Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Recoil analysis of the 6.8mm NGSW" video.

  1. The SPC was designed with the AR magwell in mind. These won't fit the AR magwell.
    4
  2.  @Dominik189  The information is limited distribution only so we can't get the details, but army chief of staff claims it punches through any plate in existence today. True or not, the pendulum always swings. Armor can't stay ahead of the arms race between protection and penetration forever. From what I understand if tungsten were to be used in the core it would be easy but making billions of bullets with tungsten cores would deplete strategic reserves, so they need the new round to use less expensive materials. I'm optimistic and don't buy the "can't be done, we shouldn't even try" rhetoric. My only issue is that 5.56 should still be the issued caliber while 6.8 weapons are used in DMRs and machine guns.
    2
  3.  @ambjornborjesson5481  No, it just makes a weapon heavier and longer than it would normally be because of the added bolt travel.
    2
  4.  @charles18879  It was weaker than the new 6.8.
    2
  5.  @cocopud  5.56 only started having problems with terminal effectiveness when shot out of shorter barrels and with subpar bullet designs (M855). The firefights in Afghanistan were happening at outside rifleman range. The military was at fault for having such little organic fire support in a theater where the enemy purposefully sat outside 5.56 range because of how effective the 5.56 paired with a M4/M16 was. We've learned this lesson multiple times - we're not doing anything by issuing a caliber we already know most riflemen can't hit at. "decent modern body armour is resistant to it" - Modern body armor is resistant to all conventional ball ammo shot out of standard issue rifles, not just 5.56. That's why a new bullet design with overpressured loads was required to bust them. Humans are not IFVs or tanks. Ammo that can't bust plates will still break a femur into pieces and cripple a soldier running from cover to cover. Plus there's an issue that remains. If there's a near-peer threat that forces the US to use the plate-busting rifle, you can be damned sure that the enemy will outsmart the United States by removing the plates from their armor and just run around with fragmentation protection. The added mobility will make them perform better in combat with really no downside because the US can kill them wearing plates. Meanwhile the American soldier will be dealing with lower hit probability for no added benefit.
    2
  6.  @cocopud  Exactly. All 5.56 replacements failed, until busting plates became a necessity. There's a use case for the new 6.8, there weren't for the previous attempts of extending the range of intermediate rifles. By the way, last time I checked, and I haven't checked in a while, the NGSW proposal is only for like 120,000-150,000 weapons I think. They're not actually changing calibers right now. They're probably going to issue the new rifle to quick reaction forces deploying overseas in danger of facing plates.
    2
  7. No, they use 5.45, and 5.8.
    1
  8. They're literally gearing up for a Pacific island hopping campaign and defeating Russian plates. 5.56 wasn't a problem. Not giving organic long range weaponry to troops was a problem.
    1
  9. Desert Tech is ran by a cult that is involved in child abuse and welfare fraud.
    1
  10. You're not taking one or two well aimed shots. You'll send several shots at an obscured target. Maybe you move. Someone on the other side gets up and runs. You shoot. Miss. Adjust. Shoot. Miss. Adjust. Shoot. Hit. Guy falls down. You plug him three more times to make sure you didn't just hit the plate. Then you move. Another multiple shots at an obscured target. Repeat. Fast follow ups are imporant.
    1
  11. This round is too big for the AR.
    1
  12.  @adamdepasacreta3137  This isn't 6.8 SPC. This round is bigger than SPC and 7.62x39.
    1
  13. Armor is currently winning the arms race. Modern armor requires a core that won't fit the 5.56.
    1
  14. Doesn't cut it.
    1
  15. This isn't SPC.
    1
  16. Ceramic isn't defeated like steel. The 20" barrel trick only works against AR500 plates and whatnot.
    1
  17.  @Dominik189  I don't see how that's relevant. Hitting someone in combat is rare, hitting them in the plate 6 times is nonsense. Plus I've seen a picture of a tested plate that shows that the ceramic in the Russian plates is divided in tiles so that even if a tile shatters, you'll need to hit the same tile again to defeat it which is extremely hard at 300-400 yards. Unfortunately this video is like 10 years old so all the new tests done by youtubers seem to have buried it, but there was a company that showed off their ceramic plate taking like 30 shots before failing. It was 32 if I'm not mistaken.
    1
  18. It's not about felt recoil. It's about hit probability. Go tell both the American and Russian armies that they shouldn't be shooting firearms. They've studied this subject long and hard. The less recoil, the more hits.
