The NS Infantry Discussion Thread, L5A1

[Radicchio]

I am RPing an island nation where jungle combat, heavy forestation, general cover. Are major factors. Not trying to build an army ti conquor the world here, just to be able and hold onto what i have got.

To this end I am thinking of using shotguns as a primary service weapon.
Thoughts?

[Gallan Systems]

Volume of fire is more important than terminal ballistics for the plainly obvious reasons you just stated.

Terminal ballistics is what volume of fire relies on to suppress.

No, that's the fear of being hit.

You can't continuously reduce the former to increase the latter.

It doesn't really work like that.

Otherwise every LMG in the world would fire .22 short.

.22 Short, again obviously, would make a poor competitor to something like 5,45mm or 5,56mm. Mass and recoil aren't determining factors in volume of fire.

[Tule]

No, that's the fear of being hit.

And why do you fear being hit?

It doesn't really work like that.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but suppression relies on the enemy fearing getting hit, which = Volume of fire x Consequences of getting hit.

.22 Short, again obviously, would make a poor competitor to something like 5,45mm or 5,56mm. Mass and recoil aren't determining factors in volume of fire.

No disagreement there.

[Spirit of Hope]

I am RPing an island nation where jungle combat, heavy forestation, general cover. Are major factors. Not trying to build an army ti conquor the world here, just to be able and hold onto what i have got.

To this end I am thinking of using shotguns as a primary service weapon.
Thoughts?

Not really a good idea. Notice even in Vietnam, which closely approximates your conditions, everyone was still using assault rifles. Shotguns just don't have the same range, accuracy, penetration or volume of fire as a good semi automatic or fully automatic rifle.

It probably wouldn't cripple your defenses but it isn't going to be as good as other options.

[New Visegrad]

No, that's the fear of being hit.

And why do you fear being hit?

Because it hurts?
Your average infantry grunt probably doesn't really know much about the terminal ballistics of what's coming at him, he just knows that it's moving very fast and makes holes in things and is therefore to be avoided where possible.

[Azurg]

And why do you fear being hit?

Same reason I fear dealing with knives; it hurts something fierce.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but suppression relies on the enemy fearing getting hit, which = Volume of fire x Consequences of getting hit.

Those consequences are still there, same as with the 5,45mm or 5,56mm. A scaled 7N6 will tumble just as effectively as a 5,45mm.

No disagreement there.

Bumping all the way down to ,22 Short is a bit much, eh? All I'm saying is that volume of fire is the most important aspect of a combat rifle, and microcalibers are the best way to achieve that.

[Gallan Systems]

No, that's the fear of being hit.

And why do you fear being hit?

So you are suggesting that you would not at all be worried about being shot by a cartridge that is very small when placed on a table? This as opposed to one that is rather large?

It doesn't really work like that.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but suppression relies on the enemy fearing getting hit, which = Volume of fire x Consequences of getting hit.

One assumes that when shooting at people, you generally use cartridges that are dangerous to people, which is all of them. Ergo, being shot at is scary, and any kind of bullet is dangerous. If you are being shot at by more bullets than you are putting out, you have been suppressed. This can result from more people than you shooting at you, people with better guns shooting at you (compare M249 to BAR, or M16 to M1903), better trained or experienced people shooting at you, etc.

There is a reason that small unit firefights do not result in large numbers of casualties or outright annihilation. It isn't because cartridges have inadequate terminal effects and Ahmed the Terminator walks around looking like Swiss cheese stuffed with tomato paste.

You already know the reason, you're just viewing it wrong tbh.

[Kouralia]

I am RPing an island nation where jungle combat, heavy forestation, general cover. Are major factors. Not trying to build an army ti conquor the world here, just to be able and hold onto what i have got.

To this end I am thinking of using shotguns as a primary service weapon.
Thoughts?

Better to keep, say a bullpup rifle as your main weapon (#L22SWAG is longer barreled than an M4, but understandably much more compact to avoid catching it on trees etc.), but perhaps retain a semi-automatic shotgun as standard section equipment for the point man? The rifle can keep up a much greater rate of fire than the shotgun for longer, can likely penetrate better through foliage, can engage at longer ranges and isn't that worse at engaging at closer ranges.

[Tule]

And why do you fear being hit?

So you are suggesting that you would not at all be worried about being shot by a cartridge that is very small when placed on a table? This as opposed to one that is rather large?

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but suppression relies on the enemy fearing getting hit, which = Volume of fire x Consequences of getting hit.

One assumes that when shooting at people, you generally use cartridges that are dangerous to people, which is all of them. Ergo, being shot at is scary, and any kind of bullet is dangerous. If you are being shot at by more bullets than you are putting out, you have been suppressed. This can result from more people than you shooting at you, people with better guns shooting at you (compare M249 to BAR, or M16 to M1903), better trained or experienced people shooting at you, etc.

