The Best Light Machine Gun.

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#301

Must I say it yet again? Assult rifles are short-batrreled rifles. They are carbines. Variants of assult rifles are not short-barreled rifles (none with a long barrel anyway). Are you comprehending?

Right, I shall say it VERY SLOWLY, IN BRAILLE, AND CAPITALS, SO THAT THE HARD OF UNDERSTANDING, UNDERSTAND. :slight_smile:

THE SA80 IS AN ASSAULT RIFLE, NOT A CARBINE. IT CANNOT BE A CARBINE AS THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF IT ALSO AVAILABLE. THERE IS A CARBINE VERSION OF THE M16, THE M4.

IF THE SA80 AND M16 WERE CARBINES, THEN YOU COULDN’T HAVE CARBINE VERSIONS OF THEM COULD YOU???

LETS PUT THIS IN AMERICAN TERMS. IF I BUY A LARGE MEAL (ASSUALT RIFLE) THEN NO MATTER HOW FAT OR HUNGRY I AM FOR MORE, I CANNOT SIMPLY REFER TO IT AS A KIDS MEAL, AS THE KIDS MEAL IS ALREADY ON THE MENU, AND IS SMALLER!!

SIMILIARLY, IF THERE ARE CARBINE VERSIONS OF THE M16 AND SA80, THEY ARE NOT, THEN, CARBINES THEMSELVES, ARE THEY?

THIS WOULD NOT SIT VERY WELL WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT ASSAULT RIFLES ARE ALL CARBINES, WOULD IT??

#302

IRONINGMAN,

My contention was and is that assault rifles are effective at 600m. They are. My only stipulation is that they are not individually as accurate as one might want them to be at that range, however, during section fire, they are effective.

Do not try to twist what I have written to your own concept of reality.

I am a serving British soldier, I think I know a little better than you what the current doctrine on section fire using our assault rifle is in my army!!

#303

OH, AND WHILST I HAVE MY SPECIAL NEEDS TEACHER HAT ON; ANSWER ME THIS, IF 5.56NATO STILL RETAINS 500FT/LBS AT 600M, WHY IS THAT LIKE CHUCKING ROCKS AT PEOPLE???

#304

Personally I don’t give a crap what it is. But the site you gave states that it is a carbine assult rifle.

However, when you put a longer barrel on it, it is no longer a carbine …er assult rifle, now is it?

#305

This part of the post was not written when I posted my reply. I have never mentioned Chosin. Therefore, don’t try to put words into my mouth. Answer the points and questions brought before you.

#306

There are no stipulations. You are attempting to change the debate because you realized that you blundered when you stated that AR’s are effective at 600m, and they are not, as their manufacturers state.

Section fire has nothing to do with weather or not an AR is effective at 600m or not.

You stated that AR’s are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry. It’s not the end of the world. People make mistakes. It would have been better for you to admit your blunder than to try to change the subject 3 times and debate something hardly related to try to save face. Just suck it up.

#307

Personally I don’t give a crap what it is. But the site you gave states that it is a carbine assult rifle.

No it doesn’t. It has pictures and refers to both the AR and carbine variants.

#308

You stated that AR’s are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry.

Yes, they are.

#309

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

Personally I don’t give a crap what it is. But the site you gave states that it is a carbine assult rifle.

However, when you put a longer barrel on it, it is no longer a carbine …er assult rifle, now is it?[/quote]

NO!!! IT IS NOT A CARBINE ASSAULT RIFLE!!! THERE IS A CARBINE VARIANT YOU FUCKING BLITHERING IDIOT!! CAN YOU SERIOUSLY NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE?? HOW CAN THE MAIN WEAPON OF THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES ONLY HAVE (ACCORDING TO THAT SITE) “ONLY A FEW EVER MADE”??

#310

Enfield SA-80: L85A1 and L85A2 assault rifle (Great Britain)
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

“518 mm (442 mm in Carbine variant).”

I suppose bullpup designs come close to not being carbines.
However, that is still debatable since barrel lenght alone is not the only factor determining whether or not a weapon is a carbine:

I’ll give you that much. They are not full length barrels but something more than a typical carbine. I’ll concede that you could be considered correct on that score alone.

"Main Entry: car¡bine
Pronunciation: 'kär-"bEn, -“bIn
Function: noun
Etymology: French carabine, from Middle French carabin carabineer
1 : a short-barreled lightweight firearm orig. used by cavalry
2 : a light short-barreled repeating rifle that is used as a supplementary military arm or for hunting in dense brush”

Nonetheless, your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.

Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

#311

Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

Nope. Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees.

