Even the dog starts playing... he's not bad at it but a paw loser...

Even the dog starts playing... he's not bad at it but a paw loser...

I love his expression, lol.

"This? This. This is what you are doing up here? Playing with toys? Jesus Wept."

When your wife says she is leaving you for another man and your first thought is I can can play more xwing

Not a ture story but if I had your dog I wouldn't need a wife

Not a ture story but if I had your dog I wouldn't need a wife

heheh

My dogs are frankly awesome. Been very well trained as pups and *very* clever. While Rupe (the hound in the pic) can't quite grasp xwing I have taught him to 'header' soft footballs back at me

He was really interested to see what Simon and I were doing with stuff on the table (there he knows food normally resides) and jumped up on the chair to have a look, he watched for a bit but i think it looked a bit dull to him compared to 'chase the other dog like a mentalist' , that's his current favourite game.

What's up with the G3 in the background?

It's actually awaiting me sending it off to a prize winner.

I'm the assistant editor on 'Airsoft Action' magazine and I reviewed it for the mag (and used it in a 80s Bundeswehr kit article) and its been sitting around the house until the winner in our compo sent us his address.

Sadly, i'm going to have to send it away tomorrow. Which is a shame as it is a cracking AEG.

Something tells me an Airsoft equivalent won't have quite the same effective range as a genuine .308.

No, it's a little less kick than 7.62 NATO as well

I do a lot of re-enactment as well so have a house full of de-acs and AEGs but I've had no desire to ever have a firearm in my hands again since leaving the army.

We used to have *these*.. alright if you look after them, terrible if you're a poor soldier. The new ones are apparently great but we were still using the A1 back in my time.

Eh, the M4 isn't all that spectacular either. Not in its current, standard issue form. I'd always hoped the Army would invest in piston driven kits, but making smart decisions isn't exactly their forte.

"]Even the dog starts playing... he's not bad at it but a paw loser...

I demand this thread be locked and deleted for that pun and it's hideous crimes against the English language.

Did the dog win? Can you ask him what he would do against Defenders?

Eh, the M4 isn't all that spectacular either. Not in its current, standard issue form. I'd always hoped the Army would invest in piston driven kits, but making smart decisions isn't exactly their forte.

Don't get me started. STANAG agreements meant we had to use the M109 round (or a UK equiv) in our rifles (which caused some of the early problems), it was *designed* for the UK SAA80 round which is essentially 5.56 with the penetration of 7.62 (or almost).

The problem was is destroyed M4s and M16 platforms from what i recall being told. Something to do with it creating too much pressure.

wandering dangerously off thread here but this is a link to an old video we were shown back in the day during training (generally to try and get you to understand why hiding behind brick walls was never such a good idea). It's a little 'dry' as all training stuff is but if you've an interest in small arms it may be worth watching.

For those of you that cant be bothered its a comparison of US 5.56, UK 5.56 and Soviet 5.45 being used to riddle to pieces various types of cover and showing how much penetration is achieved.

Anyway... yeah.. defenders... rupert chews em up and spits em out!

Eh, the M4 isn't all that spectacular either. Not in its current, standard issue form. I'd always hoped the Army would invest in piston driven kits, but making smart decisions isn't exactly their forte.

Don't get me started. STANAG agreements meant we had to use the M109 round (or a UK equiv) in our rifles (which caused some of the early problems), it was *designed* for the UK SAA80 round which is essentially 5.56 with the penetration of 7.62 (or almost).

The problem was is destroyed M4s and M16 platforms from what i recall being told. Something to do with it creating too much pressure.

wandering dangerously off thread here but this is a link to an old video we were shown back in the day during training (generally to try and get you to understand why hiding behind brick walls was never such a good idea). It's a little 'dry' as all training stuff is but if you've an interest in small arms it may be worth watching.

For those of you that cant be bothered its a comparison of US 5.56, UK 5.56 and Soviet 5.45 being used to riddle to pieces various types of cover and showing how much penetration is achieved.

Anyway... yeah.. defenders... rupert chews em up and spits em out!

Hardcore(the dog not the gun stuff)

The UK 5.56mm has a heavier projectile, 15 grains more I believe. That is not the problem and also does not provide greater penetration, it's worse. The propellant is also different and uses slower burning. That works fine in a piston but not a gas tube like the US rifles. This problem with slower propellant is compounded if you are using it in M4 instead of a M16 length.

There is nothing wrong With A M4/16. As with all weapons maintenance and care makes all the difference. There are lots of fine choices out there but training and experience if better than the flashiest rifle.

After educating myself on us 556 rounds and the science behind how it's supposed to maximize damage against personnel I honestly think more straight forward munitions are better.

But there are soo many variations now we could go on for eons about the semantics....

One round is not better than the other, think of it more as using the right nail for the hammer you are using.

"]Even the dog starts playing... he's not bad at it but a paw loser...

I demand this thread be locked and deleted for that pun and it's hideous crimes against the English language.

Did the dog win? Can you ask him what he would do against Defenders?

Is it even a pun? Paw sounds nothing like sore. Perhaps had he said that the dogs first games have been ruff. Or maybe even that the dog's strategies gave him paws.

I think it was supposed to be a substitute for 'poor.'

I think it was supposed to be a substitute for 'poor.'

Right...a pun...but cannot support.

The UK 5.56mm has a heavier projectile, 15 grains more I believe. That is not the problem and also does not provide greater penetration, it's worse. The propellant is also different and uses slower burning. That works fine in a piston but not a gas tube like the US rifles. This problem with slower propellant is compounded if you are using it in M4 instead of a M16 length.

There is nothing wrong With A M4/16. As with all weapons maintenance and care makes all the difference. There are lots of fine choices out there but training and experience if better than the flashiest rifle.

When I went to Afghanistan ('05) we kept having weapons malfunctions, and only found out later that we had been issued British ammo. It makes sense in retrospect, since - if I recall properly - our M4s were suffering failures to cycle.

One round is not better than the other, think of it more as using the right nail for the hammer you are using.

If I understand properly, we (America) have been obsessed with accuracy since at least the '70s, which is the only real benefit of .223 beyond increased capacity and decreased carry weight. I have no issues hitting a stationary target at 300 meters, but I'd be hard-pressed to do the same with a 7.62 beyond 100. Now that we've progressed beyond 'Nam to seemingly perpetual urban warfare, it probably wouldn't hurt to shift paradigms again.

I think the U.S. would be much better off with 6.8. Hefty round with solid accuracy, last I checked.

Note UK ammo doesnt have better penetration... i *WOULD* have had better penetration if we used the round designed for the L85a1

As i've said we had to change to a different round as we couldnt get it to work with US rifles.

The video is demonstrating a round that was *supposed* to be in service and was then recalled.

The whole NATO optimal round thing is coming full circle as well.

Post WWII the British invented an assault rifle that, at the time was a world beater, the EM2. It was selective fire, had a 4x sight fitted, large magazine and firing .280.

The problem was that the US were inisting on the 7.62 for their entry as 'NATO standard' and pushed very heavily for it. They got their way but there was no way the EM2 could be easily adapted to this calibre so NATO went with 7.62. The us chose the M14 as its platform for it, the rest of NATO took either Cetme/G3 variants or Belgian Fn FAL variants. The UK chose a semi auto version of the FAL (the L1a1 SLR) as we (rightly) believed that 7.62 was pretty uncontrolable on full auto in a rifle of that weight/mass and with out emphasis on marksmanship we just didnt need it.

Anyway, roll on vietnam and the US realised that not only was 7.62 total overkill in an m14 and really hrd to control but that it was a really heavy round to hump about too.. hence the pressure on NATO to switch to 5.56... this created more problems as 5.56 isnt ranged and penetrating enough for a decent section light machine gun or a medium machine gun so you end up carrying two calibres on patrol anyway.

I worked briefly doing a display/presentation at the UK small arms school in Schrivenham and i was talking to the instructors there and they were saying that post afghan experience has led NATO to realise that lightening the weight of the rifle is a dead end (you dont have sufficient mass to absorb the recoil and if you take several grammes off the weight of the rifle soldiers just pack more stuff they dont need) and a lot of research has gone into the 'optimal round'

At the point in time i had this convo the US DOD were adamant that the new 'optimal' NATO round we really *should* be using is 7mm... what's 7mm you ask... well .280. Pretty much what we said in 1947

However the point of this long derailment is that soldiers out there rarely get what they need, they get what the armanents industry want to sell to the politicians.

I think the U.S. would be much better off with 6.8. Hefty round with solid accuracy, last I checked.

See my edit... the DOD believed (at least a couple of years ago) that 7mm was the optimum. The MOD had been pushing for this in 1947.

Even the dog starts playing... he's not bad at it but a paw loser...

Dog Walks the Biggs?

But what about the BIG question, did the dog win?

Most military calibers hover right around the .30 mark, but say one 7mm is night and day compared to another 7mm. There are so many aspects of each particular round to consider not the mention the weapon platform they are intended for. I've honestly never felt lacking no matter what caliber/weapon I was carrying. Some certainly are more favored than others but that too is subjective to personal taste. But if I had to choose one round only factoring in weight, range, penetration, availability, tactical use/terrain, etc.. all common battle use factors, I would choose a 7.62mm NATO.

I saw both wars in Iraq and the second one I was a contractor for a few well known PMC's. Know what we carried? 5.56mm semi-autos. We did have some other weapons available also but the standard issue weapon was a civilian M4forgery in 5.56mm NATO. Worked just fine every time.

My hound dog won't play X-wing, he just chews the ships...