PDA

View Full Version : If you want to talk guns, I have a few for you



cs
08-27-2009, 09:57 PM
M4

http://www.famous-guns.com/wp-content/uploads/colt-m4-05-cqbr.jpg


M249
http://www.sfg-clan.net/COD4/weapons/m249saw.jpg

M240B

http://www.geocities.com/cavscout031/equipment/sam240b.jpg

M2

http://olivedrab.cachefly.net/firearms_mg_m2_04.jpg

Make no mistake, these are designed for one purpose and one purpose only.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:00 PM
totally different parameters than a wilderness float trip...and talk about BULK the ammo will weigh more than the little take-down .22 and your food together...

JimD
08-27-2009, 10:03 PM
...Make no mistake, these are designed for one purpose and one purpose only.

Chad

Say it ain't so, Chad! You mean they're not for target shooting? Not a play thing for kids at Sunday after church gun fairs? ;) PS I'll have one of each, please.

cs
08-27-2009, 10:05 PM
No comparison at all, although the M4 and the M249 is nothing but an overgrown 22 (.222 compared to .223). These guns have a completely different function and are for one purpose only. Just thought I might share a glimpse.

Chad

cs
08-27-2009, 10:07 PM
Say it ain't so, Chad! You mean they're not for target shooting? Not a play thing for kids at Sunday after church gun fairs? ;) PS I'll have one of each, please.

I might be willing to trade a few for some more of these.

M9

http://manual.americasarmy.com/images/b/b6/M9-400.jpg

Chad

The Bigfella
08-27-2009, 10:09 PM
If you are going to carry an M4, you better get used to doing a lot of cleaning - they are very susceptible to dust and powder residue - and jam about 3 times as often as the M16 in similar conditions.

I know they went to 5.56 because you can carry more ammo... but I guy I knew who fought in Rhodesia reckoned that the 7.62 was much better at dealing with guys who thought they could hide behind trees.

cs
08-27-2009, 10:11 PM
That is why the M240B was introduced, 7.62mm.

And for walking around the FOB I would rather carry a M9 than any of the others. Out on a mission I'll stick with the M4.

Chad

S/V Laura Ellen
08-27-2009, 10:15 PM
I think I'll surf over to the gun forums and see if there is any wooden boat related activity!

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:17 PM
I think I'll surf over to the gun forums and see if there is any wooden boat related activity!

bet we could get some started... :)

cs
08-27-2009, 10:17 PM
LOL!

I thought if they were going to talk guns that I might just through in the real thing and be done with it. I'll never make any claim that the weapons show above are for anything but for one purpose and one purpose only.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:19 PM
LOL!

I thought if they were going to talk guns that I might just through in the real thing and be done with it. I'll never make any claim that the weapons show above are for anything but for one purpose and one purpose only.

Chad

to tote around and clean...constantly :)

cs
08-27-2009, 10:27 PM
Well it is your best friend.

Who I feel sorry for is the poor saps who have a M249 as their personal weapon.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-27-2009, 10:47 PM
Well it is your best friend.

Who I feel sorry for is the poor saps who have a M249 as their personal weapon.

Chad

how much ammo does he/she have to carry? (can we have that in pounds?)

pipefitter
08-27-2009, 11:19 PM
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/80-3/Barret_M82.jpg

pipefitter
08-27-2009, 11:35 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Five-seveN_USG.jpg/800px-Five-seveN_USG.jpg

FN's Five-seveNŽ Pistol

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
08-28-2009, 02:04 AM
If you are going to carry an M4, you better get used to doing a lot of cleaning - they are very susceptible to dust and powder residue - and jam about 3 times as often as the M16 in similar conditions.

I know they went to 5.56 because you can carry more ammo... but I guy I knew who fought in Rhodesia reckoned that the 7.62 was much better at dealing with guys who thought they could hide behind trees.

Have you noticed the spate of new AR-style rifles but with gas and cylinder operating systems instead of direct gas impingement? Everything old is new again. A piston system adds a bit of weight, but is more reliable, keeps powder out of the action, keeps the action cooler, cleaner. I especially like the looks of the Ruger SR-556. I am normally not a fan of Rugers, but the specs look pretty good. Hammer-forged barrel of 41V45, and chrome lined, chromed bolt and piston, 4 position gas regulator (including "off" for suppressed fire, clearly aimed for the military to compete with the recently adopted SCAR rifle), nice sights and stocks. A little heavy for a gun in 5.56, and pricey at $2000, but if they make one in 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester), I would be more interested, though I still don't need one.

