# tankers personal weapons and 9 mm vs 5.7 mm



## jordan22 (15 Mar 2007)

what do the tankers have for personal weapons? Is it the C7??? cuz i heard from someone that they also have 9mm SMG's


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2007)

Someone told you a falsehood (lie).  Tankers used to carry SMGs and pistols as their personal weapons, but when the C7/C8 came into service, they replaced all the FN C1s and SMGs.  Now they will carry a C8 or Pistol (most often the C8).


----------



## jordan22 (15 Mar 2007)

thanks for clearing that up


----------



## Trooper Hale (20 Mar 2007)

A esky full of cold drinks and a gas cooker also help armoured blokes get out of sticky situations. Nothing handier then giving infantry guys hot water, a jaffle and a cold soft drink (pop i think you call it) to keep them happy.


----------



## RecceByForce (6 Apr 2007)

Drivers and Commanders have C8 with 9mm pistol and loader and gunner get just a C8.


----------



## orange.paint (6 Apr 2007)

Hale said:
			
		

> A esky full of cold drinks and a gas cooker also help armoured blokes get out of sticky situations. Nothing handier then giving infantry guys hot water, a jaffle and a cold soft drink (pop i think you call it) to keep them happy.



Maybe 10 years ago here.Now we got young guys playing playstation drinking cold pop in their LAV 3's.While we were out pounding tracks.


----------



## Trooper Hale (7 Apr 2007)

The kids today ExRCAC, they dont know how lucky they are!  :warstory: When i was driving 113's i had to get up at 4 in the morning, change every piece of track, make tea, do a battle run, make lunch for the Regiment, go on piquet, then my crew commander would beat me to death before i went to bed to 0430 which is half an hour after i had to get up. But you tell that to the youth today and they wont believe you. 

Joking aside, i do feel your pain. I finished on carriers last year (re-role). People dont realise how much work went into them. Pounding track...i grew arms purely from pounding track. That was the one good thing that came out of it. Well, that and not dying after losing control. 

Theres plenty of threads on the old gats i see. Interesting to read about it. We've an F1 in our armoury, not a C1 granted but still good if your after the LCF. Not so good if old mate is shooting at you from over 100m though i suppose.


----------



## orange.paint (7 Apr 2007)

Hale said:
			
		

> The kids today ExRCAC, they dont know how lucky they are!  :warstory: When i was driving 113's i had to get up at 4 in the morning, change every piece of track, make tea, do a battle run, make lunch for the Regiment, go on piquet, then my crew commander would beat me to death before i went to bed to 0430 which is half an hour after i had to get up. But you tell that to the youth today and they wont believe you.



And of course you did it all for 120 dollars a month.(although they never mention rent was 4 dollars a year and you could get a movie,popcorn and drink for a shiny nickle  )



			
				Hale said:
			
		

> Joking aside, i do feel your pain. I finished on carriers last year (re-role). People dont realise how much work went into them. Pounding track...i grew arms purely from pounding track. That was the one good thing that came out of it. Well, that and not dying after losing control.


No pain!
Its all about LCF 

All joking around aside,nice to see the pistol has become a WEAPON and not a sign of authority anymore.


----------



## McG (7 Apr 2007)

RecceByForce said:
			
		

> Drivers and Commanders have C8 with 9mm pistol and loader and gunner get just a C8.


For now.  The future might be 5.7 mm pistol & 5.7 mm PDW.

http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/57/index.htm
http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/p90/data/concept.htm (personally, I'd be uncomfortable with the fore grip on this wpn)


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2007)

RecceByForce said:
			
		

> Drivers and Commanders have C8 with 9mm pistol and loader and gunner get just a C8.



This is the ideal, but may not be the norm.  Everything will depend on the type and amount of weapons that the Unit will hold.


----------



## orange.paint (7 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> For now.  The future might be 5.7 mm pistol & 5.7 mm PDW.
> 
> http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/57/index.htm
> http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/p90/data/concept.htm (personally, I'd be uncomfortable with the fore grip on this wpn)



Sources?


