.22 / .177 article in AGW (april)

[chris ballard]

Any body read this

Whadya think.

Kind of puts paid to my (rather un educated) theories.

I had just ordered a new Axsor (I have my reasons) which'l now be in .177. My only real argument was that with fingers like pigs tits, .177 was a pain to load (not a good argument I know ), but with a magazine..no probs.

Very interesting article though.

[airgunner2388]

You won't regret it. Or the Logun Axsor. I have the carbine version, better IMHO.

[Mad Pierre]

It was an interesting read, put paid to a lot of the 'over penetration' myths but missed out on the one clear advantage of .22, - a .22 hole is wider than a .177 and consequently will do more damage.

I accept that .177 trajectory is easier for range guestimation and that accuracy is more important, however in fairness to .22 it does have that one quality which shouldn't be overlooked.

[chris ballard]

Hey mad bloke...it the crabine (sorry crabs...carbine) I ordered...dont like long wavey things, my stomach gets in the way when I turn round anyway

Re size of holes...pervert!! No only joking. Not a balistics expert, but It may also have something to do with energy imparted onto the target / victim (see telephone directory test). Would'nt mind seeing what had happened with Dynamics or something less likely to deform though.

Weight of ammunition was not the only reason we changed from 7.62 to 5.56 in the early 80s. The latter did make a smaller hole, but it still killed very well.

I guess this debate will go on, im just glad the info is about these days so you can at least make an informed choice.

[Gary C]

. Would'nt mind seeing what had happened with Dynamics or something less likely to deform though.

.

They did try but couldn't get the damn things to hit the putty...

[benjrichardson]

Weight of ammunition was not the only reason we changed from 7.62 to 5.56 in the early 80s. The latter did make a smaller hole, but it still killed very well.

read an interesting article on 5.56 NATO, said that the minimum amount of rifle twist was used in the barrel, so that the bullet 'tumbled' very easily as soon as it hit a body doing more damage than if a 'normal' bullet that size would do

[TEXASPROUD]

read an interesting article on 5.56 NATO, said that the minimum amount of rifle twist was used in the barrel, so that the bullet 'tumbled' very easily as soon as it hit a body doing more damage than if a 'normal' bullet that size would do

The first Ar-15's and M-16's that were sent to Nam had 1 in 14" twists, one reason the wounds created were so devastating.

[benjrichardson]

i was told that they went down in caliber so as to wound more than kill .point being if you shoot someone and wound very badly two of his friends will come to his rescue and stretcher him away ,thus taking three people out of the theater of war for one shot ..
and that they no longer need a bullet to travel as far as the 30 cal as artillery takes care of that now

thats good PR not really the truth, it sounds nice if the government says they are using a gun design'd to wound not kill
5.56 will still travel 800 metres acuratly enough in the right gun
5.56 is lighter and cheaper and does enough damage
7.62 is heavy and requires a heavier gun, been told it requires more training as well

[benjrichardson]

and all good soldiers do as they ae told
maybe its partly true, but you don't here of many soldiers getting taught to aim for arms and legs, a 5.56 nato round in any of the area's the army teach you to aim at is going to kill you

[Mad Pierre]

Weight of ammunition was not the only reason we changed from 7.62 to 5.56 in the early 80s. The latter did make a smaller hole, but it still killed very well.

I guess this debate will go on,

Oh great Chris, you've managed to create another .177 v .22 debate (which the BBS needed IMHO) and deftly convert it into a 7.62 v 5.56 argument.....you really know how to wake this lot up don't you
For the record.........the SLR wins....

[Micky Spillane]

I was always given to beleive we changed calibre due to 7.62 over penetration in urban situations, ie Northern Ireland. Where a miss on the primary target could be a secondary target hit via a house wall. Drink good English bitter beer and shoot safe.
Micky Spillane

[benjrichardson]

I was always given to beleive we changed calibre due to 7.62 over penetration in urban situations, ie Northern Ireland. Where a miss on the primary target could be a secondary target hit via a house wall. Drink good English bitter beer and shoot safe.
Micky Spillane

no we done it because we are stuck up the rear of the US who was using millions of rounds of 5.56 in Vietnam and telling the rest of nato how wonderful the round was

[TEXASPROUD]

no we done it because we are stuck up the rear of the US who was using millions of rounds of 5.56 in Vietnam and telling the rest of nato how wonderful the round was

...and look whats happening now, the soldiers themselves are putting stuff together for the field. The 6.8 SPC (a .270 round) is being used in limited areas at this time. I do remember y'all coming out with a .276 round back in the 50's. What goes around comes around.
No matter what get's used (Viet Nam 5.56 rifles and .45 pistols, Rhodesia 7.62 FN's and P-35 pistols) both killed terrs and Marxists very well.

[Mad Pierre]

...and look whats happening now, the soldiers themselves are putting stuff together for the field.

The way it's always been mate, even in my humble service we spent a good deal of our own time and money getting the kit together that actually worked rather that the stuff we'd been issued.

[RichardH]

Aha but speed up the rifling to the 1:9 of the A2 and you lose the tumbling effect and you gain 7 grains bullet weight in the uprated current NATO ball...........

Accurate now past 800M, heavier bullet (>90grns if you handload) yet still low recoil and 1/2 the weight of 7.62 ammunition.

Assuming we had a proper rifle to shoot it out of I dont think the 5.56 cartridge is half bad

Richard