SAR-21 vs G-36
-
Just read an article in Oct 2002's issue of Jane's International Defence Review entitled "Small arms ammunition advances bit by bit."
I want to share with you an interesting portion from that article: "There have been several reports from troops in Afghanistan regarding the lack of lethality of the SS109/M855 cartridge, particularly when it is fired from an M4 (US) or M8 (Canadian) carbine. This was also observed in Somalia. For the SS109/M855 to achieve lethality, it must be moving at a velocity of over 732m/s when it strikes its target. At this velocity and above, the bullet penetrates a short distance and then begins to yaw as its spinning slows and it tends to return to its normal stable state, which is base forward. As the bullet yaws, it comes apart at the cannelure, scattering fragments and causing a relatively large wound channel. In practical terms, this translates to approximately 200m with a bullet fired from an M16 or similar rifle with a 558mm barrel at approximately 914m/s.
"When fired from a carbine, however, the SS109/M855 bullet leaves the barrel with a velocity of only about 790m/s. Therefore by the time it has travelled downrange only 50m, it has already dropped below the velocity threshold for enhanced would ballistics. The net effect is that troops equipped with M4 or M8 carbines are using weapons that are only marginally more effective ballistically than a 0.22 Magnum at anything other than close-quarters battle distances."
Just goes to show that "advances" in the field of arms and ammunition may not necessarily be progress! -
philip72... I beg to differ...
"When fired from a carbine, however, the SS109/M855 bullet leaves the barrel with a velocity of only about 790m/s. Therefore by the time it has travelled downrange only 50m, it has already dropped below the velocity threshold for enhanced wound ballistics. The net effect is that troops equipped with M4 or M8 carbines are using weapons that are only marginally more effective ballistically than a 0.22 Magnum at anything other than close-quarters battle distances."
Then it isn't fully the fault of the 5.56mm, mate... Its the M4's shorter velocity thats giving the problem.
A 7.62mm NATO round has more energy because it is three times as heavy and only slightly slower than the 5.56mm. A 7.62mm NATO round will stop someone in his tracks because of it's larger calibre (the greater the cross-section area, the greater the energy transfer), greater intrinsic energy, and the terminal effect of it's bullet (basically, the way the bullet tumbles in muscle tissue instead of fragmenting into smaller pieces).
Its a trade-off, actually. 7.62mm rounds are known for over-penetrating the target without significant distortion, as the heavier bullet doesn't tumble and fragment as well as a lighter 5.56mm in human tissue (imagine a heavy freight train smashing into a house as opposed to a light Proton car).
You can receive a clean no-bone-impact hit by a 7.62mm and get away with a nice bullethole that heals fine. A 5.56mm that fragments, however, will leave a very messy permanent cavity in the wound full of metal bits and detached (dead) muscle. And the 5.56mm doesn't suffer the way those special-load rounds do (Ie Glaser safety slugs) because the 5.56mm has more than enough velocity to penetrate deep enough for critical hits (unlike the tiny special-load round pellets).
And IMHO, shot placement is more important than bullet size in "stopping ability". The impact of the round is negligible... In fact, most people only fall when shot for 3 reasons.
1.) You have scored a head or spinal hit.
2.) You have scored a leg/hip bone-breaking hit.
3.) The person who is shot has watched too much Hollywood and believes that he must fall when hit. Ie. Psychological reason.
Minor trivia to gun-nuts: A hit to the heart, btw, takes 15 seconds to incapacitate. A person is fully able of full rational action for that entire time before the blood looses enough pressure to render him unconcious. -
More on the FN F2000 again -
http://www.ets-news.com/herstal.htm
anybody have any technical details on how the empty cases eject from this bullpup? Drawings and explanation?
Seems that there is a tube which ejects the spent cases from the front of the rifle, away from the firer. Its the only bullpup (5.56mm) that allows firing from left and right shoulders.
-
I didn't fully understand the reason behind the M855's recent lack of terminal performance in Somalia and Afghanistan. After reading the JIDR article, I have a better understanding now. In fact, the article went on to say that the American SF has turned to a match grade round made by Black Hills that fires at 5g bullet at 792m/s from an M4.Originally posted by LeFire:philip72... I beg to differ...
Then it isn't fully the fault of the 5.56mm, mate... Its the M4's shorter velocity thats giving the problem.
Its a trade-off, actually. 7.62mm rounds are known for over-penetrating the target without significant distortion, as the heavier bullet doesn't tumble and fragment as well as a lighter 5.56mm in human tissue (imagine a heavy freight train smashing into a house as opposed to a light Proton car).
You can receive a clean no-bone-impact hit by a 7.62mm and get away with a nice bullethole that heals fine. A 5.56mm that fragments, however, will leave a very messy permanent cavity in the wound full of metal bits and detached (dead) muscle. And the 5.56mm doesn't suffer the way those special-load rounds do (Ie Glaser safety slugs) because the 5.56mm has more than enough velocity to penetrate deep enough for critical hits (unlike the tiny special-load round pellets).