ChaseKenyon
08-28-2009, 02:42 AM
That is why the M240B was introduced, 7.62mm.

And for walking around the FOB I would rather carry a M9 than any of the others. Out on a mission I'll stick with the M4.

Chad

Idunno, I have used some pretty accurate and high power silent Crossbows on occasion. Bet Paladin has too. LOL

brad9798
08-28-2009, 06:52 AM
Any CanAmericans want to name this one

I don't know ... prolly something to do with The Road Warrior, though! :D

Krunch
08-28-2009, 07:32 AM
No comparison at all, although the M4 and the M249 is nothing but an overgrown 22 (.222 compared to .223).

Huh??? WTF are you talking about?

Krunch
08-28-2009, 07:42 AM
22 rimfire (which shoots a bullet of .224" diameter, by the way, as do the .222 Rem and .223 Rem) is a completely different animal in terms of effective range and power compared to the centerfire cartridges (222 and 223).

To call a 222 or 223 an "overgrown 22" is like calling a 747 an "overgrown Cessna."

Oh, and the M4 and M249 SAW both shoot 5.56 (223).

ishmael
08-28-2009, 08:02 AM
Good luck in your coming deployment, Chad. I can't offer sincerely or heartily enough a thanks for what you folks do. I sometimes disagree with the politics, but thank you for being a soldier. Someone has to do it, and I'm too fricken old for most of the work.

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 08:19 AM
http://www.geocities.com/cavscout031/equipment/sam240b.jpg





I'd like one of these Chad. Will it be more convenient for me to stop by your place and pick mine up before or after you return from Mississippi? :)

PeterSibley
08-28-2009, 08:34 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/SLRL1A1.jpg/800px-SLRL1A1.jpg

I can't say I like the look of the current Aussie army rifle though....

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/steyr_aug.jpg

I do ,an excellent weapon .

PeterSibley
08-28-2009, 08:41 AM
This is the July '39 .22 prototype

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-australian/owen-prototype.jpg

I'm sure its worth more than a few thou....

A mate and I built an OMC "copy " when we were both 16 .An old Mauser .22 with a broken stock and bent barrel was the main input .A bolt brazed solid ,a compression spring from a washing machine ,a sear mechanism from 1/4" mild and 2 x 20 shot Sportco mags .

Nasty , brutal and inaccurate .Bloody frightening too at that age .

Dropped it off a jetty when undesirable lads got interested .

PeterSibley
08-28-2009, 08:42 AM
It might be an excellent weapon, but gawd its ugly

Nup .It looks just fine .

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 08:45 AM
The long gun, with the handle on the top looks like is was designed to run away with.The big FN is available without the carry handle.:rolleyes:

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 09:00 AM
They're all ugly.

Like fishing lures, guns should have a look which pleases the user, and gives him confidence. In my eye, guns shouldn't look like machines or Sci-Fi creations.

I'd guess younger users have different opinions.Donn, do you find any machine guns or assualt rifles plreasing to the eye?

ishmael
08-28-2009, 09:06 AM
Oh my, boys and their guns. Some impressive looking machinery there.

I love to shoot guns. It's just fun to knock a can off the log at fifty paces. Or to bring a deer down at 150, and then eat it. I'm also a bit horrified at how easily people in the US pull them and blast away in some of our cities. How have we failed to train some of our citizens that this isn't a video game? More training, not more restrictions.

Not sure about the rotary magazine rifle posted, but I'd love to shoot a Thompson with a rotary magazine some day. .45 caliber, a favored weapon of American field officers during WWII. The same round fit their sidearms, IIRC.

I haven't shot a weapon in awhile, but I'm all for it. Shooting sharpens the mind.

paladin
08-28-2009, 11:01 AM
Donn...that's precisely what I carried after discharge in S.E.A. As a "non Combatant "contractor" we were forbidden to carry anything larger than .38 caliber, and a small Smith and Wesson "Chief Special" was issued. I bought the .30 Cal Carbine Ruger then acquired the M2 in country....carried them for 3-4 years before breaking down and buying the Browning.

martin schulz
08-28-2009, 11:07 AM
M4
Make no mistake, these are designed for one purpose and one purpose only.

Chad

Naa...you know how it is. Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

I am sure these guns do very well when hammering a nail in the wall ;)

paladin
08-28-2009, 12:15 PM
Ballistically, it's about the same as a .357 magnum...that's why I had the '92 winchester made into .357 instead of .44.

cs
08-28-2009, 03:33 PM
Huh??? WTF are you talking about?

Kind of an inside joke. The 22 long rifle is a .222 and the M16/M4/M249 is a .223. There is only 1/1000 of an inch difference, pretty much the same caliber. In fact some units in the past have used .222 ammunition for weapons qualification as cash saving endeavor. If you doubt that here is a link (http://www.combatrifle.net/22conversions.htm) that sells a conversion kit. I have also fired the 22 long rifle in a M16 a long time ago. I don't think that anybody is still doing that, but at one time some did.

And Ian, when you said M4 earlier, about dust and cleaning, for some reason I was thinking M9. I've not carried the M4 in a situation as of yet, but that will be changing. In the past I've always carried the M16 (in every version M16, M16A1 & M16A2). From all indicators and fellow soldiers, the M4 is a big step forward in all areas.

Chad

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 03:46 PM
Chad, you can still get the .22lr conversion kit for the M16/AR15. Bushmaster sells them now, I used to have one that was made/sold by Colt.

cs
08-28-2009, 04:05 PM
Now I'm going to say something that many will doubt and many will try and prove me wrong, but the first M16 I carried as a duty weapon was stamped both Colt and Mattel on the lower receiver.

In addition I also qualified with and carried, mounted to my M-16 a XM-148. The XM-148 was designed to replace the M79 and was a 40mm grenade launcher which mounted to the upper receiver of the M16. The XM-148 was replaced by the M203, but in the beginning I carried one.

Chad

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 04:28 PM
the mattell marauder

http://www.timewarptoys.com/marauder1.jpg

http://killthisblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mattels-m-16.gif

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 04:31 PM
Chad, don't think that I have forgotten that you keep ignoring post #27.:rolleyes:;)

cs
08-28-2009, 04:36 PM
The only problem with that is I would have to change my permanent residence to Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 05:50 PM
Kind of an inside joke. The 22 long rifle is a .222 and the M16/M4/M249 is a .223. There is only 1/1000 of an inch difference, pretty much the same caliber. In fact some units in the past have used .222 ammunition for weapons qualification as cash saving endeavor. If you doubt that here is a link (http://www.combatrifle.net/22conversions.htm) that sells a conversion kit. I have also fired the 22 long rifle in a M16 a long time ago. I don't think that anybody is still doing that, but at one time some did.

And Ian, when you said M4 earlier, about dust and cleaning, for some reason I was thinking M9. I've not carried the M4 in a situation as of yet, but that will be changing. In the past I've always carried the M16 (in every version M16, M16A1 & M16A2). From all indicators and fellow soldiers, the M4 is a big step forward in all areas.

Chad

you guys have that all screwed up you know...

cs
08-28-2009, 05:51 PM
Please explain why.

Chad

boylesboats
08-28-2009, 05:51 PM
I'll stick to my black powder and muzzleloaders.. Those guns are not my desire.. too techy

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 06:05 PM
you guys have that all screwed up you know...yup

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 06:27 PM
Please explain why.

Chad



bullet diameter...
.222-rimfire mostly but some centerfire...also .22 Jet
.223-.22 hornet and 218 Bee and a few other oddities including the .221 Fireball
.224- all ...ALL modern centerfires from:
.222 Rem
.223 / 5.56mm (military)
.222 Magnum (very close to the mililtary round)
22-250
220 Swift
225 Winchester
22 savage high power
one of the Weatherby-my-dog's-bigger-than-your-dog rounds
there are more but this is just off the top of my head...you get the point

cs
08-28-2009, 06:33 PM
So, I fail to see my error. I said 22 long rifle .222 & M16 .223. So how did I get it "all screwed up?"

