Debate the differences and usefulness of many different kinds of ammo and weaponry

[St.Davis]

The M5 is a POS in my opinion and is the same shitshow the M14 was when it rolled out (inferior to its competitors). SIG obviously is paying the right people to force it into service. If the US is running both M4 and M5 type rifles in 40 years I would give it the same criticism.

I don't see why they wouldnt be. The US is still using M14s to this day in specialist roles, and I should imagine they've got a far greater number of m4 variant rifles and 5.56 ammunition than they ever did of 7.62 NATO and M14s.

Incidentally, on the "variety of ammunition" front: The US also makes use of the following calibers in their sniper category rifles.
-7.62x51
-6.5mm creedmoor
-.300 Winchester Magnum
-.300 Remington Ultra Magnum
-.338 Lapua Magnum
-7mm Remington Magnum
-.300 Norma Magnum
-.338 Norma Magnum
-.50 BMG (This one is cheating, to be fair. It's primarily an anti-materiel round used in that capacity)

 

[MG-34]

The problem is that the US never had a good battle rifle... and now they have a strange heavy assault rifle and a light assault rifle that is to weak to shot anything but goatfuckers...

Nigger, you're German. The G36 is trash and the M4 only weighs 7.5 pounds. West Germany lucked out and managed to get the G3 after fumbling negotiations with the FAL and Belgium.

I don't see why they wouldnt be. The US is still using M14s to this day in specialist roles, and I should imagine they've got a far greater number of m4 variant rifles and 5.56 ammunition than they ever did of 7.62 NATO and M14s.

The only M14s left are those in units where the custodians are too lazy to turn them in. Sage ordinance was notoriously shitty getting EBR parts and chassis out for COTS orders and even EOD got rid of them for SMUD use. I think the navy uses them to launch cables across ships, but that really isn't a combat role and is comparable to a tool. That being said it's been years since they've seen use as standard infantry rifles in lieu of a M16 or M4.

 

[Keystone]

It would probably be cheaper and more efficient to just send more 5.56 ammo and writeoff M16's and M4's to Ukraine. At least the US knows how to make 5.56 ammo, not to mention has probably billions of rounds of it laying around in storage.

Oh it does but it's too busy sitting in storage for agencies like the IRS/BLM (Land Managment, not the nigs) and a few other pencil pushing non-combat agencies that still have tough guy tactical teams for some reason.

Can't let the jackboots get short on ammo, or let ammo prices for your average citizen be reasonably priced after all.

 

[The Ugly One]

View attachment 4870849
The Mosin Nagant rifle is an outdated relic. You could argue the SKS is an outdated relic and I'd probably agree to that as well. A 7.62x39 AK is just as functional and just as capable now as it was 50 years ago.

And 50 years ago, it got outclassed by the M16 so badly that the USSR greenlit its replacement.

No it's not flat shooting out to 600 yards. No it doesn't have le poison bullets. But it will go through a tree or a thin wall and really fuck up the guy behind it. And it's perfectly accurate out to 300 yards which is all the range you need most of the time.

Same's true of a Garand. Problem is neither of those things are as important as its disadvantages. The biggest issue is that the combo of the ammunition's weight, the rifle's recoil, and the round's poor ballistics make it completely outclassed by more modern weapons for suppressing/covering fire, which is important for an assault rifle. Can't shoot as much, as far, as fast, or as accurately as your comrade with an AK-74 variant (or your enemy with some variant of a 5.56 rifle), and the gap isn't small.

There are still AKMs hanging around in Russian stockpiles, but if they're ever resorting to them, it's because there's been a land invasion that's necessitated a WW2-tier response.

 

[St.Davis]

That being said it's been years since they've seen use as standard infantry rifles in lieu of a M16 or M4.

To my knowledge Russia has/does only do this electively in scenarios like urban warfare where penetration is desirable. If this is the case I don't think it's a realistic point of criticism.

