Interesting tidbit about ammo belt links

[pmulcahy11b]

I am reading the current issue of Small Arms Review. In the mid-1990s, the Spanish pitched the Ameli to the Thais when they were looking for a SAW. (The Thais did not choose the Ameli, however.) The Thais, however, chose links for the belts that were originally designed for Stoner system, for whatever reason, instead of standard NATO links; the Stoner links aren't compatible with weapons designed for standard NATO links, and the Spanish had to jigger the Ameli's feed mechanism a little. It sort of makes you wonder what other non-standard links are being used these days (I don't mean with really old weapons, but with weapons firing modern ammunition).

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I am reading the current issue of Small Arms Review. In the mid-1990s, the Spanish pitched the Ameli to the Thais when they were looking for a SAW. (The Thais did not choose the Ameli, however.) The Thais, however, chose links for the belts that were originally designed for Stoner system, for whatever reason, instead of standard NATO links; the Stoner links aren't compatible with weapons designed for standard NATO links, and the Spanish had to jigger the Ameli's feed mechanism a little. It sort of makes you wonder what other non-standard links are being used these days (I don't mean with really old weapons, but with weapons firing modern ammunition).

WoW.
The Stoner system was bad ass imho

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

WoW.
The Stoner system was bad ass imho

The biggest problem with the Stoner 63 system was one that seems to have plagued several Stoner designs -- intolerance to dirt, wear, and tear. Eugene Stoner designed weapons that were highly-accurate, light in weight, and didn't kick much, but they also used very close tolerances that meant just a little dirt could gum up the works, and he tended to design his weapons for specific types of propellants (he preferred IMR's line of propellants in particular). Knock something out of line through even normal use, and the weapon could just stop working. (In my experience, for example, the most common problems with the M-16 are related to feed failures or extraction failures -- that tiny little extractor spring had a nasty tendency to stick and not kick the spent case out, and the older magazines wore out pretty fast, especially the feed lips.)

In short, Eugene Stoner designed excellent rifles -- but they are simply not soldier-proof. The M-16 never should never have been issued beyond the Air Force Security Police for which it was designed; an even better use would be a civilian target rifle or varmint hunting rifle. (I know it's a controversial opinion to many, but that's what I think.) The Stoner 63 system was well liked by the SEALs, and it was a better weapon than the M-16, but it still had problems with dirt -- it's saving grace was actually the SEALs themselves, who made a virtual religion of weapon maintenance.

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The biggest problem with the Stoner 63 system was one that seems to have plagued several Stoner designs -- intolerance to dirt, wear, and tear. Eugene Stoner designed weapons that were highly-accurate, light in weight, and didn't kick much, but they also used very close tolerances that meant just a little dirt could gum up the works, and he tended to design his weapons for specific types of propellants (he preferred IMR's line of propellants in particular). Knock something out of line through even normal use, and the weapon could just stop working. (In my experience, for example, the most common problems with the M-16 are related to feed failures or extraction failures -- that tiny little extractor spring had a nasty tendency to stick and not kick the spent case out, and the older magazines wore out pretty fast, especially the feed lips.)

In short, Eugene Stoner designed excellent rifles -- but they are simply not soldier-proof. The M-16 never should never have been issued beyond the Air Force Security Police for which it was designed; an even better use would be a civilian target rifle or varmint hunting rifle. (I know it's a controversial opinion to many, but that's what I think.) The Stoner 63 system was well liked by the SEALs, and it was a better weapon than the M-16, but it still had problems with dirt -- it's saving grace was actually the SEALs themselves, who made a virtual religion of weapon maintenance.

Hmm I never had any problem's with my M-16.

[Legbreaker]

Every M16 I've ever had the misfortune to lay my hands on was rubbish. Give me a good, solid L1A1 any day in preference to that plastic little toy!

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Every M16 I've ever had the misfortune to lay my hands on was rubbish. Give me a good, solid L1A1 any day in preference to that plastic little toy!

L1A1 is a good rifle imo. I like the M-14 myself.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

Hmm I never had any problem's with my M-16.

I would say that falls in line with the law of averages. Just like how someone could smoke all their life and never get cancer.

[pmulcahy11b]

This is OT for this thread, but I've always wanted to ask you something, Fusilier: How does the Bangkok Sourcebook compare with the actual city?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

L1A1 is a good rifle imo. I like the M-14 myself.

I loved a weapon that most troops hated -- the M-60. It's a bit finicky too, but not nearly as much as an M-16 or M-249. I'd marry it if it was legal.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I loved a weapon that most troops hated -- the M-60. It's a bit finicky too, but not nearly as much as an M-16 or M-249. I'd marry it if it was legal.

