Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>]

I hear the 240 is a nice weapon.  But it's still too large to issue as the
standard weapon for every soldier.  The M-16 never gave me a problem; in
fact, I never heard of it give anyone I knew a problem ... the M16A2, that
is (as the M16 is the Vietnam-era issue).  And the round is quite stable
in flight, although it does have a tiny spiralling pattern, ever
increasing at greater distance, and of course dropping due to gravity.

The AK-47 is definitely not an accurate weapon, but yeah, the difference
between being hit by a 5.56mm (that's just about equivalent to .22
calibre) and a 7.62mm round is significant.  But from a distance, my
money's on the guy with the M16.  And then again, you *can* drop an AK in
the mud, pick it up and fire it; don't try this at home with your M16. 
The Uzi has the same "no matter how dirty" reputation.

But ask nearly anyone on the planet who knows, and the weapon of choice
will be German, if you can afford it.  Heckler & Koch makes quite an array
of powerful and accurate rifles and machine guns.

$0.02,
Alan


Tom Caswell said:
> M16/M4 is a 5.56mm weapon.  It's the diameter of the round which is
> effectively the same as the bore.  The round is unstable in flight due to
> its power and size.  It tumbles when it enters the body which is supposed
> to maim the enemy instead of kill them.  This does not always work in
> practice and is especially inefficient for wounds to the limbs.
>
> The AK-47 is a 7.62mm weapon.  Larger rounds have a bigger charge which
> gives more force when chambering the next round.  The M16/M4 does not
> provide much force when chambering rounds.  I'm not talking about firing
> covered in mud either.  Frequent firing without cleaning will build up
> carbon and if it's not removed, the M16 can get cranky.  The AK-47,
> however, will fire when covered in mud.
>
> There is a weapon called the M249.  It's a belt-fed 5.56mm automatic
> machine gun.  It fires quite fast but it jams so often because the force
> provided by the 5.56mm rounds to pull the belt through is so weak.  If you
> don't feed it perfectly you're hosed.  The M240 replaced the M60, both
> 7.62mm weapons.  The M240 pulls the belt through with about 20lbs of
> force.  So much more reliable.
>
> Tom
>
> Sil Greene <Sil_greene AT unc.edu> wrote:
>
> Reported 03.12.09 15:23 from Tom Caswell:
>
> .:Wounding them does not stop them or their buddies. It's time to move
> .:to a 7.62mm weapon.
>
>>From what exactly? (You've aroused my technical curiosity. Why this
> particular bore [is that the right term?], and what are we using now? Is
> this the size of the AK-47 and friends?)
>
> --sg
>