Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Haighus wrote:If talking about NATO battle rifles, could also consider an FN FAL or G3.

Edit:
Considering semi auto is the way to go, is there much benefit to an M14 over an M1 Garand?

Second the FN FAL.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
There's a heap of "The Geneva Conventions say it's illegal" stuff floating round every western military it seems, because we got much the same spiel. The Red Cross publishes a summary of the GC, and it's less than 20 pages long. Most of it deals with the treatment of PoW, and occupied territories. This is all the GC really says about weapons:

"Conduct of combatants
The Protocol lays down the rules governing the conduct of com- batants during hostilities. The basic principle underlying these rules is that the right of the warring parties to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited. It follows that it is prohib- ited to use arms, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (P.I, 35).
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resorting to perfidy (P.I, 37). The recognized emblems (red cross, red crescent and red crystal emblem, white flag, protective emblem of cultural property, etc.) must not be misused (P.I, 38 / P.III, 1, 2). The use of nationality emblems of adverse parties or other States not party to the conflict is prohibited (P.I, 39). The Protocol thus affirms that the law of armed conflict requires a degree of fairness on the part of the combatants.
It is prohibited to refuse quarter (P.I, 40). An adversary who is not or no longer able to take part in hostilities, who has surrendered or who clearly expresses the intention of surrendering, must not be made the object of attack (P.I, 41, 42). A captor who lacks the means to evacuate his prisoners must release them (P.I, 41)."

See, the funny thing is the rules lawyer in me says,

Well, anything that causes "unnecessary suffering" seems like it would make FMJ illegal and hollow points preferred. Under the logic that a soldier is more likely to survive a FMJ round and thus suffer while he lays injured. A hollow point is more likely to end the suffering quickly. Or if body armor is involved we must obviously switch to API or APX rounds.

Tongue firmly in cheek from myself as I think these rules are dumb, but if someone actually cared about them then this would make more sense than sticking to FMJ only.

 catbarf wrote:
Forgot to reply to this earlier- yeah, the CETME is the most cost-effective battle rifle nowadays, but I don't think it's the best example among the big four (G3, FAL, AR-10, M14). The roller-delay is great for a subgun but pretty violent for a rifle caliber, and it mangles brass if reloading is a concern.

I'm pretty partial to the FAL. Most aren't any better than 3 MOA and using steel-case ammo can be risky, but the adjustable gas system makes them exceptionally soft shooters, and the controls and layout feel surprisingly modern considering its age. DSA makes decent new ones, or builds on old Imbel receivers can still be found for $1-1.5K.

I'm partial to the CETME for the price and the Spanish lineage. I mean, I did write a book on the Spanish Civil War, so it's clearly an area of interest to me.

The Spanish made some solid weapons and they're relatively cheap. While the Spanish don't get a ton of respect in military firearms discussions, they adopted autoloader sidearms before the British or the French. Indeed, the French came to them cap in hand during the Great War.

I mentioned our zombie discussion to a coworker who once worked maintenance for battlefield recovery and he found it funny. He noted the many, many ways his equipment could ruin zombies, even without using their weapon mounts.

Again, zombie stories have to be set in an imaginary world where these things are not intensively studied by bored GIs in support arms who are absolutely certain that they could outperform the infantry.

 Haighus wrote:
I thought there were also treaties about landmines, but with not great signature coverage so plenty of nations still use them.

I'm not convinced landmines are obsolete in modern warfare. They are cheap and therefore can achieve massive coverage, as seen in Ukraine. Breaching defended minefields is very challenging.

They're absolutely not obsolete, but they have (or are supposed to) very strict requirements for their employment. The world is moving towards anti-personnel mines, at least, not being acceptable. And the Ottawa treaty has 164 of the 200 or so nations of the world as signatories - the issue is the US, Russia and China refuse to hold themselves accountable.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


And Yes, the Claymore mine can absolutely be set to trip mode. It's not just a clacker mode.

And also take a grain of salt with an Airforce MP telling me how their Shotgun training qualifies them as an expert of laws of war.

Right, but it's not quite as easy as "press a button". It requires a whole new triggering mech to come with it. And the signatories of the Ottawa Treaty treat a trip-mode claymore as a landmine, and therefore prohibited. The Claymore not being a mine is based wholly around it being a clacker operated mech, and that is very much NOT a sheer technicality, it's entirely consistent with the treaty.

Yeah, I'm not going to assume anyone outside of a lawyer specialising in the Laws of War is an expert, because the number of things I've been told that are just downright EASILY verifiably false have come from everyone. Combat corps shoot well. Or are supposed to. That's it. It's not like they get a course in the laws of war. They might get a 15 minute power point presentation telling them not to shoot PoWs.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well, anything that causes "unnecessary suffering" seems like it would make FMJ illegal and hollow points preferred. Under the logic that a soldier is more likely to survive a FMJ round and thus suffer while he lays injured. A hollow point is more likely to end the suffering quickly. Or if body armor is involved we must obviously switch to API or APX rounds.

Tongue firmly in cheek from myself as I think these rules are dumb, but if someone actually cared about them then this would make more sense than sticking to FMJ only.

It IS interesting though, and yeah, it's quite the line to walk. I think the difference being between suffering, and unnecessary suffering, is an interesting one, and I sort of land like this - I would hate to be shot by FMJ. But I'm probably going to survive, and I'll take the suffering, because being alive is basically always better than being dead. SO I'd rather cop an FMJ than a hollow point. But I don't want to get hit by white phos, because that falls into unnecessary suffering - I'm probably going to prefer being dead than having my skin burning with no way to put it out.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


And Yes, the Claymore mine can absolutely be set to trip mode. It's not just a clacker mode.

And also take a grain of salt with an Airforce MP telling me how their Shotgun training qualifies them as an expert of laws of war.

1: Not an Air Force MP. It was an Army recon platoon tasked to guard an army airfield.
B. Not sure where I claimed to be an expert on law of war. I was an expert on tanks and the rounds we used as a tanker, and know all our training had to conform to law of war requirements and did have to sit through way too many law of war training sessions.

Even with 'trip mode' you need an electric charge to set off the blasting caps, or an entirely different mechanism than the provided blasting caps.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

Forgot to reply to this earlier- yeah, the CETME is the most cost-effective battle rifle nowadays, but I don't think it's the best example among the big four (G3, FAL, AR-10, M14). The roller-delay is great for a subgun but pretty violent for a rifle caliber, and it mangles brass if reloading is a concern.

Yeah, my HK91 does shred some brass. Shocked me the first time, was not expecting that.

I was watching a video about how the US spent $380 million developing the xm-29 grenade launcher, but then realized that it violated international treaty and was a warcrimes stick.

Long story short, it was a smaller, 25mm grenade launcher for urban combat. It could program grenades to detonate mid-air at a set distance from the shooter, effectively letting you snipe targets hiding behind walls.

The problem? Explosive ammunition is a war crime. In order to be legal, explosive rounds must be large enough to classify as "ordinance", which requires rounds to be at least 37mm in diameter, or 400 grams in mass. These mini-grenades were neither.

The program was quietly canceled (despite good reviews by troops) and swept under the rug. One of those times weapons developers and politicians really should have consulted with lawyers first.

Yeah, I've heard that one. More fuddlore.

First, the XM29 was the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) program which started in the early 90s, and consisted of a 20mm airbursting launcher with an underslung rifle. The program was cancelled in 2004 and its constituent components were separated out into the XM8 (a 5.56 rifle) and the XM25 (the standalone launcher, scaled up to 25mm), the latter of which was soldiered on until cancellation in 2013. So that's twenty full years of development in which, apparently, nobody thought to check legal.

In reality, the prohibition on explosive ammunition under 400g stems from the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868, but there is no caliber restriction in it (37mm was just the most common artillery caliber of the time that exceeded the 400g requirement) and more importantly the Declaration was only adopted by a handful of signatories and is not considered legally binding today. Many of its terms were adopted in the Hague Conventions but with alteration; the use of incendiary and explosive ammunition is explicitly permitted for non-small-arms (like autocannons), and the 400g mass requirement did not carry over. Expanding ammunition is banned, and explosive bullets are customarily understood to cause excess suffering to no military advantage under the same principle. But grenades, autocannon rounds, anti-materiel rounds, and airbursting munitions are understood to have no viable non-explosive equivalent, and are therefore militarily justified. This was further codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which established three guiding principles specifically because setting hard numbers inevitably leads to loopholes.

