The Best Light Machine Gun.

[2nd of foot]

There are non-so blind as those who will not see. :roll:

[Bluffcove]

Pile Im gonna give you 3 seconds exactly 3'King seconds or I will gouge out your eyeballs and Fullscuck you 1,2,3

Is that going to make him blind do you think, Poor old private Pile if he hadnt sucked a 7.62 he would have made a great internet warrior - IRONINGMAN

[Bluffcove]

already offered him the opportunity, but of course being built of IRON, the IRONINGMAN is, when not under the thumb, a fearsome warrior impervious to all weaponry,

press shift and control and type "walther war machine" on COD, always works!!!!

question IRONINGMAN, why do you think soldiers (remember they are the ones you arent!!!!!) have rifles in the first place?

if by your own admission the 30-06 is effective at 250 yards do you not think the "big" cartridges they use in proper big boys rifles are slightly more effective at greater ranges? rather than an extra 50FT

[IRONMAN]

I am not a ballistic master as some of the people on this forum are...

You got that right. At least not if you think section fire with AR's is done at 600m, or that you "can make out the leg of a man at 600m with iron sights" and such. LOL

Please take this comment
"...section fire at 600m does not include assult rifles"

and choke on it. You are wrong, we already have an unwelcome visitor....elswhere. you are welcome to be the next and recieve your education if you wish.

Show us the website of a current military instructor or official military website of a nation which states that section fire at 600m is done with carbine assult rifles. Then you can stop choking on it.

You say you can't? Ofcourse you can't! No military weapons instructor would say such an idiotic thing. It's just in your head. Be careful about making ridiculouis claims about firearms to people who are experienced with firearms.

Secondly by suggesting that it was the cold and the lack of morale that contributed to the deaths of the Chinese at Chosin reservoir, I merely quote a US Marine Major, if he belittles the efforts of the USMC take it up with him!

No, you insulted the many USMC who faught and died there by implying that the intense cold is the reason for the USMN 10-1 KILL RATIO. And that is shameful my boy. BTW, a kill ratio means people who got shot or blown up, not died of frostbite. :lol:

You have disagreed with a Major that was their at the time, you are the one contesting their victory not me!

You have provided a web site to a USMC Major who states that the USMC did not achieve a 10-1 kill ratio or that the USMC killed so many Chinese because of the cold?

WHERE? I don't see it.

question IRONINGMAN, why do you think sniper rifles people have rifles in the first place?

if by your own admission the 30-06 is effective at 250 yards do you not think the "big" cartridges they use in proper big boys rifles are slightly more effective at greater ranges?

A 30-06 is effective at much farther than 250 yards, ofcourse. However, you were saying that section fire takes place at 600m with assult rifles, not 30-06, 7mm, or .50 calibre sniper rifles, and that you can shoot a man at 600m with an assult rifle using open sights. Both of which are absurd. After making such statements, I would think you'd be so embarressed that you would avoid this thread like the plauge. :lol:

[Tubbyboy]

Show us the website of a current military instructor or official military website of a nation which states that section fire at 600m is done with carbine assult rifles. Then you can stop choking on it.

Who mentioned Carbine assault rifles you idiotic walt? Whenever you are proved wrong do you change the subject to whatever the voices in your head tell you? Patronising moron!

Section fire with an assault rifle (note: no mention of carbine) is effective to 600m. That is standard British military doctrine. This statement is fact not speculation.

[Bluffcove]

You can get hit by a bullet of small calibre that does not initiate hydrostatic shock and survive, then decide as you are poorly armed it not with getting up to only geet shot again and lie in the snow and die!

I can show you a website but as I am a new guy on that site I might have to wait for someone else to offer you an invitation first, etiquette and all that. etiquette comes from Britain - you know the place with the history!

secondly i do not ever recall saying a carbine was effective 600 yards I will stnad by it because with the shower of shite you ahve coming your way itll be funny to watch you cling to it, however, Assault rifle fire is effective at its upper band at 600 yards when fired in section, (have I said that before) accuracy decreases but the lethality of the round remains high! and serves its purpose to effectively suppress enemy movement and activity!

The USMC survived and won the battle and went home alive the Chinese did not therefore they won Kill ratios only matter on high score boards at teh end of a computer game, normally soliders are more concerned with beer shagging and being alive than worrying aoubt their tally.

If you want to argue with the USMC Major who claims that the Chinese were defeated in part by their failed logistics crew you may. This is the article.

The heavy casualties the Chinese suffered from ground and air action were compounded by the cold. The terrible cold was at once our own worst enemy and our greatest ally. Chinese combat power was greatly weakened by the awful losses the poorly clothed Chinese suffered from frostbite and exposure. And, compounding the weakening of the Chinese forces by combat and cold was the failure of their logistic system. In two or three days of fighting most Chinese units had used up the meager allotment of ammunition they had carried when they crossed the river, and were beginning to suffer shortages of food.

(Incidentally if you had any military experience you would have some level of understanding that half the time you get more problems with supply than you do with the enemy - no offence to loggies present)

here is the article,
http://www.koreanwar.org/html/units/frontline/chosin.htm

it doesnt lessen the achievement of the USMC who faced the same climate, its merely the Un forces were better supplied a victory regardless! though evidently COD demands a "tally" or "kill-ratio" to make the high score board.

like I said your invitation is in the post! unfortuantely it will not really be a poll to prove you are wrong more likely a verbatim recital of lesson 4A of the British infantrymans training!

I really want to buy you a pint after this and laugh cheers mate.

incidentally that pistol round in the carbine - effective to 250 yards as at Chosin. You havent explained how all that extra "cartridge" in a real rifle catridge will effect its load and therefore its range?

[IRONMAN]

Who mentioned Carbine assault rifles you idiotic walt? Whenever you are proved wrong do you change the subject to whatever the voices in your head tell you? Patronising moron!.

Um, my misguided friend, lean close so you can hear this...

ASSULT RIFLES ARE CARBINES. Great Scots! A dude argues about assult rifles and does not even know what one is. :shock:

Section fire with an assault rifle (note: no mention of carbine) is effective to 600m. That is standard British military doctrine. This statement is fact not speculation.

Post us the link that states it, an official one. You can't? Oh. I didn't think you could. But it's NOT effective. Nothing coming from the barrel of a carbine (oooh! That word you hate so!) is effective at 600m. You'd be lucky to punch through thier cotton uniform with an AR at 600m. You'd be better off throwing rocks at someone at 10m that shooting an AR at them at 600m. Come back when you have the slightest idea how much a bullet loses velocity and drops from a carbine (oooh! That word again!) at 600m. :lol:

[Bluffcove]

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

Strandard British assault Rifle - this is the version they hadnt even tweaked at vast expense to make "good!"

Read it paying attention to the speciifications listed below the pretty pictures of the rifle.
Includes - I think you will agree testamenet to the individual rifles capability to be effective out to 500 metres.
now this is with a susat granted but if you remember a short while ago you went on a rant about Simo Hayha, now then;

Simo Hayha - non telescopic eyes iron sights accurate sniper at over 500 yards - weapon notwithstanding
Lee Enfiled SA80 - marksman not withstanding can deliver an effective shot to 500 Meters this is a standard 5.56 NATO cartirdge

A Human can identify and aim at a target at over 500 metres - proven
A 5.56 cartridge can be effective in individual fire at 500 metres.

Any argument you may have with that can be resolved by saying - X8!
Section fire removes the large majority of variables the accuracy decreases but it catered for by 8 shots going down instead of one!

If you have any further questions go to a gun club in your delightful nation and stand 600 metres from a guy with an Assault rfle and tell him he slept with his sister!

please accept the invitation when you get it!!! PLEASE

[pdf27]

ASSULT RIFLES ARE CARBINES. Great Scots! A dude argues about assult rifles and does not even know what one is. :shock:
Whisky Tango Foxtrot? If all assault rifles are carbines, why does the US Army describe the M-16 as an assault rifle but only it's shorter cousin the M-4 as a carbine?

[Ale]

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

That website lists the standard effective range of an individual SA80 Assualt rifle (one of the shortest about) as being 500m. I'm sure you can appreciate that section fire would put it up to 600m at least.

I have seen section fire on falling plate targets at 600m with my own two eyes, and I saw the plates fall. IT DOES WORK, IT IS TRUE, and IT IS THE JOB OF NUMEROUS PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM TO DO THAT.

As to the cold at Chosin, I believe it is me who first brought this up; the severe weather conditions were undoubtedly a factor that caused some of the Chinese to die of wounds that would otherwise have not been fatal. It was undoubtedly a factor which caused some who were wounded to loose enthusiasm. I am in no way intending to take a dig at the USMC, they are a fine body of men and I have no beef with them, and I am not suggesting that the 'body count', delightful US concept that it is, is soley due to the weather, BUT I will say that extreme weather conditions will increase fatalities amongst wounded soldiers. I never said they all died of frostbite, and I don't think Bluffcove was implicating that either.

Ultimately though, I have only this to say to you. You proffess to know a lot about war, and you like to talk about it. Your country is at war against its enemies, so I suggest that you make your father a proud man and volunteer for the USMC where you can see it all including combat, for yourself.

EDIT: And before you mention it; I have signed on the dotted line, (several, actually!) and will be away to lands sandy and hot after I finish my strategy degree. I don't profess to know how I'll get on, but at least I'm trying to find out.

[Tubbyboy]

Who mentioned Carbine assault rifles you idiotic walt? Whenever you are proved wrong do you change the subject to whatever the voices in your head tell you? Patronising moron!.

Um, my misguided friend, lean close so you can hear this...

ASSULT RIFLES ARE CARBINES. Great Scots! A dude argues about assult rifles and does not even know what one is. :shock:

Section fire with an assault rifle (note: no mention of carbine) is effective to 600m. That is standard British military doctrine. This statement is fact not speculation.

Post us the link that states it, an official one. You can't? Oh. I didn't think you could. But it's NOT effective. Nothing coming from the barrel of a carbine (oooh! That word you hate so!) is effective at 600m. You'd be lucky to break the skin with an AR at 600m. You'd be better off throwing rocks at someone at 10m that shooting an AR at them at 600m. :lol:

I would at this point in a classroom draw you a nice Venn diagram to point out that, although a carbine can be an assault rifle, this does not mean that all assault rifles are carbines. Quite simple really. A carbine does not have to be an assault rifle - traditionally mounted troops have carried shorter versions of the standard weapon (hence the Italian carabinieri). This predates the assault rifle by a long way. An assault rifle can be a carbine (typically a modified version for modern cavalry) for example the SA80A2 (standard British assault rifle) is different to the carbine variant of the same developed for tank crews etc.

As I don't have a blackboard handy for the very simple Venn diagram, you will have to believe me on this.

That is the reason why I say that no-one mentioned carbines - because carbines are NOT the same as assault rifles

[Gen. Sandworm]

I think ive made this statement before..........dont the above posts kinda go with fire arms classifications and not best LMG. :?: :?

[Bluffcove]

Like ALe said, but I appreciate if you father spawned you after Chosin then you are in the region of 55, making you too old for USMC, and beyond redemption in terms of earning anything akin to pride in your fathers bosom! Therefore its probably safer if you do just do your ironing drink milky cocoa and talk about wars whilst playing COD than actually doing it yourself.

You have left it too late to do anything about your military delusions Im so sorry for you!

[Tubbyboy]

I think ive made this statement before..........dont the above posts kinda go with fire arms classifications and not best LMG. :?: :?

Yes, however a certain someone decides where to put the erroneous statement, we must respond to it where it lies surely?

[IRONMAN]

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

Strandard British assault Rifle - this is the version they hadnt even tweaked at vast expense to make "good!"

Read it paying attention to the speciifications listed below the pretty pictures of the rifle.
Includes - I think you will agree testamenet to the individual rifles capability to be effective out to 500 metres.

Yup. The effective range is 500m. Not 600m. :lol:

[Bluffcove]

And for those that didnt read me saying it three times in the previous post that is indivdual fire, and still 200 yards higher than your previous guesstimate at 250 yards - SEC-fucking-TION FIRE!

(admittedly you were talking about pistol rounds and Im talking about 5.56 I apologise maybe COD doesnt differentiate!
or you dont hunt at over 250 yards! (if the rabbit shot back youd shoot back as soon as you could!)
YOUR DAD WAS AN INFANTRYMAN ASK HIM ABOUT SECTION FIRE.

[IRONMAN]

ASSULT RIFLES ARE CARBINES. Great Scots! A dude argues about assult rifles and does not even know what one is. :shock:
Whisky Tango Foxtrot? If all assault rifles are carbines, why does the US Army describe the M-16 as an assault rifle but only it's shorter cousin the M-4 as a carbine?

Carbine: a short barelled rifle.

The M4 Carbine is an assult syle military rifle. DOAH!

BTW, the M16 has been replaced. One of the reasons for the development of it's replacement is that the barrel length does not lend itself well to close range combat. Hence, the M4 Carbine and the XM8... are carbines. Traditionally, assult rifles are short-barreled (carbines). Ooops!

[Ale]

Yup. The effective range is 500m. Not 600m. Laughing

Yes, the effective range of the individual weapon, firing on its own, is 500m. I'm sure you can appreciate therefore, how 8 weapons firing at the same target at 600m will also be effective too?

And I thought you said that no assualt rifle was effective beyond 400m? :evil:


BTW, the M16 has been replaced. One of the reasons for the development of it's replacement is that the barrel length does not lend itself well to close range combat. Hence, the M4 Carbine and the XM8... are carbines. Traditionally, assult rifles are short-barreled (carbines). Ooops!

So the M16 wasn't an assualt rifle then? :?

[IRONMAN]

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

That website lists the standard effective range of an individual SA80 Assualt rifle (one of the shortest about) as being 500m. I'm sure you can appreciate that section fire would put it up to 600m at least..

500m is the EFFECTIVE range, but you want us to think it is effective at 600m? You know something the manufacturer does not? :shock:

As to the cold at Chosin, I believe it is me who first brought this up; the severe weather conditions were undoubtedly a factor that caused some of the Chinese to die of wounds that would otherwise have not been fatal.

UN troops too. But so what's your point? Still trying to somehow undermine the UN troops and USMC that were there for some reason? Why do you lash out at them? What immature, indescent, disrespectful thing are you trying to do? And how does that make your contention that the M1 Carbine did not kill plenty of soldiers at Chosin true? It does not.

Ultimately though, I have only this to say to you. You proffess to know a lot about war, and you like to talk about it. Your country is at war against its enemies, so I suggest that you make your father a proud man and volunteer for the USMC where you can see it all including combat, for yourself.

I'm too old. They don't enlist men in their 40's.

[Bluffcove]

One of the reasons for the development of it's replacement is that the barrel length does not lend itself well to close range combat. Hence, the M4 Carbine and the XM8... are carbines.

IRONINGMAN they redesigned an assault rifle with a shorter barrel and made it into a carbine as it says above,
he he look who said that, you did, you goon!
they made an assault rifle into a carbine! thats at odds with your earlier statement that all assault rifles are carbines isnt it!

[IRONMAN]

That is the reason why I say that no-one mentioned carbines - because carbines are NOT the same as assault rifles

All current assult rifles of recent design are carbines. Every one. Assult rifles do not have sniper rifle length barrels. Sorry.

[Bluffcove]

Sorry to hear you are in your 40's and have already squandered all your chances to be a hero rather than a WALT - Enjoy COD

At 500 metres the bullet is capable of pushing it
s way through clothing flesh muscle sinew fat cartilage bone and idiots callede IRONINGMAN

At 501 Metres it falls out of the air and sits there redundant and innocuous.

paraphrased from you!

????? EH

Chosin, you won, you, won, youwon, you won, wonwon you did, didwin youdodid win youwon. You were the superior force it takes nothing away from the soldiers to say

YOU WON,

Surviving is important, body counts arent, more of you walked off the battlefield than of them, a victory, won however you want to put it you won, if the weather and your better equipment logistical support embedded advantage, defensive advantage, helped you win, you still won.

Why do you want to deprive the Loggies of their victory or the commanders, of theirs, why must it all be put down to this pistol

Chosin aside, the MI Carbine is not an assault rifle its a pistol with a long barrel and a butt stock!

I only want you to agree on section fire, cos that is going to be the funniest bit of humble pie to watch you swallow the rest of it you can throw under the table or feed to the bog or something.

[Bluffcove]

That is the reason why I say that no-one mentioned carbines - because carbines are NOT the same as assault rifles

All current assult rifles of recent design are carbines. Every one. Assult rifles do not have sniper rifle length barrels. Sorry.

hey where has this recent word come from?
and more exactly how recent are we talking?

and who the fuck dragged sniper rifles into this!

more to the point who said assault rifles had sniper rifle length barrels?
the ones with barrels that long are called sniper rifles thats a differnet kettle of fish! Sniper rifles in fact!

[Tubbyboy]

That is the reason why I say that no-one mentioned carbines - because carbines are NOT the same as assault rifles

All current assult rifles of recent design are carbines. Every one. Assult rifles do not have sniper rifle length barrels. Sorry.

How do you explain the new variant of the SA80 assault rifle with a shorter barrel that is a "CARBINE VARIANT" I did not say that assault rifles have sniper rifle length barrels. They would then be "sniper rifles". How easy can I make this for you?

In general, I would say (and this is working from memory) that any assault rifle with a barrel length shorter than about 18 inches is a carbine. Anything longer is (unless otherwise designated) a standard assault rifle.


On section fire, go to page three of this document: Section fire (www.learnenglish.org.uk/militaryenglish/teachers/pemp/PEMP3BritishArmyInfantryWeapons.doc)

Edited to add quote from document:

The tactical advantage of the weapon and its capability of firing single rounds or bursts, is in producing:-
a. Quick, accurate fire at short range opportunity targets.
b. A high rate of accurate controlled fire at longer ranges.
c. Effective section fire power at ranges up to 600 metres


Italics my own.

[Ale]

500m is the EFFECTIVE range, but you want us to think it is effective at 600m? You know something the manufacturer does not? Shocked

Yes, the effective range for the weapon firing as an individual is 500m; and as a section is 600m. Those statistics relate to the individual weapon, not 8 men firing that weapon at once. My point was, that if the limit of 1 weapon is 500m, can you not see that the limit of 8 firing simultaneously could be 100m more, even if one were being conservative?


UN troops too. But so what's your point? Still trying to somehow undermine the UN troops and USMC that were there for some reason? Why do you lash out at them? What immature, indescent, disrespectful thing are you trying to do? And how does that make your contention that the M1 Carbine did not kill plenty of soldiers at Chosin true? It does not.


I'm not trying to be immature, indecent or disrespectful, I am merely trying to clear up your misconception that that was indeed what I was doing when I introduced the subject of the weather originally. If you read what I actually wrote you would have noted that I said:

I am in no way intending to take a dig at the USMC, they are a fine body of men and I have no beef with them,

can I make it any bloody clearer than that? I would suggest that you withdraw this:


Still trying to somehow undermine the UN troops and USMC that were there for some reason? Why do you lash out at them? What immature, indescent, disrespectful thing are you trying to do?

if you are any kind of man at all. I have gone to every length to make it clear that that is not what I am saying. I would suggest that you are being immature and lashing out.


I'm too old. They don't enlist men in their 40's.

What about the National Guard? Just a suggestion like!

[Bluffcove]

IRONINGMAN has not posted anything since his carbine - assault rifle
sniper rifle comment, I think hes gone to bed, but really hope he hasnt cos this is such a whole to dig yourself out of!

[IRONMAN]

At 600 Metres even on Iron sights you can define the legs torso and head of an opponent, well I can! (the legs are at the bottom of the blob and move alot, the blob is where you aim and hope to hit - the head is off the top)
:lol: :lol:

Sorry to hear you are in your 40's and have already squandered all your chances to be a hero rather than a WALT - Enjoy COD)

You must be 13 yrs old.


At 500 metres the bullet is capable of pushing it
s way through clothing flesh muscle sinew fat cartilage bone and idiots callede IRONINGMAN

At 501 Metres it falls out of the air and sits there redundant and innocuous.

paraphrased from you!

YOU ARE A LYING LITTLE SACK OF SHIT BOY.
That is not a quote from me, I did not say that, and a search of this site will prove it. Go f**k yourself kiddo. lol

Chosin aside, the MI Carbine is not an assault rifle its a pistol with a long barrel and a butt stock!

No, it's not a pistol you moron. It is a carbine. A carbine is a short-barreled rifle ... like assult rifles! :lol:

[Sturmtruppen]

Sorry to hear you are in your 40's and have already squandered all your chances to be a hero rather than a WALT - Enjoy COD)

You must be 13 yrs old.


that was obvious :lol:

[Bluffcove]

If it is only effective at 500 metres what happens at 501 metres then?
I mean you say its ineffective, so what happens at 501 metres?
was my presumption of your version of events so far off track?

I may be 13, still got you on the ropes havent I?
Wait are 13yr olds the ones that play computer games before they join the military?
Is Simo Hayha, the worlds best Sniper, a 13 year old for understanding what a person looks like over Iron sights?

[reiver]

Ironman,
please dig out your dictionary and look up the word "paraphrased".
It does NOT mean quoted.
In this instance it refers to an extrapolation of your statement that 500 yards is the EFFECTIVE range, and therefore the weapon is totally INeffective beyond that range.
NATO military doctrine : definition of effective range :
"(NATO) The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result." (my italics.)
If this equates to 500 yards, accurately aimed fire, it certainly in no way implies that you would want to stand around at 600 yards while 8 men laid down fire in your direction.
Section fire is about keeping the enemies head down, not sniping individuals.

[Bluffcove]

Reiver, Ale, Cuts, 2nd of foot, Pdf27, Crabtastic, Tubbyboy and Bluffcove,

thats 8 guys, who wants to shoot him?

[IRONMAN]

How do you explain the new variant of the SA80 assault rifle with a shorter barrel that is a "CARBINE VARIANT"

From the very sight you quote:

"SA-80 Carbine, a short-barreled version of the basic design, fitted with the detachable open sights and carrying handle. Only few SA-80 carbines were ever made"

The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! :lol: Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! :lol: Are you even awake?

On section fire, go to page three of this document: Section fire (www.learnenglish.org.uk/militaryenglish/teachers/pemp/PEMP3BritishArmyInfantryWeapons.doc)

Yea, I've been to that site. It has no index and is not from an official government or a military weapons trainer. I'll tell you again: at 600m, an assult rifle is worthless. You have tried to salvage your ridiculous claim that it is effective at 600m by trying to change the debate to "section fire is effective at 600m with AR's", but you have failed.

YOU JUST DON"T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, DO YOU?

[Bluffcove]

sight - iron thing, look over it identify things you want to shoot
site - location

get it right my language before it was yours please look after it.

The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! Are you even awake?

exactly, its an assault rifle when it has a standard length barrel the shorter version is a carbine, I can only presume you were looking at the standard rifle, the Carbine is the stupid looking thing! where all teh weight is somewhere by your nipple when its in the high port and it has a fore-pistol grip.

Hope that is where you are going wrong otherwise this is another hole you will have to dig yourself out of!
***************************************

Regarding the pam that was shown to you, How official does it have to be?

SAY...... a forum populated entirely by the British armed forces and associated hangers on?

incidentally - you never got back to 2nd of foot as to whether your hunting qualifications were comparable to his 23 years service?

****************************************

Your argument, Me :| bothered?

[Sturmtruppen]

Reiver, Ale, Cuts, 2nd of foot, Pdf27, Crabtastic, Tubbyboy and Bluffcove,

thats 8 guys, who wants to shoot him?

please ironman i want Pdf27, Crabtastic, Tubbyboy and Bluffcove, they are mine,you kill the rest :wink:

[Ale]

Ironman, I am still awaiting a withdrawal or apology.

As to the SA80 Carbine, it was only announced that it was going into full production and issue to armoured vehicle crews this week, I'll have a squint around for details/link in a mo.....


The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! Laughing Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! Laughing Are you even awake?

Yes, the SA80 carbine is a carbine, the SA80 is an assualt rifle. Much like the M16 is an Assualt rifle, and the M4 carbine is a carbine.

You have been contending that an assualt rifle has to be a carbine, haven't you.

Yea, I've been to that site. It has no index and is not from an official government or a military weapons trainer. I'll tell you again: at 600m, an assult rifle is worthless. You have tried to salvage your ridiculous claim that it is effective at 600m by trying to change the debate to "section fire is effective at 600m with AR's", but you have failed.

YOU JUST DON"T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, DO YOU?

In that case, find me a military or government website which says that Assualt rifles are not effective at 600m in section fire. We have always maintained that it is section fire that we are talking about, no one has, AFAIK claimed that all AR's are effective at 600m individually, have they?

Bluffcove; I would love to old bean.

[Ale]

Got it, SA80 Carbine being issued to British Tank Crews:

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/preview_jul04.htm

Its about half way down the page. BTW, mod=ministry of defence. Thats as official as it gets. :)

[IRONMAN]

Yes, the effective range for the weapon firing as an individual is 500m; and as a section is 600m. Those statistics relate to the individual weapon, not 8 men firing that weapon at once. My point was, that if the limit of 1 weapon is 500m, can you not see that the limit of 8 firing simultaneously could be 100m more, even if one were being conservative?

However, your original contention was that an AR was effective at 600m, which it is not. And 8 men shooting an AR at someone 600m away is 8 men wasting ammo. Section fire at 600m is done with MG's and cannon.

You fail to understand something about what an effective range is:

"NATO) The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result."

If the result is to kill a man by penetration, and the effective range of an AR is 500m, then at 600m an AR is not going to do that effectively. I mean, yea you could get lucky and hit a man in the head or throat if you fired 5,000 rounds in his direction at 600m with an AR. lOl One might actually hit him there!

What are you arguing about? Your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.

I'm not trying to be immature, indecent or disrespectful, I am merely trying to clear up your misconception that that was indeed what I was doing when I introduced the subject of the weather originally.

Sure you were. It was indescent too. Even mentioning the weather when trying to argue that the M1 Carbine was not used to kill many at Chosin was terribly distasteful. Shame on you.

[Tubbyboy]

How do you explain the new variant of the SA80 assault rifle with a shorter barrel that is a "CARBINE VARIANT"

From the very sight you quote:

"SA-80 Carbine, a short-barreled version of the basic design, fitted with the detachable open sights and carrying handle. Only few SA-80 carbines were ever made"

The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! :lol: Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! :lol: Are you even awake?

First, I didn't quote that sight (sic.).

Secondly, I was not talking about the old SA80 carbine. I was talking about the new SA80A2 carbine variant made by HK.

Thirdly, you have just agreed with me that not all assault rifles are carbines. Hoist by your own petard methinks.

On section fire, go to page three of this document: Section fire (www.learnenglish.org.uk/militaryenglish/teachers/pemp/PEMP3BritishArmyInfantryWeapons.doc)

Yea, I've been to that site. It has no index and is not from an official government or a military weapons trainer. I'll tell you again: at 600m, an assult rifle is worthless. You have tried to salvage your ridiculous claim that it is effective at 600m by trying to change the debate to "section fire is effective at 600m with AR's", but you have failed.

YOU JUST DON"T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, DO YOU?

No. I do know what to say, you seem to have an amazingly short memory - you say one thing and then deny ever having said it.

It may not be from an official site, however, if you look at the top of the first page, you will see the Ministry of Defense logo and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office logo. Both are part of the British Government.

You say that assault rifles are useless at 600m. I have said before and I will say again, assault rifles are effective at ranges up to 600m in section fire.

YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN TO GIVE UP DO YOU?

[Bluffcove]

SA80 carbine

Carbine SA80A2 to equip tank crews

British Army Tank crews are to have their personal firepower boosted with the introduction of a brand new model of the SA-80A2 assault rifle.

The MoD has placed a £1 million contract with Heckler and Koch to convert 1,400 standard weapons into a new, shorter, ‘carbine’ design. Currently the four-man crew of a Challenger 2 tank is equipped with a combination of SA-80 rifles and Browning 9mm pistols. The new SA-80 carbine will replace both weapons when it enters service in 2005.

Dismounted Close Combat Team Leader, Colonel Simon Deakin said: “This new rifle is a radical re-design of the SA-80.

The barrel has been shortened by almost a foot – to half of its original length – a new 20-round magazine has been developed and a forward hand grip replaces the hand guard, making it lighter and easier to store and manoeuvre from inside the tight confines of a tank.

thats a carbine its got a foot missing!!!
http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/preview_jul04.htm

now see that we were talking about an assault rifle! it is a standard assault rifle not a carbine, not all assault rifles are carbines in direct oppostion to your earlier comment.

Section fire, is effective at 600 yards in its upper limit, you are the only one to have contended it and contend it you did! do you still agree that assault rifles cannot be effective at 600 yards?

[IRONMAN]

Ironman,
please dig out your dictionary and look up the word "paraphrased".
It does NOT mean quoted.

Please understand that I did not say or imply any of the kid's comments. You don't need a dictionary for that.

[Tubbyboy]

You fail to understand something about what an effective range is:

"NATO) The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result."


Now I could be petty and ask for a website to back up that quote, however, I won't.

[IRONMAN]

Ironman, I am still awaiting a withdrawal or apology.

As to the SA80 Carbine, it was only announced that it was going into full production and issue to armoured vehicle crews this week, I'll have a squint around for details/link in a mo.....


The SA-80 Carbine, is, well, a carbine! Laughing Any rifle of the same action using a long barrel is, well, not a carbine! Laughing Are you even awake?

Yes, the SA80 carbine is a carbine, the SA80 is an assualt rifle. Much like the M16 is an Assualt rifle, and the M4 carbine is a carbine.

You have been contending that an assualt rifle has to be a carbine, haven't you.

Must I say it yet again? Assult rifles are short-batrreled rifles. They are carbines. Variants of assult rifles are not short-barreled rifles (none with a long barrel anyway). Are you comprehending?

Now you want to try to change the debate to what constitutes a carbine because you have made an idiot of yourself by saying that assult rifles are effective at 600m. They are not.

At 600 Metres even on Iron sights you can define the legs torso and head of an opponent, well I can! (the legs are at the bottom of the blob and move alot, the blob is where you aim and hope to hit - the head is off the top)

:oops:

[Bluffcove]

yeah shame on you Ale, how dare you bear testament to the mettle of the USMC that could surive the cold at Chosin when the chinese couldnt!
How dare you slight there character by stating that they had the will and resolve to stay and fight!
To bite there lips and fight on in the perishing cold (where if im not misake hair tonic was used to keep the weapon operating)

If ever there was hell on earth it was at that place and you betray their honour by saying they had the pluck and grit to survive it when others couldnt!

You bastard!

