"Battle Rifle" vs. "Precision Rifle"

[PatrioticDisorder]

I think we can get too carried away with being obsessed with accuracy in our rifles that we use for real.

I'll agree with that sentiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEVzl0n5Hsk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLBF_Gkg91U

Pretty difficult to beat that accuracy in a semi auto, but I'm sure LMT MWS & KAC SR-25 could. The question is whether it is worth the extra cost in weight and/or price? The SCAR 17s has more than adequate accuracy for me.

[Fox33]

1- False.

2- M993 is decent, but is hard on bolts.

3- False.

4- False.



You seem pretty hot and heavy over Handl.
Any connection?

#1 It has been my experience (I must caveat this with I have not shot the 68gr? round) multiple strikes with the M193 62 gr 5.56 rounds were not nearly as effective as the 77gr M262 or even M80 147gr 7.62. I should have clarified that each of those projectiles was fired from a different platforms and at elevations above 5000ft and distances sometimes over 250m not necessarily at CQC ranges. Not to be grotesque but I have seen afghans shot with 5.56 still in the fight, I have never seen anyone shot with 7.62x51 live, much less in the fight.

This has been my experience, which is less than some around here, so I might be wrong, but I don't think so. I'd still rather have a 7.62 gun than a 5.56 one.

If I was being brash or crass I apologize.

#2 Just trying to highlight 7.62 has a wide variety (and possibly more capacity) of rounds in the military supply system M993 might not be a good application in a mk17 but you can do it

#3 I was countering the myth that a 7.62 gun carries a heavier logistical burden. Yes you might carry less rounds, but I still stand fast on the assertion that 7.62 rounds will need less shots to neutralize a target. That the aforementioned m993 will penetrate father into concrete (read sun baked mud huts) much further than the 5.56 black or green tip. They also will penetrate body armor/steel plate much further. I hadji is wearing a cut piece of 1/4 inch steel in a home made plate carrier @ 300m 5.56 might not do the job and might take a few rounds to get it done with strikes outside the box 7.62 will not have that issue

#4 The reason I became a handl fan is the level of ingenuity they possessed in solving the mk.17's issues. I was shown their project by another team guy and I decided to volunteer my time and effort. for those of us that got the first few mk17's a few years back they had nagging issues and quirks. Buttstocks and lowers cracking and breaking, magazines that would explode if dropped on concrete, failures to function, the ability to eat eotechs, a hand guard that would give you no shit 2nd degree burns, and more.

So handl defense started off making a lower that accepted SR 25 pattern magazines. Of course they had the teething issues of anyone first to market. But they listened and then they took informal feedback from SF and NSW guys. Then they solved the issues and complaints of the SCAR-H such as the heat problem (ask your favorite SOF guy about the early versions that could cook off after sustained rates of fire). They provided a method to drop the weight of the load of the whole system and enabled the gun to use 25 round magazines as originally intended.

They have aerospace guys that worked on this, no shit guys who build parts for the 737 and f22/35 programs also worked on this from the metalurgy and recoil impulse sides and a couple of SF guys who kept it oriented to the mk. 17 specs.

They have so much more than what has publicly released, considering some of their stuff has already been stolen, I would wait to see how the entire proposal works out with the military too.

So yea I'm a shill a fan or whatever, because if they succeed, they are going to massively improve the SCAR. But that is up to the project lead in tampa because that's where all this has been sitting since march

[MegademiC]

Fox, you do know that m193 and green tip are not armor piercing, right. The comparable 5.56 load is m995. Your post on previous page sounded like you were comparing penetration of 193 with 993.

[Devildawg2531]

Lot's of great info in this thread as I have tried 3 different 7.62 x 51 platforms and sold all 3.

I have bought and sold :
Saiga 7.62 x 51's (not acurate / 4 MOA gun, and didn't like the ergonomics or optic options)

FN FNAR (about 1 MOA, but other than being accurate nothing else was favorable)

Loaded M1A (heavy, optic solution less than ideal)

I like the M16 / AR platform and am considering heavily Larue OBR, LMT MWS or KAC but also looking at the SCAR17 as I'm determined to make my 4th entry into the 7.62 x 51 platform be a keeper. Currently have about 1000 rounds of 7.62 x 51 and .308 but nothing chambered for it...

