Printable View
Looks pretty good produced by Lithgow looks like an AUG but it goes very well indeed wonder if they will get a 308 version it may only be a 5.56 but does not do to bad a performance at the 1/2 size target at 600 yds. Muffet have you had anything to do with these or know of them field tested!
New Lithgow F90 Atrax Bullpup - YouTube
Rumour has it that a civilian version may make it on to the US market. We will see.
Sorry Cinders, my love affair with Lithgow ceased when the plastic fantastics came on the scene.
Blame Colt for not letting the M4 be licence built in Australia then =DQuote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Lets face facts guys normal Australian firearms owners won't be able to buy them here so I would suggest that they are targeted for the USA market, both in semi and full auto modes.
Dick
Yes there are to many of us loonies here according to our Govt that would want something like that, why don't they call all car drivers lunatics I mean how many people die in them and are run over by them yes us licensed firearm holders well we are just plain naughty........................................Not get enjoyment out of shooting one and owning it anyway sorry for digressing I just thought it was not a bad effort and seemed fairly simple in its operating features for the average soldier or crunchie proof as Peter L would put it
I don't think that there is anything wrong with using plastics in the construction of modern firearms, especially for the furniture. It is a durable, flexible and corrosion resistant material and if the part is carefully designed it should be long lasting. While plastic furniture would probably look odd on an historic firearm such as a Springfield 1903 equally wood furniture wood look odd attached to the firearm in post 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
I think Muffett had the F88 firmly in his sights when he mentioned Plastic Fantastics F10.
Not generally well received back in the late 1980's I believe...
It's interesting, last year while at the range a guy came over for a chat carrying a civilian Aug.
Never having handled the type before and being very used to my L1A1's, I t did give me an insight (though as civilian target shooter) as to what it must have been like to hand in your L1 and pick up an F88 for the first time...
Not to my taste I have to say, 5.56mm just seems a bit of a damp sqib, that said, perhaps I would feel different if I had to haul an L1 around in the field though!
They were the best thing since sliced bread for general service use. A clerk or cook etc could now hit the target with the low power donut sight and qualify. With the SLR marksmanship principals were important. With the Steyer all you had to do was put the target in the circle and you could hit the target easy from 1-300m. And no recoil punch in the face like the SLR.
There was a report done some time ago about the effectiveness of the 5.56 against certain hard & soft targets in Afghanistan and in the words of the soldiers that used the weapon including the 9mm they felt the round wanting as there were cases of multiple hits on enemy combatants and not putting them down. It also lacked penetration on the mud huts according to this report what the soldiers felt was the 7.62 Nato round was adequate for the job the 45ACP was a better choice than the 9mm the 50 BMG was still the Ma Deuce of the battle field in their opinion.
If clerks and cooks have to grab a rifle then the front is in dire straights sort of like the Ardennes in WWII
Not quite seen like that, all posted to an infantry unit must be well versed in weapons. All travelling overseas have to go through the same pre-deployment. All must be able to fight as infantry, even though that may not be expected. We can't have a small(by comparison) number fighting to protect a large number against undisclosed numbers. Gulf war one taught us that one...that's a long side story.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
I didn't say it was the best Infantry weapon. And sure 7.62 had the penetration/kill shock factor as well. I am sure you have used both.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
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.
This is another myth that started after the fact. The role of the infantry is to "Kill the enemy"... I never shot with intent to wound. I don't want him coming back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Although I have had foreign "gentleman" point loaded AK's at me in the past, that happily had more to do with separating me from my money than using me a target practice.
As a personal perspective, I am very pleased to be able to say I have never been shot at. My firearms experience is limited purely as a collector, student of and shooter of Milsurps, however if I found myself in a situation (god forbid) like the great sandbox and under fire, I would personally much rather trust my life to 7.62x51mm than 5.56mm. For that matter, I would probably be just as happy with .303 or .30-06!