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> For now.  The future might be 5.7 mm pistol & 5.7 mm PDW.
> 
> http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/57/index.htm
> http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/p90/data/concept.htm (personally, I'd be uncomfortable with the fore grip on this wpn)



The claims of penetration from those rounds are a bit on the scary side.....that is a lot of Kevlar that is being penetrated, and I would hate to see those weapons in the hands of any opposing force.


----------



## McG (7 Apr 2007)

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> Sources?


The guys trialing one of the wpns.


----------



## Trooper Hale (7 Apr 2007)

I suppose we can all see it happening. This thread is sliding into the fields of others (unless exRCAC and i can keep it totally irrelevent!) but, the theory behind giving crew member SMG's is, i think still very sound. If a vehicle brews up, the crew will want to just blat off rounds and fall back to where they'r protected by others. Having an SMG does that better then a C8 does. At least that's what i think. I'd be very jealous if you guys got issued the P90. Its small, combact and perfect for armoured crews. I'm a tiny bit sceptical of the armour piercing specs but hey, it looks awesome and would do a VERY good job of making the crews feel protected and warry.
...and lets not forget the LCF, the most important feature for us young blokes. 8)


----------



## Rowshambow (7 Apr 2007)

Hale, 
I believe the reason we use the C8 and not a SMG any more is because you could use it effectively (for the most part) up to 300m where an SMG would fall short, I like that idea, as I would rather try to hit someone at 300m rather than up close. Mind you, the way I shoot they would all have to be up close!!
Don't get me wrong, some SMG's are nice and I have seen pics of the P90 but I have no idea about the specs, so if it could hit targets at a range, then sign me up! I too like the LCF!


----------



## Dodger1967 (17 Apr 2007)

Hale said:
			
		

> I suppose we can all see it happening. This thread is sliding into the fields of others (unless exRCAC and i can keep it totally irrelevent!) but, the theory behind giving crew member SMG's is, i think still very sound. If a vehicle brews up, the crew will want to just blat off rounds and fall back to where they'r protected by others. Having an SMG does that better then a C8 does. At least that's what i think. I'd be very jealous if you guys got issued the P90. Its small, combact and perfect for armoured crews. I'm a tiny bit sceptical of the armour piercing specs but hey, it looks awesome and would do a VERY good job of making the crews feel protected and warry.
> ...and lets not forget the LCF, the most important feature for us young blokes. 8)


 I have it on good authority from contacts in the U.S. Military(Marine Recon) and a few ex- U.S. Navy Seals that the P90 is a useless piece of crap, fit for nothing but law enforcement roles.

Cheerz
Paul


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2007)

Dodger1967 said:
			
		

> I have it on good authority from contacts in the U.S. Military(Marine Recon) and a few ex- U.S. Navy Seals that the P90 is a useless piece of crap, fit for nothing but law enforcement roles.


Any coherent reasons that they don't like it?  Maybe they were using it for the wrong purposes.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Any coherent reasons that they don't like it?  Maybe they were using it for the wrong purposes.



I think its mostly about the wounding potential of the 5.7mm round.  The fact that it will poke a hole the size of pencil in a lot of stuff including armour is nice.  Of course it will also only poke a pencil sized hole in people.  Very little production of cavities, temporary or permanent.  I believe I6 has some more information on it.


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2007)

Will it fragment?


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2007)

Just spoke with the guy testing it.  No fragmentation.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Just spoke with the guy testing it.  No fragmentation.



And that's why you have such good penetration from such a small bullet/propelling charge...and crap wounding characteristics.  Of course to overcome this we just have ensure that everyone has very high levels of markmanship training and can pull off that helmet penetrating headshot everytime.  C8 fired, NATO 5.56mm rounds will fragment out 100 metres, and you can get other 5.56mm rounds that will fragment out further.  And 5.56mm NATO does a pretty job penetrating armour.  Which means you can carry the same family of weapons as everyone else and use the same ammo.


