". Carry on.
 
2008-11-10 4:47:59 PM  

vinnydoz007: Yes I knew this was some law. Id be curious to know the argument for how one bullet is more humane over another, when in war, the objective of the bullet would be to kill the enemy. I understand that there are weapons out there that can maim, and not kill, like certain types of land mines, but for bullets? Really can there be a humane way to put metal into a persons body at a high velocity?


The objective isn't to kill, but merely to stop the enemy's ability to wage war. Therefore the purpose is to incapacitate and not kill. Besides, wounded soldiers require other soldiers to carry them out of the battlefield. It's a two or three for one proposition.
 
2008-11-10 5:27:25 PM  
choice and consequence

Max effective range of the 5.56 only 500yd? Sure a 55 or 62gr round won't have much energy out to that range, but it should still have enough energy to severely wound...

As far as the 7.62x51, I know the Army trains snipers out to 800m, but the Marines employ it to 1000m. Interesting difference in philosophy.

/waiting on the bastard child6.8 SPC and .408 Cheytac
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.