There is a reason that small unit firefights do not result in large numbers of casualties or outright annihilation. It isn't because cartridges have inadequate terminal effects and Ahmed the Terminator walks around looking like Swiss cheese stuffed with tomato paste.

You already know the reason, you're just viewing it wrong tbh.

Small cartridges can absolutely be dangerous enough. That's why the US Army has gone from the .45-70 to the .30-06 to the 5.56.

The 5.56 is fine, I've defended it for years. So is the 5.45.

But you can't keep making smaller and smaller cartridges, eventually you will in fact end up with Ahmed the Terminator walking around looking like Swiss cheese stuffed with tomato paste. Or at least you'll end up with enemy soldiers taking greater risks and fewer incapacitating injuries. A 2 mm hole through the soft tissues of the arm or leg won't need more than a band aid.

[Gallan Systems]

So you are suggesting that you would not at all be worried about being shot by a cartridge that is very small when placed on a table? This as opposed to one that is rather large?



One assumes that when shooting at people, you generally use cartridges that are dangerous to people, which is all of them. Ergo, being shot at is scary, and any kind of bullet is dangerous. If you are being shot at by more bullets than you are putting out, you have been suppressed. This can result from more people than you shooting at you, people with better guns shooting at you (compare M249 to BAR, or M16 to M1903), better trained or experienced people shooting at you, etc.

There is a reason that small unit firefights do not result in large numbers of casualties or outright annihilation. It isn't because cartridges have inadequate terminal effects and Ahmed the Terminator walks around looking like Swiss cheese stuffed with tomato paste.

You already know the reason, you're just viewing it wrong tbh.

Small cartridges can absolutely be dangerous enough. That's why the US Army has gone from the .45-70 to the .30-06 to the 5.56.

The 5.56 is fine, I've defended it for years. So is the 5.45.

But you can't keep making smaller and smaller cartridges, eventually you will in fact end up with Ahmed the Terminator walking around looking like Swiss cheese stuffed with tomato paste. Or at least you'll end up with enemy soldiers taking greater risks and fewer incapacitating injuries. A 2 mm hole through the soft tissues of the arm or leg won't need more than a band aid.

Thankfully 4,5mm is twice and a quarter more than 2mm!

[Tule]

Small cartridges can absolutely be dangerous enough. That's why the US Army has gone from the .45-70 to the .30-06 to the 5.56.

The 5.56 is fine, I've defended it for years. So is the 5.45.

But you can't keep making smaller and smaller cartridges, eventually you will in fact end up with Ahmed the Terminator walking around looking like Swiss cheese stuffed with tomato paste. Or at least you'll end up with enemy soldiers taking greater risks and fewer incapacitating injuries. A 2 mm hole through the soft tissues of the arm or leg won't need more than a band aid.

Thankfully 4,5mm is twice and a quarter more than 2mm!

Point taken.

[Gallan Systems]

Thankfully 4,5mm is twice and a quarter more than 2mm!

Point taken.

The problem with microcalibers is that as you get smaller and lighter cartridges, they begin to be affected more by wind (drag) and other external ballistics factors downrange, which is why 4,5mm MKR was considered silly for its time. The solution to the problem of a smaller bullet was the idea that you could have a cheap, mono-metal brass bullet in a short case being competitive to something more traditional like lead core 5,56mm. It was a bit silly, sort of like how caseless ammunition was a bit silly. Both required significant investments in quality control for marginal gains, as discovered, and no one really pursued either.

[Tule]

Point taken.

The problem with microcalibers is that as you get smaller and lighter cartridges, they begin to be affected more by wind (drag) and other external ballistics factors downrange, which is why 4,5mm MKR was considered silly for its time. The solution to the problem of a smaller bullet was the idea that you could have a cheap, mono-metal brass bullet in a short case being competitive to something more traditional like lead core 5,56mm. It was a bit silly, sort of like how caseless ammunition was a bit silly. Both required significant investments in quality control for marginal gains, as discovered, and no one really pursued either.

Isn't there a problem with small caliber bullets not making a loud enough supersonic crack to suppress adequately as well? I wish I remembered the source.

[Purpelia]

Isn't there a problem with small caliber bullets not making a loud enough supersonic crack to suppress adequately as well? I wish I remembered the source.

My admittedly uneducated guess is that the crack they make when they hit the ground close to you, wall behind you etc. is more than enough to make you keep your head down regardless.

[EsToVnIa]

Even with the twist rate?

A 1:6 twist rate is pretty much the same as the MP7 and AKS-74U.

Aye, but this is planned for use in a rifle, not a platform of similar size to the MP-7.

I think you know this though

[Nachmere]

Isn't there a problem with small caliber bullets not making a loud enough supersonic crack to suppress adequately as well? I wish I remembered the source.

