“Jungle Gun” Concept

[sniperfrog]

I think the lessons learned are massively important from then, just as they are now. However, I also think personally that any leadership that doesn't study ancient warfare is seriously lacking.

When you get into heavy brush and leaf, the AK, or at least its heavier bullet has a lot going for it. I don't mean to poo poo the 5.56 at all, but if we dumb everything down, heavier bullets penetrate better. The heavier bullet in an AR is what opened the door to the 300BLK, and I'll be more than happy to admit that I would rather be using 110 grain copper Barnes killing beast than 62 grain anything.

One of the ballistics gurus at NSW Crane told me that during their tests, bullets of any caliber in small arms were deflected by brush with the same probability.
Bullet weight didn’t seam to matter. If it hit a twig it was going to veer off its flight path.

I also worked with some Albuquerque PD SWAT guys that tested shooting through a chain link fence with 556 and 762. Again, probability of hits on target were the same. If the bullet hit the fence it went off into the wild blue yonder.

[Stickman]

One of the ballistics gurus at NSW Crane told me that during their tests, bullets of any caliber in small arms were deflected by brush with the same probability.
Bullet weight didn’t seam to matter. If it hit a twig it was going to veer off its flight path.

I also worked with some Albuquerque PD SWAT guys that tested shooting through a chain link fence with 556 and 762. Again, probability of hits on target were the same. If the bullet hit the fence it went off into the wild blue yonder.

I'll be the first to confess that I am not a ballistics expert. That being said, I've done more work in that area than most people. Angle of deflection is based upon a lot of things. Bullet weight, speed, thickness and density of object and the list goes on and on. Start to add in variables that include motion and the results are more math than this prior MIL/ LEO/ TL/ FAI/ Armorer can start to figure out with any degree of certainty. However, what we can figure out, and which you and I are immensely aware of is that deflection and penetration of small arms are two very different things.

Would you rather be behind a tree with 556 being fired at you or 762? Same question for branches, ant hills, mounds of earth etc.. Obviously neither of us wants to be shot at, but at the end of the day the smaller round penetrates less.

None of what I wrote is meant to discount the NSW guy, or the APD teams, I agree with what they are saying.

I think both of us are on the same sheet of music, and probably saying the same thing from two slightly different angles. Let me know if you think I'm wrong.

[JediGuy]

I wonder if .300BLK might be a better option in the jungle based on comments. Heavier weight, not shooting for high distance, same # of rounds as 5.56.

[Hammer_Man]

Regardless of caliber, when in the jungle you need to remember that “if it bleeds we can kill it.”

[WillieThom]

Nothing like it has ever been on Earth before.
It came for the thrill of the hunt.
It picked the wrong man to hunt.

Soon the hunt will begin.

[sniperfrog]

I'll be the first to confess that I am not a ballistics expert. That being said, I've done more work in that area than most people. Angle of deflection is based upon a lot of things. Bullet weight, speed, thickness and density of object and the list goes on and on. Start to add in variables that include motion and the results are more math than this prior MIL/ LEO/ TL/ FAI/ Armorer can start to figure out with any degree of certainty. However, what we can figure out, and which you and I are immensely aware of is that deflection and penetration of small arms are two very different things.

Would you rather be behind a tree with 556 being fired at you or 762? Same question for branches, ant hills, mounds of earth etc.. Obviously neither of us wants to be shot at, but at the end of the day the smaller round penetrates less.

None of what I wrote is meant to discount the NSW guy, or the APD teams, I agree with what they are saying.

I think both of us are on the same sheet of music, and probably saying the same thing from two slightly different angles. Let me know if you think I'm wrong.

I agree on penetration. I should have been more specific about deflection. I was referring to shooting through brush like what you would experience in a jungle. I recall the Crane guy even saying that the 50bmg had a decent amount of deflection.

[1168]

So honestly, sometimes Florida felt like it had to be exactly like Malaysia.

But let's do real talk. What is the best all around carbine for air jumping into arctic conditions. Must be strong and compact and able to survive severe drop tests (which rules out all AR platforms due to their weak buffer tube design), have a barrel length of no more than 12" so that a heavy duty (full auto rated) suppressor can be part of the platform and still give 1MOA results with iron sights.

Do 4-25 BCT or the Scandinavians and Germans break a bunch of buffer tubes? I think the human skeleton is the weak point here.

So a XM-177 and a ham sandwich?

“mozzie”= mosquito.

One of the ballistics gurus at NSW Crane told me that during their tests, bullets of any caliber in small arms were deflected by brush with the same probability.
Bullet weight didn’t seam to matter. If it hit a twig it was going to veer off its flight path.

I also worked with some Albuquerque PD SWAT guys that tested shooting through a chain link fence with 556 and 762. Again, probability of hits on target were the same. If the bullet hit the fence it went off into the wild blue yonder.

Yeah. Though Stick has a good point about penetration of light cover.

Hawaii, PNW, Fl, and La have some Venn Overlap with Viet Nam. Hell, even SC has rice paddies, optics, nods, and windshield fogging, rain for days, thick brush and swamp, hostile reptilian wildlife, contact dermatitis, humidity that prevents drying, rust and corrosion, more than one type of cockroach, folk that live on waterways, etc.

Bring DEET, baby wipes, and ball powder (not just spherical propellant). Reject underwear. Socks….bring socks. And Doxy or Malarone. An M4 or AK will do, and any modifications to suit the environment should have an eye to corrosion and fogging prevention. The gun is the least of concerns. The balance of magnified vs unmagnified aiming devices would likely change in an organization, though.

[ABNAK]

Do 4-25 BCT or the Scandinavians and Germans break a bunch of buffer tubes? I think the human skeleton is the weak point here.

“mozzie”= mosquito.



Yeah. Though Stick has a good point about penetration of light cover.

Hawaii, PNW, Fl, and La have some Venn Overlap with Viet Nam. Hell, even SC has rice paddies, optics, nods, and windshield fogging, rain for days, thick brush and swamp, hostile reptilian wildlife, contact dermatitis, humidity that prevents drying, rust and corrosion, more than one type of cockroach, folk that live on waterways, etc.

Bring DEET, baby wipes, and ball powder (not just spherical propellant). Reject underwear. Socks….bring socks. And Doxy or Malarone. An M4 or AK will do, and any modifications to suit the environment should have an eye to corrosion and fogging prevention. The gun is the least of concerns. The balance of magnified vs unmagnified aiming devices would likely change in an organization, though.

Damn good point. The LPVO and ACOG craze would be of little value in an environment with thick vegetation. I guess you could make the argument that the ACOG could be used like a RDS at CQB ranges but it isn't optimal. And an LPVO like my Steiner can be set on 1X and has a dot so there's that. Still those optics wouldn't be ideal in those surroundings.

I know I'll catch flak for suggesting this but the huge FOV that the EOTech provides would likely be the best bet. Battery life of course is an issue, and not sure how susceptible to fogging a holographic sight is.

[SteyrAUG]

Do 4-25 BCT or the Scandinavians and Germans break a bunch of buffer tubes? I think the human skeleton is the weak point here.

Ghost rider we are reading a faulty sarcasm meter, we need you to check your equipment.

“mozzie”= mosquito.

Noted. I took to mean muzzie.

[ABNAK]

Noted. I took to mean muzzie.

So did I, just thought he hit the "o" instead of the "u".