Assault rifles and their ammunition:history and prospects

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by KalashnikovJosh, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    i wouldnt be suprised if alot of the fanboys take offence to that article. the 556 fanboys think their rounds can kill something at a 1000 yards just cause they can hit it even though the bullet would not do much more than break the skin. and the 762 fanboys think that...well their reasoning is more sound. atleast their guns dont jam every clip. but their range and accuracy blow balls too. i have wondered why the 6.8 didnt get popular and now i guess i understand... the never ending fued between the fanboy groups has all but halted progress.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2010

  2. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    Anyone who understands the nature of what an 'assault rifle' is should understand that the intermediate cartridge as a concept was not intended to perform like a full size rifle round.

    That being said,both the 5.56 and the 7.62 intermediate cartridges and the weapons designed to fire them each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages.

    But they both share deficiencies that the developments of newer cartridges and some of the new concepts in gas systems solve quite nicely,pretty much combining the strengths of previous assault rifles and the range of a 'real' rifle.

    All it will take is the military adoption of a new rifle in a major nation-but historically,that usually takes a major conflict and one side to be seriously out-gunned;for example,the story of the Springfield '03.
  3. JonM

    JonM Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    5.56 is good enough out to 400-500yds. when engagement ranges hit further distances swap uppers. need to punch big 45-50cal holes swap uppers. need to shoot 7.62x39 another swap. the AR platform is proving to be far more useful than the round it was designed for.

    i like the little 5.56 and the 7.62x39. they are fun to shoot. but i dont use them for hunting. i dont think a mid sized cartridge is good enough to reliably take large game. removing nuisance animals like coyotes they work.

    thats my take on it
  4. powg

    powg New Member

    assault rifles /ammo

    very good read ...its ironic that every country or gov for that matter thinks they have the best answer....damn if the whole world could agree and produce only one type of ammo that was in their minds as the most devastating and lethal known to man .....maybe we wouldnt have to have any more wars ......think of it..... as a miniature nuke just thinking out loud . would my framing hammer be considered an assault weapon if i painted it black
  5. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    A buddy of mine come back from Iraq and said a few times the 5.56 round was pretty god but would not go through a front windshield in an oncoming vehicle too well. The 7.62x39 on the other hand did much better. I'm not sure how often that scenario played out for him but it was something he talked about when comparing the two rounds after he got back. Before he left he was the ultimate 5.56 fanboy. He still deer hunts with an AR saying most deer don't have a windshield.
  6. diggsbakes

    diggsbakes New Member

    Nice link! Every military weapon enthusiast should know exactly how and why those weapons were designed and their intended purpose.

    I'll never feel the need to own a 7.62 x 39 upper though. That cartridge belongs in an AK. Everyone should allow themselves the privilege of enjoying it like its supposed to. ;)
  7. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    Honestly-I lean so much toward the semiautomatic versions of the AK over the semi-auto versions of the AR because of many things-but more so because the price is right for a decent AK and it fits the same criteria as the AR-both are carbine length rifles;firing an intermediate cartridge from a high capacity magazine.

    Honestly,I believe both rifles are pretty much equal -all inherent strengths and weaknesses considered- and the choice of one over the other is a personal one.

    But when we start looking to the future-thats when things get very interesting!
  8. diggsbakes

    diggsbakes New Member

    I have owned and loved members of the AK family for over a decade. Now the AR is growing on me.

    The low cost of owning and shooting AKs is definitely appealing. But I've been shooting some great ARs lately: LWRC piston driven, SR556 and even just a plain ol Bushmaster with a fixed carry handle and I'll say it is a different sort of fun when you can make consistent hits past 150 yards at a faster rate of fire.

    Would I ever replace the AK with an AR? HELL NO! But I am finding that the AR has it's place in my life as well.

    I used to ONLY have AKs as my SHTF gun options, but after building my first AR and knowing the weapon. The idea that replacement parts, magazines and ammo are so abundant in our country. The AR makes a lot of sense as well. . . There will be one of each. ;)

    In the words of a wise gun enthusiast and expert "Own both, learn both and shoot both!"
  9. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    I hear that.

    But I'm on a very limited budget,so I can only really own what is very affordable and shoot my friends guns when they let me.:D

    A wise man also once said-

    "Beware the man who has only one gun,cause he damn sure will know how to use it"!;)

    But yeah,I've shot DPMS .308s and all sorts of ARs and other stuff of various friends.

    I do like both AK and AR.I have a soft spot for the FNFAL.As soon as I can afford it,I'll find me a good FAL.......

    But even if I was filthy rich-I'd still have a bunch of AKs!
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2010
  10. mrasgt

    mrasgt New Member

    Good Read....

    Since, unfortunately, I did not serve my country in the Military, I found this paper very informative.

    I would like to find a collection of stories from actual armed conflict with the
    .556 from our soldiers regarding lethality of the round. I have heard from a couple of guys coming back from combat that they had thier issues about targets going down. But I've not heard or seen much about specifics.
    If anyone can lead me here, please do, I'm here to learn.

    I always kind of thought that the yaw of the round would drop a target, I've learned a lot more from this paper.

    It does seem like the 6.8 is a good answer, but to get the government to change, as this paper suggests, is gonna be hard.

    I am trained and must qualify with the AR-15, and we do more than most in this area. I carry one every day and own my own and work on my own at the range.

    Our area almost never sees an AR deployed, but that does'nt mean we should'nt be ready.

    I obviously do not have combat experience to rely on, so I ask and read hoping to learn.

    Stay safe,