Chad

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 06:35 PM
one of the Weatherby-my-dog's-bigger-than-your-dog rounds

.224 Wby Mag.... its actually a pretty nice round.

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 07:00 PM
So, I fail to see my error. I said 22 long rifle .222 & M16 .223. So how did I get it "all screwed up?"

Chad

dunno now...oh well, carry on

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 07:15 PM
So, I fail to see my error. I said 22 long rifle .222 & M16 .223. So how did I get it "all screwed up?"

ChadThere's actually no difference between the projectiles that are loaded in either cartridge, the triple duece (.222 Rem) and the .223.

The 22 long rifle is a .222 and the M16/M4/M249 is a .223. There is only 1/1000 of an inch difference, pretty much the same caliber.Incidentally, SAAMI specs the bullets for all the .22 caliber centerfire cartridges at a diameter of .224 of an inch.

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 07:24 PM
it goes back to the naming of cartridges...the best example I can think of at the moment is the .38...S&W...Colt New Police...S&W Special and others

there are no .38 calibers...they are much closer to .36 (.358 actually)

There are no .44 calibers...44-40 is nominally a .427
the .44 Special is a nominal .430 and the same with the .44 Magnum

the cartridge name is more or less arbitrary...marketing likes .44 caliber...except in San Francisco I suppose

the 30-06 is closer to .31 caliber

the 45-70 or .458 Winchester Magnum are closer to .46 caliber (.458)

and on and on

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 07:28 PM
that thousanth of an inch makes little difference...example is the .22 rimfire convertible revolvers....22 long rifle is a nominal .222" but the .22 magnum is a nominal .223"...both fired through the same barrel

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 07:33 PM
that thousanth of an inch makes little difference...Tell that to the BR guys.:D

regarding nomenclature: all the non-standardness involved is one of the things about the 'sport' (industry) that I like. i enjoy all the various histories of why cartridges are named as they are.

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 07:40 PM
Tell that to the BR guys.:D

regarding nomenclature: all the non-standardness involved is one of the things about the 'sport' (industry) that I like. i enjoy all the various histories of why cartridges are named as they are.

those guys are in a different world...
fire forming cases example

determin the seating depth of your lovingly researched bullet...turn JUST the right amount off the outside of the case neck down to the base of the bullet...fire it and the "step" is transfered to the inside and then the fire-for-score bullet is "finger-seated to stop at the little step you created...

you know how to tell if a bench rest shooter has hemmorrides?
he has baggy cheeks on his face and a red nose

cs
08-28-2009, 07:46 PM
that thousanth of an inch makes little difference...example is the .22 rimfire convertible revolvers....22 long rifle is a nominal .222" but the .22 magnum is a nominal .223"...both fired through the same barrel


You think? Seems like I hinted at that earlier.


M4 and the M249 is nothing but an overgrown 22

Chad

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 08:10 PM
You think? Seems like I hinted at that earlier.



Chad

yes you did...

Paul Pless
08-28-2009, 08:13 PM
yes you did...but there is no difference despite what the cartridges are named, they both fire projectiles that are .224 of an inch in diameter.

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 08:15 PM
but there is no difference despite what the cartridges are named, they both fire projectile that are .224...

which both? (I think I'm lost)

seanz
08-28-2009, 08:18 PM
Guns is confusing...........
:)

cs
08-28-2009, 08:20 PM
I will say this though, there is a difference when you fire them. The 5.56 mm M16 has a bit more punch to it.

But what I miss is my baby.

M60

http://www.airsoftpacific.com/images/articles/m60_dx_std.jpg

But not this one. Despite being a couple of pounds lighter it was a bitch to hold on target. No hinged shoulder rest and bipod legs mounted on the receiver group.

http://world.guns.ru/machine/m60e4.jpg

I went to a M60 machine gunners specialist course and just nothing compares. I'm really looking forward to getting a chance to fire the M240B

Chad

bucheron
08-28-2009, 10:16 PM
Have you noticed the spate of new AR-style rifles but with gas and cylinder operating systems instead of direct gas impingement? Everything old is new again.

Another feature coming back is front pistol grips. I believe the Australian Steyr was going to be made without the folding forward grip.