[Arctic1]

#1 It has been my experience (I must caveat this with I have not shot the 68gr? round) multiple strikes with the M193 62 gr 5.56 rounds were not nearly as effective as the 77gr M262 or even M80 147gr 7.62. I should have clarified that each of those projectiles was fired from a different platforms and at elevations above 5000ft and distances sometimes over 250m not necessarily at CQC ranges. Not to be grotesque but I have seen afghans shot with 5.56 still in the fight, I have never seen anyone shot with 7.62x51 live, much less in the fight.

This has been my experience, which is less than some around here, so I might be wrong, but I don't think so. I'd still rather have a 7.62 gun than a 5.56 one.

First, the M193 is a 55 grain round. That it's terminal performance beyond 250 meters is less effective than a heavier 5.56 round or a 7.62 round is sort of self-explanatory.

As for anecdotal observations, they do not neccessarily equate to absolute fact. I have seen people survive a 2000lb JDAM strike, does that mean that it is ineffective? We have treated afghans shot/hit with 5.56, 7.62, .50 cal, 30mm and 40mm rounds or fragments. There are no definitives, people are hard to kill. If the enemy does not want to die, he can continue fighting, even with mortal wounds.

My point of contention with your post was your de-facto statement that one hit with a 7.62 kills. That is not true at all.

#3 I was countering the myth that a 7.62 gun carries a heavier logistical burden. Yes you might carry less rounds, but I still stand fast on the assertion that 7.62 rounds will need less shots to neutralize a target. That the aforementioned m993 will penetrate father into concrete (read sun baked mud huts) much further than the 5.56 black or green tip. They also will penetrate body armor/steel plate much further. I hadji is wearing a cut piece of 1/4 inch steel in a home made plate carrier @ 300m 5.56 might not do the job and might take a few rounds to get it done with strikes outside the box 7.62 will not have that issue

Again, your premise was 1 round only for 7.62, double taps with 5.56. This is irrelevant, you continue to engage until the threat no longer qualifies as such. The advantage of a 5.56 gun compared to a 7.62 gun in situations where rapid shots at close range are required, is the lower recoil of the 5.56 translating to a higher number of shots delivered faster and with more accuracy.

And I have yet to see an afghan mud/shit hut exterior wall not stop small arms rounds. In the AO I was, even the 84mm Carl Gustav AT round had a hard time cutting through, let alone the 7.62 and 5.56.

[Fox33]

Fox, you do know that m193 and green tip are not armor piercing, right. The comparable 5.56 load is m995. Your post on previous page sounded like you were comparing penetration of 193 with 993.

oops my bad you are right

wrong DODAC, I was comparing the standard issue green tip vs. 7.62 AP but also m118LR and M80. Do not get the impression that I hate 5.56, I do not, I just see 7.62 as a superior round.

[Fox33]

. #1 There are no definitives, people are hard to kill. If the enemy does not want to die, he can continue fighting, even with mortal wounds.

#2 My point of contention with your post was your de-facto statement that one hit with a 7.62 kills. That is not true at all.

#3 Again, your premise was 1 round only for 7.62, double taps with 5.56. This is irrelevant, you continue to engage until the threat no longer qualifies as such.

#4 The advantage of a 5.56 gun compared to a 7.62 gun in situations where rapid shots at close range are required, is the lower recoil of the 5.56 translating to a higher number of shots delivered faster and with more accuracy.

#1 Agree

#2 we have established no certainties so I pick up what you are putting down, I should have phased it as much more likely with one

#3 Agree

#4 Agree in one of the earlier posts I mention the speed of follow up shots with 5.56

When it comes compounds, sometimes you needed an Abrams to breech it. Some of interior walls and CMU block I have seen holes punched in by 7.62. I always took that as another example of superior terminal ballistics.

I think it is all about application, urban close quarters and over penetration being an issue a light soft 5.56 round is probably the way to go. high windy dry and far 7.62 is superior IMO. I see the scope for application of 7.62 as much larger than 5.56. Not saying there are times that 5.56 is the better choice. But IMO 7.62 has a much larger envelope.

