Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "What Will Replace The British L85A2 SA80?" video.

  1. +ThePaint kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared, halved. aka KE= (1/2 * m * v^2)
    2
  2. "you need only one 7.62 slag instead of 3 5.56" the fucking stowed kills argument, jesus christ
    2
  3. +Mockturtlesoup1 you have to consider that a peer enemy will be using helmet and a flak/kevlar vest holding the plates. Those don't stop rifle rounds in the first few hundred meters, but if you take a shot at the edge of your effective range for point targets, or within the effective range of area targets, your bullet loses energy and there will be a chance that a vest/helmet stops it.
    1
  4. +Álvaro Chena a lot of former special forces and people in the training industry claim it's not a good combat rifle. It's a fine civilian shooter but if you're in the middle of a carbine class and it goes down, it's a fucker to bring back. Not me saying this, but there's a Primary and Secondary podcast where former SOF, former military, current instructors, etc dismiss it as a subpar combat rifle.
    1
  5. +jarvy251 it's fine because most soldiers who touched bullpups in service either never touched another military rifle in their lifetime or got the privilege of shooting someone else's rifle from another country in joint exercises so their bullpup was the weapon they used 99.99% of the time. No bias at all there.
    1
  6. +The Crimson Fucker green tips are only effective versus the NATO plate test and at piercing soft armor/kevlar helmets. Now the modern M855A1 "bronze tip" is an excellent penetrator at fast speeds and it fragments better than green tips.
    1
  7. But bronze tips are the new standard ammo... it's replacing M855, I don't know if they've burned through the whole stock or if they've stopped buying but right now it's M855A1 that the Army gets and the Marines will have to replace the Mk318 for A1 bronze tips as well. By the way NATO plate only refers to the test, it's not worn as armor. As armor it's not worth a shit, it's just a 3.5mm steel plate. NATO had requirements for a bullet that could penetrate it at 600 meters and SS109/M855 delivered. It's like when FN and HK were developing 5.7 and 4.6 ammunition NATO asked for a round that penetrated the CRISAT target at 200 meters. It's 1.6mm titanium and 20 layers of Kevlar, nobody in NATO wears that, it's meant to simulate Russian helmets I think.
    1
  8. You're missing the point. Bronze tip is the new standard introduced in the early 2010's. Green tip was the standard. Green tip 62gr has shit armor penetration because it's slower than 55gr and the steel is mild. Literally nobody is running around with 3.5mm steel taped to their chest, and I'm pretty sure that Somali and Syrian fighters can get surplus Russian shit anyway (which they do). I'd assume it's more about Cold War steel helmets and vehicle panels. "NATO plate" and CRISAT are just tests and it has absolutely no bearing on who is shooting at who - it's just a standard so that bullets can be evaluated fairly. That's all there is to is. Issuing green tips would do nothing versus steel or ceramic armor plates, we've already issued them as standard. Americans made bronze M855A1 tip the standard. Brits already used SS109-style projectiles (steel penetrator and lead base) with a thicker jacket to prevent fragmentation, and they have switched to an all steel L31A1 EP. I don't know much about it but the EP is for Enhanced Penetration so logically I would assumed it's better than green tip. We've moved past green tip. That's all I was trying to say.
    1
  9. You said they should issue green tips as standard...
    1
  10. +Matsimus one of the requirements to replace 7.62x51mm was equal lethality. When 5.56 got to South Vietnam, they called 5.56 a meat axe because due to unknown ballistic phenomenons, it created wounds that appeared to "blow up" inside tissue. They actually thought that 5.56 had brought increased lethality. The US had fought human waves in Korea and guerrillas in Vietnam, which did not have the ability to evac their wounded. Even if the Cold War went hot the Russians would not be able to transport and care for all their wounded due to logistics. Why would the US choose a round to wound in an attempt to tie up resources that the enemies possibly didn't have?
    1