It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

One forum to rule them all.. sort of.
1biggun
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:57 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by 1biggun »

ba ba booey wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:11 pm
I have a retro 1/12 AR with a 20 inch barrel. The Nostalgia factor is cool, but I've wondered if it would in fact be the best choice for 55 grain 5.56 due to aforementioned (lack of) bullet stabilization


About any barrel up to a 1-12 twist will stabilize a 55 grain . not sure what your retro rifle has but its likely going to shoot the lighter stuff fine .

Its pretty easy to find out see if it key holes or not . no key hole its stabilized .
a 1-9 will shoot up to certain 75 grain Hornadys just fine .

A lot of bad info in this thread .

allesennogwat
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:15 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by allesennogwat »

MIG*7.62 wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:09 pm
allesennogwat wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:28 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:18 pm


Soooo..... your saying it’s better to be shot with a steel magazine than a polymer magazine?

What’s your view on twist rate? ;)
I remember back in the 1980's, steel magazines were preferred because when somebody with Bakelite or synthetic magazines was shot through the chest rig, the pieces of magazine didn't show up on x-ray and couldn't be located with a magnet.

Same for the ammo in the chest rig and steel case ammo was preferred.
Synthetic don't show up huh?
Weird...wonder how bone and other foreign objects do..
https://www.ensingerplastics.com/en-us/ ... ay-plastic
In answer to the often asked question, “Can you see plastic on x-ray?”, the answer is that engineering plastics do not show up well on x-ray or fluoroscopic displays, unless they have been modified in some way to make them more opaque than the surrounding substrate.

Beef Supreme
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:05 pm
Location: SHEEEIITTT

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Beef Supreme »

allesennogwat wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:35 pm
MIG*7.62 wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:09 pm
allesennogwat wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:28 pm


I remember back in the 1980's, steel magazines were preferred because when somebody with Bakelite or synthetic magazines was shot through the chest rig, the pieces of magazine didn't show up on x-ray and couldn't be located with a magnet.

Same for the ammo in the chest rig and steel case ammo was preferred.
Synthetic don't show up huh?
Weird...wonder how bone and other foreign objects do..
https://www.ensingerplastics.com/en-us/ ... ay-plastic
In answer to the often asked question, “Can you see plastic on x-ray?”, the answer is that engineering plastics do not show up well on x-ray or fluoroscopic displays, unless they have been modified in some way to make them more opaque than the surrounding substrate.
They may not jump out like a piece of metal, but believe me you can see plastic.
I see it every day.
I miss my 20 inch spinners

allesennogwat
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:15 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by allesennogwat »

Beef Supreme wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:22 pm
allesennogwat wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:35 pm
MIG*7.62 wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:09 pm


Synthetic don't show up huh?
Weird...wonder how bone and other foreign objects do..
https://www.ensingerplastics.com/en-us/ ... ay-plastic
In answer to the often asked question, “Can you see plastic on x-ray?”, the answer is that engineering plastics do not show up well on x-ray or fluoroscopic displays, unless they have been modified in some way to make them more opaque than the surrounding substrate.
They may not jump out like a piece of metal, but believe me you can see plastic.
I see it every day.
Certain plastic fragments do not show up very well and 40 years ago in a hurry to treat bullet wounds, they are easily missed, as they likely are today.

Steel has a advantage over lead and brass of being located with magnets.

Steel magazines give a slight protection advantage over plastic magazines too.

Beef Supreme
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:05 pm
Location: SHEEEIITTT

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Beef Supreme »

allesennogwat wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:46 pm
Beef Supreme wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:22 pm
They may not jump out like a piece of metal, but believe me you can see plastic.
I see it every day.
Certain plastic fragments do not show up very well and 40 years ago in a hurry to treat bullet wounds, they are easily missed, as they likely are today.

Steel has a advantage over lead and brass of being located with magnets.

Steel magazines give a slight protection advantage over plastic magazines too.
All fair points.
I miss my 20 inch spinners

yovinny
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:09 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by yovinny »

Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm
yovinny wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:58 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:21 pm


It was all about penetrating body armor, and helmets that we expected to encounter in a major conflict. The reduced soft tissue damage was considered an acceptable trade off.

Dependent on atmospheric conditions, the slow twist with the longer (heavier) projectile would result in failure to stabilize at all.

Twist rate does not affect terminal ballistics, but the orientation of the projectile on impact will.