    1
  19. You're so wrong it's almost laughable. Russia had zero convenience in adopting 5.45, but they did it anyway because of increased hit ratios. You hit more, you kill more. While you brag about how much recoil you're handling the enemy can put multiple rounds on target and end you. Are you here to prove how much of a man you are, or to win?
    1
  20.  @Retarior  "Russian had actuaely some serious doubts about adopting 5,45" - But they did anyway. 7.62 is in limited service and only for barrier penetration. "Hit ratios, yeah right... only in perfect conditions though" - Perfect conditions is exactly what is necessary to use full rifle calibers. Known distance, known wind, known running speed, perfect posture, etc. In the field achieving hits with larger calibers is terribly difficult which is exactly why intermediate calibers became a thing. "larger caliber doesnt require you to land so many shots to a man hyped on adrenallin to take him down" - The vast majority of shots will not hit any targets at all in combat. 99.99% of shots fired are misses. Trying to save on shots that are statistically unlikely screws you over because of the thousands of rounds you'll need to send into the dirt for every kill. "Its predicted miraculous effects were never safely confirmed" - Except they have. "Its 50:50" - So they have been at least partially confirmed by your own admission, directly contradicting your statement before. Either way, the 50:50 nature of 5.56 comes from M855 and M855 alone. The inconsistent performance only has a weak bullet design to blame. If not for M855, you'd never hear about 5.56 complaints. "You just have to man up to learn how to handle new caliber" - This is not about manning up. This is about the amount of rounds carried into combat. This is about how fast aim can be readjusted in combat. While you brag about how much of a man you are, your enemy is outgunning you and able to put two rounds on target before you're even done recovering from the recoil. You can't fight physics. "Even the 5,45x39 has more juice" - What a joke. It's around 1,300 joule while 5.56 M855A1 carries around 1,800 joule. "more power behing heavier projectile too" - The heavier 5.45 AP round is 57gr. Both M855 and M855A1 are 62gr. Not to mention Mk 262 which is 77gr. 5.45 is both weaker and lighter. "The 6,8x46 Rem. Spc" - It was literally dropped by SOCOM because it was not performing well in Afghanistan. 6.8 SPC is dead. "or even better 6,5x39 Grendel" - Unsuitable for military use. Shoulder angle, less case taper than 7.62 and lack of internal volume to handle tracer rounds or steel cores automatically disqualify it from military service.
    1
  21.  @Retarior  "You are full of it :-D , but, what ever makes you sleep better at night man :-)" - No argument. That's admission of defeat. "The 5,56x45 has been observed as to having insuffitcient effect on living mass, period" - Google "kenosha arm". Tell me that's insufficient effect on living mass. "It cant even properly down a Buck on many occasions" - Apples to trains, 5.56 is meant to be shot at thin-skinned two legged animals. Also, people have dropped bucks with 5.7 and .22LR. Seems like a "you" problem. "I really dont know in what world you live in" - In the real one. Where 5.56 has been studied to hell and back and nothing else is good enough to replace it with. "so everything that has been droped by the army is proof that its not doing well right? How naive :-D" - If you think people who kill people for a living and were testing a whole new caliber for themselves because they are allowed to just dropped 6.8 SPC for no reason you're the naive one. 6.8 SPC's military adoption is essentially limited to short range guard duty with light-for-caliber Speer Gold Dot hollow points. "I dont have such issues handling recoil" - Nobody cares. "[video of short range firing]" - Okay. Now show them taking shots at people running full sprint from 400 meters away. "According to your description, I should have been blind and unable to hit anything." - Strawman argument. More admissions of defeat. "Its really not that bigger difference as you are trying to imply, that is just hillarious." - Big enough difference that the Russian army figured out 5.45 hit rates were superior. "Then use .22Lr" - Again a strawman argument. 22LR has insufficient speed and mass. It doesn't have the flat trajectory of 5.56, it doesn't beat the wind like 62gr bullets and the bullet has no terminal effects if it has to punch through kevlar, sheet steel or auto glass. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't make this ridiculous argument. "The 5,45x39 is really more stable" - I don't even understand what you mean by stable. What stability are you referring to? Fleet yaw? "As if 5,56 had enough internal volume, you are shooting your own foot with that argument" - It fits steel core/penetrator rounds (M855/M855A1) and tracer rounds. So it has the internal volume. Grendel prioritizes accuracy over reliability and military bullets, switching lead for steel either means longer bullet which conflicts with internal capacity, or lighter bullet which means light-for-caliber ballistics. That's shooting your own foot. Take a cartridge that was designed for one thing and then make it worse. "weight" - heavier than 5.45, which you claim to be superior. "TKO index" - TKO index is a joke. By the TKO index, if you touch the ice in a glacier you die instantly. It's very slow, but the sheer mass will impact you with a huge TKO factor. "The 5,56x45 is a crap round" - Repeating things doesn't make you right.
