It was an 11 inch barrel I think. A2 flash hider, 308 rifle with 308 ammo, semi auto.
Also much heavier than you’d think for such a short rifle…
Edit: In the other post I wrote about 7.62N, that comment was supposed to be somewhat seperate from the OSW comments, sorry for the confusion.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
It was an 11 inch barrel I think. A2 flash hider, 308 rifle with 308 ammo, semi auto.
[/quote]
Yowza! I don’t think there’s a muzzle device on the market that could tame the flash on that bad boy. Serious loss of velocity in a .308 too. That much muzzle flash that close to your face means no shooting at night, or you’ll never be making any follow-up shots.
And I try to add the '7/62 is NOT .308" disclaimer on any thread where the two get discussed. It’s one of those things that not everyone knows, but that can cause problems for the uninformed. Fortunately, most of those problems are of the “failure to fire” variety, not the “overpressure chamber explosion” variety.
[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
It was an 11 inch barrel I think. A2 flash hider, 308 rifle with 308 ammo, semi auto.
[/quote]
Yowza! I don’t think there’s a muzzle device on the market that could tame the flash on that bad boy. Serious loss of velocity in a .308 too. That much muzzle flash that close to your face means no shooting at night, or you’ll never be making any follow-up shots.
And I try to add the '7/62 is NOT .308" disclaimer on any thread where the two get discussed. It’s one of those things that not everyone knows, but that can cause problems for the uninformed. Fortunately, most of those problems are of the “failure to fire” variety, not the “overpressure chamber explosion” variety. [/quote]
First,
Thank you Jim, both for the post in general and the PSA about .308/7.62. I would also not that with 5.56/.223 it works the other way. Meaning the commercial .223 is safe in 5.56 chambers, but that firing a 5.56 Nato pressure round in a .223 chamber is bad juju.
Now, an 11 inch 7.62 Nato…why do it without a can? A suppressor would tame the muzzle flash and blast, and an 11 inch barrel is short enough that adding a silencer leaves you with a normal length barrel. Without one it sounds like someone elected to come up with a western version of a Draco pattern AK, but decided to make it more expensive to feed, heavier, and to ensure that a ton of still burning powder comes out the front.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
It was an 11 inch barrel I think. A2 flash hider, 308 rifle with 308 ammo, semi auto.
[/quote]
Yowza! I don’t think there’s a muzzle device on the market that could tame the flash on that bad boy. Serious loss of velocity in a .308 too. That much muzzle flash that close to your face means no shooting at night, or you’ll never be making any follow-up shots.
And I try to add the '7/62 is NOT .308" disclaimer on any thread where the two get discussed. It’s one of those things that not everyone knows, but that can cause problems for the uninformed. Fortunately, most of those problems are of the “failure to fire” variety, not the “overpressure chamber explosion” variety. [/quote]
First,
Thank you Jim, both for the post in general and the PSA about .308/7.62. I would also not that with 5.56/.223 it works the other way. Meaning the commercial .223 is safe in 5.56 chambers, but that firing a 5.56 Nato pressure round in a .223 chamber is bad juju.
Now, an 11 inch 7.62 Nato…why do it without a can? A suppressor would tame the muzzle flash and blast, and an 11 inch barrel is short enough that adding a silencer leaves you with a normal length barrel. Without one it sounds like someone elected to come up with a western version of a Draco pattern AK, but decided to make it more expensive to feed, heavier, and to ensure that a ton of still burning powder comes out the front.
Regards,
Robert A
[/quote]
A supressor won’t save that thing…
Even without the flash, noise and recoil… It’s still too short for the 308 or 7.62 (I think there’s a proper FAL OSW as well that’s chambered in 7.62N, don’t know if the barrel length is the same there) to deliver good terminal performance, and 20 rounds go way too fast when clearing what passes for a house on tatooine… Not an issue for HD purposes of course, but then you’re still left with the many other downsides.
Hell, are rifle supressors even allowed in every state in the U.S. ?
I just cannot think of any practical application for such a short barreled 7.62/308 weapon that cannot be accomplished better and possibly cheaper with other calibers/guns.
http://www.dsarms.com/images/SA58OSWNFA.GIF
There it is. Pretty, but stupid 
According to the link you can get 13 inch barrels for it as well… (Yeah, that’ll help a lot… What the hell were they thinking while designing this thing?) And a billion other extras in case you have too much money to spend on a dud…
Article on the new M855A1 service ammo (5.56NATO)
It is a concise write up of why it sucks out loud.