And IMHO, shot placement is more important than bullet size in "stopping ability". The impact of the round is negligible... In fact, most people only fall when shot for 3 reasons.
1.) You have scored a head or spinal hit.
2.) You have scored a leg/hip bone-breaking hit.
3.) The person who is shot has watched too much Hollywood and believes that he must fall when hit. Ie. Psychological reason.
Minor trivia to gun-nuts: A hit to the heart, btw, takes 15 seconds to incapacitate. A person is fully able of full rational action for that entire time before the blood looses enough pressure to render him unconcious.
In turn, that would mean that the actual effective range of a 5.56mm depends on velocity not only in the sense of energy delivered on impact, but on whether it has enough velocity left to tumble in its target and fragment. Thus, the effective range can be much less than the range at which the bullet maintains a flat trajectory, in this case 50m from an M4, or 200m from an M16.
As you noted also, a German 7.62mm NATO round does not fragment as spectacularly as a 5.56mm round (are you using Cushaw's 1990 report on terminal ballistics here?), but being a larger bullet, it does great damage in its own right without depending on whether it fragments, thus it would have a greater effective range. On top of that, it's ability to penetrate most foliage and building material, and still retain significant energy, is also significant.
The problem of over-penetration is a problem with ALL cartridges, including the 5.56mm. If a bullet, even a hollow-point, does not pass through enough tissue to fully "dump" its energy by tumbling or expanding or fragmenting, then it would not have the necessary terminal effect.
So, if someone is shot in the arm through muscle tissue rather than the bone, he might still retain signicant combat ability. Even in this case, I believe that the greater calibre of the 7.62mm round together with its greater weight would have more impact than the small, light 5.56mm round. -
Its the GUN, the GUN.
As said, 7.62 though bigger may not be better all the time. Sure it can fly further hit harder, ONLY if its fired from a rifle with high velocity. To generate enough power to fire the damn thing would require more propellant and thus more recoil.
I don't know about the M4 being as ineffective above 50m. Something doesn't sound right... In anycase, if the M4 which has a muzzle velocity of 792m/s (accordin to u guys), IF it was to fire a 7.62 round. The drag, and the weight of the 7.62, together with the low velocity, would make even MORE inefficient.
Anyway, some guy was saying. Start testing out the 6mm rounds. See if its the best middle ground between the two. -
Read what the American think about the SAR-21 (and the Ultimax 100)....
http://www.afji.com/AFJI/Mags/2001/August/ShootOut_7.htm -
interesting point about the barrel jumping no matter how hard the firer held it against his shoulders...
its a quirk they've had with the SAW too... they use similar bolt carrier designs... the patented forward recoil system makes it possible to fire the weapon from your nose if u want, but your rounds will land higher cos the recoil is all directed forward. -
No arguments from me... 7.62mm like the G3 has a lively kick, especially if you set it on rock and roll. However, I heard good things about the KAC SR25 rifle based on the M16 design. It's suppose to be much easier to shoot than other 7.62mm.Originally posted by Shotgun:Its the GUN, the GUN.
As said, 7.62 though bigger may not be better all the time. Sure it can fly further hit harder, ONLY if its fired from a rifle with high velocity. To generate enough power to fire the damn thing would require more propellant and thus more recoil.
I don't know about the M4 being as ineffective above 50m. Something doesn't sound right... In anycase, if the M4 which has a muzzle velocity of 792m/s (accordin to u guys), IF it was to fire a 7.62 round. The drag, and the weight of the 7.62, together with the low velocity, would make even MORE inefficient.
Anyway, some guy was saying. Start testing out the 6mm rounds. See if its the best middle ground between the two.
By the way, the figures and comments on the M4 is from Charles Cushaw's article in Oct 2002 issue of Jane's IDR.
I have heard that new 5.56mm ammunition are being developed that can be fired from carbines with the same muzzle velocity as longer weapons, even from barrels as short as 254mm. I must dig up that article... -
In short, if we can get a higher velocity 5.56mm, the problems with the carbine can be solved, right?
Particularly impt to me, as I will be using a CAR-15 carbine in wartime. -
Scout units use CAR-15s?
-
They don't.
I'm a Recon, not a Scout. -
Yep.
They hope to get a flatter trajectory from a carbine as well with these new rounds, but last I heard, they are still in development stage in US. In any case, jungle warriors don't have to worry too much... when was the last time you could see 50 metres or more in a jungle? -
Well, if I ever have to shoot someone at 50 meters in the jungle, then I'm in deep shit.
-
Argh! Why can't S'pore get some FN2000's for us! Or maybe just send someone to find out its inner workings and make a S'porean version...
Just read up its stats... it looks horribly effective.
Must get them before the M'sians get any funny ideas about purchasing them. -
don't be childish lah... if we try to keep up with every single technical innovation on the market, we'll be broke!Originally posted by LeFire:Argh! Why can't S'pore get some FN2000's for us! Or maybe just send someone to find out its inner workings and make a S'porean version... Just read up its stats... it looks horribly effective.
Must get them before the M'sians get any funny ideas about purchasing them.
and its the same for them... they already spent a fortune on steyrs... they won't be buying a new weapon system in a hurry... and if they start buying different rifles to equip different units, then good luck to them their army will start looking like their air force in no time... bloody zoo. -
If we don't keep up with every technical innovation in the market, we won't be making MONEY selling them.
LeFire, do you guys act as Forward observers for Artys? -
Nah, not being childish lah CX... Just suddenly overcome with wanting one of those beautiful things with me in wartime. *drools*
Same thing with seeing a beautiful woman on the street... There's no harm in wanting her, no?
To Shotgun... Yep, we can do arty spotting and adjustment if we spot a juicy target... say an enemy battalion or maybe even division command post. Have to depend on whether the arty boys have the ammo and time to do it though... But I'm sure they'll oblige if the target is big enough. -
yes... we take advantage of the results of other people's R & D, do reverse engineering and improve on it a bit and sell it cheaper after that. that's business. totally agree with it.Originally posted by Shotgun:If we don't keep up with every technical innovation in the market, we won't be making MONEY selling them.
LeFire, do you guys act as Forward observers for Artys?
but u wanna spend millions buying and replacing new systems every few years just to look good and only add on marginally to operational performance?
u know thats not how Sg does it what -
Well, maybe not for the line regiments, but for the special troops. I believe that the Commandos (or is it the SOF?) already have FN P90's and G36's as seen in the National Day parade.
FN2000 for your recon dogs... what do you say, MINDEF? -
i hear them say "dream on, go to hell"... its a bad move logistically lah.
-
A bit off-topic:Originally posted by LeFire:They don't.
I'm a Recon, not a Scout.
What's the difference between a scout and a recon? Are recons cdo trained? You guys wear the "recon" tag?
Don't Recon's go to SMI too? Tell me more about your "recon" training leh(of course minus those sensitive stuff lah)...are you considered ELITE?
FYI: Some units allow their scouts to carry CAR-15.....mine is one such unit. -
Orh.. Recce are employed at Brigade level, Scouts at Battalion level. Above us are the LRRP's, red hats employed at division level.
Both scouts and recce go SMI and have that 'trg' under the cdo's... but still considered infantry. No need wear helmet for recce though. (thank goodness) I'm not too sure if scouts need to wear them... maybe only when they are in their jeeps.
Elite? Hmmm... Just tell you that the injury rate is pretty impressive though. Only 23 NSmen out of original 33 (my batch) left. -
Haven fight any war already so many casualties.... Chia lat lar.
-
aiyo, normal in peacetime training lah. My cousin also another scout, got stung by bees in Brunei and then was deemed unfit to continue (he is allegic to bee stings) as scouts. In war time, it will be too easy to ignore all these injuries when greater stakes than some individual physic pains are at risks.Originally posted by Shotgun:Haven fight any war already so many casualties.... Chia lat lar.
BTW, one must see the mini series "Band of Brothers" to understand the horrors of wars and the human sacrifices.... -
Ok...so you are from the BRCOriginally posted by LeFire:Orh.. Recce are employed at Brigade level, Scouts at Battalion level. Above us are the LRRP's, red hats employed at division level.
Both scouts and recce go SMI and have that 'trg' under the cdo's... but still considered infantry. No need wear helmet for recce though. (thank goodness) I'm not too sure if scouts need to wear them... maybe only when they are in their jeeps.
Elite? Hmmm... Just tell you that the injury rate is pretty impressive though. Only 23 NSmen out of original 33 (my batch) left. .......... I thought is some sort of classified vocation in SAF. You know there's a alot of difference saying you are a "Recon"(US elite) and saying you are "recon trained", a "Recce Trooper" or "Recce Scout" ......Kudos bro! We're of the same blood but different orbats
Anyway, Scouts are basically under the same training as BRCs except that they are only of platoon level (BRC is coy) and conduct ops in a battalion level (BRC is brigade level). Beside that, they are the only guys in the battalion that is qualified to wear a jungle hat.....just like their BRC counterpart.
Yup.....injury rates are high. My platoon downed 6 guys (that's alot for a platoon) 80% are due bike accidents injuries..... bummer
Damn those ol' $50 Honda bikes...lack controls and performance........let they burn in hell....scrap also can....
"only the toughest will survive!" (actually it's no biggy...only the night "tekang" is a bit "power" )