No “guise” on the 1:7. Tracer rounds are very long, they need to spin faster to stabilize.
It wasent about body armor at all,, there was little in use then in 1980..look it up.
It was about helmet penetration,, and the test standard was the German helmet...look it up.
Projectile rotation absolutely has to do with terminal balistics,, as testing has indicated, over and over, since the first Sweden tests...look it up.

The FNC with 1:12" twist barrel passed all of Swedens penetration and accuracy testing,, it was changed to 1:9 because of instability with soft targets...Look it up..

1:9 will stabalize M856 within accuracy standards,, which if your not aware, is actually much larger and about 2.5x the M855 standard.
Tracer never has been and isent intended to match ball ammo accuracy standard,, its for use as general area spotting.
I was there- I don’t have to “look it up”. :roll:

I mentioned helmets, and body armor was STARTING to become a thing in first rate militaries. Not yet fielded in quantity, but we thought it was coming. The requirement was to “PENETRATE” the helmet/armor- by definition having to do with penetration

Tracers are significantly longer than ball rounds so they require a tighter twist to stabilize well.

Since the weight of a tracer changes over its flight, it’s not expected they’ll be particularly accurate.

The purpose of the progressively tighter twists is to stabilize the longer and longer projectile. The purpose of going to M855 was to improve penetration against lightly armored targets. The move to the longer projectile necessitated a tighter twist. The twist has nothing to do with wound profile.
Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.

Beef Supreme
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:05 pm
Location: SHEEEIITTT

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Beef Supreme »

yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm
yovinny wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:58 pm


It wasent about body armor at all,, there was little in use then in 1980..look it up.
It was about helmet penetration,, and the test standard was the German helmet...look it up.
Projectile rotation absolutely has to do with terminal balistics,, as testing has indicated, over and over, since the first Sweden tests...look it up.

The FNC with 1:12" twist barrel passed all of Swedens penetration and accuracy testing,, it was changed to 1:9 because of instability with soft targets...Look it up..

1:9 will stabalize M856 within accuracy standards,, which if your not aware, is actually much larger and about 2.5x the M855 standard.
Tracer never has been and isent intended to match ball ammo accuracy standard,, its for use as general area spotting.
I was there- I don’t have to “look it up”. :roll:

I mentioned helmets, and body armor was STARTING to become a thing in first rate militaries. Not yet fielded in quantity, but we thought it was coming. The requirement was to “PENETRATE” the helmet/armor- by definition having to do with penetration

Tracers are significantly longer than ball rounds so they require a tighter twist to stabilize well.

Since the weight of a tracer changes over its flight, it’s not expected they’ll be particularly accurate.

The purpose of the progressively tighter twists is to stabilize the longer and longer projectile. The purpose of going to M855 was to improve penetration against lightly armored targets. The move to the longer projectile necessitated a tighter twist. The twist has nothing to do with wound profile.
Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
I believe my 18” barrel AR has a 1:9 twist.
What round(s) would give me the tumble effect?
I miss my 20 inch spinners

hank327
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:09 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by hank327 »

Beef Supreme wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:09 pm
yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm


I was there- I don’t have to “look it up”. :roll:

I mentioned helmets, and body armor was STARTING to become a thing in first rate militaries. Not yet fielded in quantity, but we thought it was coming. The requirement was to “PENETRATE” the helmet/armor- by definition having to do with penetration

Tracers are significantly longer than ball rounds so they require a tighter twist to stabilize well.

Since the weight of a tracer changes over its flight, it’s not expected they’ll be particularly accurate.

The purpose of the progressively tighter twists is to stabilize the longer and longer projectile. The purpose of going to M855 was to improve penetration against lightly armored targets. The move to the longer projectile necessitated a tighter twist. The twist has nothing to do with wound profile.
Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
I believe my 18” barrel AR has a 1:9 twist.
What round(s) would give me the tumble effect?
Real M193 5.56mm 55 grain FMJ like Lake Cities or IMI will do the trick. Just be sure it is real M193 as not all 55 grain ammo is.

Porcupine
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Porcupine »

yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm
yovinny wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:58 pm


It wasent about body armor at all,, there was little in use then in 1980..look it up.
It was about helmet penetration,, and the test standard was the German helmet...look it up.
Projectile rotation absolutely has to do with terminal balistics,, as testing has indicated, over and over, since the first Sweden tests...look it up.

The FNC with 1:12" twist barrel passed all of Swedens penetration and accuracy testing,, it was changed to 1:9 because of instability with soft targets...Look it up..

