TCS, and other stuff...

Steve Higginbotham writes:

>>Just finished basic with a standard semi-auto rifle???  When did we
>>switch to a semi-auto rifle for basic training?  I thought we were still
>>using the M-16, and full auto is part of training with the M-16...

Well, when I was in boot camp, we had M-16 A1's and they were full auto.
However, you actually only *saw* them fired full auto once, and, if you
were one of the lucky dozen or chosen from an entire company, fired it
full auto yourself.  By the time I went to Infantry Training School, the
M-16 A1's had been replaced by M-16 A2's, and they do not have a full
auto selection.  It had been changed to a three round burst feature.

When they showed us full auto fire with the M-16 A1, it was an example
of what *not* to do with your weapon.  Full auto fire from anything
other than a tripod or vehicle mounted autoweapon is generally a waste
of ammunition, thus the switch to a burst feature on the M-16 A2.
Of course, that was in the Marine Corps, I don't know if the Army does
things the same way.

Lee Eilers  [email removed]

[email removed] (M.A.S.) writes:
> Steve Higginbotham writes:
>
> >>Just finished basic with a standard semi-auto rifle???  When did we
> >>switch to a semi-auto rifle for basic training?  I thought we were still
> >>using the M-16, and full auto is part of training with the M-16...
>
> Well, when I was in boot camp, we had M-16 A1's and they were full auto.
> However, you actually only *saw* them fired full auto once, and, if you
> were one of the lucky dozen or chosen from an entire company, fired it
> full auto yourself.

I have not been in any military service myself, but I can tell you that
until recently, the British Army at least did use semi-auto rifles.  Their
SLR (Self-Loading Rifle) was a version of the Belgian FN-FAL, modified so
that it could not fire full auto.  Why it was so modified, I do not know;
perhaps to save ammo, perhaps to save money on ammo, perhaps to encourage
the soldiers to shoot more accurately, perhaps because letting a soldier
loose with a full auto weapon in a situation such as the streets of Belfast
was decided to be too risky.  The decision has since been reversed, though,
because the newer rifle, the SA-80, can fire full auto.  Mind you, it only
fires those toy 5.56mm bullets, so perhaps it needs to. :-)

(Yeah, I know, they aren't really toys, and I wouldn't want to be hit by
one! :-)

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt     |JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  [email removed]

Adrian Hurt writes:
>I have not been in any military service myself, but I can tell you that
>until recently, the British Army at least did use semi-auto rifles.  Their
>SLR (Self-Loading Rifle) was a version of the Belgian FN-FAL, modified so
>that it could not fire full auto.  Why it was so modified, I do not know;
>perhaps to save ammo, perhaps to save money on ammo, perhaps to encourage
>the soldiers to shoot more accurately, perhaps because letting a soldier
>loose with a full auto weapon in a situation such as the streets of Belfast
>was decided to be too risky.  The decision has since been reversed, though,
>because the newer rifle, the SA-80, can fire full auto.  Mind you, it only
>fires those toy 5.56mm bullets, so perhaps it needs to. :-)

Well, in the U.S. Military, it was because of ammo considerations.
I believe that they were disturbed by the ratio of rounds expended to
number of kills; it was *way* to high.

>(Yeah, I know, they aren't really toys, and I wouldn't want to be hit by
>one! :-)

No, you wouldn't.  The reason they use those 5.56mm bullets is because
velocity kills, not size.  I'm not saying that it dosen't hurt to get
hit with a .45 caliber at 450fps, but a 5.56mm at about 3000fps is a
lot nastier.  They tend to bounce around inside the body a bit, and
even when they don't, hydrostatic shock will probably get you.  I
assume that's why a 4mm Gauss Rifle round is deadlier in the game than
your standard autorifle, or ACR.  (And you thought Traveller wasn't
going to get into this!) :-)

Lee Eilers  [email removed]
^Z

[email removed] (M.A.S.) writes:
>
> >(Yeah, I know, they aren't really toys, and I wouldn't want to be hit by
> >one! :-)
>
> No, you wouldn't.  The reason they use those 5.56mm bullets is because
> velocity kills, not size.  I'm not saying that it dosen't hurt to get
> hit with a .45 caliber at 450fps, but a 5.56mm at about 3000fps is a
> lot nastier.

