British changeing calibers.

[JackLuis]

When the Americans shifted to 5.56 everybody jumped on the band wagon and everything was cool until the enemy moved out too far.

Now the Brits are going to a real battle rifle.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the troops are looking for a real gun for a real war.

 

[oggbashan]

During the Falklands War some British troops used the .303 Lee Enfield originally of 1914-18 vintage, and the same calibre Bren Gun (WWII) for longer distance.

The standard British Army weapons have been a matter of argument for years. The Lee Enfield was so good that nothing since has been so effective - but the Lee Enfield required more training than the modern rifles. The last fully trained unit to use Lee Enfields was the British Expeditionary Force sent to Belgium in 1914. Their aimed fire was nearly as fast as machine guns. It had to be. The politicians and Treasury wouldn't buy machine guns because they used expensive ammunition too fast. The Army compensated by training regular soldiers to fire fast, accurately, but that training took years, not weeks.

Og

 

[Guest]

When the Americans shifted to 5.56 everybody jumped on the band wagon and everything was cool until the enemy moved out too far.

Now the Brits are going to a real battle rifle.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the troops are looking for a real gun for a real war.

If you look at the rifle that the soldier in the photo is holding, though, it is a variation of the American M4 carbine, which can be adapted to a 7.62mm rifle. There probably isn't anything new about this rifle at all (which is a good thing, as it is thoroughly tested), but i wonder how they are going to deal with the problem of frequent jams that we have had. The American army is looking to replace the design because of frequent problems. The parts wear out too quickly and there have been slight issues in the machining process.

the weapon in the photo here

problems with the base design here and here

They are right however. The 5.56 (.223) round is a varmint round fired out of a varmint rifle. It does not have the weight to go truly long distances. What is does have, however is the fact that it is small. When you are shot with a round from the M16A2 or M4, it does not generally have the weight to go through the body completely unless you are up close with it.

Out past 100 yards, the round tumbles around in the body like a pinball, perforating vital organs and leaving bone chips behind. Personally (personally, mind you) I have seen an entry wound on the shoulder and an exit wound around the kidney area. it takes people a long time to die from wounds like that and they are very painful. Switching to 7.62 might be a mercy for the enemy.

Because of the weight of the 7.62 (.308) round, if it does not go all the way through it lodges in place, instead. It weighs too much to just go bouncing around.

I don't know if this change is a good thing or not, but the soldiers receiving their new weapons should be aware that when that weapon that they are receiving (based on the M4) overheats, it takes a significant amount of time to cool and will cause jams and double feeds until it does so. Semi-automatic weapons are not supposed to do that.

 

[rgraham666]

I always thought the 5.56 was too small.

Although for some sidearms, like the P90, it can be useful.

 

[Handley_Page]

When the Americans shifted to 5.56 everybody jumped on the band wagon and everything was cool until the enemy moved out too far.

Now the Brits are going to a real battle rifle.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the troops are looking for a real gun for a real war.

Since some twerp decided to change from 7.62 to 5.56, there has been a great deal of debate in some parts of the British armed services. Most of us who used both the Lee Enfield .303 and later the FN thought the FN had it all in spades. [ Note that this is not a scientific evaluation, just (in my case, limited) user experience. ]

If I was to have to use a rifle again (God forbid), just pass me my old FN.

 

[Guest]

I always thought the 5.56 was too small.

Although for some sidearms, like the P90, it can be useful.

I like it. I want one. Seriously, I want one. I wonder if they are legal in the States

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I like it. I want one. Seriously, I want one. I wonder if they are legal in the States

That would depend on which state you want to be in. They are sold in the zone interior @$1700 more or less. Because they were never named in the California Assault Rifle law and have not been named as assault rifles by the current AG (Jerry Brown) they are currently legal here. That, of course, is subject to change should we get a new, rabid AG next election. If you retired to AZ or VA, my bet is that you would be good to go. Not in MA, of course, or NY. All the South would be okay. I really like the bull-pup configuration. It reminds me of a truly svelte design that was the Austrian Army rifle about 25 years back.

Personally, I was trained on the old M14 and I liked it. When they took them away from us and handed us the M16 I hated it. I still hate it. The only reason to own one would be if you wanted to enter Service Rifle competition. M16/4's . . . Bleagh!

That British article once more points out the dangers of believing newspapers. The AK 47 round is 7.62 mm in bore. That is true. However, the AK round is a 7.62x39. It's a little stubby thing and no more powerful than a 30/30 Winchester. Hunters don't consider it an effective cartridge beyond about 150 yards. The only reason Tommy would have for being more impressed with it than his own 5.56 mm is because it's coming at him!

 

[JackLuis]

Well I wouldn't go all the way back the SMLE but the FAL has done good service and with the addition of a scope rail it should do the trick and I'll bet the Belgians have a few thousand they'd be happy to sell to England.

I heard the the Army scrapped a lot of M-14's then found that the Matty Mattel pop guns wouldn't penetrate a concrete block wall, Oops! So why not take up the FAL?

or the 16 inch barreled SCOM version of the M1a, or the AR 10, that would make training simpler and it would be handy for Close Order Battle, although the velocity would be lower.

I hear that some in the Army want the re chamber the M16M4 family to a new round, the 6.8 mm Remington (.27 caliber). However the shift would mean all new brass and ammo stocks have to be mass produced so by the time we changed over, we'll be out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[oggbashan]

Baker Rifle

For killing power, I prefer the Napoleonic Era Baker Rifle I used in Australia.

It fired a .7 ball. It was far more accurate than the Brown Bess musket but only up to about 200 yards. At that distance its impact was startling.

I made the mistake of shooting a large rabbit with it at 100 yards. All I had left of the rabbit was the head.

Skilled riflemen of that era could fire and reload three times a minute. I was happy with reloading once every three minutes.

Og

 

[Guest]

Personally, I was trained on the old M14 and I liked it. When they took them away from us and handed us the M16 I hated it. I still hate it. The only reason to own one would be if you wanted to enter Service Rifle competition. M16/4's . . . Bleagh!

That British article once more points out the dangers of believing newspapers. The AK 47 round is 7.62 mm in bore. That is true. However, the AK round is a 7.62x39. It's a little stubby thing and no more powerful than a 30/30 Winchester. Hunters don't consider it an effective cartridge beyond about 150 yards. The only reason Tommy would have for being more impressed with it than his own 5.56 mm is because it's coming at him!

I, too, first fired on a n M14 (in high school in California no less!). I remember scaring the shit out of myself the first time I squeezed the trigger. We went through dry-fire after dry-fire, and assembly and disassembly for almost an entire semester before we got to go to Pendleton. After that, I am not much for the M16/M4 either, and I have been firing them for 12 years now.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I, too, first fired on a n M14 (in high school in California no less!). I remember scaring the shit out of myself the first time I squeezed the trigger. We went through dry-fire after dry-fire, and assembly and disassembly for almost an entire semester before we got to go to Pendleton. After that, I am not much for the M16/M4 either, and I have been firing them for 12 years now.

On the 25 meter Air Force range, I could put three 5.56 rounds into the same irregular hole. The blasted thing is accurate, I'll give it that. But tinny? Man! If I had to trade fire with some Pushtan out in the rocks, I'd really prefer my custom built .375. It puts three rounds in the same hole at 100 yards and does it with a 300 gr. bullet. Here, Achmed, that that!

 

[JackLuis]

...
If I had to trade fire with some Pushtan out in the rocks, I'd really prefer my custom built .375. It puts three rounds in the same hole at 100 yards and does it with a 300 gr. bullet. Here, Achmed, that that!

The .375 might be a little too much recoil for firing 20-40 rnds in a fire fight but man the hole it makes!

The 7.62 is proven and has plenty of sound tested battle rifles available. Yes they weigh more than a M4 with ammo, but It stops with any kind of solid hit.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The .375 might be a little too much recoil for firing 20-40 rnds in a fire fight but man the hole it makes!

Are you kidding? When the adrenaline is up, I can run 20 rounds through my .450 Rigby! Some day I'll tell you Tale of the Zombie Buffalo . . .

The 7.62 is proven and has plenty of sound tested battle rifles available. Yes they weigh more than a M4 with ammo, but It stops with any kind of solid hit.

And given that most encounters these days are done from vehicles, the added weight is far less critical than it was back in the jungle.

 

[Handley_Page]

Are you kidding? When the adrenaline is up, I can run 20 rounds through my .450 Rigby! Some day I'll tell you Tale of the Zombie Buffalo . . .

And given that most encounters these days are done from vehicles, the added weight is far less critical than it was back in the jungle.

Bear, how does the .450 Rigby compare with a .458 Weatherby magnum ?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Bear, how does the .450 Rigby compare with a .458 Weatherby magnum ?

It's the same basic case but without the cosmetic, useless belt. Weatherby loads their cartridge to unnecessarily high pressure and that gives it a recoil that will loosen your back teeth. Normal load for the Rigby is a 500 gr bullet at around 2250-2300 fps. It comes close to generating three tons of muzzle energy. That's plenty. Cartridges in that class positively numb buffalo. Nyati may get back up again but they always go down when hit. And when they do stand up, they're shaky and wobbly. Much more satisfactory response than pissed off and charging. That's what happened when I used a .404 Jeffrey on one that was already edgy from my partner's shot at one of his herd mates. Won't make that mistake again!

 

[Handley_Page]

It's the same basic case but without the cosmetic, useless belt. Weatherby loads their cartridge to unnecessarily high pressure and that gives it a recoil that will loosen your back teeth. Normal load for the Rigby is a 500 gr bullet at around 2250-2300 fps. It comes close to generating three tons of muzzle energy. That's plenty. Cartridges in that class positively numb buffalo. Nyati may get back up again but they always go down when hit. And when they do stand up, they're shaky and wobbly. Much more satisfactory response than pissed off and charging. That's what happened when I used a .404 Jeffrey on one that was already edgy from my partner's shot at one of his herd mates. Won't make that mistake again!

What an excellent description.
A pal of mine at the Gun Club (many moons ago), bought one. Fascinating gadget; not particularly heavy and quite sleek. All of us loaded our own ammo at that time (my .357 was a 175gr Keith type doing about 650fps) so Tim managed to acquire some cases. After asking Eley-Kynoch for advice, he stoked up a load and tried it out. I forget the weight of the bullet, but it was big!
I should mention that Tim was a little guy; like about 5ft 6 and thin as a lath. Naturally, one tries these thing out lying down, and his first shot had moved him back nigh on two feet.
Having seen what happened to my mates (who suffered similar movements) when shooting this beast, I decided to kneel and lean forward. At about 13 stone, I figured I'd be OK.
Leaning forward, I took careful aim and squeezed. It literally stood me up !

I still think it would be a good weapon, but it does need a muzzle brake, I think.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Naw, just down load it.

Several things:

The Weatherby rifle itself isn't well designed to absorb recoil. The buttstock and forearm both need to be fatter and round to fill the hand for better control. Additionally, the combination of overly slim forearm and stupid belted cartridge make it only hold two rounds in the magazine. Not good!

Roy was a marketing genius but he was no ballistician by any stretch of the imagination. He actually developed two useful cartridges. The .300 is ideal for reaching across canyons out in the Western states for mule deer and elk. The .257 is absolutely the bees' knees on pronghorn or on varmints in the next time zone. The others burn so much power that they rapidly pass the law of diminishing returns. When he first went to Africa, he took the .378 but the bullets weren't up to the velocity it produced and his PH had to finish off everything he shot. It was a fiasco.

The real problem was he didn't know what he was doing. Back between the wars the wildcatters got all wrapped around a fictitious concept of 'hydrostatic shock'. There ain't no such thing. 'Hydrostatic' means 'standing water'. I guess the idea was that since flesh is mostly water a shockwave sent through it would disrupt an animal's nervous system and cause instant death. The only problem was that these guys knew nothing about comparative anatomy. The vital areas of an animal are mostly air. A lung is a bunch of tiny balloons and so trying to send a shockwave through them is pointless.

You occasionally still read the phrase "cartridges that kill better than they should" and refer to such veteran designs as the 7x57, 30/40 Krag, 6.5 Mannlicher, etc. What they have in common is long-for-caliber bullets that penetrate forever. At moderate velocities such bullets enter the animal, lose the first quarter or so of themselves in a shower of fragments that spread out in a cone popping all those little lung-balloons. The critter can't breath and very quickly drowns in its own blood. The rest of the bullet keeps traveling onward in a straight line and punches out the other side leaving an unholy exit wound. This is caused both by the expanded bullet and by a spalling effect. It causes a great deal of neural shock and the beast dies fast and mercifully. If the bullet doesn't behave like that, you risk either a clean in-and-out penetration with no moral wounds or a shallow wound on the service where the bullet blew up leaving the poor thing to die days later of infection.

