Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!atha!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cassman@athena.mit.edu (Baby Killer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Small Arms
Message-ID: <1991Mar14.015325.19370@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Mar 91 01:53:25 GMT
References: <1991Mar4.212601.9682@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar7.014859.3212@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 54
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cassman@athena.mit.edu (Baby Killer)
H.J.Rogers writes:

# tripod which is the new ground support weapon. The latter version has been
# heavily criticised since the perception is that ground support weapons
# need belt fed ammo or v. large capacity magazines. 30 rounds get used
# up fast... Another criticism is that M16 ammo is too light, the old SLR
# with it's 7.62mm ammo packed a much harder punch (like Kalashnikovs I
# think), and could e.g. take an arm/head off in one shot at long range.
# Accuracy is about the same (SLR compared to SA80 - as I mention above
# accuracy is a *lot* better than the M16A2). The rifle is very butt heavy

I would like to put in my two cents regarding small arms for ground troops.

First, regarding belt-fed guns and large capacity magazines:
       An ordinary soldier is not going to be given huge/heavy belts
       of ammo to carry and the relatively large/heavy  gun to shoot
       them. Also, 30 round magazines are about at the safe limit for
       infantry rifles because they force the soldiers to give their
       guns a "rest" after every magazine. The heat generated at 
       full-auto is enormous and can ruin a rifle easily.

Second, regarding M16 ammo:
        The M16 uses the 5.56mm round (.223 caliber). This round is far
        less effective in terms of penetration, killing effectiveness,
        etc. than the old 7.62x51 NATO round (.308 caliber). While the
        7.62x51 would be excellent for hunting deer or elk, the 5.56
        is more of a varmint rifle. The AKs use the 7.62x39 Russian
        round which is somewhere in between the other two rounds. I
        believe that the Russian round would be the best trade-off
        between effectiveness and lack of recoil if only the ammo
        were manufactured with quality components as the 5.56 and the
        7.62x51 are. The 5.56 was chosen by the US military because
        it is light weight (can carry lots o' rounds), the rifle that
        shoots it is light, and the recoil is low. Incidentally, the
        only one of the 3 cartridges mentioned that even comes close
        to being able to "rip an arm off" is the 7.62x51. Of course
        the military guys know that if you wound someone then 3 people
        have to take care of him, but if you kill him then 1 person
        will bury him. The 5.56 wounds just fine.

Third, regarding full-auto:
       Full-auto fire has very limited uses. You don't want your ground
       troops spraying their limited ammo in the air - that is what the
       M60s and M2s are for. Three-round bursts are even of questionable
       effectiveness compared to semi-auto fire.

Can you tell that I am a rec.guns guy?

----------------------------------------------------------
       ...and then the blood returned to my brain...
---------------------------------------------------------