The XM25 was cancelled because it didn't do anything well enough to justify the bulk and expense. Troops didn't find it more useful than an underbarrel 40mm launcher, and the initial deployment trials came back with well over a thousand recommendations for improvement.

And while we're at it, 40mm grenades have a typical projectile mass of 200-300g, which is a violation of the St Petersburg Declaration, yet in common use across all of NATO. South Africa actively fields the Inkunzi PAW-20, a 20mm grenade launcher. China fields and exports a variety of 35mm launchers. Under the Hague Conventions, caliber and projectile weight do not matter, only the intended purpose of the munition.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Kind of like vampire movies, etc. "What is this strange, new inexplicable thing that has an entire genre of entertainment built around it? How do we respond to it without betraying obvious and easily exploited conventions?"

The simple option is the convention is either wrong, or only partially correct.

For example: Zombies can be put down with salt in mythology, but movies rarely use this option. Conversely, sunlight harming vampires is almost entirely the invention of cinema.


But, this is getting OT for the thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Seems amazing we developed the M1028 canister round for the Abrams if they are 'illegal'. More amazing we used them.

I was under the impression that AMP replaced CAN, or was that delayed by COVID?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The simple option is the convention is either wrong, or only partially correct.

For example: Zombies can be put down with salt in mythology, but movies rarely use this option. Conversely, sunlight harming vampires is almost entirely the invention of cinema.


But, this is getting OT for the thread.

Not at all. This is about firearms and their uses. Totally within topic to debate what works best for downing certain things.

My point is that zombie lore is deeply embedded in military types and if they notice people shambling around who feel no pain and only die from head shots, they will come to certain immediate conclusions.

The discussion of the grenade launcher ties into this. As noted, the concept of an infantry squad equipped only with rifles is a Hollywood thing, based on keep the prop budget low. This also explains why revolvers and manually operated shotgus remain popular choices - blank ammo for them is cheap and easy to use because it doesn't have to cycle the action.

It is interesting that all three fatalities on set involving firearms (Alec Baldwin, Brandon Lee and John Erik Hexum) involved revolvers. I don't think it speaks to their lack of safety, merely that because they are so cheap and easy to use, armorers are more casual with them (or less qualified armorers are employed).

Getting back to the military, these support weapons are expensive to show on film (especially rotary aviation and tube artillery), but it's there. I'm not saying they would call up heavy artillery, but mortar sections would require minimal difficulty to activate once the nature of the threat became known. They'd be plenty enough to deal with zombies.

In the immediate contact, grenade launchers and various automatic weapons would be employed. The US does not have "leg" infantry, so if troops get activated, they're going to have vehicle-mounted heavy weapons of some sort.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

My point is that zombie lore is deeply embedded in military types and if they notice people shambling around who feel no pain and only die from head shots, they will come to certain immediate conclusions.

No, Hollywood's version of zombie lore is embedded. Which was my point.


Further, the first conclusion they're going to probably come to isn't "Oh, Zombies" it's "Oh, Body Armor" unless they're *much* closer than they should be to said Zombies.

As far as support weapons, the estimates I was running off of when I said the *entire* United States military does include the now mothballed Iowa class battleships, which most other vehicle mounted weapons ain't gak compared to.

Let me explain: FIBUA, buildings block shrapnel, so mortars are not going to be as effective as you seem to think. And that's assuming that it didn't impact on a roof and render itself useless. The M120 is potentially lethal out to 200 odd feet, but the area where we're making kibble is much smaller, at about 14 feet, as they contain Comp B. This has a sustained fire rate of 4 rounds per min. Assuming that Zed is packed cheek to jowl, this would deal with about 25 targets, max, under ideal circumstances, which, most likely, do not exist in the field. These mortars will be *the* most effective weapon that mechanized infantry can deploy, under the circumstances.

