Negative, Sir, 10mm is your answer! corbon does make some hot stuff though.

9/26/2008 2:54:29 PM

Quote :

"The Federal +P+ 115gr 9BPLE is a proven round, that's for damn sure. It's very serious when fired out of full sized handguns during the summer months. I also love the fact that you can get them for $15/50rds."

Federal 9BP standard power is also proven, serious and $15/50.
I just don't feel comfortable shooting +P+ in my guns, Im sure the CZ could handle it, but why, you only get what 5-10% increase in FPS?

Not to mention the fact that if you plan on using +P+ then you should shoot +P+ during practice. I like how barnaul/wolf 115gr FMJ hit the same spot as my 9BP.

Practice uber alles, you must either practice with what you plan on using for keeps, or practice with something that mimics it in bullet weight and pressure. I'll practice alot more using standard 9, its the cheapest thing next to 7.62x25tok and .22lr! The practice and steady improvement in my shooting gives me confidence in my tools, and a good craftsman never blames his tools.

While I'm on the subject, I think owning a .22 adapter for your primary handgun is a very good investment, while shopping for handguns I noted having an adapter as a requirement! It of course doesn't mimic the real thing in terms of blast and kick, but its a good way to develop and maintain proper trigger control and gripping whilst using $.02 ammo. Since you have two guns in one, your plinking gun has the exact same controls feel and weight as your 'social' gun. Also, since a brick typically has a few duds, you get free malfunction clearance drills out of it.


oh, and for fun, heres some interesting caliber/bullet articles:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_48/ai_82551648/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 (6 pgs)
http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2008 6:18:34 PM

^ All of my semi's are Glocks. They'll digest any Federal load just fine considering the fact that they'll eat Double Tap's 115gr 1415fps (511ft.lb.) 9mm loads. Yeah, if the gun isn't +P rated then I'd stay away from +P loads. Honestly though, I'm just not that comfortable with a low velocity 115gr bullet. If I have to go low velocity I'll stick with heavy bullets. The other thing is that Federal's "+P+" is pretty weak compared to some other manufacturers. The 9BPLE "+P+" 115gr JHP reaches 1300fps out of a 4" barrel, while Double Tap's "+P" 115gr Gold Dot reaches 1415fps out of a 4.5" barrel. It's just that for only $15/50rds I like to stockpile the 9BPLE for a SHTF situation and I also like to use them as practice rounds. Glock 9mm's will eat +P ammo all day long though, so it's just not a concern for me.

I just can't bring myself to buy a full size 9mm handgun that's not +P rated. The only one I've ever considered was the PF-9, but that's a tiny, lightweight gun that I can accept only working with standard pressure 9mm ammo because just about everything else that size is firing .380 auto. Plus, it would be even more jumpy with +P ammo.

Whoever said to look at Corbon might want to take a look at Double Tap. They offer more energy/velocity (Pretty much every load is equivalent to the same load from Buffalo Bore), using Gold Dots/Golden Sabers/Nosler JHP's, low flash powders and at half the price of Corbon. DT's .40S&W loads are similar to other manufacturer's 10mm loads, DT's 10mm loads are in the 700ft.lb.+ range, as are their .357 loads. DT makes a .38SP +P load that reaches 1100fps and 336ft.lb. out of a 1.875" barrel (S&W 642). Whenever I get around to having S&W fix my 642, that's pretty much all it'll be ingesting. Nothing against Corbon, it's just that I like to be able to afford to shoot and I Double Tap has top notch ammo.

[Edited on September 27, 2008 at 4:41 AM. Reason : ]

9/27/2008 4:32:39 AM

Quote :

"it's just that I like to be able to afford to shoot "

man i thought everyone had to go get a loan to buy ammo.

9/27/2008 12:49:18 PM

I was all ready to buy a 16" sig 556, but there has been A LOT of talk on the net about poor quality and ill fitting parts that I'm looking somewhere else for a gas piston AR or something similar.

WHY SIG WHY?!?!!?!?! I also found out that Sig Sauer makes a coating similar to Glock's Tennifer, Ilfalon, but U.S. Sig won't import parts with it on there. WTF. I'd much rather have that coating than the crap that's on there now.

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/products/video-sigs-new-556/?email=products_img

9/28/2008 1:05:16 PM

^^^ I guess its all relative, I feel fine shooting standard pressure only out of my CZ. One could also consider the fact that a lower recoiling round results in faster followup shots. If anything is worth shooting once, its worth shooting 2+1 times, quickly (one could argue thats the whole point of having 9mm magazine capacities). Also, you can possibly have *too much* overpenetration and Ithat could come up with the +P and +P+ loads.

If you want that much velocity, look into 7.62x25 Tok... the box of truth found this little .30 bottlenecked pistol round to go through things that no other common pistol round could!

We should accept there are multiple correct answers to "whats the best/most effective gun/caliber/load"

9/28/2008 6:08:03 PM

what do you guys think of the US army looking into any sort of replacement for the m4/16? (they are willing, apparently, to drop the 5.56)

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-taps-industry-for-m4-replacement.html?ESRC=dod.nl

9/29/2008 10:53:32 AM

Haven't they been saying they were going to replace it since it was first issued?

9/29/2008 9:28:31 PM

its going to be around for a long time, and nobody changes platforms in the middle of a war.

9/29/2008 9:43:47 PM

I can't remember how many articles I've read on the SCAR or the HK 416, or any of the other myriad of rifles supposed to replace the AR platform. I don't see the kind of money being available to change from the 5.56 to the 6.8 or any other round right now . . . That being said, the Army's acquisition process takes so long that they need to start now in order to have an effective platform in 8 years or so.

9/29/2008 10:26:12 PM

They could just switch to 7.62x39, not like we can't make quality AK's in this country ya know

9/30/2008 2:22:03 AM

Keep an eye out, 2010 the replacement for the M2 .50 is coming out.

9/30/2008 3:13:29 AM

Honestly, I think the 5.56mm is just fine but they need to make or utilize a better bullet design and they need to be able to use JHPs and other types of frangible ammo. Federal's Tactical Bonded 5.56mm ammo is very nasty stuff as is Extreme Shock.

Does anyone know if we can use soft points or do they absolutely HAVE to be FMJs? Federal makes a bonded soft point 5.56mm round that would be EXCELLENT for what they need it for. It has beautiful performance through barriers such as auto glass and it has excellent expansion and penetration. I've also read articles about soldiers using Winchester Ranger 1oz Slugs over there, which are a hollow point slug (Although it's not jacketed of couse). That round is my favorite shotgun round, it's incredibly accurate out of my Mossberg 590 and packs a solid punch while remaining highly controllable. Could you use JHP's if you provide them yourself? I get the feeling the answer is no, you can't. But I'm wondering if in practice this happens anyway, since the hollow point slugs were used when provided by the shooter and not the military.

Extreme Shock makes some damn potent ammo, that type of frangible bullet would do wonders on a soft insurgent carcass. I've read that soldiers are buying Extreme Shock with their own money to use in their weapons over there. It's a damn good round to be using in your sidearm and I'd want at least a spare mag or two of it for my rifle if I were out in the field.


[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 7:37 AM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 7:33:46 AM

FMJ are required by the Geneva convention; JHPs, soft points, frangible, etc. are all out.

9/30/2008 8:30:00 AM

Well one note is that the standard issue 5.56mm round uses a frangible FMJ. The M-193 is a 55gr steel core fragmenting FMJ round. The 62gr M-855 is the same deal, it's a fragmenting FMJ with a steel penetrator, but I believe it's used in the SAW.

I don't thing frangible is out, because that's what their bullets do (Just not as well as something like Extreme Shock) which is why I ask for a very clear answer and not speculation or just random statements.

I know there are soldiers using frangible ammo and hollow point slug shotgun loads that they've brought with them, so I'm wondering if it's just that they're able to get away with it or if it's actually allowed. Also, the wording in the convention (IIRC) is that the ammunition can't cause "undue suffering" or something along those lines. Why that makes JHP's out of the question has never made sense to me because it seems like a hollow point would kill more quickly in similar circumstances compared to an FMJ due to blood loss and tissue damage, thus causing less suffering.

I want a real document though showing exactly what is "outlawed" and how it is that soldiers are able to use hollow point slugs and frangible bullets when they're the ones providing them.

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 10:50:30 AM

All of this whiz-bang supergalactic 5.56 ammo will never be used by the military because it costs several times as much as standard M855, if for no other reason.

M855 and M193 will only fragment when they are traveling over 2800-ish fps, by the way. Out of the standard 14.5-inch M4 barrel, this basically means it will only fragment on impact out to 100 or so meters.

9/30/2008 11:09:02 AM

It's still not answering my question though. I'm not really concerned about whether or not this "jizzz bang" ammo will be issued by the military.

I'm wondering why soldiers are able to use this ammo when they provide it themselves. Is it that it's legal or is it that they're just getting away with it? Is there documentation to back this up? etc.

9/30/2008 11:18:25 AM

^^^Geneva Convention, Laws of land warfare.

In a regular unit, if you get caught using it, that's your ass.

What was said earlier about 100m or more in the 14.5in barrel is spot-on. However that's why all new soldiers are trained in short-range marksmanship to include the mozambique drill or the FAILURE drill in which, if you enter a room and encounter a threat you put rounds in that motherfucker until he hits the ground.

and that IS the way it happens.

My credentials are: Mountain Leader's Advanced Rifle Marksmanship school, and a year spent in the sandbox (and counting...)

9/30/2008 11:26:56 AM

if 6.8 SPC wasn't $1 a round, i would be all over it.

9/30/2008 2:41:40 PM

^^ I understand what the Geneva convention is, which is what I referenced when I said the ammo can't cause "undue suffering."

So, let me ask you this then. How was this guy able to get away with using LE Winchester Ranger Slugs that he brought over with him? I own quite a few boxes of these exact slugs and they are a hollow point design. The photos he took of his ammo which is posted in that article also clearly use the same hollow point slug. These are non-plated hollow point lead projectiles, which by everything I've read is strictly off limits. Note that since they've changed the format of their website, it's become INCREDIBLY slow. To the point that it's not even worth surfing. Let this article load though (It may take several minutes, just do something else for a while while that window works it's shit out), it's going to be a nightmare to go from page to page but there are only 3 pages. this guy used these rounds in Iraq and killed people with them. Plus he then wrote about it openly. My understanding was that non-plated lead rounds are out as are hollow points, so this ammunition technically breaks multiple rules if those rules truly apply. He didn't get in any sort of trouble for it.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/The+Magnificent+Mossberg

There are also unconfirmed reports from Extreme Shock that soldiers are purchasing their ammunition and taking it to Iraq. It's not a hollow point design, just a frangible round so this may be why it's acceptable. This is why I want an actual document and not just people repeating things I already know like the simple phrase "Geneva Convention" or "Laws of Land Warfare." Documents man, documents!

[Edited on September 30, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2008 6:34:41 PM

I thought it was the Hague Treaty that specifically said you can't use hollow points. I heard all this second hand but I heard we didn't even sign this treaty but we adhere to it because so many European countries do.

9/30/2008 7:23:39 PM

The winchester slugs might be for door breaching or some other non anti personnel purpose, "on paper", just like the .50 is anti materiel only.

9/30/2008 9:37:23 PM

Again, why not use 7.62x39... its cheap, accurate enough (not for the DM, but he uses a .308 anyway) and Im sure someone could churn out massive quantities of x39 AR's.

It may not fragment, but it will always put a .30" hole in the bad guy.

It may not be that accurate, but is it less than the accuracy of a typical soldier pumped full of adrenaline? Its not like hes shooting at a small target.

Oh and we could use the bad guys ammo, and not spend a ton of money developing another round. On a side note, a cartridge between .22 and .30 already exists, the swedes (6.5x55), japanese (6.5x50), and italians (6.5x52) all had them back in the day

9/30/2008 11:35:23 PM

Regarding the Laws of War, of which the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 is a part of.

Quote :

" St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 or in full Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight is an international treaty agreed in Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire, November 29 / December 11, 1868. It succeeded the First Geneva Convention of 1864. It was a predecessor of the well-known Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It was signed by the members of the International Military Commission convened for this purpose in the presence of the Imperial Cabinet of Russia."

Quote :

