Project Reality Forums

7.62mm in ful auto + ammount of ammo you can carry = kick your self in the balls and replace your F16's with Sopwith camels.

When will the UK learn to ignor miliatry pressures from other countries, when! :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2

Well with all these new technology and stuff coming out it will just be a matter of time until we come out with somthing that increases the strength of the average soldier and stuff, you know, sci-fi augmentation ideas. Maybe when that happens we will come out with the 7.62 again if it is just weight and recoil that is keeping us from using it. One thing's for sure, If I was in and they said to me "would you like to carry a heavier load with less of a full auto capability with the added stopping power and range" I'd reply "Yes please, where can I pick it up." If you kill them before they can kill you, then there isn't a problem is there? I'd rather meet an enemy at long range and win than short and have an even playing field.

mammikoura wrote:Agreed with the 7.62mm part.
About the cost of m8, well one F-22 was something like $350 million (if I remember correctly) so it wouldn't be as cheap as it sounds.

Well, the whole point of the article was the fact that infantry, compared to every other combat arms, has been seriously neglected over the years. If even half the money was put into the ground pounders instead of the jet jockies just think of the possibilities. It's the guys on the ground in Iraq and the 'stan that are getting killed, not the flyboys at 25,000ft. As far as infantry are concerned, not much has changed since WWI.

TII wrote:Well, the whole point of the article was the fact that infantry, compared to every other combat arms, has been seriously neglected over the years. If even half the money was put into the ground pounders instead of the jet jockies just think of the possibilities. It's the guys on the ground in Iraq and the 'stan that are getting killed, not the flyboys at 25,000ft. As far as infantry are concerned, not much has changed since WWI.

But I believe one of the reasons why armies don't spend too much money for the infantry (compared to other stuff) is that with infantry it's more about the men than the equipment. A good soldier with a rifle from the 1940's can kill a guy with modern gear. Now an airplane from 1940's having any change against modern jets? nooo Maybe tanks? Nope, neither does that one.

And another reason might be, that even if you have 100000 of those guys with new assault rifles on the ground, nothing is going to stop a single airplane from killing them.

And some of you say the 7.62mm is "too heavy" or "has too big recoil".
Well it might be a little heavier, but it shouldn't be a problem. There are still modern armies that use the 7.62mm just because it is more accurate at long ranges and has better stopping power. A soldier should be fit enough to carry his ammunition, no matter what ammo it is. And the recoil shouldn't matter so much, you only need that 1 accurate shot. And it's not like automatic fire would be very accurate even with a rifle that uses 5.56mm bullets.

H&K makes a M16/m4 upper receiver in 5.56 and 7.62, suppose to cure most M16/M4 receiver problems
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as75-e.htm

(Iv read most of the entries on that site last year)

mammikoura wrote:But I believe one of the reasons why armies don't spend too much money for the infantry (compared to other stuff) is that with infantry it's more about the men than the equipment. A good soldier with a rifle from the 1940's can kill a guy with modern gear. Now an airplane from 1940's having any change against modern jets? nooo Maybe tanks? Nope, neither does that one.

There is plenty of technology out there that our guys on the ground could seriously benefit from. Everything from better communications at the individual level, to better body armor, to optics and thermal sights, and down to the food we eat; you've got to think broader than just killing the other guy - you've got to find him first. We have enough of an advantage in there air for the foreseeable future, even before the production of the F-22, that IMO, money can be better spent in other areas. No one can project airpower even close to the USAF and USN/MC, and with the types of threats that we face today what we have is already is more than adequate.

My apologies to the OP, sorry for going off-topic.

What I want is that three barreled gatling cannon that they have in the 3Dmark program, that would shut everyone up.

As far as 5.56 or 7.62 I was reading something about them making a 5.56 bullet out of a heavier material so that it acts like a larger bullet. Another Idea that I though looked nasty was a belt fed 12gauge shotgun that can be mounted ontop of vehicles for urban combat.

