lots of agreement but what is GD attempting ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I've long advocated a 6-7mm cartridge (the US Army 6mm SAW round had development potential) for man portable Platoon weapons, 10mm for a pistol or SMG and an enhanced 7-8mm cartridge for MMGs (a Co/Coy weapon IMO), some Sniper applications and vehicle weapons. A pepped up 8mm Remington Magnum (with an unbelted case), would work...
The .338 is a good cartridge but I think a bad compromise between 7.62 and 12.7; it's a little too big and like FNs abortive '15.5mm' too close to the 12.7 to be a really meaningful alternative.
It’s easy to agree with almost all of item 177. However believe its last sentence should be made explicit and commence:
The .338 is a good cartridge ' for a sniper’s bolt-action rifle ' but I think a bad compromise between 7.62 and 12.7 ' for use in any MG ' ;
There is one point of contention, that 10mm for pistol and SMG. 10mm might be preferred in the USA but many in NATO and affiliates would propose ' 9mm with alternate barrels for 6.5mm '.
But none of this throws light on what the usually astute GD really intends for its LWMMG.
In this case, Chris, I'm not sure we disagree...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris jM
The .338 Lapua (and now Norma) Magnum provide greater flexibility to a sniper team - they can use it from further away and can target a wider variety of targets than a 7.62mm weapon could...
Agreed -- which is why I suggested something in the 7-8mm Magnum range. Not likely to happen -- which is why I said '"conjecture" -- and the .338 exists and has found a military audience. I've never fired the .338 thus my opinion is based on talking to those who have -- most of whom agree totally with you (and point out to me there's no accepted 7-8mm Magnum round being offered as an alternative...). A few agree with me and point to the success of the .300 Win Mag rebarrel and new build programs here in the US, a program undertaken deliberately to let the .338 mature a bit more. :wry:
Quote:
The wider variety of targets a sniper can effect, including personnel or crew-served weapons behind cover, light vehicles, aircraft and radio equipment, increases the utility of these larger calibres. Being able to do so from further away, retaining stand off for the sniper team and thus increasing their own security can't be overlooked, either.
Also true. Others might be able to do much the same but the .338 is here...
Quote:
The big drawback is cost, both per round and barrel life.
I'd add 'and the gross system weight.' That can make a huge difference in Sniper and team effectiveness on lengthy missions in rough terrain...
Quote:
In my opinion the .338 machine gun is exciting, as it is the first MG we have seen designed around a modern rather than a legacy round. This exact design might not be a commercial success but I would suggest that it has huge potential in the naval and air machine gun roles where we currently see GPMG/M60 weapons used, as well as being a potentially potent GPMG replacement for light and motorised infantry formations.
I agree but believe affordability and locale-derived utility should be paramount factors in whether it is purchased or not. While it could eventually be a cost effective upgrade for 7.62 or thereabouts users, I suspect that for most nations who use the .50 in various weapons for those roles as opposed to a MAG/M240 the .338 would offer less capability than they now have and the ability to haul more Ammo is likely not critical. We'll see...
Do not be a military pilot of a bird that goes down in the wrong place...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
... I am guessing, in the military sense the generalized everyman can't hit anything with a pistol anyway.
True -- that's why they need one that will work regardless of shot placement..:D
Quote:
...especially if the larger calibre gums up the logistics system and is different from what the alllies use.
That's a myth. We have so many types of ammo floating about it's actually a funny statement. The 'Allies all the same' bit is handy for us when we want to sell weapons (or have 'Allies' stock some Ammo for us...), other than that, we ignore it.
Quote:
From what I've read, pistol calibres are fun to argue about but pistols don't really make any difference.
Not true; gotta watch those gun mags, they're written by a few good guys and a huge number of wannabes. Also got to watch 'studies,' there's often a lot of politics involved. Like the 'study' that got us the M9...:rolleyes:
A pistol doesn't make much difference if you just carry it and don't really use it -- unless that's all you have and you really have to use it, then what it is makes a big difference. :o
Quote:
If you expect to get into a fight, make sure you have a rifle or a tank or something really big.
