The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 2, 2019, 09:32 PM   #201
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Bart is correct that M855 will penetrate the AR500 Armor® Level III Lightweight UHMWPE Body Armor 10" x 12" you linked to upthread. It even says so at the AR500 website: link
Reading is fundamental. And you guys say I don't need to highlight!




Quote:
Our Level III steel body armor provides industry leading protection against "penetrator" rounds such as the 5.56 M855/SS109
https://www.ar500armor.com/ar500-arm...ody-armor.html
davidsog is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 09:43 PM   #202
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,377
Quote:
No, we averaged 8 rounds the first tour with green tip in the house to put a target not wearing body armor down.
I'm not disputing your round count, but I wonder if your average was what was needed, or what was used.

I am also unclear if you mean 8 rounds FIRED or 8 HITS average to put a non body armor wearing target down.

To me that makes a significant difference.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 09:54 PM   #203
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
You are confused.
I am not confused. You do not understand the NIJ rating levels.

I posted a link for you.

Quote:
The National Institute of Justice has a rating system for body armor.
Quote:
III-A
Quote:
The highest blunt trauma protection rating in soft body armor.
Now, if you have had friends shot in the chest with various Levels of body armor, you would know that Level III may stop the bullet from penetrating because it is hard armor but it may deform causing blunt trama which can incapacitate or even be lethal to the wearer.

Quote:
So, the advantage in increasing protection Levels from II-A, to II, to III-A, is NOT so much protection from PENETRATION of pistol fire, but a significant reduction in the blunt trauma received.

Quote:
HARD Body Armor

Quote:
III
- Rifle Plate Protection Levels
Quote:
1/4" Ballistic Steel (6 mm)

~1/2" Ceramic (13 mm)

~1" Polyethylene (25 mm)
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballist...n_Levels.shtml

Simply and plainly....

-A denotes soft body armor or is designed to offer a level of blunt force protection.
davidsog is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 10:12 PM   #204
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
I'm not disputing your round count, but I wonder if your average was what was needed, or what was used.

I am also unclear if you mean 8 rounds FIRED or 8 HITS average to put a non body armor wearing target down.

To me that makes a significant difference.
The engineering test and scientific studies were done after the experience in the field and confirmed the results that at CQB distances 5.56mm had issues with consistent reliability in terms of lethality.
davidsog is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 10:24 PM   #205
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,532
Quote:
The engineering test and scientific studies were done after the experience in the field and confirmed the results that at CQB distances 5.56mm had issues with consistent reliability in terms of lethality.
can we have some link to these studies or point us in the direction of these studies.
I also didn’t see any information in the articles about the new proposed weapons and ammunition that concerns Close quarters, it mentions a lot about increasing effective range and dealing with the advancement of body armor.
rickyrick is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 10:33 PM   #206
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
can we have some link to these studies or point us in the direction of these studies.
I also didn’t see any information in the articles about the new proposed weapons and ammunition that concerns Close quarters, it mentions a lot about increasing effective range and dealing with the advancement of body armor.
You can search the boards as the information, reports, and original documents have all been posted in previous threads.
davidsog is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 10:40 PM   #207
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,532
Which specific study are you referring to?
rickyrick is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 11:13 PM   #208
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 7,173
Quote:
I didn’t realize they were also actuarial commandos on top of being first-rate gunfighters.
LOL, good one.

Physics are physics, as they say. The 5.56 is a highly effective cartridge for what it is, when you look at the total performance package of cartridge size, velocity impact force, weight to quantity ratio etc. The notion that battlefield technologies have evolved to the point where something better is needed is easy for me to understand. The notion that something newer that operates at substantially higher performance levels--is a multi-role weapon and is ready for prime-time deployment in just a couple of years--is hard to swallow. I have heard from one industry "insider" that some kind staged partially self-propelled cartridge technology already exists and has been successfully tested that does render conventional brass case cartridge performance "obsolete" but he was short on details so it's hard to say if that was just "smoke and mirrors."
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 11:20 PM   #209
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,532
Summed it up in one paragraph.
rickyrick is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 11:28 PM   #210
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,532
Been thinking about this revolutionary cartridge design, when developed and successful, could easily be adapted to smaller aerial drones and lighter ground based drones (I don’t like calling them robots).
Hope it gets done for the combat troops sooner rather than later. I still have doubts about this meeting such a short deadline.
rickyrick is offline  
Old September 2, 2019, 11:47 PM   #211
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,966
Quote:
The engineering test and scientific studies were done after the experience in the field and confirmed the results that at CQB distances 5.56mm had issues with consistent reliability in terms of lethality.
I'm interested in the specific claim you made as follows:
"...we averaged 8 rounds the first tour with green tip in the house to put a target not wearing body armor down."
You also provided additional information that the statistic was sourced by:
"...going into buildings with bad guys and shooting them until they are no longer a threat."
So, in your first tour your group averaged 8 rounds to put a target not wearing body armor down.

In order to interpret that statistic properly, more information is required. Was 8 rounds the average number of hits (or perhaps COM hits) achieved per non-body armored target down? Was that simply the total number of rounds fired for an entire mission divided by the number of targets down? Were the rounds typically fired full auto, semi-auto, or burst?

These are straightforward and simple questions and the reasons that the answers are important is self-evident.

You quoted the statistic as support for your argument and I agree that kind of information is very interesting and applicable to the discussion. But without the additional information required to properly interpret the statistic, the value is obviously quite limited.
Quote:
You can search the boards as the information, reports, and original documents have all been posted in previous threads.
If you want to be taken seriously, follow the rules of polite debate. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. It is unreasonable and impolite to make a claim and then basically tell people to "go fish" when they ask about the claim and the supporting evidence for it.

Especially in a case like this when the claim is apparently based on personal experience (i.e. "we averaged"), it shouldn't be nearly so difficult to provide simple answers to simple questions.
Quote:
Reading is fundamental. And you guys say I don't need to highlight!
The quote you are responding to is very specifically about: "Level III Lightweight UHMWPE Body Armor"

You responded with a comment and a link about: "Level III steel body armor"

Furthermore, your link contains the following statement:

"Our Level III steel body armor provides industry leading protection against "penetrator" rounds such as the 5.56 M855/SS109 - which are capable of defeating UHMWPE type level III body armor options."

1. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor (the PE stands for polyethylene) is not the same thing as steel body armor.

2. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor will be defeated by M855/SS109.

Had you read all the material provided by the source you linked, or the information provided in the links Bartholomew Roberts provided, the following paragraph would be unnecessary.

The standard for Level III armor does not include protection against the 5.56 penetrator rounds like M855, M855A1 or SS109. Some manufacturers (like the one you quoted who claims their Level III+ steel armor is "industry leading") DO make Level III armor that they claim goes beyond the official standard for Level III armor and is, in fact, tested to defeat some 5.56 penetrator rounds. That doesn't change/redefine the official standard for Level III, it just means that some manufacturers are going above and beyond the minimum that the standard requires.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 06:10 AM   #212
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,451
Quote:
The quote you are responding to is very specifically about: "Level III Lightweight UHMWPE Body Armor"

You responded with a comment and a link about: "Level III steel body armor"

Furthermore, your link contains the following statement:

"Our Level III steel body armor provides industry leading protection against "penetrator" rounds such as the 5.56 M855/SS109 - which are capable of defeating UHMWPE type level III body armor options."

1. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor (the PE stands for polyethylene) is not the same thing as steel body armor.

2. Your source confirms that Level III UHMWPE body armor will be defeated by M855/SS109.

Had you read all the material provided by the source you linked, or the information provided in the links Bartholomew Roberts provided, the following paragraph would be unnecessary.
That is spot on, John. In addition, the level III steel plates AR500 sells are not rated to stop M193 5.56.

It seems to me that David isn't the expert Bart is on the subject of armor.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 10:31 AM   #213
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
So, in your first tour your group averaged 8 rounds to put a target not wearing body armor down.
WE does not mean GROUP.

Quote:
I didn’t realize they were also actuarial commandos on top of being first-rate gunfighters.
There is not but neither are we idiots either. That is your own misconception and misinterpretation of what I said.

I have a degree in Aeronautical Sciences with a minor in Business. I speak 3 languages fluently and functional in two others. Yeah, you have to be intelligent to be an Operator. There is much more to it than shooting a weapon well.

I say that not to "toot my own horn" but to merely to point out I was AVERAGE in the community. The difference between the top of my class and bottom of my class in ANOC was .5%.....

My experience is my own. That experience mirrored others AND in turn mirrored the US Army's.

Quote:
f you want to be taken seriously, follow the rules of polite debate.
You want me to post the thread and you can see these boards version of "polite debate". Don't make me laugh.