Actually, I believe it is energy which kills.  5.56mm bullets come from
smaller cartridges than 7.62mm ones, and so have less kinetic energy when
they leave the barrel.  Being lighter, they are more affected by air
resistance than 7.62mm bullets, so they lose more energy on the way to
the target, which is why 5.56mm rifles have shorter ranges than 7.62mm
rifles.  (This is all inexpert opinion based on what I've read when this
sort of discussion comes up on the newsgroup sci.military, by the way.)

>								      I
> assume that's why a 4mm Gauss Rifle round is deadlier in the game than
> your standard autorifle, or ACR.  (And you thought Traveller wasn't
> going to get into this!) :-)

In fact, in the days of Striker, in which a gauss rifle's penetration was
not that much better than a 9mm ACR's, I tended to prefer the ACR.  Firing
DS ammo, its penetration was 6 to the gauss rifle's 7, which wasn't too bad.
And the ACR, being lower tech, could get ammo from more planets than the
gauss rifle - if the worst came to the worst, it could fire ordinary slug
ammo, which had a much lower penetration than DS but a much better penetration
than an empty gauss rifle.  Slug ammo, being even lower tech, was readily
available on any world civilised enough to be of interest and uncivilised
enough to let characters wave ACR's around. :-)

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  [email removed]

Adrian Hurt Writes:
>Actually, I believe it is energy which kills.  5.56mm bullets come from
>smaller cartridges than 7.62mm ones, and so have less kinetic energy when
>they leave the barrel.  Being lighter, they are more affected by air
>resistance than 7.62mm bullets, so they lose more energy on the way to
>the target, which is why 5.56mm rifles have shorter ranges than 7.62mm
>rifles.  (This is all inexpert opinion based on what I've read when this
>sort of discussion comes up on the newsgroup sci.military, by the way.)

I'll agree with you on the fact that it is energy that kills, but kinetic
energy is calculated by 1/2Mass*Velocity^2.  Therefore, I believe that
the greater velocity of the smaller rounds more than makes up for their
lesser mass.  I also agree that the heavier rounds often have greater
maximum ranges, but maximum effective range is what concerns me.  A
5.56mm bullet fired from a M-16A2 has a maximum effective range of
540 meters, if I recall correctly.  It is somewhere around 800 meters
when firing at a grouped target, on burst setting.  Those ranges are,
in my experience, pretty long as firefights go.  I'm not talking
snipers here either, as they tend to use larger rounds that also happen
to have high muzzle velocity.  Marine snipers use the Remington 700,
which is a 30-06, I believe.  (They also engage targets at 1000 meters!)

>In fact, in the days of Striker, in which a gauss rifle's penetration was
>not that much better than a 9mm ACR's, I tended to prefer the ACR.  Firing
>DS ammo, its penetration was 6 to the gauss rifle's 7, which wasn't too bad.
>And the ACR, being lower tech, could get ammo from more planets than the
>gauss rifle - if the worst came to the worst, it could fire ordinary slug
>ammo, which had a much lower penetration than DS but a much better penetration
>than an empty gauss rifle.  Slug ammo, being even lower tech, was readily
>available on any world civilised enough to be of interest and uncivilised
>enough to let characters wave ACR's around. :-)

This helps prove my point.  Note that the ACR is firing DS (Discarding
Sabot) ammunition.  Discarding Sabot is a round that after it leaves
the muzzle of the weapon, drops a jacket which surrounds a _smaller_
diameter penetrator which then has a greater velocity.  Therefore, the
round has a greater penetration (higher kinetic energy).  However,
the remainder of your argument is irrefutable.  An ACR firing ball
ammunition is far better than an empty Gauss rifle.  I am a great
believer in peace through superior firepower! :-)

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lee Eilers  [email removed]

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
^Z