1:9 will stabalize M856 within accuracy standards,, which if your not aware, is actually much larger and about 2.5x the M855 standard.
Tracer never has been and isent intended to match ball ammo accuracy standard,, its for use as general area spotting.
I was there- I don’t have to “look it up”. :roll:

I mentioned helmets, and body armor was STARTING to become a thing in first rate militaries. Not yet fielded in quantity, but we thought it was coming. The requirement was to “PENETRATE” the helmet/armor- by definition having to do with penetration

Tracers are significantly longer than ball rounds so they require a tighter twist to stabilize well.

Since the weight of a tracer changes over its flight, it’s not expected they’ll be particularly accurate.

The purpose of the progressively tighter twists is to stabilize the longer and longer projectile. The purpose of going to M855 was to improve penetration against lightly armored targets. The move to the longer projectile necessitated a tighter twist. The twist has nothing to do with wound profile.
Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
Oh FFS just stop.

The point is TWIST RATE IS NOT A MAJOR FACTOR IN WOUNDING EFFECT.

Yes-under SOME conditions you can stabilize a longer round with a slower twist, but not in AL, and not reliably across the range of likely combat conditions. In very cold dense air (Arctic conditions) we found The 1:12 twist to be inadequate and went with a faster one.

Are you Sigiloso’s alter ego? You seem to have his debating style of focusing on the question not being discussed.

Porcupine
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Porcupine »

hank327 wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:53 pm
Beef Supreme wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:09 pm
yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm


Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
I believe my 18” barrel AR has a 1:9 twist.
What round(s) would give me the tumble effect?
Real M193 5.56mm 55 grain FMJ like Lake Cities or IMI will do the trick. Just be sure it is real M193 as not all 55 grain ammo is.
+1

At short to intermediate range “soft” targets where it’s fast enough to reliably fragment it’s extremely effective.

Typically, demonstrably more so than M855. It’s (usually) a less expensive option too. Second choice is a heavy soft point round as they’ll perform consistently well at a lower velocity.

Porcupine
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Porcupine »

Beef Supreme wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:09 pm
yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm


I was there- I don’t have to “look it up”. :roll:

I mentioned helmets, and body armor was STARTING to become a thing in first rate militaries. Not yet fielded in quantity, but we thought it was coming. The requirement was to “PENETRATE” the helmet/armor- by definition having to do with penetration

Tracers are significantly longer than ball rounds so they require a tighter twist to stabilize well.

Since the weight of a tracer changes over its flight, it’s not expected they’ll be particularly accurate.

The purpose of the progressively tighter twists is to stabilize the longer and longer projectile. The purpose of going to M855 was to improve penetration against lightly armored targets. The move to the longer projectile necessitated a tighter twist. The twist has nothing to do with wound profile.
Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
I believe my 18” barrel AR has a 1:9 twist.
What round(s) would give me the tumble effect?
At any range that’s not going to land you in jail (Self Defense) shoot what ya got-it’s al good.;)

End of the world/zombies/CW III and you could only pick one probably M193, but of course then you’d likely be in the former situation of “Shoot what ya got”, so imm’a say “Shoot what ya got,” and don’t worry about it.

It’s unusual to have someone want to continue to play after being shot with a rifle round. ;)

gew98
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:17 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by gew98 »

yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm
yovinny wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:58 pm


Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
My experience differs from this. I still had an M16A1 when they started replacing them with the A2's. On occasion we got M193 with some M855 mixed in during range times. The M855 ball was markedly inaccurate in our M16A1's. I even tried loading a mag a few times with every other round 193 vs 855. Firing full auto into cardboard at 25 meters produced a regular pattern of keyhole hits - the M855 ball out of the 1:12 bore.
The ammo we got for our M249's in '85 through '86 was all LC 855 ball and FN cupronickel bulleted tracer. It was a markedly pink trace from the FN rounds - not like the later LC 856 tracer we got.
As well I noted a lot more fouling in the 1:12 bore when using 855 ball. It also seemed that at longer ranges ( 150 yds + ) 193 ball was not very accurate at all in the A2's when we finally got those pieces of shit.

yovinny
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:09 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by yovinny »

Porcupine wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:09 pm
yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm


I was there- I don’t have to “look it up”. :roll:

I mentioned helmets, and body armor was STARTING to become a thing in first rate militaries. Not yet fielded in quantity, but we thought it was coming. The requirement was to “PENETRATE” the helmet/armor- by definition having to do with penetration

Tracers are significantly longer than ball rounds so they require a tighter twist to stabilize well.

Since the weight of a tracer changes over its flight, it’s not expected they’ll be particularly accurate.

The purpose of the progressively tighter twists is to stabilize the longer and longer projectile. The purpose of going to M855 was to improve penetration against lightly armored targets. The move to the longer projectile necessitated a tighter twist. The twist has nothing to do with wound profile.
Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
Oh FFS just stop.