My admittedly uneducated guess is that the crack they make when they hit the ground close to you, wall behind you etc. is more than enough to make you keep your head down regardless.

This^

[Aqizithiuda]

Swap 6mm GPC with 7mm GPC, and you've got my line of thinking atm.

Replace both with 8mm Mauser and you've about got me.

---

Get thee behind me, Arch!

*diabolical laughter*

Well, it's too small for the calculated BC to be guaranteed accurate,

It's ,07mm smaller than the minimum any inaccuracies would be negligible at best. That said, I've redone it as a 4,6mm bullet
Ignoring the fact that I'd already planned to.

the twist rate is very tight,

It could be worse. Too, it falls within the 1:5 L/D ratio.

and the design lacks the qualities that made the 4.5x26mmR reportedly very terminally effective.

A long nose and being made of solid brass? Well, I've got a long-ish nose. . . and that's about it.

---

TL;DR:

mfw this bullet report
(Image)

So. . . differences between the MKR and NAVO cartridges is negligible at close range, and 7,62x39mm ROFLStomps all. Correct?

Also,

I do too, actually.

Your projectile's ogive is only 55.55% of it's length, while the 4.5x26mmR's projectile has a nose 75% of it's total length. The ogive radii are different too.

The problem with microcalibers is that as you get smaller and lighter cartridges, they begin to be affected more by wind (drag) and other external ballistics factors downrange, which is why 4,5mm MKR was considered silly for its time. The solution to the problem of a smaller bullet was the idea that you could have a cheap, mono-metal brass bullet in a short case being competitive to something more traditional like lead core 5,56mm. It was a bit silly, sort of like how caseless ammunition was a bit silly. Both required significant investments in quality control for marginal gains, as discovered, and no one really pursued either.

Isn't there a problem with small caliber bullets not making a loud enough supersonic crack to suppress adequately as well? I wish I remembered the source.

Flechettes were rated on par or below the .45 ACP in suppression according to one US test, with the 5.56 below the 7.62.

A 1:6 twist rate is pretty much the same as the MP7 and AKS-74U.

Aye, but this is planned for use in a rifle, not a platform of similar size to the MP-7.

I think you know this though

That was why I mentioned the AKS-74U.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Your projectile's ogive is only 55.55% of it's length, while the 4.5x26mmR's projectile has a nose 75% of it's total length. The ogive radii are different too.

And still it maintains a boat tail and body? Cripes. I have bad experiences playing with ogive radii.
Have you got a sheet or are you estimating?

[Fordorsia]

Colour yay

[Padnak]

I am RPing an island nation where jungle combat, heavy forestation, general cover. Are major factors. Not trying to build an army ti conquor the world here, just to be able and hold onto what i have got.

To this end I am thinking of using shotguns as a primary service weapon.
Thoughts?

why hello there

In jungle combat being able to penetrate dense cover is very important, so this basically rules out shotguns as a viable service weapon. Battle rifles would be a good idea, although lugging around one and its ammunition in the heat of a jungle wouldn't be that fun of a time. Assault rifles are most likely the way to go

or if you're a hardcore mofo, just give everyone FALs and rhodie shorts

[Aqizithiuda]

Your projectile's ogive is only 55.55% of it's length, while the 4.5x26mmR's projectile has a nose 75% of it's total length. The ogive radii are different too.

And still it maintains a boat tail and body? Cripes. I have bad experiences playing with ogive radii.
Have you got a sheet or are you estimating?

I scaled it off the drawing, using the case length (which is known) to work out the other dimensions to within reasonable accuracy.

[Fordorsia]

I am RPing an island nation where jungle combat, heavy forestation, general cover. Are major factors. Not trying to build an army ti conquor the world here, just to be able and hold onto what i have got.

To this end I am thinking of using shotguns as a primary service weapon.
Thoughts?

why hello there

In jungle combat being able to penetrate dense cover is very important, so this basically rules out shotguns as a viable service weapon. Battle rifles would be a good idea, although lugging around one and its ammunition in the heat of a jungle wouldn't be that fun of a time. Assault rifles are most likely the way to go

or if you're a hardcore mofo, just give everyone FALs and rhodie shorts

I'm not sure shorts, especially Rhodie shorts, are the best thing to wear in a jungle.

[Purpelia]

I'm not sure shorts, especially Rhodie shorts, are the best thing to wear in a jungle.

Shorts are not appropriate attire for a human male regardless of the situation.

[Fordorsia]

I'm not sure shorts, especially Rhodie shorts, are the best thing to wear in a jungle.

Shorts are not appropriate attire for a human male regardless of the situation.

They are if you're a Rhodesian in Rhodesia.

[Purpelia]

Shorts are not appropriate attire for a human male regardless of the situation.

They are if you're a Rhodesian in Rhodesia.

Either wear pants or don't.