Some down under stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Someone once told me that one of the factors, but not the only one, in making the decision to switch from 7.62mm to 5.56mm calibre for the standard infantry rifle for the British army was that it was much more inconvenient to seriously wound your enemy than to kill him. This is because the downed enemy soldier has to be given first aid and then a helicopter may have to be brought in with the associated risk to the helicopter. If the enemy soldier is killed outright then, obviously, they don't have the problem of dealing with a seriously wounded man.

---

I was basically told a similar thing when I did my basic. It takes more troops to remove wounded than a killed solider, thus removing more troops from the fight. I NEVER accepted the theory. No good going up against someone that doesn't care about their troops till they have overrun you. I would of rather of had 7.62x51 that knocked the enemy down and if possible the man behind them.

When your heavily out numbered your not interested in hurting the guy and his mates helping him, you want to know that your round puts him down and he stays down.

The old banter of 7.62 v 5.56 is dieing out now as the old swets retire. I used to have a 7.62 round, a 5.56 round and ask the lads which they would prefer. They always went for the 7.62 and then I'd give the 120 rounds of each and tell them to stand with them for 10 minutes. They soon liked the 5.56. I also used to throw a 22-250 into the mix to see what they would say. That was a good round in my opinion, a real flat trajectory. Our local Police Force used them as marksman rifles (Remington 700 I think)

Will a 5.56mm round "tumble" through it's target as much when fired from a rifle other than the American M16 such as the British SA80? The American M16 is well known for firing it's round so that it's just stable in flight and then "tumbles" through it's target and I wondered if other modern military rifles of the same calibre produced similar results under similar conditions.

At one of the military museums in the U.K. I do remember seeing a Flak Jacket that had been worn by a British soldier serving in Northern Ireland when he had been shot multiple times by the IRA with a M16. The jacket was in a heck of a mess and I believe that the soldier was knocked to the ground and may have suffered broken ribs but the jacket saved his life.

There has to be more to that story, a 5.56 round will go clean through both sides of that era of flack jacket and the man inside too. They were for low velocity missiles and fragmentation. Perhaps it wasn't a flack jacket...there were sniper vests that were proof, but they had steel plates.

The twist of the barrel determines whether the bullet is stable or not, it isn't the country of manufacture or the specific rifle. any bullet regardless of size or caliber will tumble after striking something, just how much and how quick is the question.

The vest was in a right state, torn to bits but the soldier inside survived any serious injury. I think that it would have been the late 1970s period.

F10, if you get a chance to go for a range day were multiple calibres are being used, you can "see" the difference in the calibres, via the energy transfer to the target holders.

While hardly scientific, 5.56mm will punch a clean hole through the thick fibre board at 200yds with no noticeable movement of the holder ... Try the same thing with .30-06 and watch that freight train slam into the target, you can visibility see the energy transfer and watch the heavy target holder rock back on its mounting.

Even better, watch a slow moving black powder .577 ripping down range, sounding like an Angy hornet, the energy imparted on impact is enormous.. one can only imagine the horrific wounds imparted by those on the battlefield, makes you shudder!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Even better, watch a slow moving black powder .577 ripping down range, sounding like an Angy hornet,

---

My dad use to tell me about hearing shells passing overhead, during WW2, while living on the Essex coast as a child. The shells made a sort of screaming sound, apparently, as they passed overhead and went inland. I don't think that any landed in the local area and most probably landed in open countryside; don't know of any damage. He seemed to think that they were probably fired by German ships in the channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

the energy transfer to the target holders.

---

Known as kinetic energy. The difference between large caliber slow and small caliber high...(velocity). All part of the firepower and penetration demonstrations done for the troops. The said flack jackets were a regular target because we didn't want the troops to believe they were "Bullet proof".

They were not ships but land based large caliber guns on the French coast see links;
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...Da2taoXJnVqPJw
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...n4YtHLPBa1ovKw

A typical dirty underhand Nazi trick Cinders :lol: