- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
And personal endorsments there OWDU?
;D
;D
The C7 Assault Rifle, M16, & AR15 family (C7A1, C7A2, C7 replacment, and C7 vs M16)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Yard Ape said:5.56 mm sniper rifle?! Even on an accurate weapon that bullet is not accurate beyond 600m. It is too easily affected by wind and other atmospheric conditions.
Yard Ape
Worse than that, even if you could correct at the distance the round would have no usable kinetic energy left, it wouldn't do alot of damage, unless you happened to hit the target in the head from beyond 600m with .20 calibre round.....good luck with that
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Well, CANSOFCOM aren't the only ones who could offer comment. I went for a ride along with an old friend who is now with the OPP. They have started to replace their Mini-14s with C8cqbs. He still hadn't done his conversion course at the time so he didn't have an opinion, I'll see if he has some experiences he's willing to post.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Seen "guys" with them, you can believe me when I tell you that the weapons aren't any shorter with the silencers on them than the C-8 HBs are and I never saw any that didn't have that little attachment at the front 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The Brits love that little rifle, and I have worked on them in KAF. I believe the version of the CQB the OPP are getting have the 3 shot burst mech, not the full auto model we all enjoy in the A3. I cannot fathom accuracy beyond 250 - 300M max. 10" bbl is not a tack driver, just a bullet hose.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Bullet hose? A shorter barrel of a given diameter is stiffer than a longer one and, therefore more intrinsically more accurate. Barrel manufacture and installation will have a greater effect on accuracy. Shorter barrels tend to mean a shorter sighting radius, this has no impact on scopes or reflex sites. Shorter barrels do mean lower velocities and a more looping trajectory, making range estimation more important.
These cqb variants are oddly meant for close quarter battle. They would be used instead of an smg or perhaps some form of pdw. In other words accuracy and trajectory out to 150 meters is fine and far better than something like an mp5. No one seems to deride the mp5's accuracy. Though a good man can reliably hit paper targets at 500 meters on a range with a C7, ammo effectiveness and a touch of adrenaline make even your 250-300 meters unrealistic for most. A better argument might be that the standard issue ammunition will be of limited effective range from such a short barrel. See Infidel's earlier posts on bullet fragmentation versus velocity. It seems that cqb ammunition might be in order. Of course that's logistically impossible for the big army but, possible for small units or police forces. On that note, the OPP's rifle is probably semi-auto only. It had a triad rail and iron sites.
I'm more interested in Kevin's thoughts on the reliability of a short barrelled direct gas system. He earlier alluded to the HK416's superiority for barrels shorter than 16". Kev is there a reliability decrease with the 10-11.5 inchers? How much?
Steve
edited because eme421 does know what he's talking about. I assume bullet hose is just a little hyperbole.
These cqb variants are oddly meant for close quarter battle. They would be used instead of an smg or perhaps some form of pdw. In other words accuracy and trajectory out to 150 meters is fine and far better than something like an mp5. No one seems to deride the mp5's accuracy. Though a good man can reliably hit paper targets at 500 meters on a range with a C7, ammo effectiveness and a touch of adrenaline make even your 250-300 meters unrealistic for most. A better argument might be that the standard issue ammunition will be of limited effective range from such a short barrel. See Infidel's earlier posts on bullet fragmentation versus velocity. It seems that cqb ammunition might be in order. Of course that's logistically impossible for the big army but, possible for small units or police forces. On that note, the OPP's rifle is probably semi-auto only. It had a triad rail and iron sites.
I'm more interested in Kevin's thoughts on the reliability of a short barrelled direct gas system. He earlier alluded to the HK416's superiority for barrels shorter than 16". Kev is there a reliability decrease with the 10-11.5 inchers? How much?
Steve
edited because eme421 does know what he's talking about. I assume bullet hose is just a little hyperbole.
The 5.56 calible is not a effective round it has range and accuracy but does not have the stopping power I seen on a weapons developement show a American arms company has produced a weapon almost identical to M16A2 but it chambers a 6.5 round it is the perfect step up as the 7.62 was to big and heavy the 5.56 no stopping power this new round is in the middle ground and hopefully will be adopted across the board as the 5.56 replacement.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
ceejay77 said:
Bloke,
If you are going to spout garbage you claim is gospel, provide a link.
Having dealt with M193 in A1's from 1978 to F1 in F88 FOW currently, I find your post completely worthless, and secondly its CALIBRE not CALIBLE.
Want some cheap advice? Stick to your area of expertise and learn from this thread by reading it, instead of shooting from the hip with blanks and making a fool of yourself.
Regards,
OWDU
- Reaction score
- 21,946
- Points
- 1,260
7.62 is not too big ;D
notice 2 pieces of brass in the air and I am back on target...
But as for lack of anti-personnel effectiveness of 5.56mm, as long as the shooter does his job with placement - it works.
Barrier penetration and longer range effectiveness is where the 7.62x51 NATO round comes into its own.
Mind you the TSWG 155gr round is a very handy CQB round for those unimpacted by such inconveniences as the Hague Convention
notice 2 pieces of brass in the air and I am back on target...
But as for lack of anti-personnel effectiveness of 5.56mm, as long as the shooter does his job with placement - it works.
Barrier penetration and longer range effectiveness is where the 7.62x51 NATO round comes into its own.
Mind you the TSWG 155gr round is a very handy CQB round for those unimpacted by such inconveniences as the Hague Convention
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,218
- Points
- 1,160
Here's link to the 5.56mm & 7.62mm Wiki pages, which I found somewhat informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO
I confess a preference for the 7.62 mm 'demolition round' but, then again, I also think that bayonets are still relevant to the infantry so should be viewed with suspicion... ;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO
I confess a preference for the 7.62 mm 'demolition round' but, then again, I also think that bayonets are still relevant to the infantry so should be viewed with suspicion... ;D
- Reaction score
- 21,946
- Points
- 1,260
The wiki 5.56mm page is a little dated, with the AA12 "optimized" Brown Tip round being the short barrel favorite these days in circle that can get it (did I mention I have a few mags of it ;D)
The 7.62 page is worse.
I think a section/squad DMR or 'Recce' Rifle in a 16" 7.62 gun is a slick little number -- but not for everyone.
For the most the M80 147gr ball round is a poor terminal performer, and inside 150m your better off for unemposed targets to go with 5.56mm.
*Note the Long Neck upset of the M855 is much more common, especially with C77 ammuntion - so the bullet can exit most smaller framed folk when shot face on without significant damage.
The 7.62 page is worse.
I think a section/squad DMR or 'Recce' Rifle in a 16" 7.62 gun is a slick little number -- but not for everyone.
For the most the M80 147gr ball round is a poor terminal performer, and inside 150m your better off for unemposed targets to go with 5.56mm.
*Note the Long Neck upset of the M855 is much more common, especially with C77 ammuntion - so the bullet can exit most smaller framed folk when shot face on without significant damage.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,218
- Points
- 1,160
Infidel-6 said:
Can't beat 1 x C6 per section plus a C6 SF at Pl HQ as far as I'm concerned. All hail 'The General'.
How does 5.56 perform against body armour and light cover/ soft skinned vehicles compared with 7.62 inside 150/200m? I've shot a both with the latter but not with the former, and they were both toast.
Similar threads