Not covered is the reasonable supposition that the rounds increased cost (it costs more than match ammo and is supposed to be the general issue round) will lead to even fewer rounds fired in training.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
Article on the new M855A1 service ammo (5.56NATO)
It is a concise write up of why it sucks out loud.
Not covered is the reasonable supposition that the rounds increased cost (it costs more than match ammo and is supposed to be the general issue round) will lead to even fewer rounds fired in training.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/03/07/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Higher cost, significant problems with weapon fouling and resulting issues… How are the terminal effects? Anyone perforate some 10% gelatin with this crap yet?
I’ve heard plenty of norwegian guys complain about their “green” ammo… Hope the U.S. troops and civilians manage to put a stop to it before it does become the primary issue ammo for you folks.
And yeah… A grand victory for the environment eh? I guess all the other, way bigger factors they couldn’t/did not dare touch?
Come to think of it, if I can get a hold of some Norwegian green ammo I’ll run it through my 416 and see how it works out.
I think Dr. Roberts posted that the M855A1 has more consistent/better terminal effects than M193(55 grain) or M855. Basically it yaws quicker. The tip and the copper base separate once the round yaws.
It still sucks going through windshields.
It is a stolen design.
The Marine Corps’ SOST round (basically a non-bonded Trophy Bonded Bear Claw) is cheaper, has better barrier performance, is more accurate, and at least equal in terminal performance.
The cost is the real issue with the M855A1. It cost a shit ton to design. It costs a shit ton to make.
I get the desire to have soldiers inhale less led and mercury, but that can be solved with lead-free primers (Shelf life is an issue here and a LEGITIMATE concern for a general issue round) and closed base bullets.
I will see if I can get some gel tests, both official propaganda or independent.
Regards,
Robert A
US Army report: Turns out it’s awesome. They are awesome. Green ammo is awesome.
http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/LCAAP/Industry_Day/634272332137343750.pdf
Is this “Green” ammo kick getting around Europe as well? I honestly don’t think Green ammo is all that big a save for the environment and certainly regular ammo is less destructive than the actual fighting.
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Robert A wrote:
I think Dr. Roberts posted that the M855A1 has more consistent/better terminal effects than M193(55 grain) or M855. Basically it yaws quicker. The tip and the copper base separate once the round yaws.
[/quote] Oh? It has a positive side? [quote]
It still sucks going through windshields.
It is a stolen design.
The Marine Corps’ SOST round (basically a non-bonded Trophy Bonded Bear Claw) is cheaper, has better barrier performance, is more accurate, and at least equal in terminal performance.
[/quote] Ah right, the accurazy thing… Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the average m4 was reduced to ak74-like performance minus the reliability? 
[quote]
The cost is the real issue with the M855A1. It cost a shit ton to design. It costs a shit ton to make.
I get the desire to have soldiers inhale less led and mercury, but that can be solved with lead-free primers (Shelf life is an issue here and a LEGITIMATE concern for a general issue round) and closed base bullets.
[/quote] Call me a cynic, but I doubt that whoever is pushing for this round truly cares about the troops’ health… [quote]
I will see if I can get some gel tests, both official propaganda or independent.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Yeah, that’d be interesting to see. Wonder how this will all turn out in the end…
[quote]Robert A wrote:
US Army report: Turns out it’s awesome. They are awesome. Green ammo is awesome.
http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/LCAAP/Industry_Day/634272332137343750.pdf
Is this “Green” ammo kick getting around Europe as well? I honestly don’t think Green ammo is all that big a save for the environment and certainly regular ammo is less destructive than the actual fighting.
Regards,
Robert A[/quote]
Mother nature defeats humanity in the end, eh?
Yeah, Europe has already been bitten by the green ammo bug. So far it’s not working out too well from what I hear. Haven’t used it myself so far. I like my gun not jamming up on me more than it already does.
If you guys adopt that stuff, you can at least rest assured that your shitty green ammo is still better than our shitty green ammo on average. USA, USA!
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
If you guys adopt that stuff, you can at least rest assured that your shitty green ammo is still better than our shitty green ammo on average. USA, USA!
[/quote]
Here is my “greenish” solution.
Lead free/“green” primer. This is the material that is a legit concern for people standing around the weapon and inhaling. I am concerned about storage issues and shelf life, but fuck it throw some money at it and the worst that happens is “old” ammo gets dumped on the surplus market.
The bullet for general issue: An “open tip match round” made to much looser specs than actual match ammo.
The base will be closed to help with “leading” the air. The jacket will be thin in order to “Save copper, a non-renewable resource. Every bit saved helps cut down the need for mining (booh, hiss) and leaves more to build circuits and water pipes for whatever starving/sympathetic group needs them. Most would go with starving children, but I would go with easy women. I know which group I want to take more showers. Your Milage May Vary.”