Loved the SLR/L1A1, and I even used the old .303 a few times, loved it. Definitely a better choice than the L85A1. Heard the A2 isn't as bad, but never used it.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Every M16 I've ever had the misfortune to lay my hands on was rubbish. Give me a good, solid L1A1 any day in preference to that plastic little toy!

I know I've said it many times before on this forum but the L1A1 (SLR) is my weapon of choice. Great for smashing people with, excellent knockdown ability with the 7.62 round, decent accuracy. And top of my list, I had more military training with that weapon than any other so I would be able to maintain one properly if I owned one.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I loved a weapon that most troops hated -- the M-60. It's a bit finicky too, but not nearly as much as an M-16 or M-249. I'd marry it if it was legal.

I 'carried' (I was mechanized, so not much actual carrying, but you get the idea) and M60 on and off for 8 years. I loved that thing. Still do, it was sad to see it phased out.

[weswood]

I'm not particularly fond of the M16 myself. I've shot the M-60, but that was pretty much it, just a familiaization firing.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

This is OT for this thread, but I've always wanted to ask you something, Fusilier: How does the Bangkok Sourcebook compare with the actual city?

OT

Actually pretty good Paul. Its surprising accurate with many things (including the locations of real hotels and other places). Its particularly so when discussing Bangkok, but sometimes, not as strong when dealing with the rest of the country.

The only big points I object to are mostly opinion based -

1. The Royal Family being murdered.
2. The map of the city gives the impression its smaller than it is. Where I live it should be 100% urban, yet it shows jungle and emptiness.
3. Army units are too understrength (done for gameplay I guess).
4. Drug lord armies are too powerful (done for gameplay I guess).

Of course since it was technically a Merc2000 publication, there is little mention of Thailand's traditional enemies (Burma / Cambodia). In twilight I'm sure a couple engagements would be fought over something.

[fightingflamingo]

M16/M16A1 crap
M16A2 finiky but effective
M16A4 very nice, never had an operating malfunction

M249 is OK, too many parts for certain soldiers to keep track of

M14 DMR brings a smile to my heart

M60 vs M240B performance in the field is similar, but I'd rather carry the lighter M60 even if it is more prone to mechanical failure.

as far as cleaning weapons, and that affecting their operation, I may be an old school NCO, but grunts should be cleaning their weapons in the garrison, or in the field, no excuse for a fouling causing a malfunction. You just don't throw that many rounds down range in a firefight, and after you clean the weapon at the first opportunity, and there will be one.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes, I never had much problem with the M16A2, M249 or the M60 while in service, but like many here I have heard of some issues with each weapon. The thing is many of the weapons system don't have much tolerance when it comes to getting dirty. Hmmm that the trouble with having M240 being used as coaxial weapon. Sooner or later someone would get a brain to replace the M60 line with them for ease of replacement part in the system.

On the other hand, if troops clean their weapons regularly, they are some of the most accurate weapons. As oppose to the Soviet SKS/AK/PK family lines in which you could pour mud onto the weapon while firing, and they would keep firing.

Yes, Paul, I would tend to agree. The M16 should of never made it into the Army or Marines. As a former Paratrooper/Infantry I think I would of taken my chance with the M14 as the standard weapon. There are too many stories of the Carbines issued in WWII in which the round would be ineffective in killing the enemy. The M16 with lighter round seems to have similar, from what I heard have the same flaws in the field.

I never really brought the lighter round to give infantry more round to hump theory. I would rather see just one common round for Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, and Machineguns, that would kill. Then again that is just my opinion. As for Grenade Launchers at team level, it is nice weapon, and the combo weapon with a Assault Rifle is nice in which in theory they have essentially one weapon.

Well just some thoughts.

[cavtroop]

I never once had a mechanical malfunction in my M60's, and some of those were O-L-D old. We're talking Vietnam old. Unless you include the GOD AWFUL BFA (blank firing adapter) - firing blanks with an M60 was an exercise in futility.

I couldn't shoot the M-16 (A1 or A2) to save my life. Never qualified higher than Marksman with that POS. Expert in .45, 9mm, M60, M203, but that damn M16 was an enigma for me. Never got a chance to shoot an M-14, but did some familiarization fire with a G3, and shot the heck out of that thing . Though the FN-FAL gave me fits, not sure why.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

I couldn't shoot the M-16 (A1 or A2) to save my life. Never qualified higher than Marksman with that POS. Expert in .45, 9mm, M60, M203, but that damn M16 was an enigma for me. Never got a chance to shoot an M-14, but did some familiarization fire with a G3, and shot the heck out of that thing . Though the FN-FAL gave me fits, not sure why.