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2007)

The 5.7 mm is being considered as a 9 mm replacement.  The current pistol cannot penetrate armour.  The next one will.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Apr 2007)

Hmmm, interesting.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Apr 2007)

Some more silly questions from the usual source but.... If the 5.7 uses up a bunch of energy punching through armour does it still have enough energy to "drill a pencil sized hole" through the tissue behind?  Does it remain undeformed by the armour?  Would it retain its flight path or would it start tumbling and take kevlar, fabric and dirt into the wound?

Assuming that such a round's effects WERE enhanced by penetrating armour would the effective counter be to not wear armour?


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Apr 2007)

I've heard the 5.7mm referred to as causing an "icepick" type wound, and having very poor wound ballistics...


----------



## rz350 (18 Apr 2007)

An ice pick type wound is better then some bruising and soreness cause the 9mm did not make it though the armour. But would the c8 not be the logical choice, interoperability, and FAR superior wounding power compared to either of the two peashooters being talked about?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Some more silly questions from the usual source but.... If the 5.7 uses up a bunch of energy punching through armour does it still have enough energy to "drill a pencil sized hole" through the tissue behind?  Does it remain undeformed by the armour?  Would it retain its flight path or would it start tumbling and take kevlar, fabric and dirt into the wound?
> 
> Assuming that such a round's effects WERE enhanced by penetrating armour would the effective counter be to not wear armour?



Penetration after armour would depend on the range, but, and this is only based on manufacturers information, it would start to fall off at the end of the effective range so I really dont think it's a factor.  Wounding characteristics are often a result of bullet construction and velocity.  There tends to be a minimum velocity, below, the bullet will not fragment/tumble effectively (this is for FMJ), so reducing the velocity before it hits you is normally a good thing.  This is not restricted to SS109 5.56mm, some types of 7.62 and other calibres target effects are highly depended on the make up internally of their FMJ bullets.  There can be some cases where fragmentation occures deeper and for very skinny people this may happen on the other side of them, and by wearing body armour you make yourself fatter...blah, blah, blah...even if I was Twiggy I would still wear body armour with plates.

D

Edit because rz350 posted:
You are talking about apples and oranges.  The C8 fires 5.56mm not 9mm.  MCG pointed out that the 5.7 was being considered as replacement for the 9mm, so the tankers would still be carrying C8s, just not Brownings.


----------



## McG (18 Apr 2007)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> You are talking about apples and oranges.  The C8 fires 5.56mm not 9mm.  MCG pointed out that the 5.7 was being considered as replacement for the 9mm, so the tankers would still be carrying C8s, just not Brownings.


A bit of both really.  It is replacing the 9 mm, but also in the SMG role which we have generally done without.

5.7 mm clearly seems like the better option for pistol (with the possible exception of the Navy where too much penetration may be a bad thing on a ship).  However, it seems less clear wrt the 5.7 mm PDW vs the 5.56 mm carbine.  From what I've seen of SS109 would balistics, fragmentation typically occurs at a distance that would have seen the round already passed through body of the target.  If this is the case, then maybe the slightly larger 5.7 mm is better.

However, I don't think it is a question of 5.7 mm vs 5.56 mm.  I think it is SMG vs carbine, and 9 mm vs 5.7 mm.


----------



## KevinB (18 Apr 2007)

Frankly the 5.7 round does nothing that a 9mm AP round cannot do.  Several units have trialed them, those that then go further have typically set them back in the armoury after a few shootings.

  The USSOC memo on the P90 and FN57 piston pointed out that issuing a 5.7 is the best way to ensure mission failure.

Frankly the idea of requiring a handgun to penetrate armour is assinine.  Someone dreamed it up as an excuse for replacing the BHP, this idea may have had a tiny bit of merit during the coldwar but facing todays enemies its fucking retarded and wasting money that the CF could better spend on somthing else.

IF people want a short weapons system the 10" -11.5" C8CQB (depening on which variant you have these days) is vastly superior in penetration and wounding to the P90 with the SS190 ammuntion.

This is another area where the CF is going off and beating to its own drummer despite what experience and intelligence would dictate.
Mind you at least they killed the 4" bbl C8 idea.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> From what I've seen of SS109 would balistics, fragmentation typically occurs at a distance that would have seen the round already passed through body of the target.  If this is the case, then maybe the slightly larger 5.7 mm is better.
> However, I don't think it is a question of 5.7 mm vs 5.56 mm.  I think it is SMG vs carbine, and 9 mm vs 5.7 mm.



If the 5.7 does fragment, then the size difference will have no effect because the 5.56mm is sending a heavier bullet (62 grains vs 32 grains) down range with move Mv.
As I6 pointed out, there is a varient of our current weapon that will work in the SMG sized role, and with the right ammo can provide adequate fragmentation and cavity production.


----------



## mudgunner49 (19 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Any coherent reasons that they don't like it?  *Maybe they were using it for the wrong purposes.*



Like what - serving tea??? :  Shooting somebody is shooting somebody.  The 5.7 is great at poking holes but sucks at energy transfer.  We seem to re-hash this every couple of months when someone with the ability to google finds the P90 and flips out into a "Starship Troopers" frenzy, saying things like "It's so cool" or ""That would be the ultimate CQB weapon because it looks mean, and they say it can penetrate Kevlar..."!!

Meanwhile, nobody who knows *anything* wants one and none of the real-deal, HSLD .mil guys are using it (in investigative circles this is known as a *CLUE*).  The only folks who seem to want to foist this on the guys who will have to use it have their heads planted firmly up their collective third points of contact, apparently keeping their ears warm. :brickwall:

I guess what this rant is geared towards is this:  QUIT HARPNG ON THE P90/5.7 - IT'S A POS!!!!!! :deadhorse:

Besides, everybody knows that if you want to cause somebody to disappear into a shower of sparks you have to shoot them with a .45  :flameand only from a 1911, not one of those God-less plastic pistols )!!!

...now back to your regularly scheduled programming...


blake

edited to add:  Sorry to all the posters after me that I failed to read prior to ranting - it appears that a number of you said the same thing but were more PC...


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2007)

mudgunner49 said:
			
		

> Shooting somebody is shooting somebody.


You can't dumb it down to something as simple as this.  If you could, then there would only be one small arm for all of the CF.  It would be good enough for snipers at record setting ranges, for special forces clearing a room, for infantry attacking a soviet defensive position, and for police officers in Canadian cities.  That is just not the case.  You most certainly can use a weapon for the wrong purposes.

Maybe you still disagree.  Try replace every one of your soldiers' weapons with a pistol have them assualt a dug in enemy and (when they object) fart the line that "shooting somebody is shooting somebody!"


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Apr 2007)

Regardless, the 5.7 doesn't get the job done. What good is penetrating Kevlar if it doesn't put down the guy behind it who is intent on killing you NOW. Besides, how many enemy are wearing level IIIA soft armour, is this a pressing issue?

Instead of wasting money on the 5.7 I would rather see the CF spend that money on gunfighting training, and move to a Mk262-type 5.56mm round. A C-8 CQB with Mk262 ammo will work fine in the old SMG-type role and doesn't require new weapon-type training, and a SIG 9mm pistol in the hands of someone who knows how to fight with it (not just shoot it) is an excellent sidearm.

My $0.02


----------



## mudgunner49 (19 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> You can't dumb it down to something *as simple as this*.  If you could, then there would only be one small arm for all of the CF.  It would be good enough for snipers at record setting ranges, for special forces clearing a room, for infantry attacking a soviet defensive position, and for police officers in Canadian cities.  That is just not the case.  You most certainly can use a weapon for the wrong purposes.
> 
> Maybe you still disagree.  Try replace every one of your soldiers' weapons with a pistol have them assualt a dug in enemy and (when they object) fart the line that "shooting somebody is shooting somebody!"



Sure you can... ;D

OK - let me clarify.  I was speaking in the context of "pistols", as the C7/C8/SPR all do well assuming (a stretch, I know...) that proper ammo is used (Mk262 in it's various mods, Hornady 5.56-spec TAP, that sort of thing).

The pistol is a reactive, defensive weapon and I don't think that anyone in their right mind (there I go stretching the bounds of reason again) would consider engaging pers at range, or assaulting dug in en with a pistol!!!  The pistol is intended for engagement at "bad breath" distances, usually due to failure of the primary, maneuvrability concerns or the need to engage things with the off-hand.

Clear enough now??  See, we're not totally at odds, however I stand by my statement that the P90/5.7 is a POS... oh, and the 1911 thing too!! :flame:

edited to add - Mike, I totally agree, however I'd like to add Glock and Smith M&P to the list of potential pistols (I've bee using the M&P in .40 a bit - to the tune of multiple hundreds of rounds - courtesy of our local PD, and it's everything that Smith pistols haven't been...)


blake


----------



## rz350 (19 Apr 2007)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Edit because rz350 posted:
> You are talking about apples and oranges.  The C8 fires 5.56mm not 9mm.  MCG pointed out that the 5.7 was being considered as replacement for the 9mm, so the tankers would still be carrying C8s, just not Brownings.


Sorry about that. I was for some reason thinking someone suggesting the new PWD's in 5.7, which is why I said stick to the C8, instead of buying some POS that doesnt work half as well.


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Apr 2007)

mudgunner49 said:
			
		

> edited to add - Mike, I totally agree, however I'd like to add Glock and Smith M&P to the list of potential pistols (I've bee using the M&P in .40 a bit - to the tune of multiple hundreds of rounds - courtesy of our local PD, and it's everything that Smith pistols haven't been...)
> 
> 
> blake



+ 1 on the Glock and other possible pistols. I stated SIG simply because the CF has them in the system right now. I'd prefer the G19 myself...


----------



## mudgunner49 (19 Apr 2007)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> + 1 on the Glock and other possible pistols. I stated SIG simply because the CF has them in the system right now. I'd prefer the G19 myself...



...I've got mine - but it's for sale.  Not that I don't like it, but I also have a G23, and if I swap out a G19 barrel and use G19 (or 17) mags, I can shoot 9 in it as well as .40 - *plus* I like the Browning better for 9 - *plus* I want to be able to afford an M&P in .40 (because I have access to lots of cheap ammo and have 3 other .40's) - *plus* if I buy something new and *don't * liquidate something, I will p!$$ off my wife who will use something from the arms room to turn my birth certificate into a useless document...

you get the idea...


blake


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Frankly the idea of requiring a handgun to penetrate armour is assinine.  Someone dreamed it up as an excuse for replacing the BHP, this idea may have had a tiny bit of merit during the coldwar but facing todays enemies its fucking retarded and wasting money that the CF could better spend on somthing else.


Why should we not want the pistol to penetrate armour?  We wear armour.  Do we think that the enemy will remain oblivious to the protective value it offers?  Keep in mind, the Army has to think about more than just today's battles.  The army needs to be getting kit that will work in the fight that might start tomorrow.  We could find ourselves in another Yugoslavia where our firepower must be effective against a modern(ish) threat.

And, despite the calling down of Canadian weapons procurment, the US Army is also looking for a PDW and 5.7 mm is still on thier radar.  (there are quotes from the general commanding general PEO soldier to this effect in some recent Jane's articles)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2007)

Anyone looked at a AP round for 357Sig? If you wanted a PDW/SMG with some punch that would seem to offer the best of many worlds. However some of the bull pups seem to offer SMG length weapons using standard 5.56 and standard mags and not much bigger than the P90. 