Last edited by davidsog; September 3, 2019 at 10:44 AM.
davidsog is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 10:32 AM   #214
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
FACT: The US ARMY is replacing 5.56mm with 6.8mm. They wish and will do this sooner rather than later.
davidsog is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 12:19 PM   #215
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,377
Quote:
WE does not mean GROUP.


Just exactly what does "WE" mean in your world??

You disparage the reading comprehension of others but saying crap like "WE does not mean GROUP." makes me question your comprehension of basic English grammar.

"We" is a plural pronoun. Plural means more than one individual. This is the definition of a group.

Studies have been done, they're out there, go look them up!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 12:50 PM   #216
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 7,173
This is turning into a "who swings the biggest pair-fest" if I were admin it would be closed by now. : ) David should go hang at the sniper's hide--that's full of firefights and insults. LOL
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 02:49 PM   #217
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Just exactly what does "WE" mean in your world??
The question was asked in the context of my Military Service and answered in the context of my Military Service.

Obviously it is not something that falls in the context of your military service.


Quote:
This is the definition of a group.
Group refers to a very large element in my Military Experience. It is a level above Squadron or Battalion.

Quote:
Studies have been done, they're out there, go look them up!
They have been which is why 5.56mm is being replaced.

Stag, nobody is looking to insult anyone but at the same time expect to receive a helping of what you dish out.

Not Actuarial enough for you?

Last edited by davidsog; September 4, 2019 at 08:19 AM.
davidsog is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 05:13 PM   #218
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,339
SIG’s winning NGSW entry:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...gsw-prototype/

Though the hybrid 6.8 brass/steel case is loaded with a BTHP projectile and not the specified Army EPR projectile.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 06:13 PM   #219
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 7,173
Shiver me timbers--that sig binary case looks suspiciously similar to shell shocks binary cases which have been out for quite a while. I ran one of Shell Shocks 9mm cases up to around 45,000 psi before it blew apart, 40,000 with no issues, though there's still a bit of stretch in the primer cup (I've never heard of the military reloading though).

BTW--I find it a bit odd, and concerning, that the weapon system bidder is also going to be the sole ammunition supplier. Anyone else see potential weakness in this scheme?
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by stagpanther; September 3, 2019 at 06:23 PM.
stagpanther is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 09:04 PM   #220
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
I find it a bit odd, and concerning, that the weapon system bidder is also going to be the sole ammunition supplier. Anyone else see potential weakness in this scheme?


I think that's only during the development phase of the program. By doing it that way, the manufacturer of the weapon system retains control over the design and development of the ammo for their weapon.

I've also read where a new plant is being built at Lake City to produce the ammo for the cartridge selected in the NGSW program.
ed308 is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 10:37 PM   #221
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 7,173
Quote:
I think that's only during the development phase of the program. By doing it that way, the manufacturer of the weapon system retains control over the design and development of the ammo for their weapon.
OK--I guess I didn't interpret that right.
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old September 3, 2019, 10:52 PM   #222
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,532
I’d like to know more about these weapons, but I guess since they are still in a competition phase the makers are being tight-lipped about the specifics. I think sig is the first to show an actual picture of their submissions.
The other makers have pictures of “similar” weapons and past prototypes.
rickyrick is offline  
Old September 4, 2019, 08:11 AM   #223
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
I've also read where a new plant is being built at Lake City to produce the ammo for the cartridge selected in the NGSW program.
They are preparing for large scale production of the 6.8mm round.

It looks like the winner has to supply ammunition thru the iterative prototyping stage with the Government taking over the bulk of ammunition production during that time period.

Quote:
Army Ammo Plant Readies for New 6.8 mm Round
Quote:
The new building will be the first new manufacturing facility Lake City has constructed in 50 years, Watson added.
They expect production to begin in the three to four years.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....w-6-8-mm-round
davidsog is offline  
Old September 4, 2019, 10:21 AM   #224
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 7,173
Quote:
They expect production to begin in the three to four years.
"Construction of the building is expected to begin in the next two to three years, and production of the new round will start in about three or four years, he noted."

So all the troops have 2 years to practice dry-firing?
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by stagpanther; September 4, 2019 at 10:26 AM.
stagpanther is offline  
Old September 4, 2019, 10:35 AM   #225
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,037
Sig's bimetal case shown in the TFB article looks to be a lot slimmer that some of the other cartridge we've seen. Their proposed cartridge appears to be slimmer and similar in size to a .308 cartridge.
ed308 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11670 seconds with 9 queries