Teek wrote:H&K makes a M16/m4 upper receiver in 5.56 and 7.62, suppose to cure most M16/M4 receiver problems
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as75-e.htm

(Iv read most of the entries on that site last year)

Thats another pretty gun made by the boys at HK, gotta love that german engineering.

mammikoura wrote: And some of you say the 7.62mm is "too heavy" or "has too big recoil".
Well it might be a little heavier, but it shouldn't be a problem. There are still modern armies that use the 7.62mm just because it is more accurate at long ranges and has better stopping power. A soldier should be fit enough to carry his ammunition, no matter what ammo it is. And the recoil shouldn't matter so much, you only need that 1 accurate shot. And it's not like automatic fire would be very accurate even with a rifle that uses 5.56mm bullets.

As ever, Bob is here with the handy image!



Now, as we can see, an M16A2 (5.56x45mm) can carry double the ammuntion load of a G3A3 (7.62x51mm) for the same weight. Arguing about "one accurate shot" and what have you, but historically firefights are won by the side with the most "firepower", as in the capability to lay down more bullets relativly accurately in a shorter time.

Now, intermediate rounds allow soldiers to achive this, while still having the capacity to fire accurately in semiautomatic mode at longer range, and they can do that faster than soldiers with full power rounds due to the lower recoil.

While the 5.56x45mm is not ideal, full power rifle rounds like 7.62x51mm are even less suited to modern warfare.

bobs on the ball yeat agian

Bob_Marley wrote:As ever, Bob is here with the handy image!



Now, as we can see, an M16A2 (5.56x45mm) can carry double the ammuntion load of a G3A3 (7.62x51mm) for the same weight. Arguing about "one accurate shot" and what have you, but historically firefights are won by the side with the most "firepower", as in the capability to lay down more bullets relativly accurately in a shorter time.

Now, intermediate rounds allow soldiers to achive this, while still having the capacity to fire accurately in semiautomatic mode at longer range, and they can do that faster than soldiers with full power rounds due to the lower recoil.

While the 5.56x45mm is not ideal, full power rifle rounds like 7.62x51mm are even less suited to modern warfare.

I'll just take the g-11 with the delayed recoil 3 rd burst please and thanks.

Nice image bob. But now that we are talking about the weight of the ammo. So for one it wasn't that brilliant to take an example where the weight of the gun has an effect, since the g3a3 is heavier than the m16a2.
g3a3 = 4.5kg
m16a2 = 3.77

g3a3:
so the weight of 5 mags (100 rounds) = 2.85kg
= 0.57kg/mag

m16a2:
so the weight of 8 mags (240 rounds) = 3.58kg
= 0.4475/mag

so it's only a difference of 0.1225kg/mag
Now is that 0.1225kg too much extra to carry per mag?
But then again the m16 mags have 10 more bullets.
But to me the difference in weight doesn't seem so important. I wouldn't mind carrying a few extra kg's if that would mean that I'd have a more accurate weapon with more stopping power.
Even one of the delta guys in somalia (1993 I think) said that the one delta sniper was smarter after all since he kept the old m14 which had huge stopping power compared to the ar-15s. (and this was after the delta guys with the ar-15s noticed that most of the enemies they shot just ran back to cover after getting hit)

But I guess in the end it's up to personal preference, myself I'd use the 7.62mm round instead of the 5.56mm in any situation.

Thats another part of the problem. 7.62x51mm rifles are heavier, because they need to be bigger because the reciver has to be larger. Hence, you can carry even less ammo.

Um yeah I can tell you right now after seeing the effects of the 5.56mm in combat vs the 7.62, I'd take a 7.62 anyday. A little extra weight (We already carry 70+) in the form of another mag or two, is negligble.

Forgot to mention, one of the biggest advantages of 7.62 is obviously put down power.

SECOND biggest is cover penetration. PR and every single game ever has absolutely shitty representation of true bullet penetration compared to real life.