The soldier of today often seems to have a bulky load on his chest, and to carry his weapon muzzle down and butt high, these combine to make a forward pistol grip more convenient.

cs
08-28-2009, 10:47 PM
Just from what little that I have handled the M4, I find that I like the forward grip. The other day I was sighting one, and the forward grip just felt right.

I've still not gotten used to carrying is slung forward butt high, but I think once I do it will be better. All those years of year slinging is hard to overcome though.

Chad

BrianW
08-28-2009, 11:40 PM
Honestly Chad, I was a bit confused by your first comments about the .001 of an inch deal, and the 222 Remington cartridge was the first thought that popped into my mind. Which I think is what Paul was thinking too.

We're all on the same page, just hard to discuss sometimes on a talk forum.

I'll back ya up about the Mattel manufactures M-16's. If it wasn't mine, I know I saw that stamped on some A1 versions early on in my Army days ('83-'91.)

As far the M60 goes... mostly I shot the M60D version out of my Huey. Only at firing ranges though, no combat time here. Here's a internet picture...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/uh1m60d.jpg

The worst part about being a Huey crewchief was going to the armorer and drawing a .38 revolver and 2 M60D's to be responsible for. One time a brass catcher fell of in flight. Thought I was going to have to sign a Statement of Charges, but a buddy had a friend across the airfield in Task Force 160th, and they gave me a spare.

Thanks for the cool thread!

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
08-29-2009, 12:15 AM
I've had a bit of fun with these...

http://www.fmft.net/Bren%20Gun%20LMG%201.JPG


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/SLRL1A1.jpg/800px-SLRL1A1.jpg

I can't say I like the look of the current Aussie army rifle though....

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/steyr_aug.jpg

I hate top mounted magazines. Gets in the way of my field of view.

The other two are both fine rifles. The FN-FAL (Fabrique Nationale - Fusil Automatique Leger) is a bit long, durable, though I prefer a front-locking rotary bolt (a la US guns like the M14) or a roller locked bolt (like the Swiss Sig Type 57, and the German H&Ks) versus the tilting bolt of the FAL which is more like a shotgun; simple, but not as accurate. Besides, the Swiss Type 57s have such pretty bayonets. :)

The Steyr AUG ("bullpup" design) is a fine, fine piece of engineering, years ahead of its time. Compact, light, accurate, even has a fine trigger. Everything you would expect from Austrian engineering. I was very sad when they got banned from importation to the US (which just fattened the pocketbooks of Colt, et al, in Hartford). You won't find them in the fine gun racks at Holland and Holland or Griffen and Howe, they aren't made for show, just like Glocks, but they work great. And Sonny Crocket carried one in an episode of Miami Vice, what better endorsement could you have? :)

Paul Pless
08-29-2009, 08:05 AM
they aren't made for show, just like Glocks, but they work great.All the disadavantages of a clunky da-only revolver with extra capacity being the only plus... bulky and ugly to boot.:rolleyes:

BrianW
08-29-2009, 08:34 AM
High capacity (14 rounds + 1 in the pipe) in .45acp can be done much nicer looking...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/para14-45.jpg

Best part is that they're made in Canada.

Paul Pless
08-29-2009, 08:42 AM
Best part is that they're made in Canada.LOL... here's my .45... Best part... made in New York.:)

http://www.kimberamerica.com/images/pistols/cdp/large_ultracdp2.jpg

Captain Blight
08-29-2009, 10:28 AM
I will say this though, there is a difference when you fire them. The 5.56 mm M16 has a bit more punch to it.

But what I miss is my baby.

M60

http://www.airsoftpacific.com/images/articles/m60_dx_std.jpg

But not this one. Despite being a couple of pounds lighter it was a bitch to hold on target. No hinged shoulder rest and bipod legs mounted on the receiver group.

http://world.guns.ru/machine/m60e4.jpg

I went to a M60 machine gunners specialist course and just nothing compares. I'm really looking forward to getting a chance to fire the M240B

ChadYou can like that POS if you want. I think it's a good thing it's being phased out.


I used the M240 as a coax gun in the M60A3 tank; it has it all over that ooogli Other Gun. Faster rate of fire, easier to strip and clean, less susceptible to jamming, faster barrel changes... You will soon be a convert.

