Re: Gun/Military Thread

[Frost]

I don't know about you, but to utilize a higher-mounted sight on a pistol, I just need to....lower my hands a centimeter or two. I personally would stick with the irons anyway, but it's just an interesting feature.

I'm a lefty, and the fact that I constantly have to be reaching around the sides of the gun to get at the safety and slide release is very annoying, so ambi controls are a plus for me

[Ketchup]

I'm partial to the Five-Seven, though I've never shot a handgun, or even seen one. On paper, it has high lethality due to the shape of the bullet. Downside, it might not work as intended, creating less severe wounds in the target. 5.56x45 NATO apparently also has this problem.
The gun looks really nice, too.

I'm interested in revolvers, but not ridiculously elaborate or powerful ones.

I'm interested in guns for target shooting. Hunting for fun isn't something I'd enjoy, and I don't intend on entering the Canadian Forces any time soon.

[Frost]

Ketch, if you want advice on guns, you're sadly not going to get much here. This is the place gunbronies come to argue and bicker. and we love it

[Ketchup]

I've been here before, if you'd remember.

I know plenty about guns, but I have very little experience. I'm not looking for advice, in any case.

[Frost]

I, in fact, would not remember. I often end up saying the same thing several times to people because I can't remember I've already said it. Remembering is for the weak

[Sindri]

The Five-seveN shoots 5.56*28, if memory serves...

5.7x28mm. It's not a rifle round; it was developed specifically to replace the old 9×19mm Parabellum pistol slugs that have been so common for the last century. Higher accuracy, longer range, less recoil, good armor penetration, and it tumbles to deal as much damage and stopping power (and avoid overpenetration) as a normal hollowpoint. Unfortunately, only the Five-seveN pistol and the FN-P90 actually use it yet, making the round fairly hard to find. It's an upgrade in almost every respect over older pistol rounds, since for many decades now good rifle rounds have been getting higher and higher tech while pistol ammunition has remained little more advanced than a lead ball. Weapon of choice for the US Secret Service along with a variety of law enforcement agencies.

[Frost]

I'm quite familiar with it, it's just that it's been several months since my last reading on it.

Problem is the same as with any 5.56 rifle: it tumbles in theory. In practice, it often penetrates through with little damage. Yes, there's less recoil, but a skilled fighter can manage the recoil of his weapon anyway, especially the puny recoil on the 9*19 it's built to replace. There's a reason that most militaries are sticking with the 9mm (and the U.S. military is looking into going back to .45) and that's probably why it's such a rare and expensive cartridge.

[Sindri]

I'm quite familiar with it, it's just that it's been several months since my last reading on it.

Problem is the same as with any 5.56 rifle: it tumbles in theory. In practice, it often penetrates through with little damage. Yes, there's less recoil, but a skilled fighter can manage the recoil of his weapon anyway, especially the puny recoil on the 9*19 it's built to replace. There's a reason that most militaries are sticking with the 9mm (and the U.S. military is looking into going back to .45) and that's probably why it's such a rare and expensive cartridge.

Can you give me a source on the 5.7 overpenetrating? I'm seeing a lot of worries about that from people who've never used it, but not even anecdotal evidence. Just thousands of sources for consistent, predictable tumbling in ballistic gel and a handful of very satisfied reviews from law enforcement agencies saying that autopsies reveal the round performing exactly as advertised in a human body.

A 5.56 rifle overpenetrates all the time; stopping power wasn't a big consideration in its design, it never rolled consistently, and most uses that require a kill on the first shot rely on high velocity fragmentation. But the design of the 5.7 round is different. Instead of a homogeneous material like the 5.56, it's got a heavy core in the rear so it begins to flip around as soon as it hits something. Every piece of actual information I've seen on it (as opposed to fanboys of other calibers whining, or range shooters with no idea how the ballistics work rejecting it because it 'felt weak') indicates that it's even less of an overpenetration risk than other pistol rounds like the 9x19, consistently going 28-34cm into ballistic gel and then stopping (or an average of 25cm through a level III vest).

And your argument doesn't even make sense for military applications. A soldier is going to deal with armored targets regularly, generally engage at a distance, and wounding an enemy soldier is actually preferable to a straight kill under most circumstances because he's not going to rejoin combat and any friends who are helping him aren't shooting you. A standard .45 will be stopped completely by armor which barely slows the 5.7 down. I'm sure there's a reason for the decision, but I'd guess it has more to do with price, habit, or nationalism than effectiveness.

Meanwhile in civilian and law-enforcement applications the first priority it stopping power (the targets being close range, usually angry, and often drugged rather than sitting behind cover a hundred meters off) followed by limiting collateral damage; that's why hollowpoints are so popular with the law while they're illegal in the military. And more law enforcement agencies switch to the Five-Seven all the time because it seems to be better at those things than a 9x19... and can punch through the rare and otherwise troublesome armored criminal as a nice bonus.


edit: not trying to claim to be an expert or anything; if I'm wrong please give me the information I'm missing. But I've seen a lot of arguments against it without anything solid behind them, and since this is the biggest shift in pistol technology in about a century it interests me.

[Frost]

By every account I've heard, most military, law and civilian pistol engagements occur very close in and very fast, and the soldiers/police turn to their rifles for longer ranges (and shorter ranges, too, if it can be helped) as for armor, you, again, have your rifle if you're a soldier and many police have rifles in their vehicles.

I think it's funny how you immediately dismiss any criticism of the round as "range shooters" or "fanboys" rather than considering it.

Yes, it's new. But there's a difference between "cutting edge" and "bleeding edge"

[Sindri]

I don't dismiss criticism of the round. I seek it out, investigate the source, and then despair when I can't find any sources with actual information and the vast majority of people talking about the subject are clueless.

I personally don't have a stake in this fight; I'm not trying to justify my purchase of the gun because I don't own one, I don't have stock in the company that makes them, whatever. I just want to know things about advances in technology, because they interest me. Knowing things is very difficult when you have all of a dozen valid sources on one side of the argument and nothing on the other.

Once again, if you can prove what I've said wrong please do. I hate being wrong, and the main reason I argue things is to get rid of the falsehoods I think I know. But so far, I can't find a single piece of actual information indicating that the 5.7 round is less than it appears. This isn't that shitty gyroget experiment again, or somebody claiming to have personal energy weapons because their laser pointer can scorch paper, this is a (20 year old now) significant evolution in ballistics.

[Ketchup]

I had understood that the 5.7 worked well on paper, but was criticized for a possibility of ineffective ballistic effects. I have never done any extensive research on the cartridge, though.

A little anecdote from the Browning Hi-Power. It was called the Hi-Power because of it's magazine capacity, not the power of the 9x19. It holds 13 rounds, almost twice that of a contemporary M1911 magazine, which held 7.

Problem with lethality(provided you really want to kill a person...)? If so, shoot them again. The Five-Seven holds 20 cartridges.

[Frost]

I have no dog in this fight either, and I hate being wrong as much as you do.

Ketch: the Five-seveN holds 20 rounds, yeah. Any 9mm will hold 15 or 17, and you have to shoot them fewer times. .45's only hold anywhere from 7 to 13, but you'll likely only have to shoot them once, maybe twice.

@Sindri: as I mentioned, it's been a few months since I did my last reading on it. Give me a few to dig up the research. If I can't find it *offers sword* the victory shall be yours

[Ketchup]

Any 9mm will hold 15 or 17, and you have to shoot them fewer times. .45's only hold anywhere from 7 to 13, but you'll likely only have to shoot them once, maybe twice.

Evidence, please? It sounds like you are comparing them by caliber, not ballistics.

[Sindri]

I had understood that the 5.7 worked well on paper, but was criticized for a possibility of ineffective ballistic effects. I have never done any extensive research on the cartridge, though.

A little anecdote from the Browning Hi-Power. It was called the Hi-Power because of it's magazine capacity, not the power of the 9x19. It holds 13 rounds, almost twice that of a contemporary M1911 magazine, which held 7.

Problem with lethality(provided you really want to kill a person...)? If so, shoot them again. The Five-Seven holds 20 cartridges.

Exactly, a possibility of ineffective ballistic effects. But there's been a significant amount of research on the subject; first off there was the competition between the FN 5.7x28 and the HK 4.6x30 when NATO was looking for a replacement for the old 9x19, and after extensive testing by experts from the US, UK, Canada, and France the 5.7 was deemed "undoubtedly the more efficient cartridge." Since then there's been studies by the Passaic County, New Jersey Sheriff's Department and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, both with very encouraging and very consistent results. So for the 5.7 to not be effective, its behavior in a human body would need to be incredibly, radically different from how it acted in the best simulations by the best professionals. Meanwhile I've got a report from the Houston, TX police department (the first american law enforcement agency to adopt the P90) giving it a glowing review in every respect from accuracy to ease of use to reliability, and autopsies from criminals who opposed them revealing a tumble pattern exactly as advertised. And the Five-seveN has been adopted by agencies across forty countries, including the US Secret Service, who generally tend not to fuck around.

And yeah, the Five-seveN holds 20 rounds in the standard magazine, also offering a 10 round one where the normal number is illegal and a 30 round extended mag. But since the rounds are so narrow, it's still lighter than a conventional pistol with a smaller capacity.

[Frost]

@Ketchup: I'm citing based on what generally happens in practice when the round is used.

@Sindri:

*Revisits research independently*

*swallows pride and chokes down tears*



Frost----> Sindri

[Ketchup]

@Ketchup: I'm citing based on what generally happens in practice when the round is used.

"What generally happens" isn't a source unless you've shot and killed multiple people with each cartridge, or can provide statistics.

[Sindri]

Frost----> Sindri

*returns sword*

Honestly I won't be entirely convinced myself until I see the tumble patterns in the gel (many image links, all of which are broken?), the notes from that NATO test (calling it clearly superior but the results themselves impossible to find? German representative denying the conclusion?), or the guns become common enough that there are more bodies with those bullets in them to study. My instincts say that if they're actually as good as they look, it should be easier to find evidence of this. But everything I can find points the same direction...

And the Five-seveN probably isn't a good gun for a hobbyist, and might not be best for self-defense either. First, it's expensive and the ammo is hard to find, so anyone looking to put a few rounds downrange for fun isn't going to get much benefit from it and is going to toss away a lot of money. And the main reason the gun is so rare among civilians these days seems to be that the standard rounds are armor piercing, and therefore illegal outside of official uses, so they couldn't sell it for self defense or hobbyists until they made a hollowpoint version (which kinda seems to defeat the point, though its actual performance data is even harder to find than for the originals).

[Frost]

Well, for one we can blame the damn Jerries. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the resistance for the 5.7 being standardized (which came from aforementioned damn Jerries) was from any connections FN's competitor, H&K, had with the Bundswehr and with the German government in general.

When I get myself some money, I might try to hunt down a Five-seveN. Meanwhile, somewhere floating around teh internetz is an AR upper that uses 5.7, from P90 mags, even

[Frost]

Here it is.

[CamoBadger]

once again coming from the OOC Thread:


@Lefty incompatability:
Lefties have been learning to use rifles intended for righties for about 100 years now, so it really isn't that difficult. Takes extra effort, yes. Something debilitating, no.

[Sindri]

once again coming from the OOC Thread:


@Lefty incompatability:
Lefties have been learning to use rifles intended for righties for about 100 years now, so it really isn't that difficult. Takes extra effort, yes. Something debilitating, no.