 

[Scotched up Scott]

And 50 years ago, it got outclassed by the M16 so badly that the USSR greenlit its replacement.

that's why the US got BTFOed in almost every war that it fought 7.62 AKs in right?

 

[St.Davis]

that's why the US got BTFOed in almost every war that it fought 7.62 AKs in right?

That has little to nothing to do with the infantry rifle used by either side.

 

[VargReallyDidNothingWrong]

The biggest issue is that the combo of the ammunition's weight, the rifle's recoil, and the round's poor ballistics make it completely outclassed by more modern weapons for suppressing/covering fire, which is important for an assault rifle. Can't shoot as much, as far, as fast, or as accurately as your comrade with an AK-74 variant (or your enemy with some variant of a 5.56 rifle), and the gap isn't small.

Suppressing fire is best done with an LMG. Covering fire is easily done on semi-auto and follow up shots on semi auto with a 7.62x39 AK are not the problem you're making them out to be. Ammo weight, OK sure I guess. A 1000 round spam can of 7.62 weighs 18 kg, a 1000 round spam can of 5.45 weighs 13. You're likely to be carrying maybe a third of that so the difference for you will be 1-2 kilos.

I still don't see why it's considered "obsolete". Again, if it was obsolete the US wouldn't be reinventing it in the form of .300 Blackout and other cartridges for specific use cases that are ballistically similar.

 

[Scotched up Scott]

That has little to nothing to do with the infantry rifle used by either side.

if 7.62 AKs were so shit as to be totally outclassed my the m16 as the guy claimed then the US would have easily had won as the US in the past 50 year in every conflict where they faced 7.62 AKs had almost total air superiority. yet the grunts on the ground couldn't finish the job. so id say the infantry rifle used in these conflicts has had a substantial impact on how these played out. not saying that they are better than the m16 but are no where near soo obsolete to be unusable on a modern battlefield.

 

[ForTheHoard]

its mostly the DOD has a stick up its ass because 5.56 is starting to show its age and it has "reportedly" reduced lethality and its armor penetration has been pushed about as far as it will go.

Spoiler: Skip to avoid more gun sperging

That's partially the DoD's fault. 5.56 was designed for a 20in barrel. Every inch you take off that barrel reduces the round's velocity, and the round only performs property within a certain velocity range. In their infinite wisdom, the DoD thought it would be a better idea to chop everyone's barrel down to 14.5-16 inches, and now the platform all of a sudden doesn't perform like it's supposed to. Imagine my shock. E=mc^2. Reducing the mass of a bullet lowers it's power, but reducing the velocity lowers its power exponentially.

This is the main reason .300 BLK got so much positive attention even though a lot of people hate it. The DoD insists on having a weapon small enough to clear a studio apartment and .300 can maintain its designed ballistics out of barrels under 10 inches in length. There's also the added value that it's compatible with every issued US platform in 5.56, only requiring a barrel swap. Unfortunately, .300 doesn't do nearly as well beyond a couple hundred yards and it doesn't have many options against light armor. I switched to .300 for home defense years ago because it's got fuck you power within 25 feet, and with the right ammunition, I don't have to worry very much about slaughtering my neighbors if I miss.

The military is doing what it always does and demands a single item perform perfectly under contradicting conditions. If you want to engage targets past 800 yards while smoking holes in ceramic body armor, you're gonna need a specific tool for that. If you want to pull something out of your pocket and wipe out 20 people in a room the size of a prison cell, you need a specific tool for that. The DoD wants a race car and a rock climber in the same vehicle and they're too retarded to recognize that it can't be done.

The obvious solution is to have more than 1 standard issued rifle that can be swapped out depending on the mission. We do it with special forces and law enforcement, but it's almost never an option for the average infantryman. For all the money we spend developing new shit, a lot could be saved just sticking with shit we have that already works. .338 and 54R do just fine for DMR work and against light vehicles. 5.56 in the right platform does just fine at standard engagement range. 9/10mm and even .45 do just fine while clearing buildings and crossing alleys. Give the people the tools they need to succeed instead of wasting trillions trying to design a swiss army knife that sucks at everything.

