Carbines vs. Rifles
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The hilt is rarely moving as fast as the tip.
From a momentum transfer perspective the mass of the arm has to be taken into account. The pivot point for the lever is effectively the shoulder.
With a well timed lunge then the entire body mass is behind the strike.
From a momentum transfer perspective the mass of the arm has to be taken into account. The pivot point for the lever is effectively the shoulder.
With a well timed lunge then the entire body mass is behind the strike.
In theory, the entire body mass is behind a lunge. In practice, you're limited to the amount of force that your arm is capable of transmitting, which is quite a bit less.
The most energetic (if not most damaging) melee strikes are various full body slams, which can exceed a kilojoule of total energy.
The most energetic (if not most damaging) melee strikes are various full body slams, which can exceed a kilojoule of total energy.
Which is why they had a movable trigger guard added to the M16 to allow sodiers wearing gloves or mittens easier access to the trigger.
The M4 variant (14.5" barrel instead of 20") of the M16 is perfectly capable of making hits at and beyond 600m. The only problem is the 5.56mm round does not carry enough velocity at 600m to be a reliable round at incapacitation.
In smaller caliber rounds, bullet design is important. The 5.56mm round relies on fragmentation as its primary wounding mechanism, but it requires a velocity of ~2700fps to reliably fragment. The M4 maintains that velocity to about 150m...beyond that it is still quite likely to kill a man, but less so. The 20" M16 maintains that velocity to about 200m.
The M4 might be called a carbine for convenience, but in reality it is a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR). The differences between an M4 and an M16 are small enough that I'd consider the two weapons interchangeable. The fire the same ammunition and have very similar engagement envelopes.
For Traveller, I'd still consider a carbine to be a rifle-length arm firing pistol ammunition. The Kel-Tec Sub2000 and the Baretta CX4 "Storm" carbines are good examples of modern Traveller equivalents.
Wouldn't that essentially be what CT classifies an Auto-Rifle? It's been a while, but I seem to remember in my junior high days all the Classic Traveller characters were running around with Auto-Rifles since they seemed to provide the best cost to availability to lethality benefit. I'd always assumed that the auto-rifle was based on the BAR, but it also always seemed odd to me that one of the best weapons available was based on an antique from doubleya doubleya two. </font>[/QUOTE]A good way to think of the Rifle/Autorifle thing is the M1 Garand/M14 rifles. The M1 held 8 rounds in an internal magazine (on a loading clip), and the M14 was just a development of the M1 using a 20 round detachable box magazine and capable for full auto fire. These are full power rifles, weigh a lot, and have significant recoil. One of the reasons for development of the AR15/M16 is that the M14 on full auto was fairly uncontrollable for aimed fire.
So then you get to the development of the Assault Rifle (which actually the Germans did in WWII with the SG44).
You can do this, but in reality there are some significant differences.
An assault rifle is typically chambered for a midpower rifle cartridge, like the NATO 5.56mm or Soviet 5.45mm rounds. The assault rifle (the name comes from the first such weapon, the Sturmgeweher 44 made by the Germans in 1944. Sturmgeweher literally means "Assault Rifle) is designed around light weight and high firepower (defined as the ability to but the largest number of rounds possible on target in short order).
The Auto Rifle is more accurately termed, as others have noted, a "Battle Rifle." These are full powered automatic rifles designed with maximum ballistic performance in mind. They are typically very heavy, and hold 20 rounds instead of 30 for the Assault Rifle. They retain excellent killing capability out past 500m, but might be a little unweildy in tight quarters.
The P90 is fantastic for what it is designed for -- as a self defense weapon (what the military calls a PDW - Personal Defense Weapon) for soldiers not likely to see infantry-type operations.
Sure, the 5.7mm round might not be very "powerful" and it might not be superlight. But it is MUCH shorter than a M1 Carbine, shoots flatter and with less recoil (and SIGNIFICANTLY better penetration versus barriers and body armor), and holds FIFTY rounds as opposed to the M1's FIFTEEN. For pilots, vehicle crews, and rear area soldiers, it's hard to imagine a better compromise of size/weight, firepower, and convenience.
I think this is a reference to the reported problems with stopping power of the new M855 NATO round. The round does not have quite as strong a tendency to fragment insider 150m, leading to some circumstances where multiple hits might be needed to down an enemy combatant.
This is NOT an issue with the 5.56mm round per se, but rather a bullet design issue. The M855 was designed to offer enhanced penetration at long range (it will penetrate a kevlar helmet at 600m), and as such the short range terminal performance has suffered a bit.
