SLR V Buffalo Gun

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by make_safe!!, Nov 8, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Did you see the "Mythbusters" episode when they were firing bullets into a swimming pool (can you imagine that being done in a UK documentary....)? Interesting to see that 5.56mm ball simply shattered into dust with a few inches of water whilst, as in these tests, solid lead bullets from a black powder revolver managed several metres of water penetration.
     
  2. I was under the impression that bullets like 5.56Nato were designed to fragment after penetrating something squishy and wet, such as one's insides.
     
  3. 8O 8O I still think that the FN SLR was a hell of a rifle. Once hit the target was deffo put down :D :D

    Please bring it back..........pretty please :)
     
  4. 307

    307 War Hero

  5. I want to play that game, a fun way to spend a sunday afternoon. But would need a few of them and who could resist the urge to slip to fully automatic and see how long it woudl take to disintegrate it!

    OS
     
  6. I just spent an unhealthy amount of time going through that website.

    How sad I am that I found it rather interesting?

    Check out the one on fragmentation armour. Yeah, the groin protecter stopped the round but look at the clay! 8O

    OMG! Now that is going to smart!

    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot15.htm
     
  7. heh! I remember the spams during GW 1 taking a look at the size of rounds we used and they were gobsmaked. They were even more gobsmaked when I showed them the '1944' stamped on the side of our LMG. We made a dammed fine sight in our 1950's webbing and european combats.
     
  8. Surely the point of all military ammo being FMJ under the terms of the Geneva convention, is to prevent fragmentation. 5.56 (.223) is designed to tumble in soft tissue thus increasing the wound channel in order to maximise damage without resorting to deformation or fragmentation.
     
  9. Hmm - even more sad than looking at that web site for ages, I was reading Jane's lately. Anyway there was a long article on the future or otherwise of the 5.56 round, and they did state that the NATO round was designed to fragment on impact. The problem is that it needs to be travelling above a specific velocity to do so. With a standard barrel this happened out to about 100 to 150m. However, with a shorter barrel this dropped to less than 50m if it happened at all. So, all those with M4 carbines, Colt Commandos or the dinky shorter SA80 they're talking about are out of luck - all they get is the tumbling.

    Incidently - anyone spot the irony that we're back to the same argument of 100 years ago? The old US .45 pistol came into service after the Yanks found their service pistol didn't knock an insurgent down. In the Philipines that is...
     
  10. Hague convention I believe, and the rule was against mushrooming/expanding bullets on impact. The 5.56mm does this AFTER penetrating into the target.

    Hence why you see no JSP,JFP or JHP in military use. The convention only governs military vs. military engagements in a battlefield scenario IIRC.

    batus_survivor you are indeed correct. 5.56 NATO needs over 850 ft/second to effectively fragment and/or cause sufficient tumbling/twisting to lethally drop a target. The smaller barrels of the M4A1 (12"-14" IIRC, Colt Commandos had an even shorter 10" barrel) means that the bullet often doesn't achieve the required velocity to cause a lethal shot when fired over range. I believe that's between 75 and 100 meters. The M16/SA80 can achieve lethality at upto 250/300 meters (lethality being the sufficient velocity to send the round into a spin and fragment inside the body.

    Hence the vast reports from US Rangers/Delta Force in Somalia (you know...the whole 'Black Hawk Down' thing) were saying that their bullets lacked the 'hitting power' over range. The ranges were average medium range firefight ranges, so we're talking 80-150 meters here. They were claiming that they were needing 6-7 shots to drop each target, and even then they still were moving.

    Then again, they WERE Americans so take that with a pinch or two of salt.

    6.8mm is set to be the future. From what I've read, it's giving the size and weight of 5.56 (or thereabouts) with the stopping power of 7.62 (or thereabouts). NICE!
     
  11. No mate...its not level IIIA....doesn't even come close to it...
     
  12. Fang_Farrier

    Fang_Farrier LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    No but saw the one where they showed what happened to someone hit by a bullet in order to prove all the Hollywood films wrongs! That in fact you don't leap backwards off your feet folding in half as you go.
     
  13. Look at some of the ballistic gelatine tests of the SS109 round - it generally breaks at the cannelure, with the base fracturing into several pieces & causing seperate wound channels.
    Out past 100m, the round neither fractures or tumbles reliably when fired from a short barrel due to lack of velocity.
    The Russki 5.45 tumbles more reliably due to the void in the tip of the projectile causing it to partially collapse upon impact.
    The standard case for 5.56 is that one can carry far more rounds than 7.62 for the same weight penalty 400 vs 120; well how about ceasing to base the debate on this & look to something like the 6.8SPC to replace both(shades of the .280 vs 7.62 debate in the early 50's).
    No doubt economics will rule over efficiency once again :roll: