Shooters Forum banner
  • Hello Everyone! Let us know what you would spend a $50 Amazon gift card on, HERE For a chance to win a $50 Amazon Gift Card!
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
10,042 Posts
what's the difference between a conspiracy theory and reality
Those who "Trust the science", and those who actually read scientific papers. 馃槈
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pudfark

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
10,042 Posts
All this banter about penetration and "conspiracy" theories is humorous to me.

The truth is lots of folks have been unhappy about the 5.56 NATO, for a whole slough of reasons. One of which is the continual "reports" of putting a bazillion rounds in combatants, and them not going down. The reality when actual studies and data acquisition is done, is that's predominantly fairytale by stressed folks with poor aim. It goes back to that one guy telling stories about the fish that was "this big", or someone swearing to Bigfoot being real.

So to the topic of penetration and perceived deficiencies. The Army decided a while ago, that even with the M855A1 EPR they might need more. Fine and dandy, so did they do testing analysis for actual numbers? Maybe.
The claims of "see, we're deficient" are based off a still classified, ballistics report. Some might claim, that it's because they don't want any "potential enemies" to know what was in the report. While they may be true, it doesn't square with reality very well. Those same people are the folks who like to claim that the penetration of the 5.56 is so bad, and "everyone knows it". If everyone knows this, what secrets are we keeping again? Also, with as open as the military has been with penetration results, including with the EPR. It would be a sudden and recent about-face, to suddenly decide to keep a "secret" that everyone supposedly knows. Possible, but with no actual evidence; I ain't buying.

Having to repeat myself once again, watch the Pentagon brief I linked in the other thread.
With that and any research outside of last months Vogue magazine, anyone can see the latest trials had nothing to do with penetration testing anyway.
The Army said it was going to look at a different rifle system and caliber. Neither of those things have been a secret, and were stated rather long ago.
The Army awarded a shell company of Vortex (Sheltered Wings?) $2.7 Billion for around 250,000 new optics(called the fire control system), specifically for their new rifle and caliber; Believe that happened in January. All contestants in this rifle contest were given 277 bullets, unless they wanted to provide their own for another caliber. Even Ray Charles can see why the contestants chose 270.馃槈 So the various new rifles being entertained, HAD to have ammo that weighed less than the 7.62 NATO, period, full stop. Beyond that, it went like this:
Compared to an issued M4. Do soldiers like the ergonomics better? With the new FCS which tells you how to hold for a hit, can you show hit at distance better? Do you have a higher calculated "energy" on target? That was it.

The Army scores showed folks liked the MXC, or what will most likely end up being called the M5; better than the alternatives. The Army themselves liked the idea of a round that could give monster ballistics from a extremely short barrel(the high pressure round). So they awarded SIG $20.4 Million to build an ammo facility, and supply them around 35 rifles. Once SIG completes the facility, the army will THEN begin actually testing the ammo, and feasibility of the high pressure round.
Several years later, the army is hoping to have a separate building up at LC, to start producing some of their own ammo. But if you pay attention to the Army, not gentleman's quarterly; you'll read that they didn't actually plan on completely walking away from the General Dynamics ammo concept of polymer cased ammo.

In conclusion.
Will a bullet with greater sectional density penetrate better than the 5.56? That shouldn't need explained. Will it be "better"? Depends on what you define as "better". It's what the Army wanted, and what they chose; so let's hope.


Cheers
 

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
10,042 Posts
I kind of doubt that a conventional bolt and extractor (like the Sig rifle) could PULL the polymer case for reliable extraction鈥ut I don鈥檛 really know.
They don't struggle to. Obviously it depends on what they're using specifically, but from the little I've looked into the them out appears to be in the UHMW family. Which is ultra slick, and gets used as bearing material in the Ag world.

Read it From the horses mouth. Note the date, and there were a few from 2019 in the related pile. The Army decided 270 bullets long ago, they just hadn't decided what/how these obviously magically superior bullets would be fired; until very recently.


Cheers
 

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
10,042 Posts
馃う
Anyone who followed the links and researched the actual sources, knows that the requirement for the 277 ammo was to weigh less than the 7.62 NATO. Meaning they know that the ammo doesn't weigh anything like 2.5 times what the 5.56 does... Similarly, they would have researched the XM157 contract. Meaning they also know the new optic weighs less than the currently issued mess.

Here are some more links, that some will also ignore.

XM157 discussion, from the source.

Study on hit probability of the Garand.

Study on hit probability of the M16 family with optics.
 

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
10,042 Posts
I'm not a big fan of most of M.A.C.'s click-bait videos(and un-ending "Hey guys" vernacular), but thought for the most part it was a reasonable enough discussion of folks' opinions.(y)
They, like many here, appear to be stuck on some incorrect info that they didn't really vet out; unless I'm behind on some more recent updates. "The Army" isn't simply swapping over to this rifle, it's a limited roll-out and testing process to a few specific groups. Not unlike SOCOM doing limited use of various things, which they rightly noted happens. They also seemed unaware of the specific statement officially made, which is that they aren't simply loading everything to 80K psi. Again, that really changes the conversation for "everyone" in the Army, and discussions of the 'average person' controlling full-auto fire of said HP ammo. I also am unaware of "The Marines" adopting this platform whole-hog, as it were. Seems to be more of the same "The Army is swapping everyone over". That nuance(limited number of weapons and testing) is not a minor detail to overlook in the discussion.


i'll give Vortex the nod because you don't need batteries to shoot it. the only problem that i have will be CQC (close quarters combat). i would mount on the side a reflex sight, i know, the batteries.....its much easier to use than a 1x scope on a rifle. but that is just my opinion.
For the system to function as intended, it does need batteries. But as with any FFP etched reticle scope, can be a basic telescopic optic without power; No different than an illuminated reticle who's battery died. But I suppose compared to a dead red dot, yes it still "works".
I'm curious, what you are thinking of distance-wise, for CQC. Are you thinking room-to-room point shooting, or across the street aiming? I don't really see point shooting having any difference either way, personally. But if we are talking a red dot @1x Vs a scope @1x, for across the street; why your preference?



Cheers
 

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
10,042 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: tdoyka and Pudfark

The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
10,042 Posts
Darkker posted...
..... I will try to provide a review of that document in the coming days.

If we've come to the point of needing to do book reviews for people who won't read on their own, this thread will be closed.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top