Hopefully the military will revert back to the older M193 round at some point, or design something better. For the record though, most troops have been satisfied with the M855's performance in the field, and independent testing has shown only a slight decrease in fragmentation potential, typically at the edge of the 125-150m fragmentation envelope of the 5.56mm round.
Good points, but I think you are quoting 5.7x28mm velocity specs for the "civilianized" version of the round. The military version is 2800fps from a P90...it was toned done for civilian use because from a FN Five Seven pistol it would go right through almost all soft body armor on the market...making a lot of cops very nervous.
The 5.56mm round is an excellent performer inside the typical infantry engagement range of 100-150m, and an adequate performer out to 600m.
It is true that long distance shooters like snipers perfer 7.62x51mm rounds; however, this is mainly due to the round's better performance at long range than the 5.56mm, the flatter trajectory, and not least the fact that they don't have to carry many of them!
A typical US infantry soldier carries 210 rounds of 5.56mm ammo; six loaded 30 round magazines plus one in the weapon. If he were to carry the same number of 7.62mm rounds, it would weight FOUR TIMES as much.
Power vs. firepower is a longstanding debate in firearms circles. Carry fewer, more powerful rounds (power), or more less powerful rounds? There are extremes on both sides -- would you want to go into battle with .50BMG rounds, if you could only carry five? What about 2000 rounds, but they are .22 short?
The argument that wounding potential of any weapon is based on the energy it imparts is a fallacy.
The wounding mechansim involved is MUCH more important. You can't think of all weapons as blunt clubs that do damage based on how big it is and how hard you swing it. An edged weapon does not do damage that way, it damages by slicing through arteries and other vital tissues. Firearms likewise do NOT do damage purely based on the energy they have...they do damage based on WHERE they hit and how the bullet is designed. A bullent that simply enters the target and stops with do far less damage than one that yaws and fragments, expands, or has some other exotic would mechanism, regardless of how big a gun it comes from.
If you doubt this, let me just lightly touch you with a running chainsaw.
The SS190 (military ammo) spec is 31gn projectile at 2345fps. Federal GamShok .22 magnum is 30gn projectile at 2200 fps. The common civilianized ammo is the SS196SR, shooting the 40 gn Vmax bullet at 1650. This has significanly less energey compared to Federal's 22WM Champion Target, which delivers a similar 40gn FMJ bullet at 1910 fps.
It should be noted that almost any rifle firing FMJ bullets will penatrate a typical NIJ level IIIA vest of the type most often worn by police.
BTW, FN states an effective range of 400 meters for the 5.7, but this is based on a KE of 85J being considered 'effective'. By contrast, the 5.56x45mm M193 has almost 400J of energy at the same time, more than 4X!
Lastly, as noted before, the 5.7 falls well short of the .22 hornet, which can deliover a 45gn bullet at over 2700fps. Shooting the lighter 35gn vmax (still almost 20% heavier than the SS190) the hornet gains another 400 fps, at 3100fps.
in every way shape and form, the 5.7 is bested by rounds that are considered anemic and date back almost 100 years. The FN P90 is a triumph of marketing over substance. My own experience with the FN FiveseveN 5.7x28mm pistol has convinced me it is a solution in search of a problem. I should have spent the money on a Grendel P-30
It is generally recognized that the 5.56mm requires about 2400 fps velocity for the bullet to fragment - the reason that the 5.56 is an effective short range killer. beyond about 150m, the velocity (and lethality) falls off rapidly. This is particularly true of the newer M855 round, which leaves the muzzle at several hundred fps slower than the old M193. Fortunately, about 75% of all infantry small arms fire falls within this range.
The 5.56 might be acceptable out to 600 yards if you are shooting holes in paper, but that's about it.
The SS190 (military ammo) spec is 31gn projectile at 2345fps. Federal GamShok .22 magnum is 30gn projectile at 2200 fps. The common civilianized ammo is the SS196SR, shooting the 40 gn Vmax bullet at 1650. This has significanly less energey compared to Federal's 22WM Champion Target, which delivers a similar 40gn FMJ bullet at 1910 fps.
It should be noted that almost any rifle firing FMJ bullets will penatrate a typical NIJ level IIIA vest of the type most often worn by police.
BTW, FN states an effective range of 400 meters for the 5.7, but this is based on a KE of 85J being considered 'effective'. By contrast, the 5.56x45mm M193 has almost 400J of energy at the same time, more than 4X!
