Comments on: Why American Soldiers Shoot a Glorified .22

By: Longarch

Longarch — Thu, 03 Nov 2022 05:34:24 +0000

“An expert rifleman with a Garand or modern equivalent, like an M-14 with modern optics, is basically a designated marksman — so his goal would be to engage from relatively long range.”

I would like to think that lowly grunts of the 21st century could engage the enemy at close quarters with automatic firearms more efficient than M3 grease guns or Tommy guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun

Machine pistols seem cool to me in theory, based solely on my subjective impressions of their usage in 1980s action movies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC-10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_VP70

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_93R

https://robocop.fandom.com/wiki/Auto_9

I like the idea of a lowly grunt packing a heavy-caliber machine pistol that can be worn on the hip like an oversized pistol, but can be used for close-quarters SWAT policing or military operations. I am sure that some mechanical engineer could figure out a way to make a machine pistol chambered in 12.7mm. I am sure macho guys would risk breaking their wrists just to fire such a thing in full auto. What I doubt is that any army would be profligate enough to equip lowly grunts with such expensive machine pistols. Because the monetary costs and logistical headaches of the ammunition would likely outweigh any practical benefits, such show-stopping pistols are probably best left to the realm of cyberpunk fiction.

By: Wang Wei Lin

Wang Wei Lin — Sat, 22 Oct 2022 00:11:50 +0000

If the projectile is capable of poking a hole in you it’s potentially lethal. Poke enough holes and any projectile is guarateed deadly.

By: Magus

Magus — Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:51:44 +0000

Studler was the same fool who a decade earlier had insisted that the .308 had to be the round adopted, dismissing the British-designed .280 as insufficient in power. Then he turned around pushed a much weaker round.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:16:33 +0000

Of course a 5.56 causes more damage than a .22 long rifle round. The M16 may shoot its glorified .22 with roughly half the energy (1300 ft·lbf) of a .308 (2,472 ft·lbf) coming out of an M14, but that's still many times the energy of an inglorious .22 — just 141 ft·lbf! An ordinary .22 lacks the energy to cause massive damage — so bullet placement becomes very, very important.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:58:26 +0000

At high velocities, the 5.56mm fragments and causes massive damage that a .22 couldn’t hope to do in a billion years.

Since when has “energy” from a bullet ever taken down anyone? If you don’t hit the central nervous system, you should be concerned about permanent cavity and bleedout.

For your viewing pleasure. Black area is permanent cavity.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:34:16 +0000

An expert rifleman with a Garand or modern equivalent, like an M-14 with modern optics, is basically a designated marksman — so his goal would be to engage from relatively long range. Modern American soldiers are well-trained though, and they have high-quality optics on their assault rifles, so the margin would be much narrower than it would be against a modern insurgent or Cold War Soviet conscript with an AK.

By: Alrenous

Alrenous — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:02:59 +0000

Ah, so the soldiers were kind of useless, meaning the rifle was far more rifle than they could use.

What would you say would happen if an expert rifleman with a Garand or modern equivalent attacked or was attacked by a regular soldier with a M16?

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:59:10 +0000

The M1 Garand carried by US infantry in WWII was called "the greatest battle implement ever devised" by General George S. Patton; it wasn't "kind of a useless weapon". The bolt-action rifles used by the other armies weren't useless either. Rather, most conscripts simply aren't expert riflemen. They won't make each shot count, so they won't benefit from a weapon effective out to half a kilometer or more. What is infantry for, anyway?, we might ask, if they're not really riflemen, and it seems that infantry troops are for infiltrating and screening out infiltrators.

By: Alrenous

Alrenous — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:05:24 +0000

This may explain why I grew up thinking infantry were kind of useless, when that’s not currently the case. In WWII, they used a kind of useless weapon.