    1
  22.  @Retarior  1. An arm that nearly got ripped off by 5.56. Yes, I've seen other injuries. Heads split open like melons. X-ray of a femur obliterated by 5.56. Gunshots are ugly. First you say 5.56 doesn't do anything to meat. Now you say it's ugly but anything is ugly. You've conceded the point. 2. Then what is the point? Again, you are wrong. The elongation of the 222 cartridge was performed for MILITARY trials. It was made for people, not critters. When Stoner and others managed to make their 222 cartridge penetrate HELMETS (not many foxes wear helmets in the wild) there were overpressure concerns and Remington solved them. They renamed their 222 Special cartridge 223 Remington because there were other 222 cartridges competing in the MILITARY trials. 3. "Russian army never officialy dropped the usage of 7,62x39" - But in practice, they are a 5.45 force. So who cares about what's official? "You know that the 5,45 has more chubby casing right?" - The bullet is lighter and comes out the barrel slower. "Yet the fact that it travells with a slightly slover speed makes it more steady ;-)" - Provide source. "creates less counter-force during flight" - The bullet is also lighter which means it has less inertia against the drag. "why they are abandoning them now, that armour has advanced so much within last 20 years" - Countering armor is a silly proposal. If you counter armor, enemy stops wearing it. Now you're the one carrying heavier weapons, heavier ammo and heavier armor while your enemy runs circles around you without tiring. Russia is developing armor, but not fielding calibers to defeat it. It's a trap. Just like Reagan's Star Wars. 4. I didn't avoid anything. Stop lying. You're showing short range engagements where you can fire as fast as you want and still be accurate. But in real life it's miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss and finally hit. Then your opponent trips and falls. Then hit, hit, hit to make sure you're not hitting armor plates. And to do that, the lighter the recoil the easier it will be. If the same SA58 was chambered in 5.56, it would recoil even less which means doing the same firing drills with the same accuracy, but at a longer range. Firing a 7.62 at a distance you could kill someone with a thrown spear doesn't prove anything. That's why in Russian and even American trials, 7.62 is almost equal to 5.45 in hit probability up close, but 5.45 vastly increases hit probability from 300m and beyond. 5. Provide an actual argument. You're saying a lot of things and none of them address what's been said. Grendel has less case taper than 7.62 NATO which is a problem for reliability, and so is the shoulder angle. Right there you can see, it was a cartridge designed for civilian paper shooters. The usage of military ammo requires being able to use steel (even the future 6.8 projectile will use EPR construction, like M80A1 and M855A1) and steel is not as dense as lead, which means longer bullet. Tracer rounds have the burning compound at the rear, which is less dense than steel even and thus makes the bullet even longer. This robs case capacity that doesn't allow the use of the most ballistically efficient bullets in Grendel. 6. At 300 meters 7.62x39 is doing 1600-1500 fps depending on ammo while 5.56 is still above 2000 fps. "That destabilizes the bullet during the flight" - Wrong. In fact 5.56 is stable from 300m onwards (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530895.pdf page number 42 of the report, page 54 on pdf reader) and only starts to destabilize at 600m. "I never had much issues to just slide sights a bit higher" - This is ridiculous. You don't get to "slide" sights when you need to take a snap shot at a target that thinks "I'm up, they see me, I'm down". He'll be in cover and safe by the time you set the sights. Not to mention it would require accurate distance judgement every time. Flatter trajectories increase hit rates. Nobody cares who you are or what you did. You're just one person. You only think of yourself. But you need to think about the people next to you. 7. They're not "prototypes". They're fully developed. They had their chance, they blew it.
    1
  23.  @Retarior  Fine. 120gr Sierra HPBT MatchKing, 27 grains of powder, 2490 fps that's 1650 ft.lbs = 2237 J. 110 gr case + 120 gr bullet + 27 gr powder, that's 257 gr or 16.65 grams for the entire cartridge not counting the primer. 134.35 joule per gram of ammo carried. Cartridge weight for M855 is around 12 grams. At 2950 fps that's 1635 joule at the muzzle. 136.25 joule per gram of ammo carried. There's no such thing as free lunch. All that extra energy is just going into the dirt 99.99% of the shots fired. And you're carrying less of it. And missing more. The army with 5.56 will still have a couple mag's worth of ammo and your army on 6.5 will have run out. It will be a massacre.