 

[Fatniggo1488]

View attachment 4867448
From the actual brainlet who brought you "the US is probably going to be spinning up production of 5.45 ammo at Lake City" comes a new cope "the US military is exclusively standardized on one gun and we don't have several versions of the M14, M16 and M4 in service concurrently, along with half a dozen SMGs"
View attachment 4867500
View attachment 4867508
View attachment 4867496

I'm beginning to think these people live in some sort of fantasy universe that has a very very slight resemblance to real life.
@MG-34 holy shit you are fucking stupid on god no cap

What's funny is that's not even getting into the various different SF units that just use whatever the fuck they want even if it's not a NATO weapon.

 

[Jump]

Gun fags always shit up threads with pages of the same autistic arguments no one gives a fuck about.

 

[St.Davis]

if 7.62 AKs were so shit as to be totally outclassed my the m16 as the guy claimed then the US would have easily had won as the US in the past 50 year in every conflict where they faced 7.62 AKs had almost total air superiority. yet the grunts on the ground couldn't finish the job. so id say the infantry rifle used in these conflicts has had a substantial impact on how these played out. not saying that they are better than the m16 but are no where near soo obsolete to be unusable on a modern battlefield.

While I agree that the AKM is usable and scrapping the ones that are in stockpiles would be retarded: None of those conflicts were won or lost by the choice in infantry armament. US infantry performed very well pound-for-pound against the armies you're thinking of, but infantry shooting each other is not actually what wins wars.

Doctrinal, strategic, and political choices are what wins wars.

 

[LeroyJenkem]

Ah the ol 556 vs 762x39 argument. One isn't recommended for deer hunting, the other has a switch on it to make it shoot harder. Checkmate, AR guys

 

[Stoneheart]

The G36 is trash and the M4 only weighs 7.5 pounds. West Germany lucked out and managed to get the G3 after fumbling negotiations with the FAL and Belgium.

The G36 was designed in a time when the germany army wasnt allowed to be used for anything but direct defense. the whole warping issue only became a problem in africa and the middle east. It was also a stupid idea from the begining and natos fault. Germany still had the g11 plans around from the end of the cold war,


but unlike the Us, germany is already replacing a failed gun after only 20 years without any conflict.
the new weapons looks fine and even the us crayone eaters are getting it.

Ammo weight, OK sure I guess. A 1000 round spam can of 7.62 weighs 18 kg, a 1000 round spam can of 5.45 weighs 13. You're likely to be carrying maybe a third of that so the difference for you will be 1-2 kilos.

thats why you have 2 people for one MG, one person cant carry ammo for more than a minute of fireing.
Its not an issue for a battle rifle because your guys never have to carry their shit a long distance from their IFV.

if 7.62 AKs were so shit as to be totally outclassed my the m16 as the guy claimed then the US would have easily had won as the US in the past 50 year in every conflict where they faced 7.62 AKs had almost total air superiority. yet the grunts on the ground couldn't finish the job. so id say the infantry rifle used in these conflicts has had a substantial impact on how these played out.

thats not the rifles fault, its the DoDs fault... Tiger force was very succesfull in suppressing commies, but they let some commie journo call them warcriminals...

Gun fags always shit up threads with pages of the same autistic arguments no one gives a fuck about.

We will return back to topic the moment we get new videos of people getting blown up...

 

[Scotched up Scott]

thats not the rifles fault, its the DoDs fault... Tiger force was very succesfull in suppressing commies, but they let some commie journo call them warcriminals...

oh not not blaming the m16 for shit. just saying tho that 7.62 AKs aren't all that obsolete.

Edit: well anyways back to the topic I bet Ukrainian logistics is uber fucked seeing as they are running the full gambit of NATO and Warsaw rounds and tanks, ect.

 

[Makhno]

And 50 years ago, it got outclassed by the M16 so badly that the USSR greenlit its replacement.



Same's true of a Garand. Problem is neither of those things are as important as its disadvantages. The biggest issue is that the combo of the ammunition's weight, the rifle's recoil, and the round's poor ballistics make it completely outclassed by more modern weapons for suppressing/covering fire, which is important for an assault rifle. Can't shoot as much, as far, as fast, or as accurately as your comrade with an AK-74 variant (or your enemy with some variant of a 5.56 rifle), and the gap isn't small.

There are still AKMs hanging around in Russian stockpiles, but if they're ever resorting to them, it's because there's been a land invasion that's necessitated a WW2-tier response.

The overthinking you place on the importance of the tool instead of the person operating it is exactly why the west lost in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and just about every other conflict it has initiated since WW2. OMG BASED FACE COMPLETELY OUTCLASSED BY MUH TECHNOLOGY isn't nearly as much an advantage in actual war as you think. Biggest advantage in war is will the person operating the equipment lose their shit or not, followed by is the equipment too complicated or not to be used by a person losing their shit with any proficiency, followed by will this equipment keep operating in poor conditions maintained by people in and out of states of losing their shit, followed by how easy is it to replace after being destroyed by people losing their shit/ammo is to resupply after being wasted by people losing their shit. Most people are not tier 1 operators and combat is not a fucking video game. The feeling you experience the first time someone is seriously trying to kill you is unlike any other describable; now imagine that experience continuously coming over you in waves as ever expanding groups of people and things attempt to end you on a daily basis. No one who has not been on an actual battlefield can understand it. Many become numb to it but with numbness comes complacency that makes maintaining all the doo dats and gadgets less effective. Very few are actually capable of having complete agency over their own actions under such duress. This is why the switches for most weapons systems are big and stupid so they cannot be over toggled or mistook. At the end of the day a farmer with an Mosin or a suicide vest made from agricultural chemicals could easily kill any tier 1 operator the second they do something stupid. The tool is far less important than the person wielding it and the tactics employed by strategists above. For example the dumb fuck nazis couldn't figure out that without fuel all their wunderwaffe were statistically useless. Just like current NATO cannot figure out that with soldiers who are primarily there for welfare, and officers who think men and women are interchangeable, who are all supported by domestic production system who shipped most its logistics overseas that their wunderwaffe are also useless.

 

[The Ugly One]

1/3 of the ammo in that list isn't used anymore.

I always hate how inconsistent this shit is. There's 3 flavors of 54R there for some reason, but only 1 of every other type. If you're going to show the full spectrum of ammo types show each variety of each caliber, like the US picture does (although it doesn't show everything either).

Neither picture is very good honestly.

If you're going to include US buckshot, you should include the Russan 23x75mm shotshell and its variants.

 

[VargReallyDidNothingWrong]

If you're going to include US buckshot, you should include the Russan 23x75mm shotshell and its variants.

View attachment 4872220

I didn't intend to and I don't think it makes sense because the KS23 and any other shotguns in service with RU armed forces (much like US armed forces) are used in a strictly counterterrorism / SWAT type role by FSB niggers raiding krokodil houses or whatever.

I have worked many years in manufacturing for military contractors. I'm no cnc programmer but I could make you any bullet casing you want and have a sample passed by quality before lunch.

Making shell casings by hand on a CNC lathe has about as much to do with military production as handwritten manuscript does with 100 million copies of the Bible being printed at a commercial printing factory.

 

[MrJokerRager]

So what I am getting out of the past few pages is that America has the capability, but not the willpower or strategic smarts to pull it off in manufacturing guns and bombs and whatever.

A lot of Democrats including "Business Democrats" basically elected people who destroy small businesses, and then act surprised when the retard that they donated into power, doesn't listen to them either, since the retard was a true believer.

In a way, NATO's neoliberal Jihads are starting to create a counter NATO as a matter of necessity.

I wonder if in NATO/US Shadow Empire/Globohomo's attempts to keep American Hegemony alive, have done nothing but reduce it more effectively than the USSR could ever achieve.