Thread: The SA80 "under fire" again

Originally Posted by SkiCarver

Basically, give the soldiers the option and let them decide. OK, it costs money, but surely Gordon Brown wouldn't try and pennypinch on defence while we are at war!

Watch what you're saying because someone might think you're being serious instead of sarcastic

I have never fired a rifle in anger!..I always ensured I was full of bonhomie smiling and cracking a joke as I let one fly.

Originally Posted by tropper66

Originally Posted by wet_blobby

Who were you firing at six hundred metres away in Belfast, the Luftwaffe?

Up Castle street

I presume you missed the target?

Castle Street is only a couple of hundred yards long as I remember.

Originally Posted by Bubbles_Barker

Originally Posted by tropper66

Originally Posted by wet_blobby

Who were you firing at six hundred metres away in Belfast, the Luftwaffe?

Up Castle street

I presume you missed the target?

Castle Street is only a couple of hundred yards long as I remember.

True but before they built the West link road you could pop one right up through Divis street to the bottom of the Falls road from check point at the junction of Queen Street Castle street

What about the 7mm as used for the EM2?

[quote=wiki]The following comparisons are excerpts from a manual published by the "Small Arms Group Armament Design Establishment" from the Ministry of Supply

Results in order of .280 | .303 | .30/06

Bullet weight 139 gr/9.0 g | 174 gr/11.3 g | 166 gr/10.8 g
Muzzle velocity 2,500 ft/s/760 m/s | 2,456 ft/s/749 m/s | 2,770 ft/s/840 m/s
Timber penetration at 2,000 yards (2,000 m) 2.9 in/74 mm | 2.4 in/61 mm | 1.6 in/41 mm
Timber penetration at 100 yards (100 m) 45 in/110 cm | 42 in/110 cm | 47 in/120 cm
Range for penetration of airborne type steel helmet 1,000 yd/910 m | 900 yd/820 m | 1,600 yd/1,500 m
Vertex height for 600-yard (500 m) range 3.3 ft/1.0 m | 3.1 ft/0.94 m | 3 ft/0.91 m
Recoil energy per round 7.4 ft·lbf/10.0 J with EM-2 11 ft·lbf/15 J with No.4 Rifle 14.4 ft·lbf/19.5 J with the Garand

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

All due respect etc etc, but assuming you have normal eyesight, what exactly could you see at a range of 600m? I'm supposing that that the opposition didn't just line up three abreast, shoulder-to-shoulder like a Figure 14 (or whatever the f**k it was) Lets face it, a lone male shooting at you from 600m+/-. is a difficult target, if he is only exposed for 4 seconds and is isn't actually standing upright in the middle of a deserted street then I'm at a loss to see what it was you were shooting at?

Just asking.

Originally Posted by OldAdam

Suppose it all depends on which 7.62mm round they're talking about - if they even understand the difference!

They have a choice - For instance... OA dons anorak

7.62 x 39 M1943 as used in AK47/AKMS/RPD, etc; okay up to 300 metres, then forget any serious attempt at marksmanship. The PS bullet has a mild steel core which can often be seen printing a perfect profile in targets even at close range, suggesting that they may break up on leaving the muzzle - depends on the manufacturer. Still hurts, though!

7,62 x 54R (Rimmed) - (1930 Type 'D' bullet) as used in PKM/Dragunov and various older MMGs, a highly effective and accurate round out to 900 metres and beyond.

7.62 x 51 (Nato), highly effective and accurate round out to normal combat ranges with a rifle and equals the 7.62 x 54R as an MG round out to 900 metres and beyond.

Then, of course, just to sow a little confusion in the journalistic mind, we can add the 7.62 Tokarev, 7.62 x 25 (Model 30), which is, of course, a PISTOL round! :D

Stows anorak away for another day

At the risk of being referred to a as a pedantic KOS, you forgot 7.62x45, an obsolete Czech round that fell victim to Uncle Stalins NIH policy. More effective than 7.62x39 but a bit short of 7.62 Nato .

It is only because the target crawls / walks away to die. The results are the same be it 5.56 or 7.62. The first will take longer.

a while back on another thread on this site - i stated that i could - if i could kit my section out with HK417's of different barrel lengths and have 2 x 7.63 minimi in my section.
to this people replied - 'i bet your section would be happy with you - having to carry the extra weight!'
i still stick to my statement - though may change the 417 for a different wpn but still be 7.62. and given the chance my blokes and myself opt for the larger cal always when pos. why? because this year the you may of seen - the fighting in afghan has been less firefights and more ied! but when we have been contacted - it has been at greater ranges. the enemy know we can out fight them, but listening to there icom catter - they boast that a few rd's in our direction forces us to stop. we then slowly make our way forward giving them the chance to do one and leave behind a little suprise. thats why brit snipers have worked well this year (in fact over this whole campagin) buy droping the enemy - at ranges of 400m +. the .338 is an awesome weapon, and the L96 deployed with sharpshooters too has account for a lot of EKIA.
but what would i know - or anyone who's been out here recently - ON THE GROUND?

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

but what would i know - or anyone who's been out here recently - ON THE GROUND?

How dare you have an opinion on what the bobby is on the ground, especially if you've actually been there.

Originally Posted by FiveAlpha

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

but what would i know - or anyone who's been out here recently - ON THE GROUND?

How dare you have an opinion on what the bobby is on the ground, especially if you've actually been there.

i know - well out of line!!
next i'll be asking why aint we issued body armour that doesnt kill more than it saves.....

or why did GB throw his H4H wrist band on the floor at kabual asa he got off the c130 from bast????

or did i really hear a senior polition say - "the army will just have to stop moaning and crying about helicopters - your not going to get more - your going to have to ust the roads".......

but these are only things a soldier on the ground may ask?

What a crock of shite. "As much use as a pea shooter?" If that's the case the author of the report won't have any concerns about standing at the end of a 300m range whilst I fire 30 x peas at him followed by 30 x 5.56 x 45 SS109 ball rounds. I'll tell you what, I'll even let him hide behind a car door first if he really wants...

Other posters have pointed out the effects our rounds have on the body, the vast weight savings they afford, and some of the other benefits of using 5.56. They're all spot on. Additionally it might surprise people to know that quite a lot of testing has occurred and continues to occur on the properties of ammunition. The conclusions are probably too sensitive (and complicated) to publicise, but I suspect that none of them find that 5.56 is not fit for purpose: how (or why) does this study reach such wildly different conclusions?

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

Originally Posted by FiveAlpha

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

but what would i know - or anyone who's been out here recently - ON THE GROUND?

How dare you have an opinion on what the bobby is on the ground, especially if you've actually been there.

i know - well out of line!!
next i'll be asking why aint we issued body armour that doesnt kill more than it saves.....

or why did GB throw his H4H wrist band on the floor at kabual asa he got off the c130 from bast????

or did i really hear a senior polition say - "the army will just have to stop moaning and crying about helicopters - your not going to get more - your going to have to ust the roads".......

but these are only things a soldier on the ground may ask?

My bold - proof?

Originally Posted by Bubbles_Barker

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

Originally Posted by FiveAlpha

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

but what would i know - or anyone who's been out here recently - ON THE GROUND?

How dare you have an opinion on what the bobby is on the ground, especially if you've actually been there.

i know - well out of line!!
next i'll be asking why aint we issued body armour that doesnt kill more than it saves.....

or why did GB throw his H4H wrist band on the floor at kabual asa he got off the c130 from bast????

or did i really hear a senior polition say - "the army will just have to stop moaning and crying about helicopters - your not going to get more - your going to have to ust the roads".......

but these are only things a soldier on the ground may ask?

My bold - proof?

ask any medic (especially thoughs that have worked mert) why AP-PPIED's - are causing head and facial injuries??

didnt think the new cover - due to be issued already - was really designed for the comfort of the troops did you?

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

Originally Posted by Bubbles_Barker

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

Originally Posted by FiveAlpha

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

but what would i know - or anyone who's been out here recently - ON THE GROUND?

How dare you have an opinion on what the bobby is on the ground, especially if you've actually been there.

i know - well out of line!!
next i'll be asking why aint we issued body armour that doesnt kill more than it saves.....

or why did GB throw his H4H wrist band on the floor at kabual asa he got off the c130 from bast????

or did i really hear a senior polition say - "the army will just have to stop moaning and crying about helicopters - your not going to get more - your going to have to ust the roads".......

but these are only things a soldier on the ground may ask?

My bold - proof?

ask any medic (especially thoughs that have worked mert) why AP-PPIED's - are causing head and facial injuries??

didnt think the new cover - due to be issued already - was really designed for the comfort of the troops did you?

Agreed, and I know what you are talking about, but I think that saying that body armour kills more than it saves is a little strong.