Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
meade95

What type of gun is this?

Recommended Posts

Looks like a M4 with a Surefire M900 VFG, standard M-68 RedDot (I think that's the right mdoel number, hehe). It's got a detachable carry handle, 6 Position adjustable stock, and rail covers on the rail system. Oh, and has a sling! :)

EDIT:

It's definitely NOT the HK416. These guys appear to be US (which I'm sure they are, but don't see a flag or any identifying patch) so then it's a Colt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a M4 with a Surefire M900 VFG, standard M-68 RedDot (I think that's the right mdoel number, hehe). It's got a detachable carry handle, 6 Position adjustable stock, and rail covers on the rail system. Oh, and has a sling! :)

EDIT:

It's definitely NOT the HK416. These guys appear to be US (which I'm sure they are, but don't see a flag or any identifying patch) so then it's a Colt.

Thanks.....

Regarding the HK416 - I hear / read a number of US SOF are now using it. Espeically SEALs and Delta....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're Iraqi SF, and it's not a 416. Pretty much what Ruin said.

Haha, shoulda read the file name too. :)

As far as the 416, I know nothing of US forces using them. I think that if they switched to any gun, it would be the Barrett M468.

Oh, moving to appropriate forum. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SF already have had the m468... as far as I know.

416 is in use but by who not quiet sure.

and the SCAR is on its way... I found the paper work ordering them from the DOD online somewhere. Bunch of spec ops guys forum i think or somthing. About 1,000 of them i think it was.

was kind of cool.

(could of been fake... dunno though looked real)

Edited by pz3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read from the official SCAR website that the first Mark 16 and 17 rifles were scheduled to be delivered in January 2007.

The 7.62 x 51 400 milimeter barrel length Mark 17 will definately have a longer effective range than the M-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read from the official SCAR website that the first Mark 16 and 17 rifles were scheduled to be delivered in January 2007.

The 7.62 x 51 400 milimeter barrel length Mark 17 will definately have a longer effective range than the M-4.

Well I think 7.62 rifles are usually meant to reach out farther than 5.56 since it's a higher caliber. That Barrett gun looks nice. But why is it that most of the guns SOF guys get are never available for civilians? I can see the whole thing with it having fully automatic capablities but still. They could always make it a semi-automatic weapon for civilians. And I would get the civilian version of the G36 except it looks horrible. Looks nothing like a real one. I know why that is but if I said it, this post would probably get banned. But back on subject now. Those guys do look like Iraqi SF and the gun also looks like an M4. I'm not familiar with all the different scopes though so I couldn't tell ya about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

civilian version of the SCAR is supposed to come out next year, the 416 upper receiver i thought was comin out soon too. and het m468 has been out for a while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think 7.62 rifles are usually meant to reach out farther than 5.56 since it's a higher caliber. That Barrett gun looks nice. But why is it that most of the guns SOF guys get are never available for civilians? I can see the whole thing with it having fully automatic capablities but still. They could always make it a semi-automatic weapon for civilians. And I would get the civilian version of the G36 except it looks horrible. Looks nothing like a real one. I know why that is but if I said it, this post would probably get banned. But back on subject now. Those guys do look like Iraqi SF and the gun also looks like an M4. I'm not familiar with all the different scopes though so I couldn't tell ya about that.

Actually, it's quite the contrary. The 556 is a smaller bullet, therefore lighter and faster. It travels 400MPH faster than the 762 does. The 762 is better for closer combat (like Urban) because it is larger, heavier and packs a bigger punch. It's got better stopping power than a 556 does. They go further, but hit lighter. That's why I'm a fan of the 6.8SPC, because it travels fast, far and hits hard.

As far as some of the SOF weapons for civilians... You can buy an AR15 as a civilian, which is basically (not exactly) a civilian M4 or M16. It's just Semi-auto, and made by a lot of companies (heck, I've got one sitting in my bedroom). You can buy semi-auto HKs also. They may not have the HK stamp, but they're virtually the same. Some companies choose only to cater LE/Military rather than try to work on the Civilian market. Or, if all else fails, if you're over 21, apply to the BATFE with a Form 4 (Taxed Transfer) and buy yourself a genuine M16 or M4, or whatever... oh, and look to drop about $15,000 for one. With the right amount of money and paper-work, you can own just about anything.

Also, we don't ban people on a whim, you have to earn it. ;) I'm curious as to what information you have that you think would get you banned - feel free to PM me if you want.

EDIT: Uhoh, two posts at the same time! :) And you're right Whistle, the M468 has been available for some time, it's just expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know AR-15s are available to civilians. We have a rock river arms AR-15. Very fun to shoot. But M16s and M4s are used by the conventional military too. I also didn't think a 7.62 gun would be good for urban CQB just because it has more recoil than a 5.56 gun. Atleast most of the time they do. As for the SCAR being released to civilians next year. That would be awesome. Of course next year I'll probably be in the military as long as all my tests come back normal. Which they have so far. But that's all I have to say. Most of it probably isn't accurate since I don't get to shoot that often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's quite the contrary. The 556 is a smaller bullet, therefore lighter and faster. It travels 400MPH faster than the 762 does. The 762 is better for closer combat (like Urban) because it is larger, heavier and packs a bigger punch. It's got better stopping power than a 556 does. They go further, but hit lighter. That's why I'm a fan of the 6.8SPC, because it travels fast, far and hits hard.

Being a shooter that has fired many 5.56x56 (.223) and 7.62x51 mm (.308) rifles, full and semi-automatic, I must correct you on your assumption that a lighter/faster bullet will travel farther than a slower/heavier bullet. When fired from the same length barrel the 7.62 will travel farther because is HAS more weight. The lighter 5.56 mm bullet will lose speed and trajectory faster than the 7.62 mm bullet. A standard 62 Grain FMJ Boattail bullet (military spec) 5.56 mm will give you a useable 400-500 yards and still have enough kinetic energy to kill a human quickly. A standard 150 Grain FMJ Boattail bullet (military spec) 7.62 mm will give you a useable 600-700 yards and still have enough kinetic energy to kill a human quickly. If you go back to WWII and the 30-06 ( a 13mm longer case than the .308, same bullet) you can get another 100 yards). If the 5.56 were better at long range, Snipers would not prefer the 7.62.

The reason for switching the smaller ( and IMHO inferior) 5.56 mm cartridge is that battles are no longer fought at 500+ yards. Most battles are fought within the 300 yard range. Additionally, the smaller cartridge allows more ammunition capacity in the rifle's magazine and has less weight to allow the soldier to carry more ammunition. It also has less recoil, which is necessary since the U.S. Military started allowing women and small statured men into service.

Don't get me wrong, I love my AR-15 but my M1 Garand (30-06) is just plain fun to shoot.

7.62mm (7.62 x 51 mm/overall 71mm) = M59 Ball, 150.5 gr bullet, 2,750 fps (838 mps)

5.56mm (5.56 x 45 mm/overall 57mm) = M193 Ball, 56 gr bullet, 3,250 fps (991 mps) (1in12 twist barrel) M16A1 rifle.

5.56mm (5.56 x 45 mm/overall 57mm) = M855 Ball, 62 gr bullet, 3,025 fps (922 mps) (1in9 twist barrel)M249 M16A2 and M4 rifles.

Round > Cartridge size > Bullet weight > Velocity > Energy

5.56 mm NATO > 5.56 x45 mm > 3.95-5.18 g > 772-930 m/s > 1,700-1,830 ft. lbs energy

7.62 mm NATO > 7.62 x 51 mm > 9.33 g > 838 m/s > 3,275 ft. lbs energy

MASS x VELOCITY = Muzzle Energy

The heavier bullet retains more kinetic energy at longer distances.

Edited by John_Doe69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's quite the contrary. The 556 is a smaller bullet, therefore lighter and faster. It travels 400MPH faster than the 762 does. The 762 is better for closer combat (like Urban) because it is larger, heavier and packs a bigger punch. It's got better stopping power than a 556 does. They go further, but hit lighter. That's why I'm a fan of the 6.8SPC, because it travels fast, far and hits hard.

Being a shooter that has fired many 5.56x56 (.223) and 7.62x51 mm (.308) rifles, full and semi-automatic, I must correct you on your assumption that a lighter/faster bullet will travel farther than a slower/heavier bullet. When fired from the same length barrel the 7.62 will travel farther because is HAS more weight. The lighter 5.56 mm bullet will lose speed and trajectory faster than the 7.62 mm bullet. A standard 62 Grain FMJ Boattail bullet (military spec) 5.56 mm will give you a useable 400-500 yards and still have enough kinetic energy to kill a human quickly. A standard 150 Grain FMJ Boattail bullet (military spec) 7.62 mm will give you a useable 600-700 yards and still have enough kinetic energy to kill a human quickly. If you go back to WWII and the 30-06 ( a 13mm longer case than the .308, same bullet) you can get another 100 yards). If the 5.56 were better at long range, Snipers would not prefer the 7.62.

The reason for switching the smaller ( and IMHO inferior) 5.56 mm cartridge is that battles are no longer fought at 500+ yards. Most battles are fought within the 300 yard range. Additionally, the smaller cartridge allows more ammunition capacity in the rifle's magazine and has less weight to allow the soldier to carry more ammunition. It also has less recoil, which is necessary since the U.S. Military started allowing women and small statured men into service.