How about a modernized 7.62x25 round in a PDW?


----------



## tank recce (19 Apr 2007)

What's that?! An LMG and 203 per recce ptl?? Don't you know that recce isn't supposed to fire its weapons - that's why they don't get any!  :

/bitterness, back to your regularly scheduled (quite fascinating, actually) thread.

Actually, I do find that a fascinating weapons load-out, especially the turret-roof carbines. How would you secure the rifles from flying away during spirited bajaing, or being eaten by low-hanging trees, while still being available RIGHT F'n NOW when Abdullah Abdullah darts at you from the under brush, carrying a vest-load of ugliness? We did something like that during the last few Cougar Exs, with the slings anchored to the wirecutters, but it didn't strike me as a particularly workable arrangement...


----------



## Trooper Hale (20 Apr 2007)

Command sense act, i feel honoured to be even mentioned by you. Thats a great post. Plus +10! You've got it all. Tankies arent regular foot sloggers. They dont need a weapon to pick bad guys off with, they need a weapon to ruin the bad guys day and make him shit bricks.
I totally agree with all you've said, especially the ratio's (ie C8 for him, SMG for him etc)


----------



## Loachman (20 Apr 2007)

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> The thinking behind these weapons is akin to the pistols that aircrew carry - a weapon of last resort in case you must dismount without grabbing a carbine or SMG to take along.


We can never count on having anything with us unless it's firmly attached to our bodies in an emergency. The helicopter could be burning or sinking or you may not be able to get back in due to enemy action. We should each have something better than a pistol in the hel, but still need the pistol.

I understand that Israeli tank crews also have pistols for the same reason.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2007)

If you were going to wear a pistol all day in a tank, something like the G19 would be a good bet, the G26 is smaller but takes practice to shoot it well. Pilots carry the Sig 235 if I recall correctly?

They had tanker model revolvers, can't see why they can't get a specialized gun again. Although I think the procurement department pretty busy right now...


----------



## Loachman (21 Apr 2007)

Browning for Tac Hel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2007)

I was looking at a picture with the P90 and F2000 side by side, the difference in size is not great and the F2000 uses the same mag and bullets as the C7, really makes the P90 even less appealing.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If you were going to wear a pistol all day in a tank, something like the G19 would be a good bet, the G26 is smaller but takes practice to shoot it well. Pilots carry the Sig 235 if I recall correctly?
> 
> They had tanker model revolvers, can't see why they can't get a specialized gun again. Although I think the procurement department pretty busy right now...



MH crews carry the Sig P225.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Apr 2007)

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## KevinB (27 Apr 2007)

Sorry I was out for a bit and the MWR net sucks ass.

  I'm not a tanker and I dont pretend to teach then tank stuff -- but I do have a 10th of a 1/3rd of a schmick about shooting people.  NATO not just PEO Soldier is looking for a PDW -- since the US wants to go back to a .45ACP round PEO is freaking -- the Army killed their monolithic stupidity of OICW and the aborted XM-8 fiasco -- and basically PEO look like the turds they are.  The problem with these staff types in this case is they do not understand the enduser requirement.  What may work or sound nice on a drawing board needs to be immediately shelved if it does not work in combat -- failing that you are empowering the enemy.



Shooting people to neutralise a threat can be accomplished two ways either shutting down the CNS - or blood loss.  Since while neural motor strip shot look really cool but are real fricken hard in the real world -- we need a round that causes massive trauma - in a Hague Convention acceptable manner.
  M193 (55gr), M855/SS109/C77 (62gr) and Mk262 (77gr) do a pretty decent job due to they will yaw and fragment at certain impact velocities.

HOWEVER when they do no yaw - they too create small .224 holes -- which tend to look like an icepik.  
The issue is to find the best round/platform for yoru requirements -- I tend to argue that the PDW is an answer in search of a problem.