It's the FN MAG58, same-same. Proven in conflicts worldwide. While the Powers That Be decided we had to go with our own sui generis LMG I'll never know, but I'm glad to see they've reversed the cranial rectitis.

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
09-02-2009, 03:33 AM
All the disadavantages of a clunky da-only revolver with extra capacity being the only plus... bulky and ugly to boot.:rolleyes:

You know, I thought the same about the Glock when it debuted but when I tried one I thought the trigger was pretty good. Not like a tuned Gold Cup or a Hammerli, mind you, but much better than any other DA I had tried.

Tylerdurden
09-02-2009, 04:07 AM
LOL... here's my .45... Best part... made in New York.:)

http://www.kimberamerica.com/images/pistols/cdp/large_ultracdp2.jpg

I am a Kimber fan also. I love the tactical.

bucheron
09-02-2009, 06:46 AM
I hate top mounted magazines. Gets in the way of my field of view.
One thing a top mag might allow is to be operated right or left-handed. I dunno how the sights could be arranged but at least the cases are being ejected down, not into the lefties face. I cannot think of any truly ambidextrous rifles since lever-actions went out of military use. If I am wrong on this point I would love to be corrected.



The FN-FAL (Fabrique Nationale - Fusil Automatique Leger) is a bit long, durable, . . . . simple, but not as accurate.

It is so long it was a bit past being ergonomically sound. My experience was supervising several hundred recruits over a couple of years. very few could just naturally grip the front woodwork anywhere near the middle. their hands crept back into contact with the magazine and the receiver, which could get hot. I saw film of the brits practising aboard ship on the Falklands expedition. A number could be seen grabbing the mag halfway down instead of the wood.

The actual length of rifled barrel is less than half the overall legth of the rifle. As for accuracy, a rifle that is jointed for stripping/assembling, where the foresight is on one half, and the backsight on the other, could not be the very best. I would say it was accurate enough for military purposes. Modern practise does not seem to include the rifleman aiming at individual targets over 300 metres away. Top marks for durability and reliability. I never saw one that broke or didn't work. We taught simple drills that cleared stoppages. It was very hard for dirt to get inside.

IMHO, the only thing it had going for it was being semi-auto and a gentler recoil than the bolt-action rifle it replaced, which was a design from the 1890s! The poor grunt could only carry so many rounds.


The Steyr AUG ("bullpup" design) is a fine piece of engineering.
Over the years, there have been continual rumours of australian soldiers lacking confidence in it. I have never fired a bullpup. My prejudice, if you like, is that the balance would change as the magazine emptied. I don't know if that matters much. The same goes for submachine guns with side-mounted mags.

Paul Pless
09-02-2009, 07:59 AM
You know, I thought the same about the Glock when it debuted but when I tried one I thought the trigger was pretty good. Not like a tuned Gold Cup or a Hammerli, mind you, but much better than any other DA I had tried.I've owned two Glocks, and have hated them both compared to any of the 1911's I've owned.

paladin
09-02-2009, 08:10 AM
My Browning has the capability of two or three round burst fire.....would you rather be hit by one round of .45 acp or two rounds of 9mm parabellum?

oznabrag
09-02-2009, 09:51 AM
My Browning has the capability of two or three round burst fire.....would you rather be hit by one round of .45 acp or two rounds of 9mm parabellum?


Er...Ummm...Uhhh is there an option C?

John of Phoenix
09-02-2009, 01:14 PM
Another one purpose weapon - the anti anti-aircraft gun - 20mm Vulcan cannon. We went from dodging .51cals to hunting them when we got these.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m195-m35armt.jpg

Bob Cleek
09-02-2009, 02:28 PM
SISSIES! GIRLY MEN!

Try this one on for size!

http://ixian.ca/pics6/tricannon.jpg

http://xbradtc.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ac-47.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2264784150_4a86698073.jpg

John of Phoenix
09-02-2009, 02:52 PM
Three miniguns on a single mount? OMG! Imagine the torque and recoil.
How would you control that thing?

What's the bottom picture.