"section fire at that range is done by cannon and MG.
too true it was only the other day that me and the boys were on the range and the PSI said
"hey lads fuck that for a laugh, dont bother with section fire, here you matey boy, you the tall one. you look strong carry this cannon around with you, its alot simpler than the boys putting rounds down insection firer, and who knows by the time you get into battle carrying that cannon in an infantry support role the war might be over anyway"

If a bullet is effective to 500 metres anyway, why would you not fire at a target at 600 metres, you still ahvent explained what this effective bullet does when it reaches 501 metres, unless you do I shall rely on my previous suposition that the bullet falls from the air!

We have said effective for the duration of this thread, section fire is effective you yourself have quoted the NATO definition of effective.

"Desired effect" on the other hand is a bone ill give you to play with for a while, before running you over as I reverse out of the drive and go to do more importnat things, good boy! fetch!

[IRONMAN]

Effective range - The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result.


Gosh! maximum range? Not almost maximum? Not getting near the "maximum"? :(

[Tubbyboy]

Effective range - The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result.


Gosh! maximum range? Not almost maximum? Not getting near the "maximum"? :(

OK I'll be petty now, what is the official website that you have got your quote from?

[Ale]

However, your original contention was that an AR was effective at 600m, which it is not. And 8 men shooting an AR at someone 600m away is 8 men wasting ammo. Section fire at 600m is done with MG's and cannon.

Ahh, the UK Forces don't use cannons anymore, bit dated I'm afraid. Its not 8 men wasting ammo, its 8 men shooting at a target. At 600m a 5.56 NATO round still retains about 400-500ft/lbs. More than your precious .30 carbine does at 200, IIRC.

You fail to understand something about what an effective range is:

No, I don't. See above.

"NATO) The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result."

If the result is to kill a man by penetration, and the effective range of an AR is 500m, then at 600m an AR is not going to do that effectively. I mean, yea you could get lucky and hit a man in the head or throat if you fired 5,000 rounds in his direction at 600m with an AR. lOl One might actually hit him there!

500ft/lbs is more than a 9mm pistol puts out at the muzzle. Sounds lethal enough to me, I think.

What are you arguing about? Your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.

No, it isn't.




As I said in bold really, at 600m a 5,56 NATO round still has more power than a 9mm pistol at the muzzle, 500ft/lbs compared to 300ft/lbs. I think that that is still effective. More to the point I'VE SEEN IT DONE. IN REAL LIFE. WITH MY OWN EYES!


Sure you were. It was indescent too. Even mentioning the weather when trying to argue that the M1 Carbine was not used to kill many at Chosin was terribly distasteful. Shame on you.

I assume you mean indecent. Its not. I think that my point and the spirit in which I made it is perfectly clear, and I am sure that everyone here will agree with me that I am not trying to insult anyone, merely explain a cold fact.

If you were English I would assume that you were being ironic, as that is such a fucking ridiculous statement, but as you are an American and an apparently ill educated one at that, I'll have to take it at face value as the kind of twattish cnuttery it appears to be.

[Bluffcove]

Must I say it yet again? Assult rifles are short-batrreled rifles. They are carbines. Variants of assult rifles are not short-barreled rifles (none with a long barrel anyway). Are you comprehending?

so a short barreled rifle is an assault rifle - check
a carbine is a short barreled rifle - check
a modified assault rifle is not short barreled rifle (provided it doesnt have a long barrel)- check

so a normal length barrel rifle is;
not an assault rifle
not a carbine
nor a variant of an assault rifle, unless it has a long barrel.

wait what is an M-16 before it gets made into an M4 carbine again?
is that a sniper rifle?

[IRONMAN]

I suppose we could pelt the enemy to death at 600m with assult rifles and truckloads of ammo. I mean, in Biblical times, people got stoned to death ya know?

If the weapon were effective at 600m, the manufacturer would give it an effective range of 600m. But alas, they did not. If your desired effect is to penetrate the body cavity, you may not be so lucky. But then, you might be, if you could actually raise the barrel enough to compensate and estimate the horrendous bullt drop and actually hit them at 600m!

LMAO

[Tubbyboy]

I suppose we could pelt the enemy to death at 600m with assult rifles and truckloads of ammo. I mean, in Biblical times, people got stoned to death ya know?

I suppose we could change the subject couldn't we? Answer the fecking questions posed to you before you come out with more patronising, idiotic claptrap.

[IRONMAN]

I suppose we could pelt the enemy to death at 600m with assult rifles and truckloads of ammo. I mean, in Biblical times, people got stoned to death ya know?

I suppose we could change the subject couldn't we? Answer the fecking questions posed to you before you come out with more patronising, idiotic claptrap.

You want us to believe that a little M1 Carbine could not even penetrate a winter coat at Chosin (0-150 yards), but you want us to believe that an AR (more powerful no doubt) is effective to 100m beyond it's manufacturer's listed maximum effective range?

Your contention was that assult rifles were effective at 600m. They are not. Even thier manufacturers state that they are not. Sorry.

[Ale]

Must I say it yet again? Assult rifles are short-batrreled rifles. They are carbines. Variants of assult rifles are not short-barreled rifles (none with a long barrel anyway). Are you comprehending?


Right, I shall say it VERY SLOWLY, IN BRAILLE, AND CAPITALS, SO THAT THE HARD OF UNDERSTANDING, UNDERSTAND. :)

THE SA80 IS AN ASSAULT RIFLE, NOT A CARBINE. IT CANNOT BE A CARBINE AS THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF IT ALSO AVAILABLE. THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF THE M16, THE M4.

IF THE SA80 AND M16 WERE CARBINES, THEN YOU COULDN'T HAVE CARBINE VERSIONS OF THEM COULD YOU???

LETS PUT THIS IN AMERICAN TERMS. IF I BUY A LARGE MEAL (ASSUALT RIFLE) THEN NO MATTER HOW FAT OR HUNGRY I AM FOR MORE, I CANNOT SIMPLY REFER TO IT AS A KIDS MEAL, AS THE KIDS MEAL IS ALREADY ON THE MENU, AND IS SMALLER!!

SIMILIARLY, IF THERE ARE CARBINE VERSIONS OF THE M16 AND SA80, THEY ARE NOT, THEN, CARBINES THEMSELVES, ARE THEY?

THIS WOULD NOT SIT VERY WELL WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT ASSAULT RIFLES ARE ALL CARBINES, WOULD IT??

[Tubbyboy]

IRONINGMAN,

My contention was and is that assault rifles are effective at 600m. They are. My only stipulation is that they are not individually as accurate as one might want them to be at that range, however, during section fire, they are effective.

Do not try to twist what I have written to your own concept of reality.

I am a serving British soldier, I think I know a little better than you what the current doctrine on section fire using our assault rifle is in my army!!

[Ale]

OH, AND WHILST I HAVE MY SPECIAL NEEDS TEACHER HAT ON; ANSWER ME THIS, IF 5.56NATO STILL RETAINS 500FT/LBS AT 600M, WHY IS THAT LIKE CHUCKING ROCKS AT PEOPLE???

[IRONMAN]

THE SA80 IS AN ASSUALT RIFLE, NOT A CARBINE. IT CANNOT BE A CARBINE AS THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF IT ALSO AVAILABLE. THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF THE M16, THE M4.

Personally I don't give a crap what it is. But the site you gave states that it is a carbine assult rifle.

However, when you put a longer barrel on it, it is no longer a carbine ...er assult rifle, now is it?

[Tubbyboy]

You want us to believe that a little M1 Carbine could not even penetrate a winter coat at Chosin (0-150 yards), but you want us to believe that an AR (more powerful no doubt) is effective to 100m beyond it's manufacturer's listed maximum effective range?

This part of the post was not written when I posted my reply. I have never mentioned Chosin. Therefore, don't try to put words into my mouth. Answer the points and questions brought before you.

[IRONMAN]

IRONINGMAN,

My contention was and is that assault rifles are effective at 600m. They are. My only stipulation is that they are not individually as accurate as one might want them to be at that range, however, during section fire, they are effective.

There are no stipulations. You are attempting to change the debate because you realized that you blundered when you stated that AR's are effective at 600m, and they are not, as their manufacturers state.

Section fire has nothing to do with weather or not an AR is effective at 600m or not.

You stated that AR's are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry. It's not the end of the world. People make mistakes. It would have been better for you to admit your blunder than to try to change the subject 3 times and debate something hardly related to try to save face. Just suck it up.

[Ale]

Personally I don't give a crap what it is. But the site you gave states that it is a carbine assult rifle.


No it doesn't. It has pictures and refers to both the AR and carbine variants.

[Ale]

You stated that AR's are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry.

Yes, they are.

[Tubbyboy]

THE SA80 IS AN ASSUALT RIFLE, NOT A CARBINE. IT CANNOT BE A CARBINE AS THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF IT ALSO AVAILABLE. THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF THE M16, THE M4.

Personally I don't give a crap what it is. But the site you gave states that it is a carbine assult rifle.

However, when you put a longer barrel on it, it is no longer a carbine ...er assult rifle, now is it?

NO!!!! IT IS NOT A CARBINE ASSAULT RIFLE!!! THERE IS A CARBINE VARIANT YOU FUCKING BLITHERING IDIOT!! CAN YOU SERIOUSLY NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE?? HOW CAN THE MAIN WEAPON OF THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES ONLY HAVE (ACCORDING TO THAT SITE) "ONLY A FEW EVER MADE"??

[IRONMAN]

Personally I don't give a crap what it is. But the site you gave states that it is a carbine assult rifle.


No it doesn't. It has pictures and refers to both the AR and carbine variants.

Enfield SA-80: L85A1 and L85A2 assault rifle (Great Britain)
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

"518 mm (442 mm in Carbine variant)."

I suppose bullpup designs come close to not being carbines.
However, that is still debatable since barrel lenght alone is not the only factor determining whether or not a weapon is a carbine:

I'll give you that much. They are not full length barrels but something more than a typical carbine. I'll concede that you could be considered correct on that score alone.

"Main Entry: car·bine
Pronunciation: 'kär-"bEn, -"bIn
Function: noun
Etymology: French carabine, from Middle French carabin carabineer
1 : a short-barreled lightweight firearm orig. used by cavalry
2 : a light short-barreled repeating rifle that is used as a supplementary military arm or for hunting in dense brush"

Nonetheless, your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.

Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

[IRONMAN]

You stated that AR's are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry.

Yes, they are.

Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

Nope. Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees.

[Tubbyboy]

IRONINGMAN,

My contention was and is that assault rifles are effective at 600m. They are. My only stipulation is that they are not individually as accurate as one might want them to be at that range, however, during section fire, they are effective.