While we may once again find an enemy that wears a lot of armour -- I still argue that the pistol is NOT the system to be using in that situation -- it should be the role of a primary weapon (and for the tanker out there -- that would be your primary personal weapon - not the weapon your driving around in) 












I beleive that 99% of the CSS trades would be much better suited with a C8CQB -- and the same with many personnel in the Cbt Arms.  A 10-11.5" barrel with properly ammunition will be much more effective than most shooters can employ it.  I shot someone with one ~400m so no one come out and say it won't work or you cant hit that far.  The problem is 1) a system that refuses to learn 2) the fact that that system is too cool for non SOF types  :. 
WRT the MP-5 -- while it is a good subgun.  Its still 9mm and I would not willingly use it in a long gun role -- heck while I use a 9mm pistol -- it is a 147gr JHP.  Ideally I will be able to find a .45 around here sometime (BigRed has a sweet 1911 he's running around with now).  I've been shot at a few time when the other guys with me had MP-5's -- fine and dandy if your in someone house -- but -- when the other guy brought a PKM or DsHk and is sitting at 700m -- not so fun.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Apr 2007)

I-6 Does the F2000 have a long enough barrel to make the best use out of the 5.56mm ammo being issued? Have you had a chance to play with one?


----------



## KevinB (27 Apr 2007)

I played with one at SHOT one year -- but never fired one.  It appears from fondeling them that they are a better designed bullpup than the Fa-Mas G2, SA80 series and Steyr AUG, but admittedly until I fire several thousand rounds through one - its all subjective.

I've found with other bullpup weapon systems that the ergonomics are ass -- either that or I and 99% of the world are unco-ordinated and did not understand the skill sets required to operate them that the engineer had envisioned  :
Due to the design the bullpuds recoil differently than convetional rifles or carbines -- plus thats a nasty muzzle blast pretty close to the face --

Secondly one of my biggst fears is to return to a two tier weapon system (remember the C1A1 and C1 SMG?) where muscle memory was different - and the drills where different -- the issue was not as bid a deal then (before we really knew what muscle memory was - and before we really payed much attention to CQB ascpects -- I remember shooting 600m with the disk sight on the C1A1) Sorry I digress.  Envisage a weapon that the Infantry (and SOF) would not use -- then imagine the center of excellence for said weapon being with some guy who eats donuts for a living in Base Borden or (worse) the Puzzle Palace.  As if we have not had to relearn people to muscle and effective motion drills for the C7/C8 and C9 -- now was need another Pam written by a moron who's experience with the weapon was using it to pick his nose in QL3...

Anyway I am off to find a 1911 .45 ACP -- wish me luck  ;D


Edit for punctuation and grammar (and probably stil has many more mistakes that I missed)


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Envisage a weapon that the Infantry (and SOF) would not use -- then imagine the center of excellence for said weapon being with some guy who eats donuts for a living in Base Borden or (worse) the Puzzle Palace.


Your being silly here.  The intent is for a weapon that the infantry don't use (except maybe LAV gunners & drivers).  However, if the Infantry School does not want to be the centre of excellence for this weapon, then it will be the Armd School.  So you can put away your contempt for the CSS world.


----------



## KevinB (28 Apr 2007)

Silly was that fat little troll trying to justify his 64 million dollar project -- running around NDHQ with a Hk MP7, FN P90 and the 4" M2 Corps C8 variant, .
  Its not contempt for the CSS world -- its revultion for the antics of some specific individuals both in Canada and the US.

A Hk MP7 




G36 mags beside it 

C8CQB w/ suppressor (well actually a US M4A1/Mk18 - but I was wearring a US flag at the time)




IMHO this setup would be a better (sans can) PDW for 99% of the people out there.





Secondly based on my experiences and other who have way more than I -- I do not beleive that a PSD is a realistic pistol substitute.  There are roles for the pistol that the PSD does not cover either.





