Re: M16 similarities re. Iraq & VN

"Martin Sinclair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>"KP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For punching holes in paper at mid to long ranges, one bullet at a time,
>> the 5.56 does fine.  In the stylized form of shooting done on a highpower
>> firing line it does superb.
>>
>> However, if you're involved in more serious social interacting with people
>> who hold views which differ radically from yours, at 500m the 7.62 makes
>> for a more convincing argument.

>Unless the target is wearing body armour. 5.56 NATO outperforms 7.62 NATO
>against the CRISAT-protected target beyond 340m, according to the data
>that I've seen........

>(5.56 NATO has a built-in penetrator; 7.62 NATO doesn't)


I wasn't aware that STANAG specified the details of bullet construction,
demanding that 5.56 NATO must have a penetrator and 7.62 NATO must not.
But I can't find the relevant text on-line, so maybe they do.


Certainly NATO member nations have issued ammunition, suitable for use
in their 7.62x51mm weapons, which includes steel or tungsten penetrators
and which outperforms corresponding 5.56x45mm ammunition against body 
or vehicle armor.  In the case of the United States, the M61 and M993
7.62mm cartridges.

Obviously, if you're shooting against armor the first rule is to use
armor-piercing ammunition.  But 7.62mm AP beats 5.56mm AP by a fair
margin.  Factor of two or so against RHA at 300m, if my numbers are
correct.


-- 
*John Schilling                    * "Anything worth doing,         *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP       *  is worth doing for money"     *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner *    -13th Rule of Acquisition   *
*White Elephant Research, LLC      * "There is no substitute        *
[EMAIL PROTECTED]            *  for success"                  *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795      *    -58th Rule of Acquisition   *