I hope I am not coming of like a dick, one of my professors said she imagined me yelling at the screen when I write. But make no mistake I like getting into it. I apologize for any miscommunications and appreciate you guys getting in here and rolling.

[Failure2Stop]

#1 It has been my experience (I must caveat this with I have not shot the 68gr? round) multiple strikes with the M193 62 gr 5.56 rounds were not nearly as effective as the 77gr M262 or even M80 147gr 7.62. I should have clarified that each of those projectiles was fired from a different platforms and at elevations above 5000ft and distances sometimes over 250m not necessarily at CQC ranges. Not to be grotesque but I have seen afghans shot with 5.56 still in the fight, I have never seen anyone shot with 7.62x51 live, much less in the fight.

This has been my experience, which is less than some around here, so I might be wrong, but I don't think so. I'd still rather have a 7.62 gun than a 5.56 one.

Overall I agree, I would rather be slinging 7.62 than 5.56 in pretty much every condition that would allow me to employ a 16" barreled carbine.

It undeniably performs better through intermediate barriers and is more terminally effective than similarly constructed 5.56 bullets.

My disagreement was that multiple shots would no longer be needed. I've had single-shot stops with M855, seen dudes keep running after taking .50 BMG, and had to do clean-up following air-strikes. Regardless of what gelatin or conventional wisdom indicates, every threat needs to be dosed into compliance. Generally speaking, larger pills seem to need fewer doses, but I never count on a single hit to achieve the goal.

If I was being brash or crass I apologize.

To be fair, I could have been more explanatory in my post.
That was partly due to the resurrection of the thread after an extended time-frame while similar threads are currently ongoing. Really not a big deal, just gives the impression that someone is pushing an angle, a belief that has been greatly reduced since our email.

#2 Just trying to highlight 7.62 has a wide variety (and possibly more capacity) of rounds in the military supply system M993 might not be a good application in a mk17 but you can do it

I would agree with this aspect.
The 7.62 SOST (AB50/Mk319) is a hammer, M993 is awesome for penetration, and Mk316 (AB39) is some of the most accurate factory 7.62 I have shot. Ammo selection currently in the system allows the 7.62 to be more flexible/effective than a 5.56 option, in the conditions that permit their use. Enclosures are a lot easier with a 10.5" 5.56 than a 16" 7.62, so I don't see the 7.62 becoming the across-the-board replacement that lots of folks want. Then again, I don't see an 11.5" 5.56 or .300 Blk doing it either.

I think that there is a strong case for a 7.62 as a GP carbine (it's where I personally went) for those that are willing to accept the increased weight and size.

#3 I was countering the myth that a 7.62 gun carries a heavier logistical burden. Yes you might carry less rounds, but I still stand fast on the assertion that 7.62 rounds will need less shots to neutralize a target.

I generally agree that a trained/skilled shooter with a 7.62 will be able to more efficiently use his load-out, even if it is reduced from that of a similarly tasked 5.56 shooter. There is an undeniable increase in weight of ammunition, but given that there are plenty of dudes bopping around with 249s, 240s, 203s, M320s, M107s, etc etc, along with the weight of their respective ammunition, the weight is not a huge factor.

#4 The reason I became a handl fan is the level of ingenuity they possessed in solving the mk.17's issues. I was shown their project by another team guy and I decided to volunteer my time and effort. for those of us that got the first few mk17's a few years back they had nagging issues and quirks. Buttstocks and lowers cracking and breaking, magazines that would explode if dropped on concrete, failures to function, the ability to eat eotechs, a hand guard that would give you no shit 2nd degree burns, and more.

-SNIP-

So yea I'm a shill a fan or whatever, because if they succeed, they are going to massively improve the SCAR. But that is up to the project lead in tampa because that's where all this has been sitting since march

Gotcha.
FWIW- you're not a "shill" unless you are associated with the company and are spreading false positive reviews/opinions/etc without disclosing your affiliation. You seem like a guy that sees promise in the direction of advancement that the company is going. No problem with that, as long as you are willing to accept the criticism of others of the company/product without taking it personally.