"Upon the invitation of the Russian diplomat and statesman Prince Alexander Gorchakov, for the purpose of considering the existing rules of war, a conference of delegates met at Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire in December, 1868. The nations represented were Austria-Hungary, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain (representing the British Empire), Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, the North German Confederation (i.e., Greater Prussia), Russia, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, the Ottoman Empire, and Württemberg. The United States, not considered a major power at the time, took no part in the convention and has never acceded to it. The delegates affirmed that the only legitimate object of war should be to weaken the military force of the enemy, which could be sufficiently accomplished by the employment of highly destructive weapons. With that fact established, the delegates agreed to prohibit the use of less deadly explosives that might merely injure the combatants and thereby create prolonged suffering of such combatants. The Great Powers agreed to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the use of any explosive projectile of less weight than 400 grams (14 ounces avoirdupois) or one charged with fulminating or inflammable substances. While the declaration bans the use of fragmenting, explosive, or incendiary small arms ammunition, it does not prohibit such ammunition for use in autocannon or artillery rounds. The influence of this declaration on international humanitarian law were elucidated in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State (1963) “ ... International law of war is not formulated simply on the basis of humanitarian feelings. It has as its basis both considerations of military necessity and effectiveness and humanitarian considerations, and is formulated on a balance of these two factors. To illustrate this, an example often cited in the textbooks may be given, of the provisions of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 prohibiting the use of projectiles under 400 grammes which are either explosive or charged with combustible or inflammable substances. The reason for the prohibition is explained as follows: such projectiles are small and just powerful enough to kill or wound only one man, and as an ordinary bullet will do for this purpose, there is no overriding need for using these inhuman weapons. On the other hand, the use of a certain weapon, great as its inhuman result may be, need not be prohibited by international law if it has a great military effect. ” Notes * Ammunition for anti-materiel rifles and heavy machine-guns with a bore of about 12mm to 15mm in diameter straddle the definition between small arms and heavy weapons. Large-bore rifles using high-explosive or incendiary rounds run the risk of violating the Declaration despite the legal use (as specified in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907) of such special munitions in heavy machineguns and autocannons. The discussion of their legality often revolves around the weight limitation and whether it applies to the weight of the bullet itself or to the entire cartridge. * It is interesting that the Declaration only bans such munitions during wars among the co-signatory European and Eurasian nations. It notably leaves out instances of war with non-signatory nations, conflicts with undeveloped nations, or military operations in their own colonies and possessions. "

9/30/2008 11:55:20 PM

also the The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CWC or CCWC), concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980 and entered into force in December 1983, seeks to prohibit or restrict the use of certain conventional weapons which are considered excessively injurious or whose effects are indiscriminant, of which the US is party to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
http://www.ccwtreaty.com/aboutccw.htm

and from the US Army as well.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/051119-wp-rules.htm

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 12:07 AM. Reason : ok done now. ]

10/1/2008 12:06:32 AM

he's right. I was just too lazy to do that. The point is, no you may not bring your own ammo. The only variations I've seen to issued ammo is one time we did get Hatton rounds for door breaching, but it was only a box of 5 and those went quick. After that it was back to 12ga. buckshot.

A green tip 5.56 will put someone down, especially if it's in someone's face. The thing about gunfights in combat is it's rarely 1 on 1. So, if I put a few rounds in you, and so do my two buddies, I don't care how many times you've read Paul Howe's article, brother, you're going down.

10/1/2008 2:10:12 AM

if you try to bring your own ammo over there, get ready to go to Ft. Leavenworth.

Yes, regular (ball ammo) green-tip ammo will put people down. That is a fact jack.

Yes, slugs are good for breaching doors, but buckshot works like a charm too; however I prefer door charges.

10/1/2008 2:26:11 AM

Army say 11bangbang too dumb for door charge

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 5:25 AM. Reason : but hmmvw breach ftw!]

10/1/2008 5:22:10 AM

Quote :

"Yes, regular (ball ammo) green-tip ammo will put people down. That is a fact jack."

Uh, I never said it wouldn't. You're preaching to the wrong person here.



Did any of you read that article showing the guy bringing the Slugs and Buckshot? He brought them for the purpose of shooting people not doors. I mean it seems like we're just going round and round with you guys saying "you can't do this so I'm not reading the evidence." Where I'm asking you to just take a look at the evidence and then comment on how or why you think it was able to occur.

My understanding is that a true breaching round uses a frangible slug that's held together by a waxy substance.

I still want to know why you couldn't bring a frangible non-hollow point round. The standard issue M-193 breaks the rules in terms of fragmenting (I understand that at low velocities it may not fragment, but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed to do so), so I have to wonder about whether or not that quoted text is something the military even takes seriously.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 6:52 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2008 6:49:17 AM

^two points to make

First, I didn't read the article you refer to. I have, and have used non-lethal rounds in my shotgun. I'm not sure why someone would prefer using lethal rounds in theirs over an M4, so I don't understand why the soldier in question was using those, or how he got away with it.

Second, In the Army, if your chain of command says "hey don't bring those" you don't ask where it says that in writing, that is unless you don't want your career to ever progress. Therefore, I couldn't tell you exactly where in writing it says you couldn't bring a frangible non-hollow point round, but I do know they will fry your ass if you are caught.