Paul Pless
09-02-2009, 03:11 PM
Another one purpose weapon - the anti anti-aircraft gun - 20mm Vulcan cannon. We went from dodging .51cals to hunting them when we got these.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m195-m35armt.jpg

What kinda hearing protection does that trick helmet in your avatar have?:eek:

Paul Pless
09-02-2009, 03:15 PM
SISSIES! GIRLY MEN!

Try this one on for size!

http://ixian.ca/pics6/tricannon.jpg

I see your three miniguns and raise you one GAU-8.:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiCWrL6VjsY

John of Phoenix
09-02-2009, 04:01 PM
What kinda hearing protection does that trick helmet in your avatar have?:eek:On that old helmet, none. But funny you should ask.

You can see the panels on this bird to strengthen the muzzel blast area. Note that the front of the blast panel ends right where the front seat pilot sits. The first time we shot one it was an unmodified aircraft and it blew the front canopy door open. I thought the thing had exploded. I couldn't hear for a couple of days.

http://tri.army.mil/lc/cs/csa/ah1gm35.jpg


Modern helmets are amazing.

Milo Christensen
09-02-2009, 05:43 PM
You all go through any special procedures prior to the first firing of that thing, you know, like a colonoscopy prep procedure?

paladin
09-02-2009, 06:49 PM
OOOooooooooooH! Puff the Magic Dragon......135 airspeed stomp right rudder, fire guns and the damn thing turns the wrong way anyway.....
mount two of those triple weenies in the nose of a bird, ammo 35 feet behind you on conveyor belts, nose down, 20 degrees flaps, airspeed 160, pulse guns and watch the airspeed drop like someone hung a couple of parachutes on your tail......fire guns for 15 seconds or less, 3500 rpm or you'll drive yourself into a stall.

Krunch
09-02-2009, 10:45 PM
Kind of an inside joke. The 22 long rifle is a .222 and the M16/M4/M249 is a .223.

"Inside joke" indeed. Sorry to bust yer bubble publicly, but you're wrong on both counts.

All of the cartridges you speak of (.22 Long Rifle rimfire and .223 Remington and, for that matter, the .222 Remington and the .22-250 and the .220 Swift and the .224 Weatherby and the .220 Rocket and the .225 Winchester and every other centerfire cartridge that begins with the digits 22 (and even some that don't, like the .219 Zipper) ALL use bullets of .224" diameter.

I reload centerfire cartridges and buy bullets for them and I know.

The M-16, M4 and M249SAW all use 5.56mm (for all practical purposes, .223 Remington) ammunition...which uses bullets of .224" diameter.

It is very rare (at least in the world of commercially-sold or commonly used components) to see a bullet of anything except .224" diameter for these rifles. (There are some .223" diameter bullets sold for use in old .22 Hornet rifles.) Not that one mil makes a dime's difference in most rifles, even in jacketed bullets.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/22_long_rifle.svg/355px-22_long_rifle.svg.png

cs
09-03-2009, 07:04 AM
This article (http://www.chuckhawks.com/22_rimfire_cartridges.htm) says .222 for the 22 long rifle and either way 1/1000 of an inch is not that much and either way just reinforces my prior "inside" joke.

Chad

Phillip Allen
09-03-2009, 07:43 AM
I started loading in the mid 60's and the books all said .222/.223/.224 for the various cartridges mentioned above. there has been an effort in the industry to standardise bore demintions but I still regularly encounter the old stuff...one can shoot a .224 through a .222 bore in many cases but it sometime effects accuraacy

Krunch...get out your mike and check some old ammo and see what I mean...I know of what I speak...make mistakes from time to time but still...I know what I'm talking about

slug the bores of several .22's from different eras and you will find out more...I have done this many times

Oyvind Snibsoer
09-03-2009, 01:54 PM
All those teeny-weeny calibers...

Now, THIS is a gun:
http://army.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1169/images/01%20-%20on%20the%20beach.jpg

It's the Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifle.

Granted, the reload rate is somewhat low - depends mostly on how quick the loader is - but it does carry a good punch. And a great selection of ammo!

Firing one feels very much like having a slightly underinflated soccer ball kicked in your face! Fire enough rounds in a row, and your nose will start bleeding!

Captain Blight
09-03-2009, 02:54 PM
That Carl Gustav's okay, fer a little spitshooter.