So no Weatherby. Uh-uh. The British gunmakers knew what they were doing when they designed African calibers. The Americans? Uh, no.

 

[Loring2]

Rifles

That British article once more points out the dangers of believing newspapers. The AK 47 round is 7.62 mm in bore. That is true. However, the AK round is a 7.62x39. It's a little stubby thing and no more powerful than a 30/30 Winchester. Hunters don't consider it an effective cartridge beyond about 150 yards. The only reason Tommy would have for being more impressed with it than his own 5.56 mm is because it's coming at him!

The AK47 round is in fact a 30/30 round, same specs that is ... I don't know if casing variation would allow 30/30 round to chamber in an AK or vice versa.

There is also some confusion about standard Military calibers. It's been roughly 45 years since I've fired a rifle with the intent of killing someone. When I did it was a 30.06 caliber which shot where you aimed lets's say. It was manufactured by Savage Arms. It was a 7.62. There is also a .308 and it is a 7.65. The ballistics on the 2 are very similar with muzzle velocities around around 2900 FPS. Snipers, real ones, load their own ammo and lead and bore sight to adjust.

For fun I have a Winchester 270, Model 70 and it turned 65 years old this past Xmas. Same barrel, right on.

Your seem to know what you're talkin about: Fill me in.

Loring

 

[Handley_Page]

Bear:

Have a look at this:-

http://hollandandholland.com/~newyork/usedguns/setfive.htm

I think this one:-

http://www.hollandandholland.com/gunrooms/london/bespoke_weapons/the_round_action_sidelock_double_rifle/

in 3" 500Nitro Express.

Look at the price !

 

[Weird Harold]

The AK47 round is in fact a 30/30 round, same specs that is ... I don't know if casing variation would allow 30/30 round to chamber in an AK or vice versa.

... There is also a .308 and it is a 7.65.

I'm not sure where your getting your info, but according to my Hogdon realoading handbook, a russian 7.62x39mm runs about 200 fps slower than a 30-30 winchester load. They aren't even close to interchangeable as far as cartridge specs are concerned -- a 7.62x39 case is 1.516" while an empty 30-30 Win case is 2.040" The 7.62x39 case is also fatter than the 30-30 Win.

A 308 Win/7.62 NATO uses a .308 inch diameter bullet, just as every other ".30 caliber" cartridge does. The 7.65 Mauser round (WWI and WWII German military standard) uses a ".31 caliber" bullet that is .313 inch in diameter. The ".303 British" round uses a .311 inch bullet

The author(s) of article cited in the OP don't appear to realize that there are many different .308/"30 caliber"/"7.62" cartridges because there is simply no comparison between the AK-47's "7.62" and any NATO compatible "7.62." comparing the two is like comparing marshmallows and marbles.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The AK47 round is in fact a 30/30 round, same specs that is ... I don't know if casing variation would allow 30/30 round to chamber in an AK or vice versa.

There is also some confusion about standard Military calibers. It's been roughly 45 years since I've fired a rifle with the intent of killing someone. When I did it was a 30.06 caliber which shot where you aimed lets's say. It was manufactured by Savage Arms. It was a 7.62. There is also a .308 and it is a 7.65. The ballistics on the 2 are very similar with muzzle velocities around around 2900 FPS. Snipers, real ones, load their own ammo and lead and bore sight to adjust.

For fun I have a Winchester 270, Model 70 and it turned 65 years old this past Xmas. Same barrel, right on.

Your seem to know what you're talkin about: Fill me in.

Loring

I've been gun happy since I was a cub. Current status, NRA Life, Safari Club Life and former (not very good) military competitor. Five African safaris under my belt and four trips to the Arctic. Sooner or later I want to get to S. America, Europe, Asia and Australia/S. Pacific. However, I have a small house and the walls are filling up.

Bear:

Have a look at this:-

http://hollandandholland.com/~newyork/usedguns/setfive.htm

I think this one:-

http://www.hollandandholland.com/gunrooms/london/bespoke_weapons/the_round_action_sidelock_double_rifle/

in 3" 500Nitro Express.