However, I'm speaking only as a line guy in a line unit. SF, C__ and other JSOC units can pretty much do what they want.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 7:34 AM. Reason : oops]

10/1/2008 7:33:59 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure why someone would prefer using lethal rounds in theirs over an M4, so I don't understand why the soldier in question was using those, or how he got away with it."

He was issued a Mossberg 590 and a side arm, that's it. That's why he wanted lethal rounds in his shotgun, he brought his preferred LAPD duty ammo with him. The story discusses him trying to cut off an Iraqi when he saw running down a side street during an ambush on his convoy. He got out and ran down a parallel side street to cut off the Iraqi. He turned right and went down to the next street without really thinking about what he was about to do. So he ended up running around the corner and being right in the sights of the Iraqi's AK. The Iraqi let out a full auto burst as the dude ran around the corner. He quickly lifted up the Mossberg and put a Ranger Slug into the dude's hip, spinning him 180 degrees and putting him down. The Iraqi then tried to drag himself away with one arm while shooting back with the AK. So then the dude put another Ranger slug into his spine between his shoulder blades, killing him instantly.

Quote :

"Second, In the Army, if your chain of command says "hey don't bring those" you don't ask where it says that in writing, that is unless you don't want your career to ever progress."

I understand this, that's not what I'm talking about though. I simply wanted to know how and why he was able to bring hollow point, non-jacketed, non-breaching type foster slugs and then use them in combat and write about it without concern.

Also, I still haven't heard clarification on whether or not Extreme Shock would really be "against the rules," since it's not a JHP. It's frangible, but the bullets in the M-193 and M-855 are designed to fragment too. It's all very strange and doesn't exactly make sense. If you truly can't have any fragmenting ammo, then technically you can't use M-193 or M-855 rounds, which makes no sense obviously.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 10:29 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2008 10:25:08 AM

Based on what I'm reading, he was National Guard then. All bets are off. Plus back 2003 things weren't as tightly controlled.

Also the 5.56 round is FMJ ball. It was not 'designed' to fragment like a hollowpoint is so designed. This is pure speculation on my part but I believe that's why it's kosher.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 10:35 AM. Reason : wooo]

10/1/2008 10:34:16 AM

M193 and M855 (particularly the M193) both fragment to a certain extent with very high impact velocities. This is due more to the way the bullet is constructed (with a very thin jacket and soft-cast alloy core, in the case of the M193, the M855 has a steel core surrounded by soft lead alloy and an exterior copper jacket) than any demensional design perameter. They are both still FMJ rounds in any sense of the term and international law.
Both also have a tendancy to yaw somewhat as well (though not as dramatically as the 5.45mm Soviet cartridge) which compromises the bullet's ability to hold together and causes it to fragment.

Basically, my point is that you can get any FMJ bullet to fragment in various mediums, particularly small and lightly constructed ones, if you push it fast enough.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ']

10/1/2008 10:39:09 AM

Quote :

"Also the 5.56 round is FMJ ball. It was not 'designed' to fragment like a hollowpoint is so designed."

Lots of hollow points are not designed to fragment either, I have a very good understanding of bullet design. I was asking about Extreme Shock's non-hollow point jacketed frangible loads for the 5.56mm rounds and the Ranger Hollow Point Non-Jacketed Slugs in 12 gauge.

My understanding is that the M-193 and M-855 are designed to fragment. I get that you can make any FMJ fragment depending upon what it hits and the velocity, but the design of the bullet seems to be such that the steel core will separate from the lead, which (To me) means the jacket and lead is intended to fragment.

I get the impression that you're thinking that I don't understand how the M-193 and 855 are made and shit. I know that they've got steel cores and I know they're 55gr FMJ's with copper jackets and lead surrounding the steel core, I've owned Federal's XM-193 and I understand this. I've owned firearms chambered in 5.56mm. That's not what I've been asking about. I don't need an explanation of what the ammo is and the fact that an FMJ can fragment when it hits things at high velocities. I've actually done plenty of low quality ballistics testing myself. I'm asking about using various types of ammo in combat and why certain individuals have been able to bring supposedly illegal ammunition into combat with them. I'm not looking for an explanation of what the M-193 is, I've already got a solid understanding of the round.


So again, why would Extreme Shock's non-hollow point jacketed ammunition be off limits? If the Guard can use this ammo could those soldiers be using Extreme Shock as well? Could Blackwater mercenaries use JHPs and frangibles?

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 11:08 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2008 11:01:20 AM

Not sure if it's off-limits, it's just not issued to regular troops that I know of. What you're actually allowed to use may have something to do with who you are and where you are.

I've heard stories of special forces units and such folks in Afganistan using hollowpoint bullets of 70 grains and heavier in match barreled ARs with dramatic results on sandies out to 500 meters or more.

10/1/2008 11:09:59 AM

The army is cheap and ball ammo is cheap.

Private contractors use whatever they want.

Soldiers aren't supposed to drink over here, but sometimes they do.

So maybe they are getting away with it. That is the exception rather than the rule. I know I wouldn't try it. I've seen ball ammo work. I wouldn't load my weapon at home with it, but it does work.

10/1/2008 11:29:43 AM

http://shootersforum.com/attachment.htm?attachmentid=446&d=1076081272

ballistics comparisons, i graphed them in excel as well...

Quote :

"Attached is a G1 external ballistics comparison for the 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7.62 NATO and 5.56 NATO from 0 - 1,000 yards. All calculations where done using published ballistics coefficients for each bullet with velocity from 24 inch barrels. The 6.5 Grendel velocities are as measured fired from an AR15. The 6.8 SPC, 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO are from a bolt action rifle."

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 12:16 PM. Reason : u]

10/1/2008 12:15:49 PM

Quote :

"I've seen ball ammo work. I wouldn't load my weapon at home with it, but it does work."

Yeah, I know 5.56mm military ball works. Hell, 9mm ball works, it just requires even better shot placement. Put a 5.56mm or 9mm ball into somebody's brain or through their spine and they're generally going to be done right then and there. I'm sure hitting the heart or a major blood vessel with either is going to be similarly devastating. Plus, you've usually got a 30 round mag with the 5.56mm so I'm sure you can afford to put a few bullets into somebody.

I carry a 9mm regularly, so I'm not the type of person that thinks you have to have a .44 Magnum to take somebody out. I have no trouble believing the 5.56mm works just fine. If I had a choice I'd probably be carrying some mags loaded with Federal's Tactical Bonded and some with a lightweight Extreme Shock load in my rifle.

Quote :

"I've heard stories of special forces units and such folks in Afganistan using hollowpoint bullets of 70 grains and heavier in match barreled ARs with dramatic results on sandies out to 500 meters or more."

Nice, I'd be very comfortable carrying a match grade AR with a higher twist rate for heavy bullets. I figured we probably do it when using specialized units but that guy seemed to be a regular old dude so that's why I wondered how he was able to do it.

[Edited on October 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2008 6:57:53 PM

Match grade heavy barrel AR in Iraq:

10/2/2008 3:46:06 AM

Fixed^

10/2/2008 1:41:46 PM

man it was supposed to be artistic

10/2/2008 1:44:56 PM

oops

10/8/2008 11:16:38 AM

The first pic is much better. What is up with that second one? It's all fucked up.

It looks like a sniper doing a little bit of looking at dawn. Is that a night vision sight in front of the scope?

10/8/2008 1:37:07 PM

looks like a UNS variant (AN PVS 26 or some such)

expensive

10/8/2008 2:26:07 PM

Quote :

"if 6.8 SPC wasn't $1 a round, i would be all over it."

Damn there goes my hopes and dreams of getting that 6.8 (for now)


got a coworker trying to sell me and AR-10T, damn i aint got the money

10/8/2008 3:49:41 PM

^^^ yes that would be a 11B4 doing rooftop overwatch for my team about to hit a house.

The weapon is an SR-25 in 7.62 with the above posted scope. You can see the spotter to his left and a 240 gun team set up to his right.

[Edited on October 8, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : s]

10/8/2008 4:03:51 PM

MMMMMM, .308 NATO.

10/8/2008 10:52:42 PM

MMMMMM its called 7.62 nato

KAC makes some really really nice stuff but its hard to get, they are selling so much to the military right now.

10/9/2008 5:46:38 PM

Well then thank god I've never owned anything in that caliber. I would have killed us all.

It was a simple error, I mixed up 7.62x51MM NATO with .308 WINCHESTER. I'll try not to make that error again.

Btw, I'll be watching you son, don't slip up and call a 5.56x45mm a .223!

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2008 6:01:07 PM

hah

10/9/2008 6:14:21 PM