Lastly, as noted before, the 5.7 falls well short of the .22 hornet, which can deliover a 45gn bullet at over 2700fps. Shooting the lighter 35gn vmax (still almost 20% heavier than the SS190) the hornet gains another 400 fps, at 3100fps.
in every way shape and form, the 5.7 is bested by rounds that are considered anemic and date back almost 100 years. The FN P90 is a triumph of marketing over substance. My own experience with the FN FiveseveN 5.7x28mm pistol has convinced me it is a solution in search of a problem. I should have spent the money on a Grendel P-30
It is generally recognized that the 5.56mm requires about 2400 fps velocity for the bullet to fragment - the reason that the 5.56 is an effective short range killer. beyond about 150m, the velocity (and lethality) falls off rapidly. This is particularly true of the newer M855 round, which leaves the muzzle at several hundred fps slower than the old M193. Fortunately, about 75% of all infantry small arms fire falls within this range.
The 5.56 might be acceptable out to 600 yards if you are shooting holes in paper, but that's about it. </font>[/QUOTE]You are right about the 5.7x28mm fps numbers, my apologies. But consider you are talking about a VERY small weapon that holds 50 rounds per magazine. I think that it is a reasonable tradeoff...again, not at all for frontline troops, but it is certainly better than a 9mm pistol for the guys in the rear or driving trucks.
And actually according to Dr Fackler, the 5.56mm requires even more velocity than that...up to 2700fps, so you are right that at longer ranges it starts to suffer. But I still don't think you want to be staning on the 600m line while somebody takes a shot...
I wish I had seen your .17HMR test, sounds like a hoot!
And lest you think I'm just a small caliber guy...one of my favorite rifles is my trusty M1 Garand.
You'll probably need the 50 rounds, LOL.
Personally, I wasn't too impressed with the P90. I'd rather have a compact .223. I see that there's a very compact version of the XM-8. With a different stock, it's really not much bigger than the P90, while firing a full power round. At least then you don't have to deal with 2 different rifle cartridges in the inventory. Better yet, the design could be easily converted to 6.8x43mm.
I'm not completely keen on the XM8, particularly the lack accessory mounting options. But it looks Travelleresque.
In Traveller terms, looks like the P90 does 2D (TNE and T4).
Personally, I wasn't too impressed with the P90. I'd rather have a compact .223. I see that there's a very compact version of the XM-8. With a different stock, it's really not much bigger than the P90, while firing a full power round. At least then you don't have to deal with 2 different rifle cartridges in the inventory. Better yet, the design could be easily converted to 6.8x43mm.
I'm not completely keen on the XM8, particularly the lack accessory mounting options. But it looks Travelleresque.
In Traveller terms, looks like the P90 does 2D (TNE and T4).
Spiderfish
SOC-12
The argument that wounding potential of any weapon is based on the energy it imparts is a fallacy.
The wounding mechansim involved is MUCH more important. You can't think of all weapons as blunt clubs that do damage based on how big it is and how hard you swing it. An edged weapon does not do damage that way, it damages by slicing through arteries and other vital tissues. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't forget placement, that's probably the most important factor, those vital tissues need to be there for you to hurt them.
If I placed it right I could kill you all with this one piece of throwing toast
Spiderfish
SOC-12
Indeed, MrMorden knows when he is beat.
What is it the kids say in this situation? Ah yes pwned. Whatever that means.
Ooh look something I know about...
Rocky Marciano
Most heavyweight's blows are apparently like striking someone with a sledgehammer. I've never hit anyone with a sledgehammer so I cannot confirm that, though i've hit a truck tyre with one* many times.
* Sledgehammer GPP.
What is it the kids say in this situation? Ah yes pwned. Whatever that means.
Ooh look something I know about...
Actually the power of punch (by which I mean KE) would totally depend on the puncher's own abilities, his size, the explosive power of his muscles and his chosen technique. Karate has been demonstrated to have weak hand blows compared to other martial disciplines.
As for hand blows having nowhere near the KE of a blow with say a ballistic weapon, that is true for a normal average human being, but for an exceptional and trained individual well lets look at the evidence.
Rocky Marciano
For the record I believe the above punch was delivered wearing 12 oz gloves.
Most heavyweight's blows are apparently like striking someone with a sledgehammer. I've never hit anyone with a sledgehammer so I cannot confirm that, though i've hit a truck tyre with one* many times.
* Sledgehammer GPP.
Similar threads
