Does range and power of guns even matter?

[USMC_Recruit]

^
Swiss GP11, 7.5x55, fired out of a K31.

Swiss rifles don't count.

 

[[CiA]Stiletto]

Swiss rifles don't count.

Hmm.

Finn M28, M28/30, and M39, issue ammunition? Finnish Mosins had 1.5MOA requirements, so I'm sure a bunch of them were capable of 1MOA.

 

[User Name]

I know that semis have reduced recoil due to the action, but my Garand has a harder kick then my SVT. I know 30-06 is not that much more powerful than 7.62x54r. The muzzle brake does make a differance.

Also, M39's are very accurate as well. I've seen group's at one hundred yards with four holes touching. I've had a couple where I got three of them touching myself.

M27's, M28's, M28/30s, M39's and Swiss K31's are very accurate,and they do count.

 

[RedGuardist]

Hmm.

Finn M28, M28/30, and M39, issue ammunition? Finnish Mosins had 1.5MOA requirements, so I'm sure a bunch of them were capable of 1MOA.

Yep. At least they are known to be very, very accurate in right hands.

Though my m39`s barrel is bit worn, so I have not reached such accuraties.
Problem`s not the shooter. At least not the main reason.

edit. As User Name says finns do hit where you want them to.

 

[USMC_Recruit]

To cover my ass i said "Even a group within an inch at 100 meters is highly unlikely with most military rifles." Now by most military rifles i was pretty much refering to the main country's military rifles, i should have stated that more clearly. The Finns and the Swiss don't have as large of militaries (spelling?) as the Russians, Germans, USA, Brittain, France (aka the larger countries) therefore they can afford to spend more money and more time on building much more highly accurate rifles and ammunition.

In my opinion the quality of the ammunition used is more important than the quality of the rifle in many cases, unless there is some sort of external pressure on the barrel of the rifle.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

In regards to the larger military MBRs, I don't think they are meant for MOA targets, but for getting the job done.

 

[Tak]

That's more or less true as far as I can tell. Note I have no evidence to back that up, just a semi-educated guess. Regular soldiers aren't routinely making 200 yard + shots anymore (I said shots, not hits ). For long range stopping power, it seems the modern answer is specialist (marksmen/snipers/countersnipers) or 'get closer and repeat step one'.


Personally, I'd feel a little worried going into a fight with some of the lightweight stuff they put in these guns. I'd rather have more power and not need it than have too little power if the situation demands it. If I ever get stuck in the army, wonder if they'll let me bring a mosin along? Even a good deer rifle, maybe?

 

[User Name]

Modern combat seems to be more about suppressing the enemy until air/artillery arrives than anything else. Except for house to house fighting. In which a SMG would do the job.

 

[SnozzFartz]

The cool thing about .22LR rounds is that they have enough energy the penetrate the skull once at close range. After that they just bounce around inside the skull and scramble stuff.

 

[User Name]

.22s can produce very nasty wounds. A friend of mine's brother was shot in the chest with one. It entered in an area that wouldn't have been fatal, but it bounced around inside his rib cage. He died within minutes.

 

[Tak]

Oh yes, make no mistake. All guns have the ability to kill. Even a BB gun. Some are just more likely to kill than others
​

 

[{YBBS}Sage]

Marine + PPSh pic is cool, but staged.


.22s are the sniper rifle of choice in urban environments among certain groups. You don't need a tack-driver to hit a face at 50ish yards (aim for bare skin to bypass body armor), and a 1-liter water bottle and duct tape make a surprisingly effective silencer.

Russia has a silenced, "sniper" version of a biathlon rifle in .22lr just for that reason.

Israel uses silenced .22s (I've seen a pic of an IDF soldier with a canned 10/22) for precision work at taking care of "troublemakers" in crowds. Either through headshots or less-lethal hits like knee caps.

 

[Zoring]

Assault Rifles didn't so much replace SMG's as they replaced Rifles, they also provided a weapon which was between a SMG and full length rifle.

 

[Murphy]

More power does not only mean more damage, but it also means more penetration capability.

 

[{YBBS}Sage]

Assault Rifles didn't so much replace SMG's as they replaced Rifles, they also provided a weapon which was between a SMG and full length rifle.

Actually, they pretty much replaced both, except in certain situations where only a full-house rifle will do (such as for a sniper or sharpshooter), or where only an SMG would do (like HRT-type stuff in CLOSE quarters.)

I can't think of any front-line troops who bother carrying an SMG anymore - at least, not on a battlefield (yes, I know SEALS love their MP5s, but only for hostage rescues, really). It's always an assault rifle.

 

[thedonster]

Personally, I'd feel a little worried going into a fight with some of the lightweight stuff they put in these guns. I'd rather have more power and not need it than have too little power if the situation demands it. If I ever get stuck in the army, wonder if they'll let me bring a mosin along? Even a good deer rifle, maybe?

I think a lot of soldiers feel that way too.
On the other hand you have to consider that you can carry a lot more 5.56mm ammo around than 7.62 or 30-06.
You're also talking about groups of people shooting at each other, almost never individuals. One vet of WWII I talked to said he never was sure if it was his bullet that hit a particular German or not, but he's pretty sure he hit some. I think this is pretty typical.
Also consider that militarily, it might be better to seriously wound a soldier than to kill him outright. (as a 5.56mm may do) He's incapacitated and now it takes 2 or more of his buddies to get him stabilized and evacuated, so in the short term it's better to wound him than kill him.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Wounded men can still fight. I'd rather kill someone outright and not worry about 'logistics' of the enemy, especially in today's battefield where they just don't care.

Even back then I'd rather kill my enemy then "wound him and make two of his buddies get him to medical treatment".

 

[{YBBS}Sage]

A lot of fighters in the sandbox are reportedly hopping up on drugs so they can keep going after taking near-fatal or even fatal wounds.

More stopping power can be a good thing, but in the case of an "intermediate" rifle cartridge, they should have enough. I'll take the lower recoil for fast follow-ups, myself. Just shoot 'em more.

 

[Tak]

It's personal preference from what I can tell, as I've talked to soldiers (and just sport shooters) who like them all. I understand the benefits to lighter rounds, but still plant myself firmly in the bigger-is-better crowd all the same.

Without drawing into the politics of the situations present and past, war is war. The other guy wants to kill you, because he's thinking the same thing you are. Present situation is worse than WWII, because the enemy thinks that you're just flat out scummy infidels and deserve nothing but death. I'll be damned if I want to shoot to wound in that situation.
​

 

[thedonster]

I'm not talking about "shooting to wound". Determining what weapon to issue is not a decision made at the level of the individual soldier, but at a much higher level, where it's large numbers of men that matter. Individual soldiers are unfortunately expendable.
"Wounded men still fight"--probably not if they're hit in the chest with a .223 round!