#312

There are no stipulations. You are attempting to change the debate because you realized that you blundered when you stated that AR’s are effective at 600m, and they are not, as their manufacturers state.

Section fire has nothing to do with weather or not an AR is effective at 600m or not.

You stated that AR’s are effective at 600m. They are not. Sorry. It’s not the end of the world. People make mistakes. It would have been better for you to admit your blunder than to try to change the subject 3 times and debate something hardly related to try to save face. Just suck it up.[/quote]

You missed out the bit about:

Do not try to twist what I have written to your own concept of reality.

I am a serving British soldier, I think I know a little better than you what the current doctrine on section fire using our assault rifle is in my army!!

You are clearly getting confused. I have not changed my position at all. I have always said that assault rifles are effective at a range of 600m during section fire. I was not the one who brought up carbines or sniper rifles. You have consistently tried to change the subject (at least you are being consistent about something).

I say again: Assault rifles are effective at ranges up to 600m when used in section fire.

I have never said any different. If you can find me saying that they are individually effective to that point please point me towards that post!

#313

I’ll give you that much. They are not full length barrels but something more than a typical carbine. I’ll concede that you could be considered correct on that score alone.

They are full length barrels, bullpup designs allow a full length barrel in a shorter overall length. :wink:

Nonetheless, your contention that assult rifles are effective at 600m is incorrect.

Effective range: about 500 meters (with SUSAT sights)

Seen, that is the effective range of the individual weapon. Not the weapon being used by a section. The round still has ample power at 600m (as mentioned), and section fire still makes up for the drop off in accuracy. We have always maintained, right back to the start, that AR’s are effective at 600m in section fire, not individually.

#314

Sorry, but I go with the manufacturer on that one. They say 500m, so I go with them. I think they know more about it that either you or I do.

There you go with section fire again. It’s simple. Assult rifles are not effective at 600m. Just because multiple men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range. :roll:

#315

Do we have to go all the way back to individual and section fire?

Ale I found your “cold fact” pun particularly cold hearted.

i never said bullets didnt penetrate coats at Chosin, I said the cold contributed to the high body count. a small aclibre bullet, kills things but so does the cold and neither is entirely reliable as a means of killing things, hence in combination.

the SA80 is a bullpup assault rifle, it is not a carbine, not all assault rifles are carbines. The M16 is an assault rifle the M4 is its variant.
the SA80 is an assault rifle, I will find some photos and you can play spot the difference. being a bullpup does not make something a carbine - Dont know if you said that but i have a hard time comprending you carbine snip assualt riddle anywaqy - especially as I have heard it nowhere else in the world!

#316

Ironman, there are at least 8 posters on this site who are in some way connected to the British Armed forces and who have all used and are competent (to varying degrees) with the SA80 assualt rifle. We are all in agreement with Tubbyboy that it is an effective weapon out to 600m in section fire. You disagree. I would respectfully suggest that we, as a group, know what we are talking about, and that you, as a sad lonely individual, do not. I suggest you crawl back into your little hole and have a wank before bed.

#317

It seems you guys keep trying that in hopes of convincing someone that an AR is effective at 600m. It’s simple: Assult rigles are not effective at 600m. Period. Shooting 1 million of them simultaneously does not make them effective either. it only means you have a better change of hitting the target, and hopefully somewhere like the eyeball, so you can kill him with a single round, which is the “desired effect” of the maximum effective range. lol

#318

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

Sorry, but I go with the manufacturer on that one. They say 500m, so I go with them. I think they know more about it that either you or I do.

There you go with section fire again. It’s simple. Assult rifles are not effective at 600m. Just because multiple men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range. :roll:[/quote]

And that is where you are wrong.

otherwise would a section commander tell his entire section to fire on a target, its to increase the chance of a hit.
though of course on COD this would lessen your “kill ratio” maybe you dont do that then.

#319

it only means you have a better change of hitting the target,

sounds pretty damn effective to me!

If IRONINGMAN he walks away now he might have enough dignity left to drag himself into a corner before he dies!

If you do come back the first thing you should tell me is what happens at Metre 501! the point at which an individual rifle bullet becomes ineffective

#320

There you go with section fire again. It’s simple. Assult rifles are not effective at 600m. Just because multiple men can shoot one at a something 100m beyond thier effective maximum range does not make the weapon effective at that range. Rolling Eyes

IN THAT CASE: Answer me this, if a 5.56 NATO round is retaining 500ft/lbs at 600m, why is it not effective?? why does it have to hit someone in the eye to kill them. That is more power than if you shot someone a foot away with a 9mm pistol. It is more power than your precious .30carbine round has at 250m at chosin.

ANSWER MY QUESTION.