A handgun is much more easily concealed (for those who need to), and can be stowed (holstered or other means) much easier than a PSD when need be.
 Secondly it can be fired and manuvered with one hand (if nec) with reasonable accuracy (if your crawling in Mohammed's house and you've already needed to strip down your armour and other stuff and are in a T Shirt..) or so I was told 




The earlier 4" M2Corp gun





LCMM SA's home build (note the modified buttstock and cutdown rear buffertobe length)





M2 Corp 6"







To get an effective system you need to balance it for the role you require.
 A larger (and thus typically more effective terminally) payload will increase recoil energy -- and to tame that the mass of the weapon is increased.  Bullets cause damage by either crush or fragmentation (or a combination of both).  The large diamater of the projectile (all else being equal) will result in more tissue damage.

Keep in mind these PDW's fire a rifle type round (5.7 is a .224 calibre bullet) but at drastically reduced velocities - C77 (M855/SS109) needs a impact velocity of ~2500fps (and greater) to impact human tissue and yaw and fragment.  The longer Mk262 round is ~2200 fps impact velocity (and due to the greater mass causes wounds of a greater degree).  The SS190 round is of the same diameter - but shorter (less likley to yaw) and also leaves the weapon at a lower velocity.

The RCMP and FBI have in addition to USSOC conducted testing with the systems -- 
Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of projectiles fired by the FN P90. 

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.

--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.

--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.

--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.

--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.

--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.

--Roberts G: “Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.”, AFTE Journal. In Press.


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2007)

I6,
Does the Mk 262 use ball propellant like the C77/M855 or is it an extruded propellant?


----------



## KevinB (28 Apr 2007)

I will check,

Edit MCG -- it is deffinately a ball propellant (my trusty CF SOG tool was used to remove a bullet head -- don't do that at home folk the CF frowns of tampering with ammo)
 I will post some pics in a bit -- but I have to go earn my keep for the day.


I don't have any C77 here -- but I have M855 and M856 - so I will put a comparrision of the powers out too -- if I had my scale here I could give a readout -- my civilian Mk262Kev loading for service rifle use an extruded powder (Varget) --
Second point to note is BlackHills (and if the rumoured Canadian 77gr load is a copy it will too) uses a Flash suppressant in the powder as well so the Mk262 has much less muzzle flash at night than either M855 and C77.


----------



## KevinB (28 Apr 2007)

Okay back from my daily grind  ;D -- heading to the pool with BigRed - but first

Comparrisions for the M856 (L110/C78) Tracer, Mk262 Mod1 (77gr SMK with cannelure) and M855 (SS109/C77) round.








Edit -- my photobucket account is acting like a dog -- more pics to follow


----------



## KevinB (28 Apr 2007)

Okay Photobucket was user (me) induced error











Mk262's ball propellant is much circular than the ones from M855 and M856 -- and Mk262 does not have the tar sealant on the bottom of the bullet.  
Mk262 Mod1 uses a cannelure -- while the early and discontuned Mod0 did not have a cannelure (this allows the bullet to be properly crimped into the casing) -- As to the tar issue -- reports showed that the lack of tar increased accuracy and did not make the ammuntion any less weather resistant than ammuntion with the standard tar sealant.


----------



## Gunnerlove (29 Apr 2007)

C77 ball (97 head stamp) contains 24.9 grains of a dual gran ball powder, behind a 62 grain tar sealed bullet .907" in length in a boxer primed case. 

I agree with Kevin, a shorter barrel on the same platform is the way to go for soldiers who carry a rifle while performing their primary combat function (vs those whose combat function is carrying a rifle). A 10" upper with an EOtech and a 20" with a 3.5X ACOG, both fit on the same lower receiver and can be swapped in about 15 seconds. 

Muscle memory can not be discounted, my wife laughs at me when I drive her car because I am always hunting for the clutch pedal and reaching for the shifter of her auto equipped car.


----------

