SLR v SA80 the results are in

Of course It wouldn't ever happen that you fücked up and got the "first prize", would it? Just asking, like.:p

MsG
There is that
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
For anybody who removed the extractor using the little pin on the combination tool, I have only one word.

B-O-I-N-N-N-G !
You're exaggerating. BOINNNG! is dry-firing the Charlie G. The SLR extractor doesn't even rate a boinnng.
 
I've heard it said a couple of time (Herrick veterans) that 556 can be ineffective against an adrenaline fuelled charging enemy ("it took a whole magazine to bring him down"). What's your response to claims that 556 isn't lethal or 'heavy' enough?

It’s absolute bollocks.
 

tiv

LE
Amusingly, it ran in parallel with widespread claims that the 5.56mm was "inhumane" because of its "excessive lethality", where its "tumbling bullets" caused massive injuries that nobody could survive and so were a war crime to use in battle. Somehow, both myths seemed to be able to run in parallel, or even be believed by the same person at the same time...
There is some truth in the tumbling bullet story. When the AR-15 first appeared in Viet Nam it had a very slow twist, 1:14 or 1:16 and the bullets did apparently tumble on hitting someone. It was changed, so I was told, as in the Arctic the denser air caused tumbling from the muzzle.
 
It's hard to balance your SLR on your Zimmer Frame you know?
No need to balance if you use a clamp:
41H-+Wa31kL._AC_SY780_.jpg
 
There is some truth in the tumbling bullet story. When the AR-15 first appeared in Viet Nam it had a very slow twist, 1:14 or 1:16 and the bullets did apparently tumble on hitting someone. It was changed, so I was told, as in the Arctic the denser air caused tumbling from the muzzle.
Most military bullets nowadays are designed to tumble when striking a medium denser than air. It’s a way of increasing the wounding effect without breaching the Hague Conventions prohibiting expanding rounds.
 
Last edited:

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Most military bullets nowadays are designed to tumble when striking a medium denser than air. It’s a way of increasing the wounding effect without breaching The Hague Conventions on expanding rounds.
Something pioneered by perfidious Albion IIRC, with the Mk VII .303 bullet pre WW1, by inserting an aluminium / cellulose cone in the tip so that it was rear heavy. Spin kept it stable, but when it hit a solid target it tumbled causing massive wound tracks. I first saw this as a diminutive air cadet when we shot at sand filled plastic gallon jugs with No 4 rifles and ammo which looked it had been brought back from the Khyber Pass: little hole in the front,nothing left of the back of the jug...
 

Poppycock

War Hero
The conversion from 7.62 to 5.56 was sold by the Infantry Schools of excellence as being a method of increasing battlefield casualties in order to tie up more troops dealing with casualties.

At the time I didn't see the logic when you consider how we would deal with our own casualties - Why anyone thought an enemy would react any different to us in dealing with casualties was difficult to get my head around.
I was in a 2009 lecture with c.60-other recruit soldiers on basic training:

Warrant Officer:
"556 is less fatal but does bounce around inside the body causing internal injuries and requiring evacuation. This is good because it means two other soldiers will be needed to evacuate them, therefore taking three enemy off the battlefield" * one detailed changed to protect the guilty

The other source for my continuing belief that 556 is an inadequate calibre was this on TV:

Afghan documentary (maybe BBC) on youtube with a British combat veteran interview recounting how it took "1.5 magazines" to put down a charging Taliban. The interviewee was genuine I think but didn't mention 556, instead explaining the apparent ineffectiveness of direct, on target fire by saying "he must of been on drugs"

My Conclusion
The British SA80 (after it was redesigned & rebuilt by Germans) is a brilliant all round rifle. But, as proved by the issuing of sharp-shooter 7.62 rifles in Helmand, it does have limited capabilities

My Solution

Stop expecting one rifle to do every job.

If I had a section...

2x with 7.62x51 HK417 in whatever configuration they wanted
2x with 5.7x28 P90s & RPGs / free slung grenade launchers
1x 7.62x51 GPMG
1x 5.7x28 P90 supporting GPMG gunner, etc
1x Me with my Webley
 
Last edited:
Afghan documentary (maybe BBC) on youtube with a British combat veteran interview recounting how it took "1.5 magazines" to put down a charging Taliban. The interviewee was genuine I think but didn't mention 556, instead explaining the apparent ineffectiveness of direct, on target fire by saying "he must of been on drugs"

Bullshit.
 
Afghan documentary (maybe BBC) on youtube with a British combat veteran interview recounting how it took "1.5 magazines" to put down a charging Taliban. The interviewee was genuine I think but didn't mention 556, instead explaining the apparent ineffectiveness of direct, on target fire by saying "he must of been on drugs"
"he must have been on drugs" sounds far better than "I kept missing the target".
 
Warrant Officer:
"556 is less fatal but does bounce around inside the body causing internal injuries and requiring evacuation. This is good because it means two other soldiers will be needed to evacuate them, therefore taking three enemy off the battlefield" * one detailed changed to protect the guilty
Here's a novel concept for you: just because someone in authority says it, doesn't mean that it's true. If that Warrant Officer had stated his belief that tinfoil hats were necessary to prevent mind-control rays, would you likewise be asserting that the combat helmet was sh!t for not containing a metallic lining? If the Prime Minister insists that they've got this COVID thing under complete control, that border checks and customs controls on the NI border are a super idea, or that we should consider building a bridge between UK and NI - would you be completely reassured?

Afghan documentary (maybe BBC) on youtube with a British combat veteran interview recounting how it took "1.5 magazines" to put down a charging Taliban. The interviewee was genuine I think but didn't mention 556, instead explaining the apparent ineffectiveness of direct, on target fire by saying "he must of been on drugs"
Likewise, I'd suggest that the combat veteran being interviewed was missing with most of their shots. Just because they believe it, doesn't make it true: "I fired fifty rounds before he fell over. I am awesome and cannot miss, therefore he must be a superhero on drugs, shrugging off the hits"

In the words of our esteemed @dingerr , Bullshit. Hammer the dislike/disagree button all you like, it doesn't make you correct.
 
I was in a 2009 lecture with c.60-other recruit soldiers on basic training:

Warrant Officer:
"556 is less fatal but does bounce around inside the body causing internal injuries and requiring evacuation. This is good because it means two other soldiers will be needed to evacuate them, therefore taking three enemy off the battlefield" * one detailed changed to protect the guilty

Interesting that this was still being touted in 2009.

I have been informed, on various threads, that this wasn't case.

And as if by magic

There was a myth doing the rounds that 5.56mm was "less lethal" and meant to "wound not kill" because "a wounded soldier needed more of his mates to look after him" - which was all entire bollocks that someone made up.
 
I was in a 2009 lecture with c.60-other recruit soldiers on basic training:

Warrant Officer:
"556 is less fatal but does bounce around inside the body causing internal injuries and requiring evacuation. This is good because it means two other soldiers will be needed to evacuate them, therefore taking three enemy off the battlefield" * one detailed changed to protect the guilty
There is nothing new about that belief.
It's also the case that the sight and sound of a badly wounded mutilated man is more disturbing than a dead one
 
Last edited:
Top