I barely passed BRM in Basic (I shot 25 out of 40, and you needed a 24 to pass at the time). So when I got home, I bought myself an AR-15 and a Beretta M-92, and while it took about two years of shooting at least once a month and lots of ammo (I knew a guy in the National Guard who helped me on that one -- shhhh...), I got to the point where I could shoot Expert every time, and I continued to practice as often as possible. And I found that it transfers to other weapons as well -- I could pick almost any firearm and fire it accurately. Unfortunately, I don't know if I still can do that; I wasn't allowed to keep my weapons after the suicide attempt, and under Texas law, you can't have most mental illnesses (including schizoaffective disorder) and own a firearm, or even go to a range and shoot one.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Yes, Paul, I would tend to agree. The M16 should of never made it into the Army or Marines. As a former Paratrooper/Infantry I think I would of taken my chance with the M14 as the standard weapon. There are too many stories of the Carbines issued in WWII in which the round would be ineffective in killing the enemy. The M16 with lighter round seems to have similar, from what I heard have the same flaws in the field.

Just a comment on this.
The .30 carbine (7.62x33) round puts out 1173 joules at 579 metres a second, but has a reputation for not being a lethal round. Weirdly enough, the .45 ACP round puts out 474 joules at 250 metres a second but has never once been accused of not being a 'man stopper'. Yeah, I know it's a pistol round, but the ranges of the long-arms firing it are about the same.

I've read magazine where a guy claimed to have bent an M1 carbine 'into a U' in the crotch of a tree, and replaced with an M1A1 Thompson SMG so he would have a more lethal weapon. WTF? It does less damage!

Actual combat reports would seem to indicate that the .30 carbine round was an efficient killer, and it's big problem was being a round-nosed bullet it lost velocity quickly. The .30 was a close combat calibre, and is still used for this by the Israeli police.

I'm not doubting Abbott, it's just this has always kind of fascinated me how the M1 carbine was maligned but when the army checked the records it was always 'some guy in another unit'.
The 5.56x45 puts out 1798 joules of energy, about half again, and it zings along at 1005 metres a second or about twice the speed. It's spitzer round is more aerodynamic giving it better energy carrying power. Considering this isn't much less than the vaunted Russian M1943 (7.62x39) fired by the AK47 - 1993 joules and a slow 710 metres a second - I can't really understand the dislike for the 5.56mm.
That said, I'm an armchair enthusiast with SFA experience.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Just a comment on this.
The .30 carbine (7.62x33) round puts out 1173 joules at 579 metres a second, but has a reputation for not being a lethal round. Weirdly enough, the .45 ACP round puts out 474 joules at 250 metres a second but has never once been accused of not being a 'man stopper'. Yeah, I know it's a pistol round, but the ranges of the long-arms firing it are about the same.

I've read magazine where a guy claimed to have bent an M1 carbine 'into a U' in the crotch of a tree, and replaced with an M1A1 Thompson SMG so he would have a more lethal weapon. WTF? It does less damage!

Actual combat reports would seem to indicate that the .30 carbine round was an efficient killer, and it's big problem was being a round-nosed bullet it lost velocity quickly. The .30 was a close combat calibre, and is still used for this by the Israeli police.

I'm not doubting Abbott, it's just this has always kind of fascinated me how the M1 carbine was maligned but when the army checked the records it was always 'some guy in another unit'.
The 5.56x45 puts out 1798 joules of energy, about half again, and it zings along at 1005 metres a second or about twice the speed. It's spitzer round is more aerodynamic giving it better energy carrying power. Considering this isn't much less than the vaunted Russian M1943 (7.62x39) fired by the AK47 - 1993 joules and a slow 710 metres a second - I can't really understand the dislike for the 5.56mm.
That said, I'm an armchair enthusiast with SFA experience.

I think a combination of factors is at work here -- range, penetration, and expectations. Compared to the 9mm Parabellum, the .45 ACP is a manstopper. It's a much better pistol round than the 9mm. Put it in a rifle, and its a varmint round. The .30 Carbine is basically a pistol round, but since they first put it out in a "rifle," the troops expected it to perform better; the M-1 Carbine was also over-issued (much like the M-16) to troops who expected a primary-issue combat cartridge to perform better.

The biggest problem with the 5.56mm round is its combination of light weight and high velocity. You can't adequately simulate it with T2K rules, but the 5.56mm round will quickly and accurately hit its target -- and tend to zoom right through it without dumping enough of its energy into the target. In more familiar words, it lacks stopping power. Yes, it may yaw as much as 90 degrees when it hits flesh, but while that may produce a large temporary wound channel, it doesn't always translate into a lot of short-term damage. (Your target stands a good chance of dying shortly after of internal bleeding, but often not quickly enough to take him out of the immediate fight.)

