Military Thread

[PyroAce]

I thought I would start a thread on military related topics as it has always interested me, people on here would know a lot more about military topics so would be good for some answers on things I have always wondered.

 

For example, is an armor vest that soldiers wear able to actually stop a bullet from an assault rifle such as 7.62mm or 5.56mm round? I know they can stop a pistol bullet and can prevent shrapnel injuries, but if you were hit with an assault round would this go through?

[MrB]

For example, is an armor vest that soldiers wear able to actually stop a bullet from an assault rifle such as 7.62mm or 5.56mm round?

As far as i know, they are generally classified as "rifle resistant", but not "bullet proof" vs rifles and up. Meaning assault-rifle rounds will penetrate. How good / bad depends a lot on the specific vest.

B!

[dagabu]

I thought I would start a thread on military related topics as it has always interested me, people on here would know a lot more about military topics so would be good for some answers on things I have always wondered.

 

For example, is an armor vest that soldiers wear able to actually stop a bullet from an assault rifle such as 7.62mm or 5.56mm round? I know they can stop a pistol bullet and can prevent shrapnel injuries, but if you were hit with an assault round would this go through?

 

Yes and no. Type IV is conditioned armor and protects against 10.8 g (166 gr) .30-06 Springfield M2 armor-piercing (AP) bullets at a velocity of 878 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2880 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides at least single hit protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, IIIA, and III]. Type V is available in limited areas and is said to be even better but has failed from time to time to live up to the hype.

 

Three of my boys have joined the military in various branches and served in theatre so far, the fourth will go in next year. The vests indeed have proven to be very effective against NATO rifle rounds when the plates are hit, IED's and such defeat body armor by using high explosives that can penetrate the armor easily.

 

Also, picking knits here but neither the 7.62mm or 5.56mm rounds are "Assault" rifle rounds, they are NATO designations, assault rifles are military, the AR-15 and like are NOT assault rifles, being semi auto, they do not meet the designator for such arms. The news media calls them assault rifles, owners certainly do not, we call them by their correct name; Carbine.

[Jakenbake]

I like to refer to mine as "modern sporting rifles" since not all of them have short barrels.

[dagabu]

I like to refer to mine as "modern sporting rifles" since not all of them have short barrels.

 

Even better...

[taiwanluthiers]

I don't know about the US military, but in Taiwan they're not really standard issue unless you're standing guard duties. For whatever reason we were required to wear bullet proof vests to stand guard duties, maybe they got shot at before (who would be stupid enough to shoot at someone armed with assault rifles??). However the vests we were issued would only stop up to a .357 magnum, so if we went up against assault rifles it wouldn't do much. Well of course you could always wear a 1" thick piece of steel inside your clothing... like Clint Eastwood or something, except it would weight a lot. Actually wearing bullet proof vests in Taiwan weather isn't trivial, so much so that sometimes people just removed the kevlar just so they could make it more comfortable to wear (since we all agreed that the chances of getting shot at in Taiwan is slim to none, since the average person aren't allowed to have guns anyways). Not legal by military standards but then again, nobody got shot at.

 

It's hard to stop a rifle bullet for sure... It's possible but you'd be wearing a tank on your body, and you'd move as fast as a tank with all that weight (which makes you a really good target). And of course if you're encumbered in a battlefield they could just hit you with a 50BMG, and nothing's going to stop that.

[PyroAce]

Thanks for the replies. Where I live the gun culture is very different to the USA. The media likes to refer to anything that is even semi automatic as an assault rifle, the media largely uneducated likes to make out anyone that owns even a bolt action rifle as some sort of gun nut that is going to go on a rampage.
dagabu when you say the 7.62mm & 5.56mm rounds are not not assault rifle rounds are you meaning that assault rifles do not use this caliber of round?

[dagabu]

Don't leave out the part of NATO designation. I will not typify any weapon an assault rifle outside the military world unless it's fully automatic.

[Bobosan]

"Assault weapon" could be anything...hammer, axe, icepick, Bic pen, firearms.....or any other inanimate object the media and/or AHJ's want to call it.

