Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2968

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bbcode.php on line 2958
Ammunition Box - Page 2
Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Ammunition Box

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    600

    Default

    1 dolla. lol. Nope I am not going to sell it for the price I have to check everything on the box and see the value of it. Probably going to have to do more research on how much it is actually worth.
    Good Conduct Medal
    "The Russian colossus...has been underestimated by us...whenever a dozen divisions are destroyed the Russians replace them with another dozen."
    General Franz Halder-Army Chief of Staff-August 1941

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    From memory it's normally 120 rounds to a bandolier, could be 60 though - last time I used one it was night, I was alternating between section commander and section 2IC and the various DS were on my arse.

    I agree with Jacob, it almost certainly says M193 on the case. That's the older 5.56mm round used in the M16 and M16A1 rifle - the newer variants fire a heavier round which requires a different number of turns on the rifling.
    The bandoliers that I have are 140 rounds. Just wondering what is different about the round that it requires different rifling? Just wanting to know if I'm using the wrong ammo in my rifle.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Bullet weight is different, IIRC the newer round is heavier so had a lower muzzle velocity and needs a tighter rifling to give a similar rate of spin for stability.
    Are your bandoliers a set of pockets containing 10 round clips of 5.56mm? If so 140 is a really wierd number - not a whole number of magazines!
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13

    Default bandolier

    The bandoliers in my collection contain seven pockets, each holding two 10-round stripper clips. 6 bandoliers to an ammo can, 840 rds. Also, I don't think it is required to change the rifling when you change the weight of a bullet. I shoot 52 gr. 55 gr. and 62 gr. bullets in the same rifle. Also shoot .270 100 gr. 130 gr. and 150 gr. in the same rifle.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Wierd. I'm 90% certain I've only ever seen them with 30 rounds to a pocket (for obvious reasons - you should be counting your rounds when you fire so you know when a magazine change is coming up - you hardly want to introduce different sized magazines to the mix for private soldiers to try and keep track of in their heads in the middle of a firefight). To be fair it's pretty rare for me to be issued ammunition in a bandolier though (my lot are a CSS unit) and the last time I used them it was night.

    As for the twist, I'm a little vague as to exactly why it's important. I think it's because NATO standard ammunition is designed to be inherently unstable to improve the wounding effect, and hence requires a certain rate of spin for stability. Lower muzzle velocities will give less spin in the same rifling, hence the need for steeper rifling with a lower muzzle velocity.
    Again, to emphasise, I'm rather out of my depth on all this. The following comment I dug up may help:
    Because the steel penetrator increases the length and changes the
    weight distribution of the SS109 bullet, it is suitable for use only in
    barrels with a twist of one turn in nine inches or faster. Pre-1986 Ruger
    Mini-14's with the one in 10 inch twist will handle this round but
    stability is marginal and accuracy falls off below zero degrees Fahrenheit.
    Military rifles intended to use this ammunition have a seven inch twist to
    ensure bullet stability under arctic conditions and to stabilize the even
    longer L110 and M856 tracer bullets. Current production Mini-14's and some
    Ranch Rifles now have seven inch twists.
    Source: http://www.ak-47.net/ammo/ss109.txt
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    ...
    As for the twist, I'm a little vague as to exactly why it's important. I think it's because NATO standard ammunition is designed to be inherently unstable to improve the wounding effect, and hence requires a certain rate of spin for stability. Lower muzzle velocities will give less spin in the same rifling, hence the need for steeper rifling with a lower muzzle velocity.
    Again, to emphasise, I'm rather out of my depth on all this. The following comment I dug up may help:

    Source: http://www.ak-47.net/ammo/ss109.txt
    I think you're incorrect here. The latest NATO SS109 5.56mm round is actually more stable than the previous M193 was...

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    Right, to clear up this twist business.

    The older, 55 grain M193 ammunition was used in rifles with a 1:12" twist barrel. This barrel will not stabilise the 62 grain SS109 or heavier bullets. This is because these bullets are longer (the weight of the bullet is usually used as a proxy for this), and require a 1:9" or tighter twist. The NATO standard is actually 1:7" to adequately stabilise tracer, which is even longer.

    You can, however, fire lighter bullets through the tighter twist barrels.

    Therefore, the M16A1 can only fire M193 through its 1:12 barrel, whereas the M16 A2 can fire either M193 or M855 (SS 109).
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Is stability an aerodynamic or gyroscopic issue?
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    Is stability an aerodynamic or gyroscopic issue?
    Wouldn't there be elements of both, depending upon conditions?

    If a projectile had its nose sliced off at an angle, I assume it'd be less stable, partly because of the way it attacked the air and partly because of the off-centre weight.

    My recollection of artillery on Kokoda in New Guinea in WWII is that they had to correct for humidity at different times of day, which is purely aerodynamic.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    From memory that's a simple density issue though - higher humidity gives higher air density, which in turn gives higher dynamic pressure on the front of the shell and so higher drag.
    Reason I'm asking is that if it's a gyroscopic issue then length is irrelevant and it's purely down to weight, while if length does come into it it has to be aerodynamic - at which point things potentially get really rather interesting.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Man of Stoat View Post
    Right, to clear up this twist business.

    The older, 55 grain M193 ammunition was used in rifles with a 1:12" twist barrel. This barrel will not stabilise the 62 grain SS109 or heavier bullets. This is because these bullets are longer (the weight of the bullet is usually used as a proxy for this), and require a 1:9" or tighter twist. The NATO standard is actually 1:7" to adequately stabilise tracer, which is even longer.

    You can, however, fire lighter bullets through the tighter twist barrels.

    Therefore, the M16A1 can only fire M193 through its 1:12 barrel, whereas the M16 A2 can fire either M193 or M855 (SS 109).
    Some people found this out the hard way when there was unfortunately still a small number of M-16A1s in the mix during the first Gulf War. The logistical problems are obvious, though the green typed bullets were a big clue to a soldier that payed attention. In fact I had an A1 assigned to me in my Reserve spot up until the late 1990s!

    Now if they would convert everything to the M-16A3 standard (the M-16A2 with the cyclic feature in place of the three-round-burst for the US Navy SEALs), we'd be okay...

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,484

    Default

    I've also been told that the M193 5.56mm bullet didn't so much as "tumble" as it exploded inside the human body at close ranges. Any comments on this?

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    It is an interesting combination of aerodynamics and gyroscopic effects -- in a vacuum we wouldn't need to worry about spin stabilisation anyway.

    The M193 can split at the cannelure at close range, fragmenting. It doesn't "explode". The SS 109 does this as well, by the way. another thing the M193 did was tumble on contact with light foliage and hit people beam on, which was also nasty.
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Man of Stoat View Post
    It is an interesting combination of aerodynamics and gyroscopic effects -- in a vacuum we wouldn't need to worry about spin stabilisation anyway.
    Well, up to a point. Unless you were going for squeeze-bore stuff however you probably would have to have some spin on it though - two circles will only touch at one point, which isn't great for accuracy as you can't tell where that point will be. Spinning it at least means you have a little more control over that point. IIRC this is a (minor) issue with APFSDS.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    Okay, hypothetical, since we are not actually firing projectiles in a vacuum, all you need to do is provide a small interference fit. then it will touch around the whole circumference!
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •