Comments on: 5.56 Nato http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/05/28/556-nato/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:33:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: nk http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/05/28/556-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-200852 nk Fri, 30 May 2008 04:07:30 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15836#comment-200852 Always reinventing the wheel. Colonel Rubin determined in what ... 1890? that the ideal soldier's bullet was roughly .30 caliber, about 160-180 grains, with roughly 2400-3000 fps velocity. Lethal enough up to a quarter mile, comfortable enough to shoot, not too heavy for a soldier to carry enough rounds to last him through a battle. Always reinventing the wheel. Colonel Rubin determined in what … 1890? that the ideal soldier’s bullet was roughly .30 caliber, about 160-180 grains, with roughly 2400-3000 fps velocity. Lethal enough up to a quarter mile, comfortable enough to shoot, not too heavy for a soldier to carry enough rounds to last him through a battle.

]]> By: JJR http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/05/28/556-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-200738 JJR Wed, 28 May 2008 15:46:08 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15836#comment-200738 I'd really like to see how the M-1 carbine (WW2, .30 cal.) would perform in Iraq street fighting versus the current M4 with the 5.56 NATO round...that would be interesting... I'd also like to see a return to .45 acp for military sidearms, but that's probably pissin' up a rope, too. I read one soldier awhile back wistfully wishing for a Colt Single Action Army in 45 LC as opposed to the M9 he has to carry. And why not? Proven man stopper, proven it can work in a Desert environment (American Southwest, anyway)...less to go wrong with it... ;-) The Army has gone retro before, like when they realized their .38 spec revolvers weren't up to snuff in the Philippines but before they could get the 1911s issued...they temporarily went back to the Colt Single Action Army in 45 LC. Today I'd be happy to see a 1911 comeback, or if it has to be modern then the Springfield XD in .45 acp or the Smith and Wesson M&P in .45 acp... I’d really like to see how the M-1 carbine (WW2, .30 cal.) would perform in Iraq street fighting versus the current M4 with the 5.56 NATO round…that would be interesting…

I’d also like to see a return to .45 acp for military sidearms, but that’s probably pissin’ up a rope, too.

I read one soldier awhile back wistfully wishing for a Colt Single Action Army in 45 LC as opposed to the M9 he has to carry. And why not? Proven man stopper, proven it can work in a Desert environment (American Southwest, anyway)…less to go wrong with it… ;-) The Army has gone retro before, like when they realized their .38 spec revolvers weren’t up to snuff in the Philippines but before they could get the 1911s issued…they temporarily went back to the Colt Single Action Army in 45 LC.

Today I’d be happy to see a 1911 comeback, or if it has to be modern then the Springfield XD in .45 acp or the Smith and Wesson M&P in .45 acp…

]]> By: K-Romulus http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/05/28/556-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-200735 K-Romulus Wed, 28 May 2008 14:37:48 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15836#comment-200735 We could just go back to using 55gr M193. Cheaper than JHP, and AmmoOracle reports better fragmentation than the M855 stuff (ducks out) . . . We could just go back to using 55gr M193. Cheaper than JHP, and AmmoOracle reports better fragmentation than the M855 stuff (ducks out) . . .

]]> By: Vote For David http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/05/28/556-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-200733 Vote For David Wed, 28 May 2008 14:10:38 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15836#comment-200733 I almost hate to state the obvious, but... duh? hey, why don't we give them all *pistols* in 5.56 instead of M4s, that way we wouldn't have to give them rifles OR handgun cartridges! See how easy that is? Maybe an icepick for backup just in case. [/sarcasm] Show of hands, who thinks we are going to see a 6.xmm round for all our troops anytime soon? I almost hate to state the obvious, but…

duh?

hey, why don’t we give them all *pistols* in 5.56 instead of M4s, that way we wouldn’t have to give them rifles OR handgun cartridges! See how easy that is? Maybe an icepick for backup just in case.
[/sarcasm]

Show of hands, who thinks we are going to see a 6.xmm round for all our troops anytime soon?

]]> By: Mikee http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/05/28/556-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-200729 Mikee Wed, 28 May 2008 13:31:56 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15836#comment-200729 Dum Dum or expanding bullets were banned, at least in the popular mythology of the Hague Conventions, due to the excessive suffering they supposedly caused. It could be argued that a rifle or pistol round designed to incapacitate the target most quickly, with minimal risk of over-penetration and subsequent risk to innocent bystanders, actually conforms to the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Conventions. Or as your post noted, JHPs. Dum Dum or expanding bullets were banned, at least in the popular mythology of the Hague Conventions, due to the excessive suffering they supposedly caused. It could be argued that a rifle or pistol round designed to incapacitate the target most quickly, with minimal risk of over-penetration and subsequent risk to innocent bystanders, actually conforms to the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Conventions. Or as your post noted, JHPs.

]]> By: Clay http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/05/28/556-nato/comment-page-1/#comment-200728 Clay Wed, 28 May 2008 13:07:27 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15836#comment-200728 Not to mention we're not even a signer of the treaty that banned HPs from warfare. Not to mention we’re not even a signer of the treaty that banned HPs from warfare.

]]>