They all work OK within their parameters...shot placement is everything. Cover from fire is hard to get through with one single round from anything. A number of rounds on the other hand...if you have them... Yes, bigger is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
I think the NATO change was more or less dictated by the US and the world wide trend for shorter range, urban combat, higher capacity lighter Infantry weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
I recall back in the early 1980's, rifles like the L1A1 were regarded as obsolete colonial war throw backs, too heavy, too long with a range and stopping power that was simply no longer required.
No one could possibly have foreseen the 10 years of combat in Afghanistan that were unfortunately to come.
5.56mm has shown it's limitations in that theatre.
#12 These are the people who made the comments not me on that report I was only paraphrasing what was said by them in that report which is from the people at the sharp end it will carry more weight if the brass is listening than some back room boffin playing with their slide rule that the 5.56 blows arms off and puts them down with hydraulic shock (ala Vietnam conflict). Besides I personally did not say anything belittling the 5.56!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by martins8589
As a clarification to #10 it was U.S troops that the survey/report was compiled by not Australian troops, sorry I omitted that which may have caused a tad of confusion.
This is what was told and explained to me and that is what I have repeated here for the first time since being told this over ten years ago. The person who told me this was ex military, I believe, and at the time in charge of a military museum; I didn't believe at the time he was talking rubbish or trying to start a myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
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!
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
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
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:
Thanks for finding that information, Cinders. My family had always assumed that it was ships which fired the shells because of the distance of the Clacton area of Essex from any part of France or other German held territory. During WW2 there was always a very limited amount of information available to the general public on things such as this, I guess, and so people made assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Not a problem F10 if you get the chance Google up the WWI "Paris Gun" the Germans had well there were 7 of them infact none captured, but the ballistics involved was quite interesting I found although people often mistakenly call them "Big Bertha" which is incorrect they were the German WWI 420mm Howitzers used to destroy the French Forts they were made by Krupp and were named after Krupps wife who perhaps she was a woman of stout proportions!:dunno:
The other thing that came over towards the end of the war in the Clacton area were a number of V1 Flying bombs which I suspect my father disliked more than shelling because somehow they seemed more sinister and you were never too sure when the jet engine would stop. My Father did tell me of a story when he and another boy "found" an intact V1 Flying bomb that had belly landed onto some marshland in Essex. My Father then went on to tell me that he and the friend then did everything humanly possible to try to get right up to the V1 because they wanted to "have a look at it". I suspect that they both wanted to do rather more than just look at it and, if truth be known, they most likely both wanted to have a really good fiddle with it. Fortunately, because of the ground conditions they couldn't get right up to it. I don't know what happened to it in the end.
Some of the inaccuracy and unfounded legend in this thread makes a guy like me almost crosseyed.
7.62 to punch through mud huts?
A 25mm Bushmaster autocannon won't punch through a mud hut unless using APDS, HEIT makes a pockmark. Our 7.62 beltfeds fared no better.
To assess 5.56mm is ineffective combat ammunition is flat out incorrect. I would rather be shot with 7.62 a second time, than once ever with 5.56mm
Shoot to wound, nope that is a myth, bad guys don't really stop to aid. Even first world training for wounded is self-aid, then buddy-aid, the firefight continues and when its over someone will fix you up on the consolidation. BAR has this myth wrapped up.
Next someone will tell me again that "bayonets can't be sharpened because of the Geneva convention"
Yikes fellows, we are usually much better at separating myth and legend around here.
Darren, for some of us that are not ex-military there is no way of knowing if some of the things that are told to us are true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
This wasn't exactly what was said rather it was a discussion between myself and a ex soldier on the pros and cons of the switch in calibre from 7.62mm to 5.56mm. It was the ex soldier who told me that part of the reasoning but not the sole reason, as I stated previously, was to cause injuries and tie up enemy personnel and resources in dealing with the casualty. I didn't know if the ex soldier was right or wrong and I am hardly the person to tell him that he didn't know what he was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
All I was doing in this thread was bring the information which I was told and placing it on the table for discussion/debate.
