How not to handle a rifle

[KennyR]

Mikeymike wrote:
The .22 rifle is like that. The L-98 hasn't got much of a kick on it, probably triple the kick of the .22 rifle. A satisfying amount of kick (at least, that's how I remembered it)

5.56mm *is* .22 inch, that's why I'm confused. Maybe there's a different cartridge size, then, between standard .22 rifles and NATO 5.56mm rounds. But I don't see why that would be, since the NATO round is designed for assault rifles and so has a reduced charge compared to semi-automatics.

Incidentally, the reason why this tiny round is so deadly is because it fragments and spins on impact, almost making it a fragmentation (frangible) round. That's barely keeping to the Geneva Convention, which rules that only solid FMJ ammunition may be used in warfare.

[T_Bone]

> Obviously one not suitable for 'protecting your property'
> with, unless you are being attacked by armoured vehicles

Better safe than sorry!  :lol:

[X-ray]

Cartridge designations and nomenclature can be misleading.
Take these cartridges for example:

218 Mashburn Bee
223 Remington
5.56 Nato
219 Zipper
225 Winchester
220 Weatherby Rocket

Did you know that ALL of those are exactly .224 calibre?
And a .38 Special is actually a .357 and a .357 Magnum is a .357 with a bigger powder load and longer cartridge case.

So the calibre may not be what it is branded as, and the powder charge may vary from one cartridge to another even if the calibre is the same. A typical example of how this can be confusing is what happened to me on the range. Last year I completed a course involving several rifles, some of which were fully automatic. But my example involves the 'daddy' of the group, which was a single shot hunting rifle in 300 Winchester magnum. That's .308 of an inch, but the cartridge length is 3.3 inches. So there's a lot of powder in there. Well I fired that and it almost knocked my earguards off. I developed a lot of respect for that rifle.
Two weeks ago I was on a range in the UK where a guy had a replica Sharps Black Powder Rifle. The calibre of the thing was .541, firing a huge bullet that weighs 38grams!!
He offered me a go, and I was reluctant because the .308 had given me such a hard time, and here was a rifle that was over 50 calibre. In the end my ego got the better of me and I fired the thing, expecting to go home bruised.
Not so.
Although it was black powder (a class 1 explosive) there was less propelant than in the Winchester 300 Magnum, and recoil was a lot better than I thought. It's a rifle I could shoot all day, unlike the 300 Magnum.

There are a lot of factors to consider when discussing the firing of small arms. Velocity, weight of the weapon, height of the barrel relative to the grip - these all affect perceived recoil. My little 6.35mm Baby Browning has more recoil 'bite' than my Vektor 9mm, yet the Vektor hits a hell of a lot harder.

In terms of wounding effects...well don't get me started, that is after all my specialty. I have unfortunately seen too many gunshot victims.

[the_leander]

I must say that when I was training with the LA-81 - the naval version of the iron site SA80, I found the recoil to be pretty viscious, certainly far greater then the Lee Enfield 303 that I had used previously in the ATC some years previous.

That said, the SA-80 and all its variants are.. well quite frankly crap, the fall to bits, jam frequently, are supplied with poor grade return springs, the firing pin tends to snap way too often and given the wieght and range of the things, are all round poor.

They're too big and bulky around ship to really be considered a replacement for the sterling SMG (which, if you're on board ship, you DON'T want HV ammo flying around) and lacks the range and reliability of the SLR (Which was an absolutely superb weapon).

That said, I'd take a bren gun (LMG - fired one once at a range, beautifull weapon) over either, as it is stupidly accurate and so reliable its daft. Not to mention that the recoil is easier on a person despite its using a larger calibur round.