Look at the price !

I have long been an admirer of H&H, so much that once on a trip back from Africa that stopped in London (that part was HM's vacation!) I spent a morning at their shooting school. Never has the bear handled a scattergun with such facility. Having their head coach looking your shoulder will make you shoot better, amazingly so. From a construction point, if I suddenly came into wealth, I would more likely go to McKay Brown for a round action 12 bore. I just worship that maker.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/1volupturary_manque/DavidMcKayBrownSxS.jpg

I'm not sure where your getting your info, but according to my Hogdon realoading handbook, a russian 7.62x39mm runs about 200 fps slower than a 30-30 winchester load. They aren't even close to interchangeable as far as cartridge specs are concerned -- a 7.62x39 case is 1.516" while an empty 30-30 Win case is 2.040" The 7.62x39 case is also fatter than the 30-30 Win.

A 308 Win/7.62 NATO uses a .308 inch diameter bullet, just as every other ".30 caliber" cartridge does. The 7.65 Mauser round (WWI and WWII German military standard) uses a ".31 caliber" bullet that is .313 inch in diameter. The ".303 British" round uses a .311 inch bullet

The author(s) of article cited in the OP don't appear to realize that there are many different .308/"30 caliber"/"7.62" cartridges because there is simply no comparison between the AK-47's "7.62" and any NATO compatible "7.62." comparing the two is like comparing marshmallows and marbles.

Dead on! And I especially like your analogy.

 

[JackLuis]

HP, I think that H&H are a little out of my league but they are too nice to shoot.

WH- yes the 7.62X39 is a little underpowered and uses a light bullet (~120 gr.) that makes it kinda weak at long range. 7.62 NATO 150-174 gr. bullet is a hell of a lot better at 300-700 yards/meters.

Afghanistan is a much longer range war than Iraq. The .50 cal sniper rifles seem to have found their niche in Afghanistan. A Canadian Sniper recently set a long range record when he hit a "Taliban" at over a mile with a .50 cal.

The 5.56 has a problem with penetration of cover and the 7.62 does a little better at busting up concrete blocks, behind which the bad guys hide.

The 30-30 was designed for older powders and the 7.62X39 was designed fifty years later with a different purpose in mind.

With modern progressive powders you can achieve a lot more power with less case volume and lower peak pressures witness the new Short Magnums that are coming out. The .308X 1.5" round was an American attempt to match the 8mm Kurtz and the 7.62X39 back in the early 60's. With the new powders it would improve a bit and handle the 150 gr. for more range and terminal ballistics, but it would still take years to get it into the pipeline.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm not sure where your getting your info, but according to my Hogdon realoading handbook, a russian 7.62x39mm runs about 200 fps slower than a 30-30 winchester load. They aren't even close to interchangeable as far as cartridge specs are concerned -- a 7.62x39 case is 1.516" while an empty 30-30 Win case is 2.040" The 7.62x39 case is also fatter than the 30-30 Win.

A 308 Win/7.62 NATO uses a .308 inch diameter bullet, just as every other ".30 caliber" cartridge does. The 7.65 Mauser round (WWI and WWII German military standard) uses a ".31 caliber" bullet that is .313 inch in diameter. The ".303 British" round uses a .311 inch bullet

The author(s) of article cited in the OP don't appear to realize that there are many different .308/"30 caliber"/"7.62" cartridges because there is simply no comparison between the AK-47's "7.62" and any NATO compatible "7.62." comparing the two is like comparing marshmallows and marbles.

Here's a graphic example of the difference.



http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/1volupturary_manque/2783762_comp.jpg

 

[JackLuis]

The subject brings up the question are we seeing the renewal of the mystic of the rifleman? Talk about memes!

Alvin York and the American Rifleman, His 1917 Enfield shot true, he maneuvered well, and he used a .45 1911 to finish up in the trenches!

Marine Snipers on lots of shithole places in the Pacific.

Oh and a correction:
The longest range recorded for a sniper kill currently stands at 2,430 meters (2,657 yd, or 1.51 miles), accomplished by Master Corporal Rob Furlong, a sniper from Newfoundland, Canada, in March 2002 during the war in Afghanistan.

Oh shit!

 

[Handley_Page]

What about the guy who left the white feather, Carlos Hathcock ?