The point is TWIST RATE IS NOT A MAJOR FACTOR IN WOUNDING EFFECT.

Yes-under SOME conditions you can stabilize a longer round with a slower twist, but not in AL, and not reliably across the range of likely combat conditions. In very cold dense air (Arctic conditions) we found The 1:12 twist to be inadequate and went with a faster one.

Are you Sigiloso’s alter ego? You seem to have his debating style of focusing on the question not being discussed.
No alter ego,,, just FACTS,,, which you seem to like either ignoring or just changing the subject.
But I truly expected no less... And I'll happily stay out of the Arctic with my 1:12's,,, its all yours... ;)

Henry Stevens
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:07 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Henry Stevens »

A lot of firearms testing needs to be done on Antifa prisoners.

NQNPIII
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:34 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by NQNPIII »

Henry Stevens wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:15 pm
A lot of firearms testing needs to be done on Antifa prisoners.
Just in the street in actual "peaceful protest" conditions.

Porcupine
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Porcupine »

yovinny wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:59 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:09 pm
yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm


Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
Oh FFS just stop.

The point is TWIST RATE IS NOT A MAJOR FACTOR IN WOUNDING EFFECT.

Yes-under SOME conditions you can stabilize a longer round with a slower twist, but not in AL, and not reliably across the range of likely combat conditions. In very cold dense air (Arctic conditions) we found The 1:12 twist to be inadequate and went with a faster one.

Are you Sigiloso’s alter ego? You seem to have his debating style of focusing on the question not being discussed.
No alter ego,,, just FACTS,,, which you seem to like either ignoring or just changing the subject.
But I truly expected no less... And I'll happily stay out of the Arctic with my 1:12's,,, its all yours... ;)
You’re really clinging to an unusual “fact”.

Show me a credible analysis that attributes spin rate to wounding effectiveness.

Yuri Bezmenov
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:48 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Yuri Bezmenov »

Paul Harrell can settle this once and for all with "the meat target"! LOL

yovinny
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:09 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by yovinny »

Porcupine wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:22 pm
yovinny wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:59 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:09 pm


Oh FFS just stop.

The point is TWIST RATE IS NOT A MAJOR FACTOR IN WOUNDING EFFECT.

Yes-under SOME conditions you can stabilize a longer round with a slower twist, but not in AL, and not reliably across the range of likely combat conditions. In very cold dense air (Arctic conditions) we found The 1:12 twist to be inadequate and went with a faster one.

Are you Sigiloso’s alter ego? You seem to have his debating style of focusing on the question not being discussed.
No alter ego,,, just FACTS,,, which you seem to like either ignoring or just changing the subject.
But I truly expected no less... And I'll happily stay out of the Arctic with my 1:12's,,, its all yours... ;)
You’re really clinging to an unusual “fact”.

Show me a credible analysis that attributes spin rate to wounding effectiveness.
WOW..!!!... Im clinging to something,, thats really rich..LMAO.. :D
The whole thread and the question was AR AMMO specific,, and I corrected your BAD, WRONG info.
But you just cant face that, let it go and shut your suck hole....GET THE FUK OVER IT ALREADY...
People like you are why I stoped visiting ak files,,, even though I was an original member before it even opened.

Henry Stevens
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:07 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Henry Stevens »

yovinny wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:30 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:22 pm
yovinny wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:59 pm


No alter ego,,, just FACTS,,, which you seem to like either ignoring or just changing the subject.
But I truly expected no less... And I'll happily stay out of the Arctic with my 1:12's,,, its all yours... ;)
You’re really clinging to an unusual “fact”.

Show me a credible analysis that attributes spin rate to wounding effectiveness.
WOW..!!!... Im clinging to something,, thats really rich..LMAO.. :D
The whole thread and the question was AR AMMO specific,, and I corrected your BAD, WRONG info.
But you just cant face that, let it go and shut your suck hole....GET THE FUK OVER IT ALREADY...
People like you are why I stoped visiting ak files,,, even though I was an original member before it even opened.
How can you get so upset about an opinion question this trivial?

Porcupine
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Porcupine »

yovinny wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:30 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:22 pm
yovinny wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:59 pm


No alter ego,,, just FACTS,,, which you seem to like either ignoring or just changing the subject.
But I truly expected no less... And I'll happily stay out of the Arctic with my 1:12's,,, its all yours... ;)
You’re really clinging to an unusual “fact”.

Show me a credible analysis that attributes spin rate to wounding effectiveness.
WOW..!!!... Im clinging to something,, thats really rich..LMAO.. :D
The whole thread and the question was AR AMMO specific,, and I corrected your BAD, WRONG info.
But you just cant face that, let it go and shut your suck hole....GET THE FUK OVER IT ALREADY...
People like you are why I stoped visiting ak files,,, even though I was an original member before it even opened.
So what do you believe was my wrong info?

You’ve been all over the map.

Porcupine
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Porcupine »

Henry Stevens wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:42 pm
yovinny wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:30 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:22 pm


You’re really clinging to an unusual “fact”.

Show me a credible analysis that attributes spin rate to wounding effectiveness.
WOW..!!!... Im clinging to something,, thats really rich..LMAO.. :D
The whole thread and the question was AR AMMO specific,, and I corrected your BAD, WRONG info.
But you just cant face that, let it go and shut your suck hole....GET THE FUK OVER IT ALREADY...
People like you are why I stoped visiting ak files,,, even though I was an original member before it even opened.
How can you get so upset about an opinion question this trivial?
‘Cause he’s clinging. ;)

L Haney
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:57 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by L Haney »

My goto -15 is chambered in .458 SOCOM. I don't think the terminal ballistics of that 325 grain Hornady FTX at 1950 fps fits the parameters of the OP's statement.


I'm OK with that.

tttinytank
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:05 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by tttinytank »

This is so weird because I had always thought the opposite. Seems like I was extremely wrong now! Thanks for sharing this. I will definitely remember.

silverAKM
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:08 am

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by silverAKM »

Porcupine wrote:
Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:09 pm
yovinny wrote:
Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:04 pm
Porcupine wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:14 pm


I was there- I don’t have to “look it up”. :roll:

I mentioned helmets, and body armor was STARTING to become a thing in first rate militaries. Not yet fielded in quantity, but we thought it was coming. The requirement was to “PENETRATE” the helmet/armor- by definition having to do with penetration

Tracers are significantly longer than ball rounds so they require a tighter twist to stabilize well.

Since the weight of a tracer changes over its flight, it’s not expected they’ll be particularly accurate.

The purpose of the progressively tighter twists is to stabilize the longer and longer projectile. The purpose of going to M855 was to improve penetration against lightly armored targets. The move to the longer projectile necessitated a tighter twist. The twist has nothing to do with wound profile.
Well,, if 'you were there',, you would know that the US trial rifle was the m16a1 with 1:12 twist barrel and xm777 ammo (which was the US's experimental version of ss109 and was what would become m855)

It failed testing because of the ammo itself, not the twist rate, as later testing found the penetrator cores at fault.
Our early experimental manufacturing techniques of said ammo failed to produce rounds with the penetrator core centered and concentric within the bullet. This condition caused havoc with accuracy and resulting penetration,, not the twist rate.

The fact FN developed ss109 specifically for the FNC 1:12" twist and Swedens FNC testing shooting ss109 passed all accuracy and penetration tests, should convey something to those without a mental block and inability to accept factual test results contrary to their incorrect predetermined notions.

Some also seem to believe that ss109 at 1:12" twist, that has a tendency to upset and tumble on soft tissue contact and m855 at 1:7, that has a tendency to not upset at all and drill tiny strait through holes, have nothing to do with physics or the barrel twist.... :roll:

I have no issue shooting good m855 in my handfull of 5.56 rifles with 1:12" twist without accuracy issues that would prevent it being combat effective...Just like I had no issue shooting m856 in 1:9 twist.

Anyone with an open mind should test it out yourself,, before excepting internet falsehoods as gospel truth.
Oh FFS just stop.

The point is TWIST RATE IS NOT A MAJOR FACTOR IN WOUNDING EFFECT.

Yes-under SOME conditions you can stabilize a longer round with a slower twist, but not in AL, and not reliably across the range of likely combat conditions. In very cold dense air (Arctic conditions) we found The 1:12 twist to be inadequate and went with a faster one.

Are you Sigiloso’s alter ego? You seem to have his debating style of focusing on the question not being discussed.
I think so there Porcupine. ;)
Also I wouldn't want to get shot with either a AK or M-4/AR-15.
"It's easier to fool people than it's to convince them they been fooled." Samuel Clemens(Mark Twain)
"Life is hard, life is even harder if you're stupid and lazy." Marion Morrison(John Wayne)
Black Rifles Matter!

Porcupine
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Re: It’s Better to Get Shot with an AK-47 Than an M4/AR-15

Post by Porcupine »

Well yeah-It’sa dumb premise either way.

Post Reply