Author Topic:  (Read 3272 times)

Offline azsarge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 9999
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2003, 12:52:02 PM »
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ninja</i>
<br />This article I read was on building a pure EMP bomb to disable a city.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think it was Populat Science, but I remember the article as well.  The device was dependent upon the procurement of some hard-to-find items.  Easy to make, but so is a "dirty bomb".  The hard part is getting a hold of the materials.  It would be quite devastating, indeed.  "Honey, my PDA just went crazy and the BMW won't start!  Oh my God, the espresso machine just blew up and I can't check my AOL mail!  Its the apocalypse, run for your lives!"

Complete choas, for certain.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by azsarge »

Offline KenCasper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2003, 02:15:27 PM »
This is prolly my last post till I get back but here goes!

 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Doesn't the AK-74 shoot a similar round to the NATO 5.56? How is it generating more "knockdown" than the NATO 5.56?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The AK74 fires a 5.45 x 39mm bullet.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The Nato 5.56x45mm is a solid full metal jacketed bullet, but the old soviet designed 5.45X39mm isn't. The 5.45 bullet actually has a small void at the front end beneith the jacket wall that collapses upon impact with most materials, cuasing a rapid balance shift in the bullet. This balance shift causes massive "cavitation" or tumbling, wich allows for MASSIVE wound channels when compared to a bullet of the same size, wieght, and shape that isn't cavitating.

That is why the AK-74 generates "more knockdown power" than the 5.56nato round.

As to reliability of a M16A2 or the M4A1, they are very reliable when kept clean, trouble is that isn't always possible in combat.  The entire rasion for reduced reliability in dirt rich enviroments is the close tolerances of the weapon, which gives it the accuracy all but unseen in semi or full auto weapons.

The AK series of weapons on the other hand gets its reliablity due to the very loose tolerances that come from it's construction process. This allows it to be bured in mud, sand and other muck, and still fucntion as long as the bore is clear. But it also reduces the accuracy, while not much when both weapons are in untrained hands, in trained hands I believe the AR series of weapons will be more accurate.


My opinion on the OICW is that it will be a nice toy one day, but the possiblities of EMP's and faulty electronics makes me VERY WARRY of it. Yes our current "enemy" doesn't have the tech to use EMP to disable our souldiers on a daily basis, but the threat of a nuke detionation, or a homemade EMP weapon is out there, and I sure wouln't want to be sitting there with a high priced club after the detionation of either of those weapons. That doesn't mention the possibility of a major conflict with an organized military or country like the ChiComs or some one that has Nukes, or God forbid the appearance of the ever imagined hostile ET race of Science Fiction!

Ya'll enjoy your armchair quarterbacking this  issue I'm gonna be over in the sand box soon enough, and I'll let ya'll know my opinions after a year in the field the the M16A2 (or if the powers that be smile on me the M4A1)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by KenCasper »
Sgt Kevin Widner
AKA \"Casper\"

\"The Harder you train the harder your enemy must train...all comes down to who gives up first!   Mike \"Colonel\" Potter

Offline HavHav

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2003, 03:18:37 PM »
The OICW has backup iron sights. The only electronics AFAIK are the scope and grenades. (Airbursting) But the actual firearm itself should still work after an EMP. Nothing electronic inside the actual gun.

Ken, hope you get back soon. Stay safe!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by HavHav »

Offline Wolf

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2003, 06:12:21 PM »
I was under the impression that the hammer is electronically controlled, then again, I could be wrong [:P]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Wolf »
Cover your six

Offline HavHav

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Looks like they are finally getting rid of the M16
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2003, 03:47:41 PM »
Take a look:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... odbye_m_16

Taken From Article:

"Consequently, the M-4 is an unlikely candidate for the rearming of the U.S. Army. It is now viewed as an interim solution until the introduction of a more advanced design known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW."

"There is no date set for the entry into service of the OICW, but officers in Iraq say they expect its arrival sooner than previously expected because of the problems with the M-16 and the M-4."

"Although the M16A1 — introduced in the early 1980s — has been heavily modernized, experts say it still isn't as reliable as the AK-47 or its younger cousin, the AK-74."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by HavHav »