Don't get me wrong, I love my AR-15 but my M1 Garand (30-06) is just plain fun to shoot.

7.62mm (7.62 x 51 mm/overall 71mm) = M59 Ball, 150.5 gr bullet, 2,750 fps (838 mps)

5.56mm (5.56 x 45 mm/overall 57mm) = M193 Ball, 56 gr bullet, 3,250 fps (991 mps) (1in12 twist barrel) M16A1 rifle.

5.56mm (5.56 x 45 mm/overall 57mm) = M855 Ball, 62 gr bullet, 3,025 fps (922 mps) (1in9 twist barrel)M249 M16A2 and M4 rifles.

Round > Cartridge size > Bullet weight > Velocity > Energy

5.56 mm NATO > 5.56 x45 mm > 3.95-5.18 g > 772-930 m/s > 1,700-1,830 ft. lbs energy

7.62 mm NATO > 7.62 x 51 mm > 9.33 g > 838 m/s > 3,275 ft. lbs energy

MASS x VELOCITY = Muzzle Energy

The heavier bullet retains more kinetic energy at longer distances.

Yup, go to any Service Rifle match and look down the line. Since it goes out to 600y, you won't see too many AR's. When I was a teenager I used an AR, but handloaded 69g HP's to get the range. However, M1A's and M1's dominated.

The question arises, "what exactly is an intermediate cartridge between?" To answer this, we must look back to the era in which the intermediate cartridge was developed. At that time, infantry shoulder weapons were of two types; the rifle, chambered for a full power, high velocity round that was lethal, and potentially capable of accurate fire to ranges in excess of 2,000 meters, and the submachinegun, which was chambered for a pistol cartridge and whose usable range seldom exceeded 200 meters. The concept for the intermediate cartridge was based on experience gained during the First World War, where infantry combat ranges seldom exceeded 350 meters, thus wasting the extra power, powder, metal, and weight involved with the conventional rifle/cartridge combination. The ideal solution was to design a cartridge of nominally lower ballistic attributes that would retain effective combat performance. Such a cartridge would be in between the rifle and the pistol rounds in size and weight, thus allowing the infantryman to carry a greater number of rounds per given weight and permitting a smaller and lighter rifle to be carried without sacrificing effective combat performance.

http://www.cruffler.com/historic-february00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blush: I'm no ballistics expert... but I thought I had a reliable source (it's in the first segment of the clip).

More of what I was getting at was the round dropping so drastically after a certain distance... which, I guess, the 5.56 doesn't do. I appreciate the clarification though guys! I learn something new everyday!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I completely understand everything....but I saw something in that video that just doesn't look right at all. Add to that a high level of skepticism about how "unbiased" discovery channel may or may not be......

I, personally, have witnessed my 556 round PIERCING half inch steel.

No.....it doesn't knock the steel down.....so THAT part of the video is TRUE............THE ROUND GOES THROUGH THE STEEL It hits it with such force the round goes right through the steel instead of causing motion in the target. Of course this is a FMJ round.

Now, I suppose, if your objective is to knock sheets of steel over, then clearly the 6.8 is your round. I don't dispute that.

Furthermore, in terms of stopping power, it is clear that the 6.8 is superior in that category as well. Given the powder increase and bullet mass increase...clearly there has to be some appreciable difference.

However, given my personal experience with firearms, is the difference between the two rounds THAT pronounced? Double the ability to stop an enemy? Sure, perhaps mathematically twice the kinetic energy....but does that mean twice the ability to stop an enemy? When one round pierces half inch steel...while the other knocks it down...is the difference that pronounced?

I suppose it comes down to what our professionals say...and I have to rely on that....but that video strikes me as a disguised marketing ploy...given what miniscule information I personally know.

Something doesn't smell right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blush: I'm no ballistics expert... but I thought I had a reliable source (it's in the first segment of the clip).

More of what I was getting at was the round dropping so drastically after a certain distance... which, I guess, the 5.56 doesn't do. I appreciate the clarification though guys! I learn something new everyday!

If you really find this kind of stuff interesting, read American Rifleman magazine (free with NRA membership) or even better, buy Shooting Times magazine. There is a monthly column or two just on handloading ammunition and ballistics.

The lighter the bullet the faster it will lose speed. The faster is loses speed the sooner it will "drop".

If you want to see some good long range trajectory in cartridges smaller than the .50 cal, look into the .300 Winchester Magnum or similar.

Take a 7.62x51mm and stretch the case and you get the 30-06. Stretch it some more and you get a .3oo WinMag. :)

If you take a relatively heavy bullet and manage to push it much faster than usual you will get a longer trajectory.

The lighter the bullet the faster you need to push it to get the same distance.

Edited by John_Doe69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×