    1
  24.  @Retarior  You have been proven wrong multiple times. We're not just talking about differences of opinion, you outright posted incorrect things that were either lies or just ignorance. Now that you got called out, you have to go away. Typical. Is it me who's crying? Then why is it you running to the corner to cry on?
    1
  25.  @Retarior  a) I have proven you wrong with numbers alone. b) you said 5.56 had lighter bullets than 5.45, now you're pretending you didn't say it. 1. And how many of those records are from people missing their shot? Plenty of people also think .30 Carbine can't penetrate a coat because they fired in a panic. 2. There's no mass manufactured bullets with those effects, which means they might as well not exist, and their construction makes them worse for military use. 3. This has been proven before you were even born. Your "proof"? VHS quality video of people blasting targets at spitting range. 4. I never claimed it was flawless. Another strawman, another admission of defeat. 5. Not an argument. "armies are not doing arget shooting." - Target shooting is where big calibers win. Known distance, perfect posture, wind vanes, pearl white spray painted targets. "but from 100m onwards it sucks" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeNR4YDbwR0 M855A1 at reduced velocity equivalent to 215 meters "You do relaize, that you still cary only certain number of spare magazines and not more right?" - And you carry less magazines with 7.62 NATO. For example to carry 7.62 NATO you need 9 magazines of 20 rounds to carry the same number that 6 magazines of 30 do. "The only thing it affects is the weight of those magazines." - False. Cartridge weight for 7.62 NATO is 392 gr, while 5.56 is 190gr. "And nobody spoke about the need to shoot more rounds." - Again, armies will shoot 20 to 50 THOUSAND rounds per casualty they inflict. You ALWAYS need to shoot more rounds. "Easy, when 7,62 you need just 1 hit in place where you need 2-3 from 5,56... so? Whats the point?" - No. You will need to fire several hundred, if not thousands, of rounds before you hit a man in combat. If war was one shot one kill, there would be no veterans because everyone would die. The vast majority of rounds goes into the dirt. While you pray for a one hit, there's 5.56 flying over your head. Let's see you aim a careful shot with a 5.56 flying at you. "when you usuaely hit anyone with 7,62 the energy transfer is significantly higher" - If you use civilian expanding bullets. 7.62x39 is known for being awful at energy transfer. In the 1989 Stockton shooting 35 people were wounded by 124gr 7.62x39, and 30 survived. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a233190.pdf Medical analysis of 7.62x39 non-expanding bullets shows it makes handgun-like wounds. "5,56 caliber has been surpased at close range by 4,6x30 or 5,7 calibers" - Absolutely false. 5.7 is anemic compared to rifle rounds. "in this short reportage from 2007" - Instead of a short report, here's 15 minutes of Chuck Pressburg, former Ranger and Delta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sh1gNW4yeI "Im able to down a wild boar in a run over 100kg of weight with army surplus 7,62x39" - Exactly. How many 100kg humans are running around in combat? Boars have thick hides and are better suited to deep penetrating rounds. That deep penetrating round does handgun damage to humans. "I really dont have to use specialized hunting round... and when I do" - The military can't do that. You're resorting to civilian arguments to talk about combat.
    1
  26. Constant recoil helps with full auto fire by delivering a constant push rather than the weapon rattling in your hands and throwing off your aim. In semi-auto you can adjust your firing cadence to always realign the sights so as long as your weapon isn't overgassed and the bolt is slamming back, there won't be a difference.
    1
  27. Modern armor requires a heavy core.
    1
  28. It doesn't have anywhere near the same stats. It comes out the muzzle at almost a thousand fps faster~and has almost the double max pressure.
    1
  29. This isn't SPC.
    1
  30. Already tried, sucked in Afghanistan and SOCOM went back to 5.56. Any round that fits the M4 won't bust Russian plates.
    1
  31. Current meta isn't fastest speed (like in steel) but high enough speed and big ass core. A heavy core smacks the plate. A light and fast core won't be as good.
