![]() ![]() The QBU88 was also tested against the Type 85 sniper rifle and outperformed it out to 1,000 meters as well. Quoted: And yes, the 5.8x42mm was designed from the ground up to replace both the 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R in PLA service and their did develop a 5.8mm belt fed GPMG firing the heavy ball round with an effective range of 1,000 meters. | 6.5 Grendel: The State-of-the-Art Combat Cartridge. It makes no sense to replace 5.56x45 NATO with 6.5 Grendel unless you are also going to replace 7.62x51 NATO with the same. Perhaps they have actually, officially dropped the 7.62x54 in favor of their new 5.8? Gunwritr notes that the Chinese 5.8 was intended to be a universal cartridge, but until they completely drop their 7.62s in their medium machine guns, then they, themselves, are not truly convinced the 5.8 can be a universal cartridge. I think what we're "overlooking" is that none of these cartridges attempted to replace its corresponding "battle rifle" cartridge: the 7.62x51 NATO in the West and the 7.62x54 Russian in the East. This is a thought-provoking discussion question. The follow on question then is: In the rush to condemn the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge and replace it with either the 6.8x43mm SPC or 6.5x49mm Grendel are we overlooking something? If the 5.56x45 mm NATO cartridge produces such poor terminal ballistics, why has it been essentially copied, not just once but twice? First by the Russians circa 1974 in the 5.45x39mm and again circa 1997 by the Chinese in the 5.8x42mm DBP87?. Quoted: I have posed this question on this board before and have yet to get a single anwser. The follow on question then is: In the rush to condemn the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge and replace it with either the 6.8x43mm SPC or 6.5x 4939mm Grendel are we overlooking something?Įdit: correction made to the Grendel dimensions Please feel free to make any corrections to the specs., but please provide a reference. I do not think that wikipedia is the most reliable source but these results seem to be similar to other web sources on these cartridges that I have read. If the 5.56x45 mm NATO cartridge produces such poor terminal ballistics, why has it been essentially copied, not just once but twice? First by the Russians circa 1974 in the 5.45x39mm and again circa 1997 by the Chinese in the 5.8x42mm DBP87?Ħ3 gr bullet at 31 ft-lbs (20-inch barrel(2))ĥ0 gr bullet at 3000 fps 971 ft-lbs (16.6-inch barrel)Ħ4 gr bullet at 31 ft-lbs (?-inch barrel(5))Ģ.) This velocity degrades to about 2700-2800 fps from a 14-16 inch barrelĥ.) It appears that the QBZ95 come in three barrel lengths 463mm, 557mm, and 326mm. I have posed this question on this board before and have yet to get a single answer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |