The best round for modern warfare...?
- Thread starter Shahid
- Start date
I am a recreational target shooter. For a handgun, the best practice is dry-fire practice. With an unloaded handgun, carefully line up the sights so that the sight picture is correct on the target, and then slowly 'squeeze' the trigger. The actual "click" of the hammer hitting the firing pin should come as a surprise. In other words, you should not be tensing and anticipating recoil. It should be smooth and without a hitch. Your "follow-up" is also very important - make sure the sights are still on target as best you can after you have pulled the trigger.
The best way to "squeeze" the trigger is to place your trigger finger in the firing position and slowly compress your grip on the handgun until trigger has clicked. After you have become confident in dry-fire practice, where you are pulling the trigger exactly when the target is in your sights, move on to live fire practice. The same principles apply in live fire. Use a .22 handgun for practice as it may help.
The best way to "squeeze" the trigger is to place your trigger finger in the firing position and slowly compress your grip on the handgun until trigger has clicked. After you have become confident in dry-fire practice, where you are pulling the trigger exactly when the target is in your sights, move on to live fire practice. The same principles apply in live fire. Use a .22 handgun for practice as it may help.
I find that handgun barrels heat quickly, and it is best to do slow-fire, letting the barrel cool between shots, if you want to shoot better at 5 yards. Also make sure your handgun is on target by firing it from a gunrest first.
As for rifles, I fired a 5.56 mm rifle in full auto during basic training. It was incredibly inaccurate, even at 50 yards. It would be much better to use semi-automatic fire at that range. The rifle shakes in your hands during full automatic fire, and any barrel movement is bad for accuracy.
With a scoped 5.56 mm C-7 (improved AR type assault rifle) it is easy to hit man-sized target at 100 and 200 meters. However, in combat, when you are moving and being fired upon, and the enemy is moving, I don't think the average conscript would be able to hit a moving enemy rifleman at 200 meters. A 20" barrel AR-15 type rifle is surprisingly accurate, but it is a whole new skillset in itself to hit a moving target, and that requires practice. The psychological effect of being under effective fire also cannot be understated. This is why infantry carries machine guns and mortars, which do most of the killing at that distance.
As for rifles, I fired a 5.56 mm rifle in full auto during basic training. It was incredibly inaccurate, even at 50 yards. It would be much better to use semi-automatic fire at that range. The rifle shakes in your hands during full automatic fire, and any barrel movement is bad for accuracy.
With a scoped 5.56 mm C-7 (improved AR type assault rifle) it is easy to hit man-sized target at 100 and 200 meters. However, in combat, when you are moving and being fired upon, and the enemy is moving, I don't think the average conscript would be able to hit a moving enemy rifleman at 200 meters. A 20" barrel AR-15 type rifle is surprisingly accurate, but it is a whole new skillset in itself to hit a moving target, and that requires practice. The psychological effect of being under effective fire also cannot be understated. This is why infantry carries machine guns and mortars, which do most of the killing at that distance.
You might find this interesting, it shows how different rifles can be expected to perform.
I am an average shooter, and all these targets were shot at by me, so they are a representation of the accuracy of the firearms themselves under the same shooter.
These are all 8 1/2 X 11 sheets of paper. The spread of the bullet holes indicates the accuracy of the rifle.
M-14 Rifle (scoped), 50 yards 7.62X51
Swiss K-31 (iron sights), 50 yards 7.62X55
VZ-58 Rifle (iron sights) 50 yards, 7.62X39
M-14 Rifle (scoped), 100 yards 7.62X51
VZ-58 Rifle (iron sights) 100 yards 7.62X39
Swiss K-31 Rifle (iron sights) 100 yards 7.62X55
All of the ammunition used was military surplus, so this is what the various ammunition is capable of.
I could post some pistol groups too, but they wouldn't be as pretty.
I am an average shooter, and all these targets were shot at by me, so they are a representation of the accuracy of the firearms themselves under the same shooter.
These are all 8 1/2 X 11 sheets of paper. The spread of the bullet holes indicates the accuracy of the rifle.
M-14 Rifle (scoped), 50 yards 7.62X51
Swiss K-31 (iron sights), 50 yards 7.62X55
VZ-58 Rifle (iron sights) 50 yards, 7.62X39
M-14 Rifle (scoped), 100 yards 7.62X51
VZ-58 Rifle (iron sights) 100 yards 7.62X39
Swiss K-31 Rifle (iron sights) 100 yards 7.62X55
All of the ammunition used was military surplus, so this is what the various ammunition is capable of.
I could post some pistol groups too, but they wouldn't be as pretty.
I think aside Utelore (who is still absent form this converstion) is the sole of us ever been in a war and he was in tanktroops.
Anyway I try to do my best
The stress is major player. Even the stress from hard training (which tryes to simulate real combat situation) has great effects on both accuracy and awereness. And add this the fear that comes from real combat...But this coin has it's trunside. Some of us tends to be more alert under stress and the pressure brings out the best of them.
you pretty much covered the basics there. As a sportshooter (mainly rifles tough) myself I like to add few points. With pistols usually the aiming is done so that the black circle that you see form the target is above (note not in the centre) the pistols sights. So basicly it seems as you aim right to the cross of the white and black area. I'm not sure why its done so, but I think it has to do something with the pistol interupting the line of sight or something. Anyway this is how it's done by all sport shooters.
What comes to the actual triggering methods, I'm not sure if your pistol has a this sort of "premilinary pull" which means that the trigger moves little bit before it stops and comes tense right before the gun fires. Sports-shooters use this method by "taking the emptiness of" eg. pulling the trigger smoothly and then hold. The actual firing is done by mere tought and the "suprize" that Surpluss-soldier mentioned coems even faster. It's important that you don't release the trigger untill few secconds after the shot. This is for two reasons, first the round may still be in your barrel when you move the gun, and seccondly the time which the tought you send from your brains receives your finger is very very small but still rahter important. So it's good to keep the gun in the firing position untill the firing has actually happened
I hope this helped you but for the curtesy towards the orginal thread maker and his project, lets stick to that subject and leave other shooting related stuff in other threads...why not making completely new thread in the member's clubroom about casual shooting
So the reason I showed that was to illustrate some points about ammunition. The 7.62X51 and 7.62X55 ammo are full-sized battle-rifle cartridges, and travel in a relatively straight line compared to some other types of military ammunition. It is easier to get those bullets to hit where they are needed without a great deal of compensation.
On the other hand, the short assault rifle 7.62X39 cartridge has a "rainbow" trajectory than requires more compenstation for bullet drop because the projectile is travelling with less energy as it is a less powerful cartridge. This is not illustrated in the above scans because bullet drop is not much at 100 yards. However at 200 yards it starts to show, and it is downhill from there with the 7.62X39. So it is a good cartridge for 100, maybe 200 yards, but you need lots of practice to use it at 300 yards and beyond.
The question is - at what range do you engage the enemy? Full-power 7.62X51 is powerful at long distances (700m) and travels with less bullet drop, but this energy is wasted if you are only fighting at 200 m. The round are longer and considerably heavier than 7.62X39.
Compared to the NATO 5.56, the 7.62X39 is said to have better penetration on solid objects like wood. Yet with its higher velocity, NATO 5.56 penetrates body armour better. So in modern warfare, you want something that can penetrate body armour and 5.56 is better in that regard. However, many complain about the lack of "killing power" of 5.56, as well as its weak velocity at longer distances.
Most "ideal" cartridges fall in between the 5.56 and the 7.62X39. I think this is a great idea. Personally, I find that 7.62X39 is just a little too "stubby." The trajectory isn't straight enough, it doesn't have quite enough velocity even though it is a heavy bullet that is good at going through cover. On the other hand, I find 5.56 too puny, like a really fast .22 that is kind of pointless or wasted in a 7-9 pound rifle. But something in 6-7mm would have only a little more recoil than 5.56 (which isn't very much to start with), and yet would have more killing power, more effectiveness at longer distances, and better penetration of cover. It would be like a smaller, faster, and more flat-shooting 7.62X39. That is why the 6mm and 6.5mm seem like good, nice cartridges to me. I have fired 6.5mm Swedish which is the same principle applied to the full-sized battle rifle calibers and it appeared to be an accurate round that had enough power without too much weight and recoil.
On the other hand, the short assault rifle 7.62X39 cartridge has a "rainbow" trajectory than requires more compenstation for bullet drop because the projectile is travelling with less energy as it is a less powerful cartridge. This is not illustrated in the above scans because bullet drop is not much at 100 yards. However at 200 yards it starts to show, and it is downhill from there with the 7.62X39. So it is a good cartridge for 100, maybe 200 yards, but you need lots of practice to use it at 300 yards and beyond.
