PDA

View Full Version : Does defeating body armor change a subgun to an assault rifle?


too many choices!?
December 31, 2004, 11:24 AM
What do you guys think of the comparison of the new profile of the m4 compared to most current sub-guns. Is the m4(possibly the whole m-16 line of arms) just an overgrown, body armor piercing, sub-machinegun? Don't flame me out of existince but it really is. What about the p-90? Does the fact that it defeats armor make it an assault rifle? My understanding was that a sub-guns shoot pistol calibers(no armor penetration: mp5).As I understand an assault rifle fires something larger than a pistol but smaller than a battle rifle. The assault rifle usually(?) defeats body armor. Basic question I am getting at. Does the ability of a round to defeat armor change the gun from a sub-gun to an assault rifle :confused: .This atleast seems to be the trend in todays military. Body-armor defeating sub-gun sounds like an oxymoron to me. In my opinion they all go bang just at different rates and decibels :p .

Brick
December 31, 2004, 04:04 PM
Hello everybody.™

What do you guys think of the comparison of the new profile of the m4 compared to most current sub-guns. Is the m4(possibly the whole m-16 line of arms) just an overgrown, body armor piercing, sub-machinegun? Don't flame me out of existince but it really is. What about the p-90? Does the fact that it defeats armor make it an assault rifle? My understanding was that a sub-guns shoot pistol calibers(no armor penetration: mp5).As I understand an assault rifle fires something larger than a pistol but smaller than a battle rifle. The assault rifle usually(?) defeats body armor. Basic question I am getting at. Does the ability of a round to defeat armor change the gun from a sub-gun to an assault rifle .This atleast seems to be the trend in todays military. Body-armor defeating sub-gun sounds like an oxymoron to me. In my opinion they all go bang just at different rates and decibels .

1. I think the M4 is nothing more than a scaled down M16, and it is.
2. The M4 is not a submachine gun. A submachine gun fires fully automatic pistol bullets. While the M4 fires the 5.56x45mm assualt round from a shortened barrel, that makes it more like a carbine. But then even carbines are usually chambered in smaller rounds than the M16 rounds.
3. An MP5 could penetrate Level I body armour at close range.
4.
Does the ability of a round to defeat armor change the gun from a sub-gun to an assault rifle
No. The armour penetration ability doesn't change the class of the rifle.

Typically:

Battle rifle: Big, grown-up rounds like 30-06, .308, 7.62x54R, etc. Barrel is usually greater than 16 inches.
Assualt rifle: Smaller than a Battle rifle, and fire Intermediate rounds like 5.56x45, 7.62x39R, 6.8mm SPC, etc. Barrel length is usually around 16-14 inches.
Compact Assualt Rifles: More compact than assualt rifles, and usually fire the same rounds. More recoil, noise, and muzzle flash. Barrel length is usually less than 14 inches.
Submachine Guns: Fire pistol calibers, from the American-180 .22 SMG to the .45 cal Thompson and etc... Barrel length can range from around 6 inches to 14 inches.
Machine pistols: All fire pistol cartridges. All are select fire, from the 3 round burst Beretta M93, to the F/A Micro Uzi, MAC-10, MAC-11, etc.

Note: All claims are approximations. Do not any of the above as fact. Thank you.

http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/images/smilies/Hydrogen.gif -Brick

max popenker
January 4, 2005, 03:56 AM
3. An MP5 could penetrate Level I body armour at close range.
loaded with proper AP ammo, such as Russian 7N21 or 7N31, or some forgot-the-name Hirtenberger AP rounds, the MP5 will do a Class II with ease
The new PDW-class SMGs like FN P90 (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm) or HK MP7 PDW (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg49-e.htm) also will do a wonder to any soft body armor and some armore plates as well

Double Naught Spy
January 4, 2005, 08:29 AM
There is no classification that determines gun type based on the armor penetrative abilities of the ammo fired.

Sub guns fire pistol ammo. That is why they are 'sub' guns.

futureforcewarrior22
January 29, 2005, 02:34 AM
If you load up an MP-5 or Swedish K with Teflon coated rounds you can make short work of Threat Level IIIa - V Kevlar, but that doesn't make either of them assault rifles, just subs with a slight tactical edge.

P.S.: Anyone ever heard of the French Arcane 9mm round? Check it out on Google or something.

txinvestigator
January 29, 2005, 03:37 AM
***Sigh*** Teflon does not make bullets armor piercing. It is a coating put on AP rounds to protect the barrel.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html

In the 1970's, Kopsch, Turcos and Ward produced their "KTW" handgun ammunition using steel cored bullets capable of great penetration. Following further experimentation, in 1981 they began producing bullets constructed primarily of brass. The hard brass bullets caused exceptional wear on handgun barrels, a problem combated by coating the bullets with Teflon. The Teflon coating did nothing to improve penetration, it simply reduced damage to the gun barrel.

too many choices!?
January 29, 2005, 04:52 AM
didn't mean the question literally...kinda. I was trying to speak to the trend of most armies going to sub-machine guns sized assault rifles/pdw that still possess the ability to penetrate armor....The p-90and all these new subguns/pdw have ap ammo due to design and velocity but I guess no matter how you slice it 5.56 still get the nod as a rifle caliber..... If 5.56 had a shorter case I think it would become a subgun caliber(although a beefy one ;) )

Basically I should have named the thread Make Room for the Armor Piercing Sub Guns

Double Naught Spy
January 30, 2005, 08:04 PM
tmc, it is hard to tell what it is that you mean when you actually write something that is completely different. I hope you are able to follow my comment and try to to read anything into it. I mean exactly what I am saying.

skirm
February 28, 2005, 06:11 AM
Is there a site where you can purchase a conversion kit to turn a simi-auto to a full suto glock?

abelew
February 28, 2005, 07:23 PM
No, turning a stock glock into a FA glock is illegal. Do not do this. Do not ask on TFL about how to do this. If you want a G18, find one, find out the ammount you are going to need to get out of the 2nd mortgage of your home, and then do up some of ATF's paperwork to LEGALLY get one. Thanks, and have a nice day.

PMDW
February 28, 2005, 07:35 PM
No, turning a stock glock into a FA glock is illegal. Do not do this. Do not ask on TFL about how to do this. If you want a G18, find one, find out the ammount you are going to need to get out of the 2nd mortgage of your home, and then do up some of ATF's paperwork to LEGALLY get one. Thanks, and have a nice day.

Lies. It's perfectly legal. You just can't have the gun after that, because you're not a dealer/manufacturer (unless you are, in which case, go for it).

shaggy
February 28, 2005, 08:49 PM
Lies. It's perfectly legal. You just can't have the gun after that, because you're not a dealer/manufacturer (unless you are, in which case, go for it).

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but unless you have an 07/SOT or a specific grant of authority from the Sec. of the Treasury for direct sale to the US government, you cannot legally make a full auto Glock. If done as an 07/SOT, you can only own the gun as long as your license is valid; once the license is pulled or voluntarily relinquished, the gun must be sold to a qualified dealer/manufacturer (with demo letter) or destroyed.

FallenPhoenix
February 28, 2005, 10:39 PM
I think he's making a joke to the fact that you could have the full auto parts but not a gun to put them in.

ffxmike
March 8, 2005, 01:52 PM
Or, perhaps, he's not from america? and, it could actually be legal wherever he is?

Lowjack
March 11, 2005, 04:59 AM
:rolleyes: An MP5 could penetrate Level I body armour at close range

How many people with enough reason to be wearing body armor would be running around in the line of fire toting level I body armor? :D

Just a thought. ;)