    1
  32. Grendel won't cut it.
    1
  33.  @SmkAslt  I figure because 6.5 Creedmore was tested as a DMR cartridge and even that's not going far. Grendel is a compromise caliber that fits the AR. What the military is looking for won't fit the AR. Why did you link me to 6.8 SPC? 6.8 SPC might be a fine civilian hunting caliber when you can use hollow points and live in a state where 5.56 can't be used on deer, or even a checkpoint guard short range rifle, but it's a garbage military round. SOCOM issued it, thought it was garbage in Afghanistan and dropped it in favor of 5.56. So why is 6.8 SPC even in this conversation? Again, it's another compromise caliber that fits the AR. They're not looking for anything that fits the AR.
    1
  34.  @SmkAslt  No, 6.8 SPC is not the new military round. You're the one confused. I'm talking about 6.5 Creedmore because 1. the military tested it for DMR purposes and 2. because it isn't an AR-15 platform cartridge. This new cartridge isn't an AR-15 platform cartridge. It won't fit. 6.8 isn't a middle ground. It's damned near full rifle power. Of course the video isn't about Creedmore. You said Grendel. I said, buddy not even Creedmore is good enough and you think Grendel is gonna cut it? I already read that, years ago. You're not the first to look into the topic. You're the one with no clue what you're talking about if you think 6.8 SPC is the new cartridge.
    1
  35.  @SmkAslt  This video isn't about 6.8 SPC. Please pay attention. Read.
    1
  36. Not really. Everyone figured out a long time ago less recoil = more hits. Even the Russians realized 5.45 was superior to 7.62 because soldiers scored more hits.
    1
  37. With equal training, troops firing low recoil rounds will be deadlier due to increased hit probability and increased carrying capacity.
    1
  38. Reality cares. Troops firing lower recoil rounds are more accurate than troops firing higher recoil rounds. You might not "care", but you will be facing a force that will be slotting your friends left and right and carry almost twice the ammunition.
    1
  39.  @para_magnus2200  How was it better? 140gr at 2,500 fps? Jeez.
    1
  40. Doesn't help in semi-auto.
    1
  41.  @Mitsurugi2424  I know all about KAC. Constant recoil is useful for machine guns but not semi-auto rifles. Military issue rifles also recoil the way they do by design. When the AK was competing with the AB, the AB rifle was made to be a very soft shooter while the AK was overgassed. This meant the AB was more accurate in trials because of better recoil recovery, but it jammed more often. The Russian military prioritized the reliability of the AK even at the cost of an overgassed weapon. For the same reason, a slightly overgassed AR is preferable to the military than a tuned SR-15. KAC does a wonderful job. But the military is going to twist their nose at trying to minimize recoil that way when they could just give he bolt a little more gas to push through friction in the action.
    1
  42.  @Mitsurugi2424  "I simply said KAC makes weapons that don't have the exact issues" - KAC to my knowledge has never made a rifle for the NGSW program. "the AK won out because of its simplicity and price more than its reliability" - The historical record is very clear on the reliability being a main concern. "So it was innovated for its time" - It's literally a Garand bolt. "no more(arguably less) reliable than the even the original m16 or car15" - Military weapons gassed for reliability rather than for recoil.
    1
  43.  @Mitsurugi2424  Then you can't claim KAC makes weapons that address the issues, because they've never shot the caliber that's generating these issues. It's a good rifle. It's objectively still a good design.
    1
  44. It would deplete the US reserves of tungsten.
    1
  45. Won't do any good versus modern armor.
    1
  46. Low recoil is not nicety. Literally makes troops deadlier by increasing hit probability. And hits kill. Misses don't. Plus smaller ammo means more carrying capacity. Easier to kill with, and more rounds means more killing.
    1
  47.  @cocopud  I did read it. If one can't cheat physics, training can't cheat physics either. Stopping power doesn't exist.
    1
  48. You can be sure that they complained, but war propaganda wouldn't let you see that.
    1
  49. Rapid follow up shots are always essential because most shots fired in combat are not hits. Spoiler shots are a thing, especially at unknown range, unknown wind, unknown running speed of the target, etc. Miss by a foot, adjust, hit.
    1
  50. At any kind of range low recoil is desirable. In ArmA 3 I love 5.56 weapons and hate 6.5. You have to fight the recoil so much and long distance shots do need fast follow ups.
    1
  51. This isn't about feeling. It's about effectiveness. It's proven that low recoil rounds make troops deadlier because they hit more. Remember, those Garands were phased out because everyone realized full rifle calibers were a waste during WW2. If American troops were issued M16s in WWII it would have been ridiculously effective.
    1