There are no stipulations. You are attempting to change the debate because you realized that you blundered when you stated that AR's are effective at 600m, and they are not, as their manufacturers state.

Section fire has nothing to do with weather or not an AR is effective at 600m or not.

You stated that AR's are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry. It's not the end of the world. People make mistakes. It would have been better for you to admit your blunder than to try to change the subject 3 times and debate something hardly related to try to save face. Just suck it up.

You missed out the bit about:

Do not try to twist what I have written to your own concept of reality.

I am a serving British soldier, I think I know a little better than you what the current doctrine on section fire using our assault rifle is in my army!!

You are clearly getting confused. I have not changed my position at all. I have always said that assault rifles are effective at a range of 600m during section fire. I was not the one who brought up carbines or sniper rifles. You have consistently tried to change the subject (at least you are being consistent about something).


I say again: Assault rifles are effective at ranges up to 600m when used in section fire.

I have never said any different. If you can find me saying that they are individually effective to that point please point me towards that post!

[Ale]

I'll give you that much. They are not full length barrels but something more than a typical carbine. I'll concede that you could be considered correct on that score alone.

They are full length barrels, bullpup designs allow a full length barrel in a shorter overall length. :wink:

Nonetheless, your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.

Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

Seen, that is the effective range of the individual weapon. Not the weapon being used by a section. The round still has ample power at 600m (as mentioned), and section fire still makes up for the drop off in accuracy. We have always maintained, right back to the start, that AR's are effective at 600m in section fire, not individually.

[IRONMAN]

Seen, that is the effective range of the individual weapon. Not the weapon being used by a section. The round still has ample power at 600m (as mentioned), and section fire still makes up for the drop off in accuracy. We have always maintained, right back to the start, that AR's are effective at 600m in section fire, not individually.

Sorry, but I go with the manufacturer on that one. They say 500m, so I go with them. I think they know more about it that either you or I do.

There you go with section fire again. It's simple. Assult rifles are not effective at 600m. Just because multiple men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range. :roll:

[Bluffcove]

Do we have to go all the way back to individual and section fire?

Ale I found your "cold fact" pun particularly cold hearted.

i never said bullets didnt penetrate coats at Chosin, I said the cold contributed to the high body count. a small aclibre bullet, kills things but so does the cold and neither is entirely reliable as a means of killing things, hence in combination.

the SA80 is a bullpup assault rifle, it is not a carbine, not all assault rifles are carbines. The M16 is an assault rifle the M4 is its variant.
the SA80 is an assault rifle, I will find some photos and you can play spot the difference. being a bullpup does not make something a carbine - Dont know if you said that but i have a hard time comprending you carbine snip assualt riddle anywaqy - especially as I have heard it nowhere else in the world!

[Ale]

Ironman, there are at least 8 posters on this site who are in some way connected to the British Armed forces and who have all used and are competent (to varying degrees) with the SA80 assualt rifle. We are all in agreement with Tubbyboy that it is an effective weapon out to 600m in section fire. You disagree. I would respectfully suggest that we, as a group, know what we are talking about, and that you, as a sad lonely individual, do not. I suggest you crawl back into your little hole and have a wank before bed.

[IRONMAN]

Do we have to go all the way back to individual and section fire?

It seems you guys keep trying that in hopes of convincing someone that an AR is effective at 600m. It's simple: Assult rigles are not effective at 600m. Period. Shooting 1 million of them simultaneously does not make them effective either. it only means you have a better change of hitting the target, and hopefully somewhere like the eyeball, so you can kill him with a single round, which is the "desired effect" of the maximum effective range. lol

[Bluffcove]

Seen, that is the effective range of the individual weapon. Not the weapon being used by a section. The round still has ample power at 600m (as mentioned), and section fire still makes up for the drop off in accuracy. We have always maintained, right back to the start, that AR's are effective at 600m in section fire, not individually.

Sorry, but I go with the manufacturer on that one. They say 500m, so I go with them. I think they know more about it that either you or I do.

There you go with section fire again. It's simple. Assult rifles are not effective at 600m. Just because multiple men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range. :roll:

And that is where you are wrong.

otherwise would a section commander tell his entire section to fire on a target, its to increase the chance of a hit.
though of course on COD this would lessen your "kill ratio" maybe you dont do that then.

[Bluffcove]

it only means you have a better change of hitting the target,
sounds pretty damn effective to me!

If IRONINGMAN he walks away now he might have enough dignity left to drag himself into a corner before he dies!

If you do come back the first thing you should tell me is what happens at Metre 501! the point at which an individual rifle bullet becomes ineffective

[Ale]

There you go with section fire again. It's simple. Assult rifles are not effective at 600m. Just because multiple men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range. Rolling Eyes

IN THAT CASE: Answer me this, if a 5.56 NATO round is retaining 500ft/lbs at 600m, why is it not effective?? why does it have to hit someone in the eye to kill them. That is more power than if you shot someone a foot away with a 9mm pistol. It is more power than your precious .30carbine round has at 250m at chosin.

ANSWER MY QUESTION.

[Bluffcove]

answer my question

good luck!

[Ale]

Lol! I reckon he's Alistair Cambell in disguise! :lol: :shock: :lol: :shock:

[Tubbyboy]

Seen, that is the effective range of the individual weapon. Not the weapon being used by a section. The round still has ample power at 600m (as mentioned), and section fire still makes up for the drop off in accuracy. We have always maintained, right back to the start, that AR's are effective at 600m in section fire, not individually.

Sorry, but I go with the manufacturer on that one. They say 500m, so I go with them. I think they know more about it that either you or I do.

There you go with section fire again. It's simple. Assult rifles are not effective at 600m. Just because 100 men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range. :roll:

I would like to point out that the manufacturer tells us the effective range of one weapon. Now, when the weapon is being used on a two way range, it is not normally being used on its own. This is where section fire comes into it.

Let me try to explain in simple terms for the hard of thinking.

One man firing a defined number of shots from his weapon at a target 600m away has a (relatively) low chance of hitting it (for arguments sake, let us say 15% - although I think that is low).

8 men, assuming they are all of the same standard at shooting, firing the same number of rounds each, are therefore 8 times more likely to hit the target.

I will agree that it uses up more ammunition but with the round still travelling very fast at 600m, it is enough to wound if not kill.

Therefore the assault rifle is effective at 600m when used in section fire.

It is also effective even if it does not hit the target. Have you ever heard of suppressing fire? They must have that in the games you play.

[IRONMAN]

IN THAT CASE: Answer me this, if a 5.56 NATO round is retaining 500ft/lbs at 600m, why is it not effective??

Ask the manufacturer. They say it's not effective at 600m.

It is more power than your precious .30carbine round has at 250m at chosin.

They didn't use the M1 Carbine at 250 yards at Chosin that I am aware of. Most of the fighting with that weapon at Chosin was done at up to 1500-200 yards maximum from what I have been told by vets.

[IRONMAN]

8 men, assuming they are all of the same standard at shooting, firing the same number of rounds each, are therefore 8 times more likely to hit the target.

Once more my Dense One, shooting 1 thousand billion of them at the enemy does not increase the effectiveness of the weapon itself. The debate was that someone stated that they could shoot a man with an assult rifle at 600m with open sights, and I and Pretorian proved that this is so unlikely as to be unplausible. Then the debate went to "assult rifles are effective at 600m", which they are not, so states the manufacturer.

If you don't like that, bitch at the manufacturer, not me. I don't make the weapon kiddo.

I could care less about "section fire". Section fire does not change the ballistics of the weapon.

Let me know when you can hit a man at 600m with an assult rifle using open sights. I want to see it.

[Bluffcove]

IN THAT CASE: Answer me this, if a 5.56 NATO round is retaining 500ft/lbs at 600m, why is it not effective??

Ask the manufacturer. They say it's not effective at 600m.

It is more power than your precious .30carbine round has at 250m at chosin.

They didn't use the M1 Carbine at 250 yards at Chosin that I am aware of. Most of the fighting with that weapon at Chosin was done at up to 1500-200 yards maximum from what I have been told by vets.

Presuming that Ale being a ballistics geek will have read that from a ballistics almanac I presume the figures he has given you are those of the manufacturer!
You are confusing cartridges with weapons, the weapons is effective to 500 metres in individual fire - is that who Ale should be asking?
Ale has told you how effective the cartridge is at that range.
and has asked for you to answer his question as you are the only one with the answers - you smartie!

what happens at metre 501,
If Ale stands 500 metres from you
and I stand 501 metres from Erwin
and you both shoot, do we both die?
presuming they have simplifed an SA80 so that it is as easy to fire as a left click on a mouse button of course!

[IRONMAN]

Presuming that

Bluffcove, I will not debate with anyone who claims:

At 600 Metres even on Iron sights you can define the legs torso and head of an opponent, well I can! (the legs are at the bottom of the blob and move alot, the blob is where you aim and hope to hit - the head is off the top)

You are a little kid who knows nothing and constantly insults. You have nothing to offer here except ridiculous claims. Post whatever you like. I won't respond to it.

[Bluffcove]

I could care less about "section fire". Section fire does not change the balistics of the weapon

do you mean "I could not" I presume you did
You cared alot about it before I wonder why it has fallen from favour!

weapons dont have ballistics cartridges do as far as I know, but Im not an arrse so if I am wrong I will retract that.

Section fire is effective at 600, Im not even trying to convince you I jjust like hearing you deny it!

oh and tell me about metre 501, where it all goes into bullet time and bullets stop being dangerous!!!!!!!

[Tubbyboy]

8 men, assuming they are all of the same standard at shooting, firing the same number of rounds each, are therefore 8 times more likely to hit the target.

Once more my Dense One, shooting 1 thousand billion of them at the enemy does not increase the effectiveness of the weapon itself. The debate that someone stated the weapon was effective at 600m, and it is not.

If you don't like that, bitch at the manufacturer, not me. I don't make the weapon kiddo.

You are damned right you don't make the weapon. I do, however use it.

Read my posts properly. I say that the weapon is effective in section fire. Not on its own. As you set so much store by what vets say, I would have thought you might listen to me as I am a veteran of the Iraqi war and have used this particular assault rifle more times than you have had Big Macs!

Effectiveness is, by definition, the ability of the weapon, when used correctly (in section fire) to put the enemy either down on his arse for good or (in the part of my post you have missed out) as suppressing fire.

[Bluffcove]

Hi tubby, did you ever get to lug a cannon into battle?
tell me about it, is it F9?

[IRONMAN]

I say that the weapon is effective in section fire. Not on its own.

So you concede that assult rifles are not effective at 600m?

Now if soldiers only used assult rifles for section fire at 600m....

[Bluffcove]

IRONINGMAN the section fire practice we refer to is what happens when 8 infantry men or a "section" all use their assault rifles to fire together at a target up to 600 metres away.

it happens its real its killed more people than you have its a big evil nasty fact that wont go away.

DEAL
WITH
IT

[Tubbyboy]

[quote=Tubbyboy]I say that the weapon is effective in section fire. Not on its own.

That's nice. Now if soldiers only used assult rifles for section fire at 600m....

...but instead, at that range, they use something else, like MG's.

Yes, very handy if your detachment happens to have a GPMG, or a LSW. How about if your soldiers only have SA80A2s with iron sights? Hypothetical you say? No. Been there.

Edit: let the record show that ironingwalt's post was as I quoted when I posted.

[Bluffcove]

More importantly he seems to have removed cannon from his post!

Damn I was really looking forward to handing that to a squaddy and saying, "its got a handle on it of course its man portable"

more importantly what can I put in the F9 slot now IRONINGMAN

[Tubbyboy]

Hi tubby, did you ever get to lug a cannon into battle?
tell me about it, is it F9?

Gawd everyone knows cannon is fired from one hip and is on Ctrl+Shift+F12!

[Tubbyboy]

Hmm no response from ironingwalt....

Make of that what you will.

[IRONMAN]

Now I wonder why you ignored my post at

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240

...that proved your claims about the M1 Carbine were false. No comment eh? Nothing to argue about there eh?

Let's recap shall we?

"I can make out the leg of a man with unaided eyes at 600m."

No. You cannot.

"The M1 Carbine uses pistol ammunition."

No, it does not. The ammo fits no pistol in the US WWII arsenal.

"The M1 Carbine was not used to kill numerous men at Chosin."

Yes, it cetrtainly was.

"The M1 Carbine was not used as an assult rifle in WWII and Korea."

Yes, it most certainly was, quite extensively.

"Assult rifles are effective at 600m."

We have told you that a rang of 200-250m is not suitable for AR.

No. They are not.

"Assult rifles are used for section fire at 600m."

No, they are not. Not in any army in the world. You are confusing AR's with MG's.

[LargeBrew]

Ironing Man you are confusing the real world with PC games. Section fire at 600m is an effective way of limiting your enemies movement while calling in support , ask your dad or someone who has been at the pointy end like Bluff or Tubby, you numpty

[reiver]

Ironman wrote :
"NATO) The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result."

If the result is to kill a man by penetration, and the effective range of an AR is 500m, then at 600m an AR is not going to do that effectively. I mean, yea you could get lucky and hit a man in the head or throat if you fired 5,000 rounds in his direction at 600m with an AR. lOl One might actually hit him there!

And if the desired result is to keep the enemy's head down while you manoeuvre?
When you hunt, I can't think of any situation where you might want to scare the game away, agreed?
However, in combat, there are many occasions where keeping the enemy quiescent and unable to effectively target YOU is a result much to be desired.
THIS is where section fire is effective at 600yards, and yes, you will occasionally "get lucky", and make a kill, even although this is not always the "desired result".

[IRONMAN]

Ironing Man you are confusing the real world with PC games. Section fire at 600m is an effective way of limiting your enemies movement while calling in support , ask your dad or someone who has been at the pointy end like Bluff or Tubby, you numpty

I have indeed spoken to my father about it. I told him that someone in a forum contends that assult rifles are effective at 600m. She shook his head as he set his coffee mug down and said plainly, "No. You couldn't hit a thing with one at that range. And if you did, you probably would not do much damage either."

Then he took another sip of his coffee.

Who said section fire cannot be effective? Not me. What I said is assult rifles are not used for section fire at 600m. And they are not. Why do you suppose that is my misguided friend? It's because if the effective maximum range of a weapon is 500m, at 600 meters the weapon is no longer effective, and bullet drop at that range would be horrendous and completely impossible to estimate. Now if you were shooting at a man on a large, open dirt field where you could see the bullets making a puff of dirt 20 meters in front of the enemy, and had a spotter working for you with a sp[otting scope so he could actually see those little puffs of dirt....

But that's not the real world, is it?

[IRONMAN]

And if the desired result is to keep the enemy's head down while you manoeuvre?

That is called supressing fire. Not section fire. Section fire is an attempt to kill someone. Surpressing fire is not necessarily an attemept to kill someone. You are confused.

I can imagine the scenario whereby a non fatal bullet encourages you to lie down and die in the cold rather

than "Rambo" into the embedded USMC position.

But you are wrong my friend. That is precicely how much of that battle (Chosin) was faught. The Chinese ran directly up into the enemy positions. Hundreds of them, over, and over, and over again, for 10 days straight.

We have told you that the .30 is a pistol round

But it is not. The ammo for the M1 Carbine does not fit any WWII era US pistol weapon. Sorry.

Section fire is effective in its upper band at 600 metres

Perhaps. But not with assult rifles. They are not used for section fire at 600m. That's what MG's do. At 300m, yea, maybe with assult rifles. But not at 600m. They are not used that way.

It must be noted that during the war in Korea M1 carbines ... which was sometimes unable to effectively

penetrate the thick winter uniforms of North Korean and Chinese soldiers at extended ranges.

No references to that that I can find, but I have heard the rumor... posted in this and one other forum by pseudoexperts. None of the soldiers who faught at Chosin ever said that that I can find. My father says it's not so too. Guess maybe that's because they were'nt shooting at the enemy with M1 Carbines from over 200 yards away. I suppose they were using the M1 Garand for that task, eh?

Because it may have been used in one engagement by support troops who had to fight their way out of an

encirclement does not make it an AR.

But it was used in many, many, many engagements as an assult rifle in WWII in the Pacific as well as in Korea. Oops!

And so we all change our rifles and rezero so that we can do FIBUA. Get real.

That is precicely what many USMC did. Pick up an M1 Carbine and start shooting Chinese soldiers because the Garand holds only a few rounds. Yup. That happened a whole freaking lot alright.

Chosin aside, the MI Carbine is not an assault rifle its a pistol with a long barrel and a butt stock!

Chosin aside? What about WWII aside? Tell that to the many, many, many USMC that used the M1 Carbine as an assult rifle in the Pacific and at Chosin. In fact, go to a WWII vet site (if you can find one) and post that. Give us the link so we can all go see them correcting at you for saying such.

My contention was and is that assault rifles are effective at 600m.

Well, they aren't. Sorry. Bullet drop from an AR at 500m is bad, and at 600m you might as well be shooting at an elephant.

Effectiveness includes accuracy, not just energy. Even though it might kill if you could hit them at 600m, that would not make it effective. It's only effective if you have a reasonable amount of accuracy as well as energy.

"The maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and achieve the desired result."

If you can't land rounds with sensible accuracy at 600m with an AR, it certainly is not accurate at that range, and it certainly is not effective.

You stated that AR's are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry.

Yes, they are.

Nope. Not at 600m. Even the manufacturers say they are not.

[BDL]

I really can't believe this argument is still going :shock:

Ironingman - there are at least 8 members of the British Army (that's the best Army in the world that come and wins all of America's wars for them) telling you that the SA80 assault rifle is effective to 600m in section fire. We have probably all done it at least on the ranges. Some of them will have done it in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and all the other benighted shit holes we work in (although not in NI, because there's to much risk in hurting civvies there). There are people talking to you who have killed men in combat, when they talk about what happens in combat, computer gamers should listen.

The SA80 is not a carbine, it if a rifle.

I can certainly see enough of the human figure to aim at them from 600m (and my eyesight's not all that good), if I can see them I can aim at them, if I can aim at them there's a chance I will hit them. At 600. Effectively (because if I hit them, they will be wounded).
Now take the fact that there's a decent chance of me (a trained soldier with 7 years (up to now) served including NI and Iraq) hitting someone at 600m, put 7 other trained, experienced soldiers next to me aiming at the same thing, there's now 8 chances that that target will be hit and wounded/killed. That is effective section fire from 600m with a 5.56mm assault rifle.

[IRONMAN]

Ironingman - there are at least 8 members of the British Army (that's the best Army in the world that come and wins all of America's wars for them) telling you that the SA80 assault rifle is effective to 600m in section fire.

DoubleDork, don't start that "British wins America's wars for them" crap. It's false, insulting, and a measure of your ignorance of the world outside your bedroom. Besides, the world knows that the USMC is the best fighting force on Earth and has been for over 100 years, and Britain sends foreingers into battle as front line troops (Gurkas).

section fire with assult rifles is not done at 600m. You are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.

You see my confused friend, section fire is several men firing at an anemy, usually up to 300m, to try to kill him. Surpressing fire is several men firing at a man to make the bastard stay put.

You don't need to be accurate to produce surpressing fire. Go back to the training camp and start over. You missed class that day.

[BDL]

Ironingman - there are at least 8 members of the British Army (that's the best Army in the world that come and wins all of America's wars for them) telling you that the SA80 assault rifle is effective to 600m in section fire.

DoubleDork, section fire with assult rifles is not done at 600m. You are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.

I have done it (only on the range, but if it can be done on the range it can be done anywhere), other people here have done it. It's not suppressive fire, it is aiming at your enemy in the hope of killing or wounding him.

IT'S WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING - WE DO IT FUCKING WELL. THAT'S WHY WE ARE THE BEST ARMY IN THE WORLD. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL TRAINED SOLDIERS THAT THINGS THAT THEY HAVE DONE ARE NOT POSSIBLE?

[IRONMAN]

I have done it (only on the range, but if it can be done on the range it can be done anywhere), other people here have done it. It's not suppressive fire, it is aiming at your enemy in the hope of killing or wounding him.

Still confused eh? Guess you think covering fire is done with LAWS too. As I have said... provide the link to an official government website or military vet who states on their site that assult rifles are effective at 600m.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE THE BEST ARMY IN THE WORLD.

But you aren't. The US army is the best army in the world. More confusion.

[BDL]

Still confused eh? Guess you think covering fire is done with LAWS too. As I have said... provide the link to an official government website or military vet who states on their site that assult rifles are effective at 600m.

I am a military vet (sort of), so are all the other people you are arguing with. If I set up a website and describe firing at 600m and then give you the link, will you then listen to me?

And covering fire could be given using LAW if you really wanted to. It'd be a waste of anti tank ammo, but it could be done.

[IRONMAN]

I am a military vet (sort of), so are all the other people you are arguing with. If I set up a website and describe firing at 600m and then give you the link, will you then listen to me?

And covering fire could be given using LAW if you really wanted to. It'd be a waste of anti tank ammo, but it could be done.

If you posted that assult rifles are effective at 600m on a web site you'd likely be surprised at the number of emails you'd get from knowledgable people that tell you how far from reality you are.

The effective maximum range of virtually all assult rifles is approximately 500m. Not 550m, not 600m, not 700m.

When you are in the manufacturing business and have produced assult rifles that make all the ones in use obsolete, let us know. Until then I refer you to the manufacturers of current AR's.

Enfield SA-80: L85A1 and L85A2 assault rifle (Great Britain)
Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

That's your British assult rifle my confused friend. 500m. Not 600.

Accuracy is a part of the effective range for a weapon. Assult rifles are not accurate at 600m. Is the British army telling it's soldiers that it's assult rifle has an effective rasnge of 600m???

I do think you missed a class or two, really.

"In my opinion, although the SA-80 is not as bad as some make it out to be, it is in Britains best interest to replace it with a real rifle asap, maybe keeping the SUSAT's and bayonets. The reason it has gone down so poorly with those who have to use it is probably due to comparing it with the previous issue SLR, whereas the SLR was a lion, the SA-80 is a cockroach (an annoying bugger which you cant get rid of). I would hate to think how our casualties might have looked if we had adopted the SA-80 before the Falklands conflict of 82."

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

[BDL]

Enfield SA-80: L85A1 and L85A2 assault rifle (Great Britain)
Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

That's your British assult rifle my confused friend. 500m. Not 600.

That is a single rifle (and is also different to current British Army training that say that a single rifle is only effective to 300m). A section of weapons is 8 times more effective than a single man - the round remains powerful enough to kill at 600m, the sights on an SA80 (particularly SUSAT, although you can use ironsights at that range) are more than good enough to pick a target out at 600m, a decent marksman should have no particular difficulty aiming off for the increased range.

And since when did some guy in a suit working in Enfield know more about how effective a weapon is than a guy in green who's carried that weapon to war?

[IRONMAN]

That is a single rifle (and is also different to current British Army training that say that a single rifle is only effective to 300m).

Well! There you have it! 300m. Isn't that what I said? Accurate to 300m or perhaps more? Yup. Not 600m. Nopers.

Now section fire, that typically takes place at up to 300m too. Surpressing fire? I guess any range is game if you can land rounds all over the freaking place.

Again, my friend, you are confusing surpressing fire with section fire.

And since when did some guy in a suit working in Enfield know more about how effective a weapon is than a guy in green who's carried that weapon to war?
Since they designed, used military advisors to help them develop it, tested it thousands of times, and fired about 10 million rounds through the thing. Are you sure you are in the military? I can't imagine anyone in the military saying such. :shock:

It's really simple. Assult rifles have an effective range of typically 450-500m. That is thier maximum range at which they have both the energy and accuracy to kill with a single round. Just because you can estimate the difference, does not mean you will hit them. What good does it do to shoot at a man if you can only consistently land a round within 1 or 2 meters of him? None at all.

let me reiterate something for you:

The maximum range at which a weapon can be expected to be accurate and provide the desired effect.

Think about that. If the range of the weapon with accuracy is 500m, it is not going to be very accurate at 600m. Not at all accurate. If it is accurate to within 1/5 meter at 500m, imagine 600m. Would it be accurate to within 1/2 meter? 1 meter? That is uttely worthless accuracy my friend.

At 300m the Enfield will land rounds withing the distance of probably less than the span of your hand. Maybe the length of your finger even! At 400m, perhaps the span of your hand or your hand and the wrist. At 500m perhaps the width of your shoulders. At 600 meters, perhaps the length of your arm. That's not acceptable accuracy my friend. And such a weapon is not effective with such innacurracy. it is therefore not effective at that range either. Now take into account the terrible bullet drop that weapons experience when used at ranges beyond their maximum effective range...

Are you starting to understand why the effective range of typical AR's is 500m or less? Let's hope so.

[South African Military]

I have done it (only on the range, but if it can be done on the range it can be done anywhere), other people here have done it. It's not suppressive fire, it is aiming at your enemy in the hope of killing or wounding him.

Still confused eh? Guess you think covering fire is done with LAWS too. As I have said... provide the link to an official government website or military vet who states on their site that assult rifles are effective at 600m.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE THE BEST ARMY IN THE WORLD.

But you aren't. The US army is the best army in the world. More confusion.

Depending on what you would describe "Best army" it would be debatable. The American Amy is huge (too huge), but I deffinetely think that the British Army is better trained than the American army.

[IRONMAN]

but I deffinetely think that the British Army is better trained than the American army.

That's nice. Hooray for you.

[South African Military]

Besides, the world knows that the USMC is the best fighting force on Earth and has been for over 100 years, and Britain sends foreingers into battle as front line troops (Gurkas).


Arguing about the Gurkas eh?? well I suggest you look at the British forum, theres a bunch of pages laying it out nice and easy for you to understand.

[IRONMAN]

Arguing about the Gurkas eh?? well I suggest you look at the British forum, theres a bunch of pages laying it out nice and easy for you to understand.

I've already expressed my opinion on those pages. Please stay with us here. We're talking about how assult rifles are not effective at 600m because they are not accurate at that range.

[Man of Stoat]

At 300m you can knock Fig. 12 targets over all day with an SA-80 (that's a head and shoulders target) - I've done it, and with most of the shots clustered around the middle.

The current British doctrine is individual fire up to 300m, section fire to 600m. The currently serving members have access to the Pams, but they're restricted so can't be posted. Or maybe the Pams are wrong? Maybe my aide memoire produced by my unit on shooting was also wrong?

The USMC also have a 500yd segmant to there rifle qual with the M16, and that's individual fire.

If you really don't think it's so effective at 600m, I invite you to stand downrange whilst Cuts, Bluffcove, myself and some of the others fire with SA-80s or M16s.

Or, tell you what, we'll make it fair. A section of us advancing, fire-and-manoevre style from 800m (the maximum sight setting on a SUSAT), with you standing absolutely still at the butts, and we'll take bets at what range you get dropped.

As for your comment about assault rifles being carbines, here's a bunch that aren't (and we'll restrict it to 5.56mm):

SA-80
FAMAS
G36
FN FNC + variants e.g. Bofors AK5
M16
Steyr AUG
AR18

Oh, and you're im your 40s but asked your dad about assault rifles? Do you still live in your parents' basement? Has it ever crossed your mind that he might be wrong? I'm assuming that he's put this idea about "carbine assault rifles" in your head.

[reiver]

Ironman wrote:
Besides, the world knows that the USMC is the best fighting force on Earth and has been for over 100 years, and Britain sends foreingers into battle as front line troops (Gurkas).

Oh please!
Best fighting force on Earth?
Good troops certainly, but get things in perspective.
Try taking off the red white and blue spectacles.
And strictly as a point of courtesy, it's childish to try to make a cheap shot, then refuse to debate the point thereafter, but then, it's not the first time you've done that, is it?

[Fuchs66]

I wanted to stay out of this head to head but I cant resist it any longer. Firstly Tin"man" you havnt got a clue get out get a life (while you still can) learn something from personel experience and maybe you will be in a position to debate rationally. I wont repeat arguments here apart from to stress that assault rifle does not equal carbine.
However there has been assertions from our resident ex-spurt here that the human eye prevents a man beng sufficiently recognised at 600m to allow accurate shooting. Well before I embarked on my now over 16 years military experience I was in the Army Cadets in the UK and on our range weekends we regularly shot at man sized targets and falling plates at 600m with No4 Lee Enfields using iron sights and that's 14 - 17 year old kids not trained soldiers.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Ironman wrote:
Besides, the world knows that the USMC is the best fighting force on Earth and has been for over 100 years, and Britain sends foreingers into battle as front line troops (Gurkas).

Oh please!
Best fighting force on Earth?
Good troops certainly, but get things in perspective.
Try taking off the red white and blue spectacles.
And strictly as a point of courtesy, it's childish to try to make a cheap shot, then refuse to debate the point thereafter, but then, it's not the first time you've done that, is it?

Well we do keep our armed forces chalked full of experience so that helps........i guess. :D :? :shock:

[Tubbyboy]

Well we do keep our armed forces chalked full of experience so that helps........i guess. :D :? :shock:

Believe me, so do we.... :shock:

[Bluffcove]

supressing fire - keeping the enemies head down - the desired end result.
section fire - a group firing together - the means to the desired end.

DO NOT confuse means and ends!

Secondly what happens at metre 501 where the bullet becomes ineffective?
Thirdly how many vets do you want to talk to? and how many do you think are on this site.
Fourthly you brought up Gurkhas again not us - and you deny foreigners are in your services - a slight on them surely!
Fifthly - how many rifles do you beleive a soldeir carries into combat? you constantly refer to changing weapons depending on situations!

THIS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A......
















1
2
3
VVANKER

[IRONMAN]

That is a single rifle (and is also different to current British Army training that say that a single rifle is only effective to 300m).

OK, so we have established that assult rifles are not effective at 600m. And it only to you 15 pages of bullcrapping and trying to change the subject of the debate to come around and admit it.

Next time you make a bogus claim just jump to the admission part right off and you will save yourself all that trouble, eh?

Good job guys!

[Bluffcove]

http://gofree.indigo.ie/~acoy20bn/steyr.html - admittedly this is one company in the Irish TA and the sight URL looks a bit homemade, however it does relay the fact that the Steyr AUG, assault rifle - not a carbine;

Is effective as an individual weapon at 500 METRES and as a section fire weapon at 600 metres.

furthermore. this is an SA80 asault rifle - not a carbine,
there are in fact 3 variants an Sa-80 an sa80 carbine and an sa80 carbine for tankies

they are not the same thing
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/pw/pw_sa80.htm
this is an SA80 carbine - there is a difference
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?s=dba0a33dae2203fe992f03b7078d4999&attachmentid=70504&stc=1&thumb=1
in design above and on trials below
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?s=dba0a33dae2203fe992f03b7078d4999&attachmentid=70505&stc=1&thumb=1

[Man of Stoat]

Tinwalt, WE have established that it is effective (we have quoted the British Army Pams at you), whereas you asked your daddy who said "they couldn't hit a thing at this dist........."

[IRONMAN]

Actually, we have established that a number of bogus claims made here are not true:

You can't make out a man's leg at 600m with open sights.

The M1 Carbine does not use pistol ammunition.

The M1 Carbine was in fact used as an assult rifle in WWII and in Korea.

The M1 Carbine experienced no reported penetration problems at Chosin.

The M1 Carbine was activley selected over other weapons many times.

Assult rifles are not effective at 600m.

*sigh*

I know it aches you, some of you, to finally admit, after many pages of squirming toward the truth, that you bogus claims are untrue. but it serves the young and impressionable that we clear them up so they don't read the crap and go away saying to their friends,

"Hey dude! I read that assult rifles are effective at 600 freaking meters! I also read that the M1 Carbine used pistol ammo! I even learned that the M1 Carbine was only issued to support personel and was never used as an assult weapon! Man I learned so much!"

Let's not teach the kiddies such falicies anymore. Let's be more responsible, ok?

bye bye now.

[Tubbyboy]

That is a single rifle (and is also different to current British Army training that say that a single rifle is only effective to 300m).

OK, so we have established that assult rifles are not effective at 600m. And it only to you 15 pages of bullcrapping and trying to change the subject of the debate to come around and admit it.

Next time you make a bogus claim just jump to the admission part right off and you will save yourself all that trouble, eh?

Good job guys!

No, we have established that a single assault rifle is not considered effective at ranges above 300m. We have also established that assault rifles (plural) are effective at ranges up to 600m when used in section fire.

Now, why don't we return to your bogus claim that all assault rifles are carbines?

And while we are at it, it is you that has constantly changed the subject and/or ignored any facts that don't agree with your own personal reality.

[Bluffcove]

the 501st metre, tell me about it!

[Tubbyboy]

Actually, we have established that a number of bogus claims made here are not true:

You can't make out a man's leg at 600m with open sights.

Why would you want to? I have always been taught to aim at the centre of the body not the leg.

The M1 Carbine does not use pistol ammunition.

I don't know the weapon in question well enough to prove or disprove this

The M1 Carbine was in fact used as an assult rifle in WWII and in Korea.

The M1 Carbine experienced no reported penetration problems at Chosin.

The M1 Carbine was activley selected over other weapons many times.

So you say, none of this has actually been proved.


Assult rifles are not effective at 600m.

Yes they are, in section fire. We have proved this.


*sigh*

I know it aches you, some of you, to finally admit, after many pages of squirming toward the truth, that you bogus claims are untrue. but it serves the young and impressionable that we clear them up so they don't read the crap and go away saying to their friends,

"Hey dude! I read that assult rifles are effective at 600 freaking meters! I also read that the M1 Carbine used pistol ammo! I even learned that the M1 Carbine was only issued to support personel and was never used as an assult weapon! Man I learned so much!"

Let's not teach the kiddies such falicies anymore. Let's be more responsible, ok?

bye bye now

Patronising tw@t

[Man of Stoat]

Tinwalt: You have established nothing, you have only repeatedly contradicted people. Contradiction does NOT constitute argumentation.

You stand at 600m and I will hit you with an assault rifle such as SA-80, M16, AUG etc. I might not hit you first shot (particularly if it's windy), but I'll hit you. I would not engage you with an M4, since it is a carbine. I would, however, hit you with my Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine, which is also a carbine but is significantly more powerful.

The M1 carbine round is effectively a lengthened .32ACP. It's a fairly unique round, but it is a souped-up pistol round nonetheless (110gn @1975fps)

The M2 carbine /could/ arguably be an assault rifle, depending on how you apply the definition (select-fire, intermediate cartridge), but it is totally out classed by real assault rifles. Usage does not fall under the description (the Brown Bess was used in assaults too).

Yes, people did choose the M1 carbine, since it was light and handy. It's also known to be a poor manstopper. However, it is almost impossible to change your wpn depending on what you're doing.

As has been demonstrated, 5.56mm has more energy at 600m than 9mm at the muzzle, yet you say you might as well chuck rocks.

You also don't seem to understand the purpose of section fire, and the difference between what constitutes effective individual fire and effective section fire.

Perhaps we should continue this on another forum?

[Bluffcove]

of the things the "kiddies" will learn;

Hey dude! I read that assult rifles are effective at 600 freaking meters! I also read that the M1 Carbine used pistol ammo! I even learned that the M1 Carbine was only issued to support personel and was never used as an assult weapon! Man I learned so much!"

assault rifles are effective at 600 "freaking" metres - metres not meters! - TRUE
M1 carbines used pistol ammo - the cartridge of an M1 carbine is comparable in a number of respects such as loadout effective range and weight as the pistols it was designed to replace.
the m1 carbine was used as an asault weapon - it was indeed used to assault things, but this does not make it an assault any more than rogering you with a prize winning leek makes it an assault weapon,

the M1 carbine may have been used as an assault weapon - this does not make it an assault rifle - and not all assault rifles are carbines!

2 questions

1)what happens if you stand 501 metres from an SA80 -effective range 500 metres - individually though im lead to believe it is 300 by all my training so we will call it 301 metres if you would prefer!
2)Are all assault rifles carbines? - as you have been noted as saying.
3) do you fiddle with kids?

[richardh]

Ironman clearly you know nothing about firearms, the real world is not like Rainbow Six :roll:

Firstly you say the M16A2 is a carbine not a rifle :oops:

:roll: Lets ask Colt..........Oops its a rifle

Have a look http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp

Secondly the M16A2 has an effective range of 300M :oops:

:roll: Lets ask Colt..........Oops its 600 metres

Have a look http://www.colt.com/mil/M16_2.asp

Incidentally the Carbine (denoted as such by Colt due to the shorter barrel) also has the same effective range.

You also mention the M1 Carbine is an assault rifle :oops:

:roll: The M1 carbine has a woeful effective range and no ability to support fully automatic fire (the M2 did but the M1 was semi auto only) therefore it does not satisfy the criteria much as you might want it to.

Let me quote "Shooting Times"

"The M1 Carbine was not an assault rifle; it was an intermediate tool: “more than a pistol, less than a rifle.” The cartridge itself was a simple, downsized modification of the .32 Winchester Self-Loading round of 1906"

http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=785

You Sir are a Walter Mitty of the first order a cad a bounder and a charlatan :roll:

I wish you good day

Richard

[Man of Stoat]

Think about that. If the range of the weapon with accuracy is 500m, it is not going to be very accurate at 600m. Not at all accurate. If it is accurate to within 1/5 meter at 500m, imagine 600m. Would it be accurate to within 1/2 meter? 1 meter? That is uttely worthless accuracy my friend.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong

Once the bullet has left the barrel, it is the ballistics that count and not what it was fired from.

Hence, ignoring wind, if it's accurate to 20cm at 500m as you say, it'll be accurate to 24cm at 600m. This linear relationship will continue until the projectile passes back through the sound barrier, when it will suffer buffetting and will then lose accuracy at a much higher rate. I have seen this happen myself, in the difference between 144gn and 155gn 7.62mm at 1000 yards - with the 144gn I can shoot the same elevation group (0.5-1.25 minutes of angle) from 300yds to 900 yards, but it opens out at 1000. With the 155gn I can shoot the same elevation group at 1000yards.

5.56mm does not drop back below the sound barrier until well past 600m.

You also say somewhere else that the bullet drop at 600m is excessive and you'd never be able to elevate the barrel enough:

Aberdeen Proving Ground test data - M855 (SS109) 55.6mm ball gives a drop of 359cm at 600m. This requires a correction of 0.343° on the rearsight, or 20.6 minutes of angle (MOA). Prosecution rests, m'lud.

[Man of Stoat]

TINWALT, you are cordially invited to continue this discussion on the Army Rumour Service website in the following thread, where your many contentions (particularly with regard to effective range) have been put to the Infantry members:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17262.html

Come on in, we'd love you to join us.

[Bluffcove]

Bring lubricant, your gonna get fucked!

[shrendi]

Ironman you are full of shit, your infamous and inacurate waffle will come back to haunt you. If you had any real experience rather than virtual fantasy you would know that the 1.9 twist is there to extend the effective range and quite capable of lethal terminal ballistics and accurate shot placment out to and beyond 600 yards

[Bluffcove]

Steady, we only need to prove 600 at the moment, words like "and beyond" give him another five pages of crap thread to play with!!!!

Notice how, 0f the 24 pages of this thread from page 10 onwards it has all been trying to make IRONINGMAN retract his claim that the M1 carbine is an assault rifle! - its going to take more than one post to knock him down, I was thinking, 5 knuckles and a bicep!

[shrendi]

There was to much crap to read and i have a cracking headache but how could anyone with even a passing interest in gats not know it was a replacment for the pistol as a light pointable sidearm but beame popular for use upto 200 yards.

[Bluffcove]

welcome to the "Walther the war machine's big book of soldier knowledge"

[SMLE]

I trained as an infantryman several years ago, with the SA80 or L85A1 as it was then. A section could easily be expected (and was trained) to engage targets at upto 600 metres, no problem. A friend of mine who trained with the SLR (British variant of the FN FAL) regularly engaged targets at 600 metres as an individual.

Ironman, I put it to you that you have no experience at all of firearms other than in the virtual world of computer games.

[shrendi]

I fear he may have gone to ground. If only he would stand 600yds away waving his willy in defiance sure in his limited knowledge.

[Ale]

I fear he may have gone to ground. If only he would stand 600yds away waving his willy in defiance sure in his limited knowledge.

We've offered, there were 8 of us who are fairly competent with an L85 who would be more than glad to be a 'section' just to prove the point. :lol:

I think we are a few more now, maybe we could fire on him as a platoon? :shock:

(Or just get RichardH to take 1 shot with his AR15.) :wink:

[Bluffcove]

Twould be infinetly more rewarding to wrap a broomhandle in barbed wire and give his back the good news!

[richardh]

Single shot.........600 yards...........Toast :lol:

Rich

[shrendi]

Then a regi bath :twisted:

[Sid the Sexist]

If you trawl through the whole post, you can find several other examples of this tits encyclopaedic knowledge of firearms.

He thought the M1 was 'spring operated' ( like an airsoft gun ? :D ) until it was pointed out otherwise.
He doesn't know the laws of his own country regarding full auto weapons, he thinks they are illegal, but in many states they are completely legal, if a bit expensive. You can own an M-249 in Texas, should you have $25,000 to spend and a clean police record. Lucky bastards 8)

I wish I could find my copy of PAM2, I don't mi