Project Reality Forums

We have sniper rifles so we can see.... God you're stupid.

lol, seriously though Lampshade. Pretty much any report I've read or person I've spoken to about 5.56 ammo says it's useless against soft targets, it just goes straight through them whether it's fired from an M16 or an M4.

No fragmenting, no tumbling. Probably has a different effect (most likely a better one) if it hits some kevlar beforehand, but I don't know for certain.

eddie wrote:We have sniper rifles so we can see.... God you're stupid.

Snipers have tunnel vision, I get teh_panoramic view

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz']lol, seriously though Lampshade. Pretty much any report I've read or person I've spoken to about 5.56 ammo says it's useless against soft targets, it just goes straight through them whether it's fired from an M16 or an M4.

No fragmenting, no tumbling. Probably has a different effect (most likely a better one) if it hits some kevlar beforehand, but I don't know for certain.

Yeah, if it were used against an armored target i'd imagine the armor to slow it enough to start to, dare i say it, tumble, but against a soft target it's like poking a pencil through paper

Though i cannot confirm any of this, as i have never fired a 5.56 round.

Ok, the M855 round was bad. It only fragmented at velocities over 2,700 fps. And even then it didn't fragment very much. Also, at such velocities it was liable to pass straight through the person who it hit before it fragmented much. Or at all. The M855 round fired from a 20" can penetrate well over a foot of human tissue well beyond 200m. Also, at ranges below 15m it may well simply disintegrate on impact with a hard surface due to the immense forces on the bullet. Which is why it doesn't go through walls very well. It will tumble, its a spitzer type bullet afterall, but it goes so fast that when passing through someone it is very unlikly that it would tumble to any significant degree to provide additional wounding.

Now, the new round, the M855 "lead free" green tip is even worse in this respect. It fragments even less and penetrates even better. Now, if the US were fighting a conventional army with body armor, medics and were bound by the international laws of war, this would be a perfectly adiquate round in most cases. But they're not and its rubbish.

Now, with the new M4 carbines and their 14.5" barrels the velocity for fragmentation for fragmentation is barely maintained for 100m, 75 being a more realistic figure possibly going down to 50m on a bad day. However, the penetration of the round is retained for much longer and it will, from what I've been told, simply pass straight through a person without the fragmentation of the higher velocities and sod all tumbling. bassically leaving a nice, neat, 5.56mm hole in them.

The M855 is very fast, very stable and rather small. That means it zips through people very easily and leaves a small wounding profile with minimal fragmentation in most cases. On the other hand it is accurate and you can carry lots of it.

It was not designed with the current conflicts in mind. It was designed (like so much in NATO's arsenal) for the plains of Northern and Central Europe where the stability was a necessity to penetrate Russian body armor at extened ranges at the cost of actual internal wounds. This was seen as being designed to "kill" (because afterall, what good is a round thats effective against human tissue if it cant get to it?).

bassically leaving a nice, neat, 5.56mm hole in them.

Yes... i was right!

I still don't see how something as minor as that steel core could cause the 5.56x45mm to go from blasting a huge hole in your chest like it did in Vietnam from hardly doing anything. I have heard that other heavier ammo like the Mk.262 is much more lethal but what is the major difference?

Stability, wern't you paying attention?

Right. There have been 3 different levels of stability in the M16 over the course of its life time.

1. The 1:14 twist with M193 ammo. The most unstable. Terribly inaccurate but produced the infamous "meat ax" effect (ie, blowing limbs off). In the original AR-15 tested for the military and some XM16E1s, IIRC.

2. The 1:12 twist with M193 ammo. More stable, but still with a round with good fragmentation and fairly unstable. Used in the M16 and M16A1. Not brilliantly accurate, but good enough. Still reasonably high levels of fragmentation but not the "meat ax" effect of the 1:14 twist. Poor performance against body armor, however.

3. 1:7 twist with M855 ammo. By far the most stable incarnation. Also the most accurate and penetrating due to the increased weight and stability. Much less fragmentation and tumbling but much better able to deal with body armor.

So for conflicts like Iraq, the 1:12 would be best? Or, a lot better than what we have now?

'[R-DEV wrote:Jaymz']...Keep in mind they're getting ACOGs and UGLs too

isnt the aimpoint what us army riflemen use?
from the aimpoint website:
"The CompM2, also known as the M68/CCO (when used by US forces), is the standard sight for the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force as well as the armed forces of many NATO countries."

can someone with experience comment?

though of course, sacrificing an itsy bit of realism for the sake of gameplay balance is quite understandable. imagine a map like kashan where G3 w/ 4x vs M4 with red dot

ReaperMAC wrote:Their special forces class will get an M4(A1?) with a suppressor. Thats what Ive read anyway...

hopefully the sf class will be either limited or gone
sf don't fight alongside conventional forces

2 rifleman classes ftw!

Enough with trying to get rid of the SF class. We don't need another kit with the same weapon as everybody else.

Okay just back from the bar and it seems bob won this round despite the rather clear and concise post I made.

Anyone who uses the words 'tumble' and '5.56mm' without 'vietnam' and 'doesn't anymore' attached somewhere in there just needs to jump out a window, a particularly high one preferably.

We SHOULD use the tried and true 7.62mm round. When I have 80 pounds of gear already, 3-4 extra for a 7.62 round is well worth it. Modern recoil systems + no full auto negate the other argument against it. Baring that, follow the example of the spec ops units, and go with the simple solution of just buying the 6.8mm upper receivers for the m4. There's a reason they are so hard to get a hold of in the civilian market, its because SF is grabbing every one they could get their hands on.

For the price of 1 modern stealth jet you could replace every m4 in the army. For the price of 2, you could give us a rifle that isn't a piece of shit in the desert, or any other environment for that matter.

Hmm, this brings up the question Kenwayy

If you had to choose one rifle/caliber cambo to equip the US Army, what would it be?

WNxKenwayy wrote:Anyone who uses the words 'tumble' and '5.56mm' without 'vietnam' and 'doesn't anymore' attached somewhere in there just needs to jump out a window, a particularly high one preferably.

The US used to fight in Vietnam but doesn't anymore, because the 5.56mm tumbles.

I get cookie?

Seriously, what's this thread about?

billdan wrote:2 rifleman classes ftw!

*Idea*
We could have two kits for each base kit. For example, have one rifleman kit have heavy body armor and decreased mobility (stamina/sprint bar) and the other rifleman kit can have light armor and increased mobility. So players can choose between more protection at the cost of mobility or more mobility at the cost of less protection. Kind of dumb idea as I'm guessing each soldier would have same amount of armor but I'm guessing soldiers have different stamina and endurance levels...

isnt the aimpoint what us army riflemen use?
from the aimpoint website:
"The CompM2, also known as the M68/CCO (when used by US forces), is the standard sight for the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force as well as the armed forces of many NATO countries."

can someone with experience comment?

though of course, sacrificing an itsy bit of realism for the sake of gameplay balance is quite understandable. imagine a map like kashan where G3 w/ 4x vs M4 with red dot

This really depends on a units prefererence ( and budget) but ACOGs are really the prefered optic because they have some magnification (1.5x I think?) and it doesn't need a battery like the M68 does. They're also a bit tougher then the M68. I don't remember ever sending an ACOG back to get red taged but I sent several M68s.

The ACOG has a 4x zoom

Well actually the ACOG comes in several versions with different levels of zoom.

Though as far as I'm aware, the 4x is the most common.

The Challenger. I can't wait for that tank!