860 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

Blackwater developed a up-gunned version of the M-4 that is chambered for .50 cal rounds. It is a beast, it's intended for cqc conditions though.

 

.50AE or .50S&W ?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Eh, they all have American signs on them. Still the first Jet is German! Nothing can change that.

 

And here it is... the gif that proves submarines are better than careers!

 

[bEVEsthda]

Eh, they all have American signs on them. Still the first Jet is German! Nothing can change that.

 

And here it is... the gif that proves submarines are better than careers!

 

 

Of course they're all American. The question was: which of them weren't originated during WW2?

...and it's a trick question. Which maybe makes it easy to answer. 

[bEVEsthda]

I'm replacing it with a more compressed, lower quality version.

It's  781 X 1024.

 

 

Meanwhile, I can't see yours?

[Dermain]

AK's image link appears broken, unless you guys are referring to a different image that I'm not seeing a all.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I'm replacing it with a more compressed, lower quality version.

It's  781 X 1024.

 

 

Meanwhile, I can't see yours?

 

Thanks for the effort if you copy-pasted all these planes into one pic.

[bEVEsthda]

I apologize, I really have no idea. I just find military tech interesting and only have a passing knowledge of it sorry. I believe it's named after the Grendel.

Edited: Scratch that the .50 cal variant is called Beowulf the 6.5mm is Grendel.

 

OK. The 6.5 Grendel cartridge was developed to give the short barrel M4 better performance at longer ranges.

The .50 Beowulf is more intended to give the M4 better performance against vehicles. It's very similar to .50 S&W, but rimless, and supposedly evolved from .50AE.

 

I wasn't aware either had been adopted by any organisation though.

[bEVEsthda]

Thanks for the effort if you copy-pasted all these planes into one pic.

 

I did. I did it incompetently and sloppily though. I did learn a ton of how to do that, but only as the image was mostly finished.

I know better how to, next time. The project was originally for a friend of mine, who is mostly clueless about military history, but was convinced Germany had a massive technological lead towards the end of WW2. And had a big row with me. He didn't really let me say anything at all, just shouted me down all the time.

[Dermain]

I did. I did it incompetently and sloppily though. I did learn a ton of how to do that, but only as the image was mostly finished.

I know better how to, next time. The project was originally for a friend of mine, who is mostly clueless about military history, but was convinced Germany had a massive technological lead towards the end of WW2. And had a big row with me. He didn't really let me say anything at all, just shouted me down all the time.

 

Sounds like a bad friend to have a debate with.

[Giant ambush beetle]

Here is my new .22 ''mini sniper''. 

 

 

Shoots 20mm groups at 100 meters, and its so quiet with sub sonic ammo no hearing protection is required, at 50 meters it sounds like breaking tree branch. But it punches through 5cm of hard wood easily. 

 

 

100, 5 rounds:

[bEVEsthda]

Sounds like a bad friend to have a debate with.

 

He's actually a very good friend, (extremely good friend) and highly rational, normally. I don't know why he got so desperate that time.

I was slightly disappointed though, that he respected my WW2 and aviation expertise so little.

[bEVEsthda]

Here is my new .22 ''mini sniper''. 

 

 

 

Shoots 20mm groups at 100 meters and its so quiet with sub sonic ammo no hearing protection is required, it sounds like an air rifle. But it punches through 5cm of hard wood easily. 

 

 

 

Very nice. That is not the rifle as much as the shooter, though.

(lot's of cheating though, optical sight, bipod,..  )

 

I'd still wear ear protection though. I used to shoot a lot of .22LR during my competing years, and the story that got around with us, was that there is a very sharp spike from 22.LR, that, while not very audible, does a lot of damage to the hearing.

[Giant ambush beetle]

Very nice. That is not the rifle as much as the shooter, though.(lot's of cheating though, optical sight, bipod,.. )

Thank you. I shoot mostly iron sights, so I decided to cheat a little with this gun. Its really relaxing shooting a scoped 22, little noise, no recoil, and easy to aim with the scope. My other rifles are chambered in big calibers, recoil a lot and their sights were designed 70-100 years ago. SO I need some off time with the 22.

 

Here my swiss G11 from 1913 at 100 meters. Still needs a shorter front sight. 

 

 
 
I always wear ear protection when shooting firearms, what I mean is it is not really necessary since you wont go deaf when firing it. Though I think aging does more damage to your hearing than the .22. 

[vometia]

OK. The 6.5 Grendel cartridge was developed to give the short barrel M4 better performance at longer ranges.

I understand it's ballistically quite similar to the .280 British which was proposed way back in the 1950s! We got the over-powered 7.62 NATO instead, which was no improvement over any of the mainstream WWII rounds, just incompatible with all of them. I'm sure they'll get there in the end!
 

I know better how to, next time. The project was originally for a friend of mine, who is mostly clueless about military history, but was convinced Germany had a massive technological lead towards the end of WW2. And had a big row with me. He didn't really let me say anything at all, just shouted me down all the time.

The "built with German Awesome!" thing is quite a difficult challenge to overcome. Especially in the UK, where understatement has subsequently been taken to mean that all our equipment was crap, so a lot of pretty good innovation is overlooked.

[Giant ambush beetle]

I understand it's ballistically quite similar to the .280 British which was proposed way back in the 1950s! We got the over-powered 7.62 NATO instead, which was no improvement over any of the mainstream WWII rounds

Overpowered? Tell that those troops that have troubles stopping cars with the 556 because it shatters when its hitting glass not to mention car engines. Also those that get engaged by the enemy at long distances with WWII rifles all wish they had 7.62's so they could return fire because they can't reach them with the 556. Not to mention the enemy hiding behind concrete and brick walls, the 7.62 will punch through after 1-3 rounds, the 556wont. 

 

I know if I had to go to war I'd like to carry a gun chambered in a multi-purpose caliber that's good in any situation I might encounter. Yes, that means carrying around more weight and a bulkier weapon, but that's small trade off, especially for a large guy. 

 

You can't hide from a 7.62, it will drill through most kinds of cover typically encountered on the battlefield, you have more range, less wind drift and thus more accuracy - and all that gives you a significant advantage. 

[vometia]

Overpowered? Tell that those troops that have troubles stopping cars with the 556 because it shatters when its hitting glass not to mention car engines. Also those that get engaged by the enemy at long distances with WWII rifles all wish they had 7.62's so they could return fire because they can't reach them with the 556. Not to mention the enemy hiding behind concrete and brick walls, the 7.62 will punch through after 1-3 rounds, the 556wont. 
 
I know if I had to go to war I'd like to carry a gun chambered in a multi-purpose caliber that's good in any situation I might encounter. Yes, that means carrying around more weight and a bulkier weapon, but that's small trade off, especially for a large guy. 
 
You can't hide from a 7.62, it will drill through most kinds of cover typically encountered on the battlefield, you have more range, less wind drift and thus more accuracy - and all that gives you a significant advantage.

The 5.56 is underpowered. The trouble with the 7.62 is that it's practically impossible to fire it on full-auto in anything other than a "light" machine gun. The .280 was a compromise in much the same vein as the Soviet 7.62x39.

[Giant ambush beetle]

The 5.56 is underpowered. The trouble with the 7.62 is that it's practically impossible to fire it on full-auto in anything other than a "light" machine gun. The .280 was a compromise in much the same vein as the Soviet 7.62x39.

Agreed, but full auto is for cover fire only, and that's the job of a LMG, no need for a 7.62. If I were in charge of my countries military armaments I'd give them all semi auto 7.62 rifles, make them skilled riflemen and for every 5 guys with a 7.62 I'd give one a 556 LMG for cover fire exclusively. 

[vometia]

Agreed, but full auto is for cover fire only, and that's the job of a LMG, no need for a 7.62. If I were in charge of my countries military armaments I'd give them all semi auto 7.62 rifles, make them skilled riflemen and for every 5 guys with a 7.62 I'd give one a 556 LMG for cover fire exclusively.

That's pretty much what the UK and US had way back anyway. When I was in the Army in the early '80s, the standard weapons were the SLR (licence-made FAL), the Bren for squad-automatic roles and the GPMG (licence-made MAG) for more serious machine-gunning roles. Other duties were done by the Sterling SMG firing quite a hot version of the 9x19. It wasn't a bad weapons system, but it was generally considered that the lack of full-auto for every infantryman was a bad thing. Okay, I'm smaller than a typical infantryman, but firing an SLR on semi was bad enough.

The proposed combination of the .280 EM-2 and Taden is probably "the best infantry small-arms system that never was". It's ironic that the FAL took its place so successfully as that was also originally designed for the .280.

[bEVEsthda]

.556 is quite fine from a long barrel. Depending upon bullet, it even has decent penetration capabilities. The problems which rose to the surface with Afghanistan was that: 1 - everyone favors the short barrel for comfort, but the short barrel only has 25% of the lethality of the long barrel beyond 50m or something like that. 2 - at short range the bullet is so fast that it tends to fragment if it hits something hard. 3 - since it's so light, the bullet is easily deflected by anything in its path. 4 - the performance drops at very long ranges, even from the long barrel. Calibers like 6.5 Grendel and similar seem to overcome all these weaknesses, but would cost a lot to convert to. ...And next war is not necessarily in Afghanistan. The solution which will be adopted, is a new, hotter cartridge that develops its pressure faster, and stomps out the bullet at speed, even from a short barrel. Not ideal, but cheaper.

 

.556 is considerably more deadly than the old Soviet 7.62 X 39, which is why the Russians have also switched to smaller, faster bullets.