 

Militarily, an assault weapon is a light, full automatic CQB weapon using a small caliber round.

[taiwanluthiers]

Which country are you from? My understanding is, outside of the USA anything that can shoot a bullet, regardless of power source is a firearm, and therefore are restricted to either a select group of licensed individuals, or the police/military. For example in Taiwan anything with a muzzle energy of more than 20 joules is a firearm (doesn't matter if it's powered by air, gunpowder, electricity, or spits, not including nail guns). They test this by shooting a thin aluminum plate with it, if it penetrates it's a firearm. Germany is even more strict I think. Spirit of the law may differ but I pretty much think the spirit of any gun law (including the US) is that any civilian possession of firearm should be restricted or illegal, or that any civilian with guns is up to no good (as if guns would make a good person evil all of a sudden). Other than lawless countries, USA is probably the only country in the world with a loose gun law/culture.

 

My understanding of an assault rifle (I hope others agree too) is that they include things like M16, STG44, M4, AK47, etc.. Basically anything that shoots light "rifle" calibers (5.56, 7.62x39) fully auto and is fairly light as to allow better control when firing. I do not know what full auto guns that uses real rifle caliber (7.62x51, 8mm mauser, 30-06) such as the BAR, SCAR-H, AR-10 (full auto) is called... But anyways they were more or less used as standard rifle in modern armies. In WWII soldiers were issued rifles such as M1 Garand or Mauser 98K and fired either semi auto or bolt action. Some soldiers had Thompson sub machineguns and they were found to be effective in close quarter combat (rifles were not good for this because they had too slow of a firing rate), while it didn't have the range of a rifle, it made clearing buildings easy. Germans learned this and developed the STG44 which was a great rifle since it had decent range but good rate of fire, but unfortunately it came too late to make much difference for them. Russians took that and developed the AK47's and the assault rifle was born.

 

Americans on the other hand stuck with the M1A/M14 through the Korean War, but the problem is those 7.62x51 weighted a lot, and having a smaller caliber meant soldiers could carry more ammo in battle. The M16 was developed but it really took the Army quite a while to accept it, even then the original M16 sucked since it jammed a lot. It took a lot of tweaking but eventually M16's (and its clones) got adopted by nearly all NATO countries. But Vietnam was the first war where the M16's were used, and it gained some bad reputation during that war.

 

Liberals however define assault weapon by cosmetic features or semi auto/detachable magazine, arguing that someone could take an AR15 and massacre a large group of people and reload quickly. In practice it just became a cosmetics game, if it looks evil, it was illegal. The Assault Weapon ban basically based everything on cosmetic features such as retractable stock, bayonet lugs, pistol grip, detachable magazine, and flash suppressor. We had to stop those drive by bayonetting I guess... I remember the original law was that a weapon could only have two out of all the "evil" features unless it was "pre ban". Problem with the AR15 is they already have two of those features by design (pistol grip and detachable magazine) so post ban weapons can't have retractable stock, flash suppressor, or bayonet lug. I do not know the status of this assault weapon ban. Even if it expired (I think GW Bush didn't extend it) the spirit of the law is basically what California has, which bans AR-15's unless it has been extensively modified to not have a pistol grip or detachable magazine. I was shown a semi auto .22 pistol that had a magazine in front of the grip (rather than in it). He said that weapon is banned in states like CA simply because of that feature even though it is no different than any other semi auto pistol.

[dagabu]

An assault rifle is a selective fire (full auto, single, multiple) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47, M4 and the M16 rifle.

 

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr. The name was coined by Adolf Hitler as a new name for the Maschinenpistole, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularize the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon

It must be capable of selective fire

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine

And it should at least have a effective range of 300 metres (330 yards)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being called such.

For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles. Because, their effective range is only 200 meters.

Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles. Because, they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.

Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles. Because, they do not have select-fire capabilities.

Semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles. Because, they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

[Jakenbake]

edited....