Sounds good -- unfortunately, like a lot of stuff that reads well, reality differs. There's a reason officers, machine and missile gunners as well as a lot of aircrew and others were and are issued pistols. That same reason is why the pistol needs to be a reliable man stopper. ;)
ADDED. I initially ignored this but decide it was too important to not mention:
Quote:
If you don't have the time or skill for decent shot placement, it doesn't matter what the size the pistol round is.
It does matter. A great deal. I guess I didn't make the point very well above. In military combat, time for decent shot placement is often just not available. Skill enters into it but being bone tired, scared, soaking wet, mud covered, hungry and a few other debilitating things is the NORM and that norm has more adverse impact than lack of skill and / or fleeting targets. Good shot placement sounds great but it takes years -- not months, year -- of constant practice and a lot of Ammo to develop that much skill. That's affordable on cost and time grounds for the Special Operators but is not for most service people so those that must be armed with a pistol as a back up weapon or for portability / weight purposes need one that will stop people. Not wound them, stop them. As has often been said one doesn't need a pistol often but when you need one, you really need it bad -- and it better be one that will do what's needed under continued stress.
It's not nonsense. You guys read too much into things you read...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please?
Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.
True and not true. On the true, I've seen a guy with a 76mm (that's not a typo) round in his chest walk a couple of hundred meters to an aid station. I've seen a Viet Namese paratrooper with a live 40mm grenade in his abdomen get that removed at another aid station. I've also seen people take multiple .30 Cal (not 7.62, .30-06) hits and keep fighting, I've seen 7.62mm SMG rounds not even slow people down -- albeit briefly in both cases. Long story short, the human body is amazingly resilient -- and amazingly unpredictable. In the not true aspect, I've seen people die from innocuous things, minor wounds that frightened the wounded person too badly, A grenade fragment the Medics missed because it went up a nostril...
More importantly and pertinent, I' ve seen a great many knocked down or off balance or just frightened and thus taken out of action -- they were effectively 'stopped' though not dead. One memorable incident was a Chinese gentleman who was hit high in the right shoulder by one .30 round and who was partially turned but not 'knocked down' by the impact, who dropped his weapon and departed the area at a rapid run, screaming and holding his shoulder. He wasn't dead but he was stopped... :D
Combat is unpredictable and there are few 'rules' that are inviolate. That's why I wrote in the post that started thus sub thread: "...the issue is whether one wants a usually man stopping cartridge or a usually lightly wounding, rarely man stopping cartridge" (emphasis added / kw). Notice the phrasing; "man stopping" is NOT the same thing as "knock down" or even more so, fatal. Fatal was neither stated nor implied. Stopping is stopping and dissuasion or deterrence counts as much as death -- and are far easier to obtain. ;)
Quote:
Most lethal pistol hits are lethal because of bleeding, and no matter how big the hole in your leg or stomach, it cannot drain the blood from your arm instantly.
That's law enforcement and 'study' talk. While it's mostly true if a big slug hits you in the arm, you may or may not want to or be able to use that arm -- if you can't or won't use it, you are effectively, for combat purposes, stopped --as were almost all those folks I mentioned above. One also can be knocked off balance or simply diverted from further action, however briefly thus allowing a more decisive hit or another action (the Chinese gentleman cited above was while departing struck in the back with several more .30 bullets from a nearby BAR, causing his permanent removal from the rolls of combat effectives...). Lethal is nice but not always possible or necessary, stopping (impeding, diverting or deterring) is possible far more often and can be temporarily effective -- that's often good enough.