I absolutely shocked my fellow soldiers in Desert Storm because I took the time to aim at the enemy even when they were shooting at me, but when I hit they stayed down. (Call it an early sign of the mental illness that was to come...) You don't want all your soldiers to be as big an idiot as I was -- you want your target to go down and stay down. At close range with a pistol, that's not hard -- follow-up shots are quick. At longer ranges, those follow-up shots get progressively more difficult. You don't want to hit your target just to see him get up again or not go down to begin with.

[Legbreaker]

The .45 also has a larger surface area than the .30 cal, etc. Yes, it's a slower round, but that's probably a GOOD thing in this case - it's more able to apply that energy without pushing right through the target.

I suppose you could compare it to a hammer and an arrow - the hammer won't necessarily penetrate, but it's likely to be a lot naster than the faster arrow!

Of course if the target is wearing armour....

[Targan]

I was going to post something similar to what Legbreaker has posted but he said it for me. As I've said on this forum before its more than just about the amount of energy carried in the bullet, its how the bullet transfers its energy into the target and whether or not the bullet exits the target, thus failing to transfer all of its energy. There are other factors too. I guess what I'm saying is that its more complicated than it seems on the surface. You could fill whole libraries with magazine articles, research and anecdotal accounts which have been written on this subject.

[jester]

Yep what Leg and Targ said, the transfer of energy is a key factor.

[ChalkLine]

That would indicate that the .30 carbine round is better than the 5.56mm!

[Legbreaker]

A thrown rock is better than 5.56, or is that 9mmP?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

A thrown rock is better than 5.56, or is that 9mmP?

That depends on the size of the rock, of course. A BFR will really hurt someone if you throw it hard.

[General Pain]

I must say I like the G3 (AG3) powerfull but not misunderstood....

BFR - I like that one good ABR.

..reminds me of a old HQ campaign - used all my ammo and had to throw my 10gauge doublebarreled sawed of shotguns in the end (as thrown weapon)...

good times.....in the sewers of NY...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by General Pain

...had to throw my 10gauge doublebarreled sawed of shotguns in the end (as thrown weapon)...

good times.....in the sewers of NY...

10 gauge is for wimps. Go with an 8 GAUGE!



8 Gauge Sawed-off Shotgun
Description: Referees must give heed if a character chooses to use this weapon. Ammunition will not be found; it must be made. It also makes a LOT of noise. People will know you are there. OBS improves one difficulty level to find a character using this weapon. Not to mention it is a true calling sign. Not many people have one of these and ‘survivors’ (yeah, right) will remember characters by this weapon. Damage at Medium range is halved; anything past medium range is unaffected physically but must make a panic check. The advantages of this weapon are obvious. Damage of 7 (14 with buckshot at close range), and very easy to conceal. When a character misses, the target character must make a panic check at –3 for short range and –2 for medium range. Failure is treated like any other panic failure (the character freezes or flees.) If a character decides to use both barrels, it is recommended that they make a difficult Strength check or take 2-6 phases recovering.

Ammo: 8 Gauge
Wt: Varies kg
Mag: 2 individual
Price: Original value + 30% ( -/- )

						--Recoil--	
Weapon	ROF	Dam	Pen	Blk	Mag	SS	Brst	Rng
8 gauge	SA	7	3-4-Nil	3	2i	7	-	15
Close	SA	14	Nil					
 With buckshot*							
Medium	5x10	1	Nil					
 With buckshot*

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

10 gauge is for wimps. Go with an 8 GAUGE!

8-Gauge is for wimps! Get yourself the Russian KS-23! That sucker is 23mm -- the equivalent of a 4-Gauge!

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jester

Yep what Leg and Targ said, the transfer of energy is a key factor.

The term I've heard used with the M-1 carbine is "over penetration". It's round was basically a magnum pistol round, based on an old .32-cal pistol cartridge.

The M-1 carbine, unlike the M16, was never really intended to be the primary weapon of an infantryman. It was intended for use by support troops (clerks, truck drivers, etc.) and the men of crew-served weapons (like mortars and howitzers) and in those roles it was perfectly adequate (more useful than an M-1911A1 and a lot easier to carry than an M-1 Garand). The onlt combat troops who routinely carried it were paratroopers (especially the M-aA1, with the folding stock) and perhaps engineers (who had a lot of heavy specialist gear to carry).

At one point, revolver firing the same round was designed, for issue to paratroopers to reduce the different number of ammo types. However, while the round produced very little kick in a carbine, it had jaring recoil in a handgun and the project was dropped.