Yeah, but ambidextrous construction is still a nice touch in gun design if it doesn't compromise anything else. And with a bullpup design it really is important; otherwise you're ejecting hot casings into a lefty's cheek. Older ones like the Steyr AUG would swap parts around to switch the sides of everything, and it wasn't really a problem (anyone qualified to use a rifle ought to be able to take it apart and put it back together) but it did limit your ability to just pick up somebody else's gun and start shooting. Personally I like the P90's system, where spent casings are ejected straight downward from behind the grip; not only does it prevent the old hot brass down your shirt problem, but it keeps that tiny distraction out of the shooter's line of sight.

[Frost]

I also like the FS2000's forward ejectiness.

[CamoBadger]

@Bullpup: Except bullpup is awful and should have never been used. Does it have its bonuses, yes it does. It has a more compact weapon with the same length barrel and it's easier to clean, but other than that I'd rather not.
1) It requires forgetting everything you know about holding a rifle and relearning, which is stupid.
2) Forward ejection models (such as the F2000) have no way of KNOWING that the chamber is empty, because it is hidden completely from view. Unless you take the bolt out (which requires disassembly) you can never check the chamber for a round, which is unsafe as hell.
3) If a standard rifle jams, unjamming it is generally easy and takes less than 5 or 10 seconds. If a bullpup jams, you're boned because the actions are all closed and you have to field strip the rifle just to clear a jam, which will then take about 1 minute depending on how bad the jam is and how skilled you are (not including stress from combat). Yes, I realize this doesn't apply outside of combat, but that's how I judge all guns.

So yeah, there's my usual anti-bullpup rant.

[Frost]

I like the bullpup, but given that I'm going to be trained on an M16-family rifle, that's probably what I'm going to stick with for the most part

[Sindri]

@Bullpup: Except bullpup is awful and should have never been used. Does it have its bonuses, yes it does. It has a more compact weapon with the same length barrel and it's easier to clean, but other than that I'd rather not.
1) It requires forgetting everything you know about holding a rifle and relearning, which is stupid.
2) Forward ejection models (such as the F2000) have no way of KNOWING that the chamber is empty, because it is hidden completely from view. Unless you take the bolt out (which requires disassembly) you can never check the chamber for a round, which is unsafe as hell.
3) If a standard rifle jams, unjamming it is generally easy and takes less than 5 or 10 seconds. If a bullpup jams, you're boned because the actions are all closed and you have to field strip the rifle just to clear a jam, which will then take about 1 minute depending on how bad the jam is and how skilled you are (not including stress from combat). Yes, I realize this doesn't apply outside of combat, but that's how I judge all guns.

So yeah, there's my usual anti-bullpup rant.

1) Doesn't apply to new recruits, or any of the dozens of militaries that have already switched over. And that complaint has been made for every single advance in firearms technology. You would not believe the whining when they introduced the M1911, or when they switched to 5.56mm, or hell when the 9x19 Parabellum came out. 'It's different therefore it's stupid' is not a valid argument.
2) Is a valid problem, but it's with specific models rather than the entire concept.
3) Is more general, and a legitimate concern with some weapons. But it's again not inherent to the bullpup design. The old Steyr AUG was as easy to clear as a normal rifle, because the works were just as accessible but in a different place. The only models where this is a problem are the ones where they tried to overengineer things and just trust it to not fail, which is a flavor of stupidity by no means limited to those working on bullpups. There have always been shitty guns and there always will be; the bullpup design is not the problematic factor in the shitty bullpups.
I suppose the P90 also has the problem with the works being hard to get at, or it would if I had ever heard of the damn thing jamming. I'm looking at reports from people who tried to get it to jam by overusing it and refusing to clean it for months, and who gave up before it did.

In any case, there are a lot of advantages of bullpup design. For the same barrel length you get a weapon which is significantly lighter, more maneuverable in close quarters (the center of gravity is right against your body, and moment of inertia is a great deal lower), and shorter and thus more practical in vehicles and easier to carry. The only disadvantage from decreasing length is slightly less effective bayonet attacks. A bullpup rifle is as easy to handle as a carbine, a bullpup submachinegun can be short enough that the wielder's shoulders are broader than the weapon, and a bullpup sniper rifle gives all the accuracy and power without limiting the sniper's mobility nearly as much. They don't give any advantage on the range, but when you're marching, driving, or forced into CQC you'll definitely appreciate it.