Thank you...for f*ck sakes...finally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
Nope this is finally Jim no lack of penetration and no myths :thup:.....................................https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...EfO3OCWmox-xuA
Well there are numerous veterans on this site, and more than a few with combat experience, ask any of them, phrase it directly, it can be the best way separate out the chaff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
The wound vs kill myth has been around at least since the Hague convention, and long before 5.56mm was a thing. It seems hold water reasonabily enough in a logical sense, but not in practicality.
A combat section would not stop fighting to carry guys away. The battle rages on until one side is destroyed or combat power exhausted. Wounding 1 removes 1 guy from the fight, that is it. After the fight during consolidation things evolve.
In modern cases a critically wounded soldier must be in surgery within the "golden hour" or he dies in the field.
Only in modern times have we been able to routinely airlift troops to hospital inside that window.
A lot of folks have this movie mindset about battles and its understandable, but in the chaos of combat, dead and wounded guys are realized after the firefight is over, when things go quiet and the ringing in your ears hasn't yet subsided.
When it comes to word of mouth military lore there is one good litmus test for this sort of thing:
To quote the now retired Regimental Adjutant of the PPCLI, Capt. Y*********: "Show me (where it says that) in the manual."
It was a fine way of putting everything back in perspective for anyone spouting off something they'd heard as absolute fact, it worked from idiot Privates to smug Colonels.
While intresting discussion points military myth, legend, and lore does everyone a dis-service when presented as a credible fact.
I don't want to needle at you or anyone in specific, I grabbed a variety of points observed that needed addressing. If I were to restate the sten gun fired when dropped I would expect Capt Laidler to verbally have me by the ears, shaking my head until the mushy bits inside rattled.
There are so many superstitions and false beliefs among military members and many are quite fun, passed from generation of troop to generation but we must always try to define fact from fiction, especially on a site of this prestige.
How would suggest presenting the information to the Forum, Darren? I presented it as "Someone once told me-----" which wasn't intended as a statement of fact, not to be challenged by others.
Well I don't really want this to get personal in public and we could chatter via PM if you'd like.
Or I suppose we could all choose to agree that the ex-soldier was simply repeating something he'd heard, which we now know is incorrect based on the statements of two recently retired Infantry soldiers.
Are you able to give us some reasoning behind this statement, please, Darren? Is it because of the tumbling effect that may be present with a 5.56mm round or is there some other reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
Surely I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Its experience based and I haven't bothered to figure out the physics though.
Call them case studies I suppose.
Soldier 1
Shot from unknown distance with 7.62x39, left shoulder, exited shoulder blade, missed trauma plates, returned to combat duty in 3-4 weeks after in theatre rehab.
Soldier 2
Shot from 150m with 7.62x51, struck right leg muscle, no bone strike, still combat effective until firefight ended returned to combat duty in 10 days
Soldier 3
Shot from unknown distance with 7.62x54R suffer multiple strikes to rear trauma plate, suffered no injury.
Soldier 4
Shot at close range with 7.62x51 and struck in both lower legs. No bone hit, passed through with puncture type wounds, returned to combat duty in less than 21 days.
Soldier 5
Shot at unknown range 5.45mm struck both lower legs, bones shattered, much of muscle tissue obliterated. Presumed double amputee, Afghan soldier no follow up.
Soldier 6
Shot unknown range with 7.62x39 in right foot. Unknown exact damage, limping, still in the fight, Afghan police no long term follow up.
Seem circumstances in published medical reports identical to Soldier 2 with 5.56mm, amputation outcome.
I think that the heavier 7.62 rounds 123, 150 and 174 grain at 2500 velocity are much more stable in tissue and continue to carry on straighter through their path.
Lighter 55, 62 grain 5.56/5.45 travelling at 3000+ fps seem to destabilize as soon as they enounter tissue and cause havoc on their way out.
No science, just professional observation, and some educated guesses.
It does sounds like the 5.56mm round is tumbling as it passes through the body to cause the injuries which you describe.
It may be, many ballistics tests state a 5.56 does not tumble until several inches into flesh, but I believe these tests seldom account for clothing and equipment that troops carry that would affect bullet performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Really the "published" intent of these 5.56/5.45 rounds is to increase the damage over the 30 cal ball. To increase the wound capability, which likely is mistaken/misquoted for designed only to wound.