Edited December 1, 2014 by Jakenbake

[taiwanluthiers]

Yea, tell that to Liberals... assault weapons are already restricted under the NFA regs.

Edited December 1, 2014 by taiwanluthiers

[Blaster5337]

I agree with bobosan, I can assault you with a spoon.

Lets forgo the semantics and keep it real, all of my weapons are assault weapons if I so choose for them to be!

It's all about an individual's accountability and responsibility, it has nothing to do with the weapon it self.

[taiwanluthiers]

SKS can accept detachable box magazines, but it isn't normally supplied with one. I don't think I have ever seen a full auto SKS.

[Bobosan]

SKS can accept detachable box magazines, but it isn't normally supplied with one. I don't think I have ever seen a full auto SKS.

 

If you don't thoroughly clean the cosmoline out of the bolt, you can get an unintended FA SKS.

[Jakenbake]

+1 Bob

as soon as the slide drops

[PyroAce]

Is this even possible? EXACTO Demonstrates First-Ever Guided .50-Caliber Bullets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8Z2MDYX3g

[Nessalco]

Hmm - a thread about the military that turns into one about gun ownership. Imagine that.

 

How many folks out there served?

 

Kevin OClassen

USAF 1973-1977

[PyroAce]

Hmm - a thread about the military that turns into one about gun ownership. Imagine that.

 

How many folks out there served?

 

Kevin OClassen

USAF 1973-1977

I haven't served, but my time may come depending on what the future holds. I have automatic respect for anyone that has served in the armed forces, the commitment, dedication and sacrifice which is made is what allows a lot of the world to sleep safely at night.

 

Kevin do you mind sharing any of your experiences with us? I can also understand if you don't wan't to because I am sure you may have seen some messed up things, I know one of the older men at work does not like to talk much about his Vietnam experiences, I am beginning to think he may have accidently killed a civilian or something along those lines and the last thing I would wan't to do is have him relive it.

It's normally the stories that you never hear about from the indivduals that are the most interesting as opposed to the popular ones that Hollywood likes to over-exagerate.

[dagabu]

Hmm - a thread about the military that turns into one about gun ownership. Imagine that.

 

How many folks out there served?

 

Kevin OClassen

USAF 1973-1977

 

USN, 1988 to 1996, VA-42, the A6-E Intruder, BUDS and Emergency Reclamation, Plane Captain, Final Inspector, NDI and QA Qual.

 

My father and uncle served in the NAVY, my oldest two sons were ARMY, Heavy Equipment and Engineers, the third oldest served in the MARINES on the FA18 Hornet during Iraq and Afghanistan. My youngest boy is in the delayed entry program as we speak, most likely NAVY as well, aircraft and BUDS are on the wish list.

[Nessalco]

My military experiences were pretty mundane, all in all. I joined just as the Vietnam war was winding down. I served strictly in the northern tier, literally fighting the cold war, first in Maine, then Greenland, finally in Maryland. Worked as an Air Traffic Controller, which was a demanding but darned cushy job for military service. We had to learn to handle weapons, but after I left training I never had occasion to carry one.

 

My brother, on the other hand, did two tours in Nam and damned near got his ass shot off on the Liberty. You may safely assume I hold him in high esteem.

 

Kevin

[Carbon796]

ARMY

82nd ABN Div

89-95

[rogeryermaw]

They wouldn't take me. I scored high on the ASVAB but it was pre-9/11 and coming off the clinton administration. Standards were high and they were unwilling to overlook my...umm...indiscretions.

All i can claim is service for the military instead of with. I traveled the u.s. evaluating sites and installing electronic security in aviation support facilities and armories.

 

For those of you who did serve and sacrifice, you have my thanks and admiration. "Those who sleep peaceably in their beds at night, do so because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" Thank you all.

Edited December 17, 2014 by rogeryermaw

[taiwanluthiers]

I was conscripted in Taiwan, served 18 months, at an induction center.

 

My father spent 27 years in the military, retired as a Colonel. No idea what he did because he wouldn't talk about it.