Quote:
The only thing that instantly kills is a hit to the central nervous system (including brain).[
Not true (define instant... :wry:). A brain stem nick introducing blood will kill just as quickly; a kidney hit is almost as quick (2 seconds on average, they say...) and as Ganulv mentioned an arterial strike can have a very rapid effect. An arterial hit in a limb or the thorax at the precise instant of systolic pressure can rupture heart or brain feeds. Cutting off the oxygen supply to that nervous system / brain by destroying lungs or the larynx is also fairly fast and can under some circumstances be instantly fatal. To corrupt a word, too many variables in human / animal physiognomy / physiology / metabolism / mental processing / state of rest or lack thereof (all aspects in all cases) and conditions for 'rules.' For example, while your next statement is true, it is also true that shredded or badly torn muscles and ligaments do not work well...
Quote:
Additionally, cutting the bone and/or nerve bundle in a leg drops a man and cutting the same in the weapon-wielding arm keeps him from returning fire. All else is unreliable.
Yes, it is unreliable -- virtually everything in combat is unreliable, but do the math, Economist; the odds favor mass and energy. ;)
9 vs 10mm pistol ammunition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
You are allowed to shoot them more then once with both pistol or a submachine gun, does it really make that much of a difference?
Yes it does. Many soldiers who regularly carry a pistol will – due to lack of training and practice or skill – fail to hit almost any close range target. Such soldiers (and many others) tend to instinctively fire several times. Since the 1940s, SMGs supplemented by a few shotguns plus hand grenades and flash-bangs have been more effective than any other combination of small arms for CQ combat in and around buildings. And to better overpower and intimidate opponents those SMGs are commonly switched to auto with semi-auto provided mainly for trickshooters. The 10mm ammunition has more knock-down power but 9mm is generally regarded as adequate.
So for military purposes there are two reasons why 9mm medium power pistol ammunition is better than 10mm high power ammunition that also weighs more. One, a lightly built male (or female) can better control a 9mm pistol because it has less recoil energy than the 10mm pistol. That heavier recoil is less of a problem with a 10mm SMG but still somewhat applicable. Two, for a given system weight the lighter 9mm pistol and also SMG can deliver more of those almost inevitable or irrepressible follow-on shots. And more initial shots also.
We can disagree on about all of that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Man-stopping sounds good, especially when you add enough qualifiers, but I reject it because there is no uniformly quantifiable "man" to be stopped. What stops one guy won't slow down another. So man-stopper is meaningless.
Your rejection is noted with a smile but the phrase isn't meaningless if the opponent is halted, stopped, deterred or whatever.
Quote:
...But whether that marginal advantage is worth the trouble of complicating your logistics is another matter. I figure it ain't worth it. You figure it is.
Not exactly, I figure it's a consideration IF this whole thread was more than the conjecture and idle thought that it is.
Quote:
One of the reasons is I don't figure it is worth it is because I don't think we actually have so many ammo types floating around that it is funny, if you disregard the spec ops types.
You need to get out more. If you mean calibers, you're right but you'd be amazed at the number of types within a given caliber...
Quote:
These are just pistols.
True and they're going to be secondary armament for most -- but that doesn't mean accepting less than optimum is desirable.
Quote:
If some guy is set on 10mm, he can buy it and carry it.
Not in the modern Yankee Army, that's frowned on excpet in a few units. Very few... :rolleyes:
Quote:
I don't see retooling the factories for a pistol round.
Nor do I and I didn't suggest that; I merely said that a potent 10mm round is better than a moderate 9mm round. ;)
Quote:
You were kidding when you said this about pistol rounds right?
"True -- that's why they need one that will work regardless of shot placement."
Yes -- and no. As I wrote, ideal shot placement isn't always possible, a better caliber would enhance the possibility of stopping an opponent -- that's true of the 9mm -- and of the 5.56 and, in view of the .338, of it as opposed to a 7.62. As you said, physics.
Quote:
P.S. If we were really serious about increasing the effectiveness of a pistol round, we would be talking about expanding rounds. But those aren't going to be fielded.
Of course not, the folks in Geneva get upset, the ICRC would have a cat fit... :D
Ideally as you mentioned, no pistols -- however, the need for portability and psychological support intrudes. Reality is so-o-o- annoying... ;)