[CamoBadger]

I understand everything you're saying, and it's pretty on paper, but after being deployed with a military that were issued bullpups (and hated them with a passion BTW), I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather stick with my standard rifle that has been used since the creation of the rifle several centuries ago. It works perfectly, and I don't see a reason to transition away from that.

1) True, doesn't apply to new recruits, but it definitely applies to the millions of soldiers who are experts with their current weapon and are suddenly forced to pick up something new. Not exactly a good idea mid-war.
3) Actually, part of it is. Clearing a jam means you need to pull something from the chamber sometimes. With a standard rifle you can do that while holding the gun normally. With a bullpup you have to remove the gun from a shooting position, ruining your sight line and taking another few seconds that cannot be spared in combat.
And on using it for months waiting for a jam, that's all well and good, but they fail to realize that in actual combat zones we have right now (you know, with sandstorms and dust always in the air) guns will jam a hell of a lot more often. I had to clean my rifle twice a day to keep it clean and operating while deployed. If I didn't, it would jam up after a few shots. Modern guns all have that problem. So they can test that as much as they want on a range or in a warehouse, but until you show me one where it goes through true combat situations and can go for more than 2 weeks without cleaning and doesn't jam, I refuse to acknowledge any of those studies.

So yes, I'm very biased against it. Call me stubborn, but when a military would rather switch back to the AK74 from the F2000 and have completely legitimate reasons, I tend to side with them. Basically I see them as 'great on paper, horrible in practice'.

[Frost]

If anything, the gun the Army's considering the most is the HK416-- essentially just an M4 with a slightly modified stock and grip and converted to short-stroke piston-operation from direct impingement

[CamoBadger]

If anything, the gun the Army's considering the most is the HK416-- essentially just an M4 with a slightly modified stock and grip and converted to short-stroke piston-operation from direct impingement

I'm hoping for it, because (surprise) another option is the M4 (again). I'd rather have the HK because they have a record of being superior weapons, but it's the Army. They're cheap and they've already done business with Colt so most likely we'll be seeing a lot more of the M4/M16.

[Sindri]

Fair point, and I concede to your experience.

For some reason I'd been thinking that you already needed to bring your rifle out of shooting position to clear jams, but it makes sense that you'd streamline the process a lot with actual practice. So yes, those couple seconds will always be a factor.

And looking at current bullpup designs, there are quite a few that kind of tend to be shit... there are exceptions but a lot of them seem to be putting more effort into being futuristic than reliable (particularly the F2000; that thing looks like a prop from a bad sci-fi film); I suppose the manufacturers concerned primarily with reliability just keep using what works.

And yeah, most of my records on the P90 come from police forces instead of soldiers just because the reports are easier to find. I don't suppose you saw any used in action?

Overall I still think that the bullpup design is probably a better concept than the conventional rifle design, but the people making conventional rifles have been doing so and refining them for a long time while bullpups are a relatively new technology. There are countless examples of newfangled conventional rifles that have the same or worse problems than these, but when those don't work you can always fall back on what's tried and true. When bullpups have gone through nearly the same amount of trial that conventional designs have, I have little doubt they'll be superior. In the meantime nobody's going to call the AK47 the best rifle in the world, but it pretty much always works, right?

Of course in another century or so railguns will likely have shrunk down to rifle-size, so who knows if chemically propelled bullpups will ever dominate?

[CamoBadger]

In the future, I have no doubt that bullpups will be much better, but for now they're still working through the issues with a new design (let's not even bring up the L85...). And as you said, gun manufacturers have been perfecting the standard rifle design, so any new designs will have a tough time comparing. In a few decades, they may reach a point that they've ironed out the kinks and got them so their negatives are smaller than those of standards with more bonuses that make them superior.

[Sponsored content]