The question is - at what range do you engage the enemy? Full-power 7.62X51 is powerful at long distances (700m) and travels with less bullet drop, but this energy is wasted if you are only fighting at 200 m. The round are longer and considerably heavier than 7.62X39.
Compared to the NATO 5.56, the 7.62X39 is said to have better penetration on solid objects like wood. Yet with its higher velocity, NATO 5.56 penetrates body armour better. So in modern warfare, you want something that can penetrate body armour and 5.56 is better in that regard. However, many complain about the lack of "killing power" of 5.56, as well as its weak velocity at longer distances.
Most "ideal" cartridges fall in between the 5.56 and the 7.62X39. I think this is a great idea. Personally, I find that 7.62X39 is just a little too "stubby." The trajectory isn't straight enough, it doesn't have quite enough velocity even though it is a heavy bullet that is good at going through cover. On the other hand, I find 5.56 too puny, like a really fast .22 that is kind of pointless or wasted in a 7-9 pound rifle. But something in 6-7mm would have only a little more recoil than 5.56 (which isn't very much to start with), and yet would have more killing power, more effectiveness at longer distances, and better penetration of cover. It would be like a smaller, faster, and more flat-shooting 7.62X39. That is why the 6mm and 6.5mm seem like good, nice cartridges to me. I have fired 6.5mm Swedish which is the same principle applied to the full-sized battle rifle calibers and it appeared to be an accurate round that had enough power without too much weight and recoil.
maglomanic
Junior Member
SurplusWarrior,
Great insight. Thank you so very much
Golly,
Agreed, lets stick to topic.
Great insight. Thank you so very much
Golly,
Agreed, lets stick to topic.
Shahid said:
Well I’m not best example since I have grown up around guns so I know quite allot about them… But seriously it all depends about gun you are using… For example I don’t see any reason why average soldier couldn’t hit target at 300 m whit AK equipped whit optics and form my personal experience if he would use G-3 w. optics he could hit target up to 400-450m… I managed to score better results but like I said I’m not best example… O.T.to answer maglomanic; you might use little trick my father used when he teach me how to fire handgun… He put coin on front sight of the gun and make me squeeze trigger until I was able to do it without coin falling from sight… Also Surpluswarrior made some of the best posts I have seen so far on this subject…
The two best calibers I know of currently in development as "ideal" cartridges are the 6.5mm and the 6.8mm SPC.
Here is an FAQ on 6.8mm [I have added the word "REMOVE" to avoid direct linking]
A glowing review of the 6.8mm
Troubles in its development
From people who have more experience with the rounds, I've heard 6.8mm SPC described as "more of a close range cartridge for shooting out of an M4 Carbine" while 6.5mm is described as having better performance at long range.
6.5mm Grendel
A glowing promotional article
A glowing FAQ
Similar article
A less biased review [this guy tests all sorts of firearms...but he almost always offers a glowing endorsement...]
An opiniated comparisom between 6.5 and 6.8mm
Personally, I haven't picked one as a favourite since I'd like to see which hits store shelves first! (Sorry if this is too many links! A moderator can remove them if this is the case. I couldn't find forum rules on the topic.)
As far as I know there aren't any rules against direct links to articles, only pictures from certain (Chinese?) websites, so I edited your links to make things easier.
-Zergling
Here is an FAQ on 6.8mm [I have added the word "REMOVE" to avoid direct linking]
A glowing review of the 6.8mm
Troubles in its development
From people who have more experience with the rounds, I've heard 6.8mm SPC described as "more of a close range cartridge for shooting out of an M4 Carbine" while 6.5mm is described as having better performance at long range.
6.5mm Grendel
A glowing promotional article
A glowing FAQ
Similar article
A less biased review [this guy tests all sorts of firearms...but he almost always offers a glowing endorsement...]
An opiniated comparisom between 6.5 and 6.8mm
Personally, I haven't picked one as a favourite since I'd like to see which hits store shelves first! (Sorry if this is too many links! A moderator can remove them if this is the case. I couldn't find forum rules on the topic.)
As far as I know there aren't any rules against direct links to articles, only pictures from certain (Chinese?) websites, so I edited your links to make things easier.
-Zergling
We used that trick in army with our AKs...at first I was the sole man in my battery that managed to pull the trigger without the coin dropping...eventually the rest learned it as well...