Shot placement appears to be everything with a 30 cal, ball unless it hits bone or perforates an organ it carries on its merry way leaving neat hole.
Small cal ball is a little hornet that does miserable stuff if it does tap you. Especially the little 55 gr, ghastly.
Lots of other elements to this obviously, but small hyper velocity projectiles are worrying.
And you want one in your collection...Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------
Does it now? How about the extreme high velocity and hydrastatic shock? 7.62 is dragging through by comparison. They all tumble with time, do your own comparison some time with various targets and witness screens. Come out from behind the computer for a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
By going over to 5.56mm for the reasons that you state has the soldier armed with a 5.56mm rifle sacrificed some of his ability to hit targets at greater range or would you still expect to hit distant targets at least as effectively as you would with a 7.62mm round? Or is there a case for arming a few soldiers in a platoon with a automatic rifle firing 7.62mm Nato (I'm not taking about sniper's rifles here which I've left out of the equation.) while the majority retain the 5.56mm round?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
Seems to have wandered a tad but thank you Darren for taking the time to explain facts that are never published for us with non military experience it is not that we are trying to be rude to you ex or serving personnel its a fact that allot of what we learn is probably 1000 stories old and far from the truth or someones take on how it should be presented.
As you know when you do an accident investigation you cannot push it the way you think it should go there is a procedure and that's it to the letter. Otherwise the result is flawed and the controls to eliminate another possible accident will not be implemented correctly.
So probably to you all out there I never intend to frustrate you all but what we learn from your experiences can set the record straight over a whole lot of bunkum that is out there, I have said before and will again you have my utmost respect for doing what you do or have done.
F10, the British Army employ the L129A1, basically a 7.62x51 AR as it's designated Marksman Rifle.
The rifle gave good service in Afghanistan, giving the ability to "reach out" to the troops on occasions where the extra punch and range were needed.
I suppose the fact that 5.56 was found wanting (in longer range engagements), leading to the UOR that led to the excellent L129A1 procurement, will no doubt mean a new calibre selection for NATO post 2020.
I dare say one of the new wave of intermediate calibres will fit the bill.
Cinders, Darren, volunteered the information to the thread, or at least I thought that he did, he joined the discussion of which the topic in question was the effect of the 5.56mm round verse the 7.62mm round. I didn't know that he was going to join the thread and didn't ask him to but he brought the subject up again and so I assumed that he was happy to discuss it with others.
To give you an idea of the gyroscopic forces if I am correct in my summation ~ a 5.56mm FMJ out of a 12" with say a 1 in 12 twist barrel (this is just for easy mathematics) and the velocity is 3000fps therefore the rotation of that 55gn pill will be 3000 revs a second so we have a lightly jacketed projectile whose jacket has been engraved with rifling marks when it hits it is so thin it is a grenade that is still doing pretty close to the 3000 revs a second. (hopefully I got this right?) When I hit rabbits with my 22/250 1-12TR with 55gn Sierra Blitz Kings going 3650fps they just blow up.
Where as a 7.62FMJ say with a 1-14 twist rate slower and a heavily constructed jacket going at say 2650fps is less liable to fragment or fly to bits it may deform depending on what it hits going through but backs up from what sentryduty has said however I have shot 308 168gn A max into foxes and the wounds are devastating
Cinders, F10, fellows, nothing to worry on here, given the correct situation and audience I will answer nearly anything about my experience I am asked, its my nature. However in some circumstances, generally unwitting non-military interested civilians, will ask something they regret learning the answer to... LOL, for example; Don't ask me how children are treated "over-there" without be prepared to learn what a "pretty-boy" is...
No harm in asking me things, none at all.
More to follow on loadouts and equipment observations as I have the time to type them out.
The worst is when they try to empathize..."I understand (they say)...It's like when you..." And you tell them "No...it's not". Then you tell them the truth and get shunned as a barbarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
Permitted by officials with turned heads...Wiki has it pretty much pegged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
Bacha bazi - Wikipedia