I can't find this guy's blog I stumbled upon a while ago where he wrote about why 6 to 7 millimeter caliber ogives have the best all around performance for an assault rifle cartridge. I tried to find it on Google but I didn't succeed. Have anyone heard of this website? If so, can someone give me the link?
>Inb4 trolling with shit memes links
And if you got any knowledge about this subject, do you think it's bullshit and it doesn't really matter or 6 to 7mm bullets really does have something special?
6 to 7 millimeter caliber rounds
Ayden Kelly
Other urls found in this thread:
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
abesguncave.com
abesguncave.com
g2mil.com
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
twitter.com
Sebastian Lewis
I'm just amazed to see how everyone ignored your post, OP.
Christian Torres
>this guy's blog I stumbled upon a while ago
Give us more details and description.
Colton Kelly
IMHO, military wise, while it is true that a bullet at this calibre range offers the most optimal compromise between ballistic performance and logistical issues, I still don't think anyone is going to replace .223 for another (albeit better) intermediate round. There's simply no justification for that to happen as long as small arms technology hasn't progressed to a point where each rifleman is expected to ACTUALLY effectively engage and hit armed opponents at ranges beyond 500 yard - for example an advanced computerised IR scope on every rifle that will make detection and accuracy a viable option for each grunt.
Right now the ballistic performance of your 5.56 round still exceeds the average soldier's ability to detect and actually hit real human targets that shoot back and don't want to get hit
Landon Thompson
Is this the blog?
Aaron Gray
>and then Afghanistan happened
Adam Walker
I knew that comment will come, but the fact of the matter is that no expects your common Jarhead rifleman to hit a sandnigger that is shooting at them with a pkm or svd, often indirectly, at ranges far exceeding 300 yards. There might be a designated marksman in his squad, the SAW gunners contribute on the virtue of being a source of automatic fire and in each US army and marine platoon there arw two organic M240 teams with tripods which are there to provide heavier automatic fire. Patrols also often go with a recoilless gum or a two-inch mortar.
And yet all that does not change the fact that a normal firefight in Afghanistan ends in thousands of rounds and a JDAM or two.
Jace Roberts
Or maybe we could use a caliber and rifle and training regimen that results in generic riflemen being able to make themselves useful in all types of terrain instead of standing around with a thumb up their arse.
"Typical infantry only need to engage targets within 300 meters. Oh, except for this time, this time, that time, and that time I'd rather you not mention..."
Carson White
you're missing the point, the problem is not the caliber nor the barrel length of the rifle, the problem is the human limitation of even SEEING a fellow human combatant that doesn't want to be seen or get hit even while shooting back at you. I'll remind you that for the most part of the 20th-century troops were equipped with heavy-duty bolt action rifles and later battle rifles and yet they were effective at about... what? 150 yards? Even the Soviets switched to an intermediate round while being in a war in Afghanistan (of all places). Today, If you're speaking on something like the American army of course, you have optics on almost every assault rifle (acog) but that improves the shooter ability to hit targets within the rather limited effective range rather than making them hit stuff at 500\600\etc yards. For these ranges, That's why every squad on earth go with SAWs and DMRs (sometimes) and pretty much every platoon of every army has at least one MMG team and\or other useful organic teams outside the squads.
Kevin Thompson
Hell, the Soviets switched from a 7.62 intermediate round to a 5.45 intermediate round...
The big difference is that they had x54R machine guns and SVDs to deal with longer range threats
>generic riflemen being able to make themselves useful in all types of terrain
That's the utopian goal nobody ever really managed to put in practice. The military already weeds out people for health problems, those who are not mentally or physically tough enough, etc.
You're starting off from a limited talent pool, you need to train them in several skills that are important for combat before shooting skill even becomes a factor, and now you actually have to turn them into marksmen... It's not realistic except for a very small force.
Oliver Evans
lol'd
what's your k/d in cod
Nolan Morales
what's yours kiddo?
Jayden Rodriguez
wouldn't know, don't play. just lol at you nerds who think it's realistic
I enjoyed your autistic rants though, much chuckles
William Ross
OP I did my best and found a few:
abesguncave.com
abesguncave.com
g2mil.com
There was a site by some guy called Tony Williams who proposed a 6.8/8/800 general purpose caliber. However it seems that the site host is going to die in a month and the website is down.
>do you think it's bullshit and it doesn't really matter or 6 to 7mm bullets really does have something special?
I think the reason behind the 6-7mm is the bullet selection. If you want to have kinetic energy at range you need both a good bullet form factor and some mass. Longer bullets can be streamlined while stubby bullets have poor aerodynamics. Basically if you try to stick a long and heavy bullet in a small caliber like 5.56 you take away too much case capacity and you'll need an even tighter twist rate to stabilize it. If you go with a higher caliber, at one point too much mass will lead to excessive recoil so you can't have the long streamlined bullets with the best aerodynamics. At that point you could just go with 7.62x51 and trade the masturbatory obsession with external ballistics for Real Fuckin' NATO. So the calibers between 6-7mm have the balance of heavy enough and slim enough to retain energy at range while not creating problems with recoil or case capacity.
Yeah he wrote articles about the concept but he's actually against it. They're good articles anyway.
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com
Jonathan Perez
Here's the thing though. Any 7.62 in Afghanistan is effective, only if the shots hit and that goes for any marksmen using a Mk14EBR, M110, or any other bullet dropping rifle. The 5.56 does not have any ballistic related problem or additional training within it's effectiveness, and you can already see that with the kill count curve only growing over the years when Chinese AR's and Obama Surplus hit the middle east theater. Most shots made out to more than 600 meters are more so luck than overall skill, and the typical nu-age militia sniper exaggerates his kill distance, with a mil spec 7.62 rounds.
Connor Perez
I'm a huge fan of 6.5 Grendel and Creedmoor, but doesnt most modern combat deaths attributable to rifles happen at something like 150m and below? The Spanish once made an intermediate round accurate out to 1000m, but found that such a capability didn't change much on a battlefield, since rarely did the opportunity to engage they enemy at 1000m present itself. Additionally, I think most militaries are also finding that volume of fire tends to be more effective at subduing an enemy than supremely accurate fire. So cheaper bullets that can fit more into a magazine are on the military's minds.
That being said, I'd really, really like to see Grendel get adopted, it's better than 5.56 in nearly every ballistic measurement.
Nathan Sullivan
Based effortposter.
Ian Ross
I wrote an entire reply and the cunt ass nigger commercial blocked me from doing the captcha and send it.
Julian Perry
Try sending it anyway. Maybe the error flag will get the ad to go away
David Martinez
>not using adaway or block this
>not using clover
Jason Hernandez
> most modern combat deaths attributable to rifles happen at something like 150m and below
Yes. 200m is the practical limit for any caliber when taking fire from competent enemies behind hard cover.
Lag time alone makes long range rifles an oxymoron. Use a magnified crewserve like a normal person.