The TCUs are Thompson Center Uglade for a man named Wes Uglade that came up with them for all to enjoy. They could sure do a lot worse than the little 7 TCU. I love that little round and it really works well.
Sure wish they'd get rid of the 9mm Beretta while they're at it...or at least let us carry a 45 (1911 would be nice). I chose my .38 over my 9mm first time I went to the Middle-East. Just don't like that Beretta or the cartridge it carries.
on the 7.62 coming back. too heavy. now before ANYONE rips on me hear me out. the standard load is 210 rounds of 5.56 ball. we always carried 4 times that(and that was for the riflemen). i wont even start on what the crew served weapons load was. a round that puts down(and keeps down) is great, but keep in mind that a joe has to carry all that up and down the mountain, through the desert, on his back while swimming, and every other $*[email protected] you cant imagine. the requirements are grueling, and let your mouth not run unless you been there, done that(i am sure many have been). i aint saying that a more powerful round isnt needed, i believe it is; but i know that with a solid hit the 5.56 takes the fight out of a person really quick ( speaking from experience ). i would think that a light 6mm or maybe even a 7 would be the ticket. alot of me wonders about the military's decision to go with the short barreled m16 carbine. i dont think it is a viable STANDARD battle rifle. great for squad leaders on up; but not the line. as a last thought, keep in mind that the recruits the military gets today are not experienced riflemen. they are folks from all over, most having never shot a gun before. it takes alot of training to master a bigger round like the 7.62 and the budgeting just aint there. that is the reason the m16 is such a success: it is really an easy rifle to master, and there is no recoil. all that said, i still would like to see a more powerful round get the nod. jsut keep the weight down. and would REALLY like to see the 9mm tossed out and the 45 brought back.
I agree with Myroman, great post...I aint been there but...
Small cartridge/large caliber....might as well train a bunch of kids with bows and arrows because that is what they would need to learn...Archery. They just dont take the time to try and train these kids for trajectory with heavy caliber bullets and a small powder charge. Yes, a well trained sniper, these might be great. But some young kid that never shot a rifle before enlisting and couldnt care about learning about what a bullet does between 50 to 400 yds.....You better give him the fastest, flattest shooting rifle possible or we are going to have a bunch of dead kids.
Greetings guys. Thgat little 5.56 will do what ya want it to do. As long as ya dont bite off too much. I heard that they were experimenting with some rounds also,but I heard it was a hyper vel. round in the area of a 4.5mm(pushing 5000fps). The soldiers of today have not handled firearms before the got into the military,and hence,are not familiar with them as some of us older guys might be. They need that fast little round cause it does not have any holdover. Put the sight on the bad guys chest and its a good hit out to about 300 yards,might be inna pelvic area,but still the bad guys is down and otta action for the time being. king
5.56 is the all purpose anti personnel round for me, Police work, Military anything. The only exception I would make for that, is sniping. When people started needing 350 rounds a night for a firefight (1968) the 308 became a squad automatic, and sniping round. Then, the more .308 you have it, the better.
One of the biggest reasons is wound channel ballistics. That "varmint" round has the temporary wound channel of an NFL football, the 308 in FMJ is still considered a "leaking" wound to trauma surgeons. Great if you want to draw Osama's buddies into the open for a rescue. Not necessarily incapacitating. A chest wound centered with the 5.56 makes blood pudding out of the heart, liver,and lights. Seen it. Done it. My 2 cents...
in reply to the comment about kids not knowing what the balistics are for longer ranges.
What is the average range of combat for say some grunt in the sand over in the middle east? If it isn't over 100 yards near those caves, I vote for a round that is a little larger. If the ranges are long... smaller and fast for those kids that don't know how to shoot.
what do you guys think?
The first Combat trials of the 5.56x45 were
"VERY" positive. This was due to the slow twist
in the rifling that MATTELL equipped their rifles with.
The speedy little 5.56 was quite unstable in flight.
Therefore it tumbled very easily upon impact.
Accuracy left a lot to be desired though.
When the rifling was "tightened up", The
accuracy increased and the tumbling decreased!
More accuracy, Less wounding ability!
Seems that there is no happy medium with this round.
In this case I think change would be good!
It doesn't matter what round you use, when you have to use a full metal jacket round you are going to have problems. The rules of war such as the Geneva and Hauge Conventions forbid expanding ammo. Increasing to a 6mm or 7mm round will do little to help. I have even heard of the larger 7.62X39mm Soviet round as having problems and it is a .30 caliber! If our troops could use a hollow point or soft point type bullet, I would dare say very few Taliban would get up. But this will never happen. Think about it. If you shoot a deer with a FMJ, what happens? Generally, it will run off and has to be tracked. Often, it will even get away and heal, if the wound isn't in a kill area. In fact, FMJ ammo is illegal in most places for deer hunting. But the dang Europeans have straddled us with this type of ammo, so we will just have to make do.
a better bullet would do wonders on people. problem being, in combat, you aint always shooting people. sometimes apc's, sometimes through kevlar, sometimes through walls, you get the picture. the twist rate was really high in the m16 when i was in. i want to say 1 in 8 or maybe even 1 in 7 (been a few years). the point is that with all that spin, when it hits, it does some crazy $*&^!! it aint exactly a pass thru. there are so many factors to consider, but i still say a hit is better than a miss and stand by the 5.56 (a.k.a. 223)
These fmj rounds are designed not to kill. or they would go with larger and or expanding bullets right?
These "conventions" have rules that protect and hinder saftey in battle situations I can imagine. I have not been in a battle situation, but I would like some imput from some of you who have experianced these fmj's and other rules. Do they help keep war "humane" or do they hurt us by not giving us enough to defend ourselves?
there is only one rule. win. the geneva convention is as limp as the u.n. you start paying attention to those and the next thing you know your dead. do what yu have to in order to survive. you think the enemy is following them? my message to all those who would impose limitations ( if they could ) is " try to stop us. what are you going to do about it? if you cant make some p*$$ant like saddam obey, what you going to do to us? it is high time we told some of the less loyal elements to kiss off. any country (whether they owe us their freedom or not [or even if they would be decent enough to remember it] ) that thinks we answer to them, i say " come get some ". that is what their rules mean to me.
i forget were, but i have seen that a 5.56 round is a good round in war because, it is worse on your opponent to have wounded than dead, they must take care of their wounded, nad must walk into, obviously the line of fire to get them, is this a fact or opinion?, i dont really know, but it makes sense
i dont think the 5.56 is the best though, i think we should have somthing bigger, it just dont seem right that our militarys' bullets, whitch are used to kill 150-200 pound men, is the same bullet that is chosen among varminters that kill animals that weigh 20-100 pounds :? , i know it will kill much bigger animals, but will they get away? :?
I agree with most. It's (AR Rifle) not the best, but I think the rifle/ctg combo is easy to teach, train, and shoot. Please guide me to your dump site-I want to collect all the AR-15's you throw away. I think the same is true for the M92. a guy can carry ready to go with a loaded gun and 2 hi-cap mags and be ready to fight. It's fast into action, very managable recoil, and believe it or not, I think it's faster for a second shot follow-up. Now you're going to say you don't need a 2nd shot with a 45? You know as well as I do a hit in marginal hit with a 45 is just that, and the gun can be tough to use unless you use it alot. There are alot of guys out there with CCW permiits that DO NOT practice enough! I don't think any of you guys really want to get shot in the chest with a 9mm 125gr hollow point? I know I don't. I compete IDPA and IPSC stock with a M92FS and it is a very competitive gun. I don't win all the time, nor have I ever finished last, and I am one of the few using the 9mm gun. some use SA's, Kimbers, and Baers. The 92 always feeds and ejects, unless I have the only 92 from the factory that does? Unlike the reports I've read, I have no frame or slide cracks and I have shot it over 4000 (US MIL Hardball) times this year alone! I have a Kimber 45 and I love it, and I understand its merits as a personal self-defense gun. I carry it at times. that being said, I'm willing to bet the Beretta has seen very little actual firing in the gulf, Afganistan, or anywhere else. Maybe never in a real Military fire-fight? Nor would it have been if it was a .45! War has changed! USMC and Seal's use the M14 and rightfully so. I really think it comes down to the dinky, liberal, non-gun, non-shooting enthusiasts that get sucked into our Armed forces. They go in today planning on training, or being trained for a job or career, not a war. Rifles are an afterthought. The M4 is even a worse compromise. It's harder to shoot than the standard AR. But the grunt can carry lots of suppressive ammo for missing! It's just my views. Beware-the black helicopters are coming!
I've heard the next step will be lighter and faster yet. I have also heard the next big step will be "smart" bullets out of something like the M203 that will "hunt & Kill." I can tell you though from first hand knowledge that there are dang few folks that would trade their mouse gun in for an AK either in 7.62 or 5.45. I can also tell you from first hand knowledge the M-14 or the M1A ain't all that it is cracked up to be and had more than it's fair share of problems in S/E Asia. A dirty M-14 is just as apt to have problems as a dirty M-16 plus the fact on full auto the 7.62 M-14 is a joke. When the "mouse gun" was first introduced, nobody understood it. That is not the case today.
My question is why can't we use expanding bullets against non citizens, while police force in the country can use expanding bullets against our citizens?? No offense to the police, I support them in using exploding bullets against bad guys if that's what they need, I'm just saying that our military should be able to use whatever they need too. I'm sure that some special ops folks use whatever they need, so our normal troops should have some options as well.
A forum community dedicated to the great outdoors and hunting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about hunting, fishing, survival, archery gunsmithing, optics, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!