The general spec of the round should probably put it in the 70-75 grain range. Hornandy’s T2 OTM would be fine as is, but others could still play.
Basically, loosen up the tolerances because a general issue round doesn’t need to be MK232 match. It needs to pull between 2-3 M.O.A average. Accept up to 4 M.O.A. Drive it fast enough that the fragmentation range extends to at least 175 yards from an M-4 (thin jacket). Give it a cannelure to prevent set back and add another stress point in the jacket. Case sealent at the neck. Crimp and water-seal the primer.
It won’t have a “penetrator”, but no one is using mild steel helmets any more. It will suck equil to M855 through barriers. If it is worse, play with the antimony content. It will yaw and fragment quickly (to reduce “over-penetration” in modern battle fields where non-combatants are common). It won’t pierce SAAPI plates, but neither does anything short of legit AP. For instances where actual armor penetration is needed, use AP rounds.
It should take about 2 weeks to draw up a design.
Regards,
Robert A
Something that has come up in the past in other threads and also the recent trayvon martin thing (relating to a different case though) was the amount of rounds fired by police officers in many cases… I think professor X brought up some case where a guy who pulled out his wallet for ID in the dark was assumed to have a gun and 4 police officers fired 41 times in total (19 hits).
Why this happens is somewhat answered in the links provided etc, at least from a terminal ballistics standpoint… But let’s discuss training and psychological factors some relating to this… I’ve repeatedly noticed people critizising or expressing disbelief over the volume of fire in such cases…
So clearing up some of the factors involved might help future discussions of other cases (That’s me, ever the optimist in the face of insurmountable odds hahaha).
Especially interested in Jim’s view of course, as LE/former LE.
FWIW I think those of us who have commented in this thread previously are likely all on the same page on this anyway, but for other people reading it might be an interesting discussion to follow.
My brother-in-law is on the SWAT team of a major US metro, and after a large training event he ended up with 10,000 rounds of Federal T223A (a 55gr round). Two thousand of those rounds worked their way into my possession, so I can’t complain about the price but it looks like the penetration depth is only 7.5"
For my purposes - those purposes being simple home defense - I think this stuff will be fine until I run out. Next purchase will likely be something different though.
I thought maybe it was only their training round because it isn’t FMJ. I asked my bro-in-law, and he said they use the same rounds for training and entry. Seems odd given the general consensus on what defines an effective round.
[quote]borrek wrote:
My brother-in-law is on the SWAT team of a major US metro, and after a large training event he ended up with 10,000 rounds of Federal T223A (a 55gr round). Two thousand of those rounds worked their way into my possession, so I can’t complain about the price but it looks like the penetration depth is only 7.5"
For my purposes - those purposes being simple home defense - I think this stuff will be fine until I run out. Next purchase will likely be something different though.
I thought maybe it was only their training round because it isn’t FMJ. I asked my bro-in-law, and he said they use the same rounds for training and entry. Seems odd given the general consensus on what defines an effective round.[/quote]
Many, many (departments/agencies, armies, what have you) are either mislead on the issue or completely unaware.
Anyway… That penetration depth could very well be fine depending on the situation. A head on shot to a vital area as defined previously in this thread… I.e., if you simply don’t need more penetration depth. But if the guy is aiming a gun at you, standing obliquely (is that the word?) and so on… 7.5 is really short man (well, at least in porn
Seriously, if I were truly worried about getting into a HD situation, I’d use your stuff as training ammo and make sure to have at least one mag or a few worth of something around which passes the FBI standards.
HD gunfights are rare, but when they happen, you don’t exactly want to end up like the FBI agents in Miami either…
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
My brother-in-law is on the SWAT team of a major US metro, and after a large training event he ended up with 10,000 rounds of Federal T223A (a 55gr round). Two thousand of those rounds worked their way into my possession, so I can’t complain about the price but it looks like the penetration depth is only 7.5"
For my purposes - those purposes being simple home defense - I think this stuff will be fine until I run out. Next purchase will likely be something different though.
I thought maybe it was only their training round because it isn’t FMJ. I asked my bro-in-law, and he said they use the same rounds for training and entry. Seems odd given the general consensus on what defines an effective round.[/quote]
Many, many (departments/agencies, armies, what have you) are either mislead on the issue or completely unaware.
Anyway… That penetration depth could very well be fine depending on the situation. A head on shot to a vital area as defined previously in this thread… I.e., if you simply don’t need more penetration depth. But if the guy is aiming a gun at you, standing obliquely (is that the word?) and so on… 7.5 is really short man (well, at least in porn
Seriously, if I were truly worried about getting into a HD situation, I’d use your stuff as training ammo and make sure to have at least one mag or a few worth of something around which passes the FBI standards.
HD gunfights are rare, but when they happen, you don’t exactly want to end up like the FBI agents in Miami either…
[/quote]
I agree with everything C_C wrote.
A couple considerations:
1.) 7.5 " is way shorter than I would prefer. In all honesty I think it is making a 5.56 weapon so sub-optimal I might rather have a handgun. I will explain my reasoning. Unlike a blade, you are not going to be able to clear limbs/objects out of the path of the bullet. If someone is enough of a threat that your best way to solve your problem is to launch pieces of metal through their anatomy, RIGHT FUCKING NOW, then you have already strayed from whatever your “ideal scenario” is.
It is highly likely that scenarios where you might shoot someone involve them holding a weapon, or at leat being in a “fighting posture”. This tends to involve them putting their arms between you and their upper thoracic, cervical, and cranial targets. Regardless of if we describe this scenario as a “dynamic situation” that forces us to “resort to kinetic options” or a “clusterfuck” there is a good chance you and your target will both be moving and covering up. I am not a particularly impressive guy physically, but going through my upper arm is going to eat up a lot of 7.5 " and maybe not leave enough to reach the heart. Imagine if it was someone scary.
If you are shooting through an arm we need to think about the skin on the exit side of the limb. Skin is stretchy and remarkably good at protecting against penetration. On the entry side it is sort of “held inplace” by the tissue underneath, muscle, fat, etc. so it is easy to push an object, or a bullet through. On the far side the skin is able to stretch/pull away from the underlying structures. This sort of acts like an airbag to the bullet and slows the velocity of the round considerably. It is fairly common for surgeons, medical examiners, and hunters to find expanded rounds “just under the skin” at the far end of a wound track. I think the figure is that the skin can count as 2-3" of gel for penetration.
That round is a fragmenting soft point, so we can expect it to either be in smaller pieces or at least deformed/yawed so it is no longer hitting pointy end first when it gets to the chest/head. This will further lessen its ability to penetrate. I am not saying it “will not work”, just that there are many other options that would “work” more often.
2.) Some departments are really concerned with “over penetration”. This shit doesn’t exist. The worry that someone downrange is going to serve as a backstop to rounds that struck the badguy and exited is a fucking non issue. I say this because generally cops miss more than they hit. I think the nation wide average is about 20% hits for rounds fired. I am not being critical. I just think that the bullets going past the target that are marked “occupant” are going to be a bigger hazard than an already deformed round that had the target’s name on it.
3.) The situation’s where a SWAT officer may be shooting and yours differ in psychology. The “entry” team knows they are going to do some shit and is able to be the aggressor at least tactically. I am not saying they instigated it on a moral level, just that they get to gear up and go. People in this situation tend to shoot far more accurately than someone having to solve a “Oh fuck” problem, in their living room.
4.) If you are concerned about penetrating interior walls then I would suggest a non-barrier blind round that still penetrates a minimum of 12" of 10% gel. The reality is that anything that will penetrate enough bad guy will probably penetrate an uncomfortable amount of wallboard. Because of that it is better to pick a load that will allow you to solve the problem with a minimum of rounds, because make no mistake. The asshole that you are shooting is a bigger threat to you, your family, and society as a whole than your misses.
5.) Those are pricey rounds. They could work for training, but I would try to trade at lest some of them with someone for a more effective ammo.
6.) What weapon will you be firing them in? Do you know the twist rate of the barrel?
Regards,
Robert A
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Something that has come up in the past in other threads and also the recent trayvon martin thing (relating to a different case though) was the amount of rounds fired by police officers in many cases… I think professor X brought up some case where a guy who pulled out his wallet for ID in the dark was assumed to have a gun and 4 police officers fired 41 times in total (19 hits).
Why this happens is somewhat answered in the links provided etc, at least from a terminal ballistics standpoint… But let’s discuss training and psychological factors some relating to this… I’ve repeatedly noticed people critizising or expressing disbelief over the volume of fire in such cases…
So clearing up some of the factors involved might help future discussions of other cases (That’s me, ever the optimist in the face of insurmountable odds hahaha).
Especially interested in Jim’s view of course, as LE/former LE.
FWIW I think those of us who have commented in this thread previously are likely all on the same page on this anyway, but for other people reading it might be an interesting discussion to follow.[/quote]
Well lets get it on then