How many here can lay claim to qualifying Expert in THIS?!?
http://static.flickr.com/30/95715342_a48c48f2d1.jpg



Not that you qualify as Expert or whatever; you can get a maximum of 1000 points. Never could crack that 990 barrier, I had a loader who was as thick as the glacis...

Phillip Allen
09-03-2009, 02:57 PM
That Carl Gustav's okay, fer a little spitshooter.

How many here can lay claim to qualifying Expert in THIS?!?
http://static.flickr.com/30/95715342_a48c48f2d1.jpg



Not that you qualify as Expert or whatever; you can get a maximum of 1000 points. Never could crack that 990 barrier, I had a loader who was as thick as the glacis...

what sort of propellent does that thing use?

Paul Pless
09-03-2009, 03:16 PM
How many here can lay claim to qualifying Expert in THIS?!?
http://static.flickr.com/30/95715342_a48c48f2d1.jpg



Chad should be along shortly with a pretty impressive pic of him, some of his closest friends and a bunch of field guns with fireballs coming out their business ends.:D

oznabrag
09-03-2009, 03:18 PM
I'm not sure I want to see Chad with fireballs coming out his 'business end'!

Captain Blight
09-03-2009, 03:27 PM
He obviously hasn't tried the local curry, then.

Captain Blight
09-03-2009, 03:36 PM
what sort of propellent does that thing use?
Good question. In the 105mm rounds, which look for all the world like a giant .30-30, if you shake the case you get an impression of... like, corn-kernel sized pellets of propellant. Very nitrogen-based, the fumes are just astoundingly corrosive to the lungs. Kind of like ammonia with benzene overtones.

The 120mm rounds with the combustible cases are a different story, I think they use some long-strand propellant like Cordite or one of its descendants. Fumes are different but just as bad.

Interestingly, both those cannons are 50-caliber guns; that is, the barrel is 50 calibers long, as this gives the best balance between velocity and friction.

Also, on the M60 tank, the sights were slaved to the gun; where the gun pointed, the sights went. Boresighting was a daily ritual. On the M1, the gun is slaved to the sights, and the computer continually updates the boresight. Makes it a little more accurate.

The M60 is generally considered to be a better tank in the defense, as the gun is mounted a bit higher in the turret; less tank showing when you come out of defilade. The Israelis took the commander's cupola off and replaced the M85 .50 (1100 round/min!) with the M2 in a pintle mount. Also much more livable in the field, the breech takes up a lot less room and the turret's a bit taller.

Of course, there aren't many tanks that can stand toe-to-toe with the Abrans and slug it out. the Merkava; the Challenger MKII; maybe the Leopard, but that's largely theoretical. The T-82 might fall somewhere between the M60 and the M1, but all reports I've read say that it's still a Soviet POS, trouble-prone and not very accurate.

cs
09-03-2009, 04:26 PM
Well Paul, you asked for it.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1400/583904650_27bdbd3191_b.jpg

I'm the second powder monkey from your left.

Chad

Phillip Allen
09-03-2009, 05:16 PM
Well Paul, you asked for it.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1400/583904650_27bdbd3191_b.jpg

I'm the second powder monkey from your left.

Chad

who's the dufus with his powder bag on his shoulder? :)

Captain Blight
09-03-2009, 06:37 PM
Looks like the third guy from left is hoisting a gigantic, white-gloved finger at the whole affair.




On advice of counsel, I must state that I was nowhere near there at any time. That's my story and that's what I'm sticking to.:D

John of Phoenix
09-03-2009, 06:50 PM
Target? Or just burning powder for a dog and pony show?

cs
09-03-2009, 07:10 PM
Trust me, big dog and pony show. But in their defense it was the very last shot that we ever fired from those guns, and we knew it. From there we went to this:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/m26-mlrs.jpg

Chad

cs
09-03-2009, 09:15 PM
If you want an idea about what life as a 13M is like, watch the video below. It is put to the Music of Bon Jovi, Wanted, Dead or Alive. The music level is a bit low so you might want to turn it up. This video brought back a lot of memories for me and has me almost ready to turn in my E-7 and go back to being a gun chief, almost.

Wanted, Dead or Alive: Fort Sill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKir6iukTxA)

Chad