The ultimate problem is, that this is a numbers game the US military can't actually win. In this scenario, it'd be like the entire population of London, men, women, kids, dogs, cats, were assaulting your position.

Quantity has a Quality all it's own.

This doesn't even get into the part where the men they lose, become zombies themselves, and to what degree those are, themselves, combat effective. The possibility of "Night of the Living Death Squad" isn't something to write off, either.

How do the zombies defeat a deployed coil of razorwire? Eventually it will be covered in zombie corpses but the resulting flesh wall is still going to majorly slow down the zombies that have to climb it.

Unless they are of the supernatural variety of course, but that is a different kettle of fish.

I'm confident that none of us use our firearms against zombies. I tend to agree that zombies/star wars/hollywood, and militaria outside civilian legal firearms is off topic. People do like to talk about those things and it can be interesting but I do wonder why no one just makes a "How I would own the zombies IRL" type thread. There is clearly enough interest.

Now for *my* take on the US govt vs zombies! I'd think it would take some time before enough of a consensus could be reached where they would actually start using tanks and mortars on "infected" US citizens rather than hunker down and work on a cure. Even in Last of Us where that fungus expert instantly understood the threat after one autopsy and told the official to immediately start bombing the city, the government has decide to order that and those orders have to be obeyed all the way down the chain. I don't see that many people chomping at the bit to become potential mass murderers.

Regarding the Geneva Convention, what do you think the rationale is behind the new 9mm M1153 ammo for the M17/18s? They are 147g "Black Talon"/Ranger T style hollow points, with the jacket forming a second set of petals.

Regarding the CETMEs, it looks like a lot of those are still Century parts guns, and may be very similar to my C91 Century parts gun, and those are cheap for a reason. The build quality is not exactly up to "HK precision" standards and you might want to inspect one before you buy it. Check the weld on the cocking tube, the fit of the stock and trigger housing/lower, and try to cock it. The newer ones and the Atlantic version may be better, I don't know. The PTRs are better. I don't really regret buying mine, but would not have made the purchase with the all information available in 2024.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
No, Hollywood's version of zombie lore is embedded. Which was my point.

Hollywood didn't make it up, they adapted it from books and then modified that even more. And as we all knows, there are many, many flavors of zombies. And vampires. One could do a whole thread tracking down the tropes, etc.

My beloved 172nd would love to argue to point that the US doesn't have "leg" infantry. All you worthless non-jumpers are "legs". We "allow" you to call yourselves infantry because you've demonstrated which one of your booger hooks make the bang switch go from safe, to rock and roll.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
My beloved 172nd would love to argue to point that the US doesn't have "leg" infantry. All you worthless non-jumpers are "legs". We "allow" you to call yourselves infantry because you've demonstrated which one of your booger hooks make the bang switch go from safe, to rock and roll.

One of the funniest things I saw when at Braggistan:





Had to explain to my 13 year old daughter what a Leg was. Then I had to explain that I loved her, even though she was a nasty rotten Leg.

As my grandfather once observed, he'd happily chase the enemy on foot, swim after them, chase them in boats, but he'd be damned before he flew after them ever again.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'd love to get a 7.62mm "battle rifle" at some point. I think the CETME is probably the most cost-effective option, and it dovetails with my Spanish inclinations, which is nice.

A tangent but battle/assault nomenclature etc. is why I never engage in firearms discussion on social media. Turns out for many internet denizens they aren't doctrine terms but US political ones. I don't even think they are using the terms incorrectly in a correct way (mixing up a bunch of illiterate terms used by control enthusiasts with a bunch of illiterate terms used by enthusiasts).

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'd love to get a 7.62mm "battle rifle" at some point. I think the CETME is probably the most cost-effective option, and it dovetails with my Spanish inclinations, which is nice.

A tangent but battle/assault nomenclature etc. is why I never engage in firearms discussion on social media. Turns out for many internet denizens they aren't doctrine terms but US political ones. I don't even think they are using the terms incorrectly in a correct way (mixing up a bunch of illiterate terms used by control enthusiasts with a bunch of illiterate terms used by enthusiasts).

Even firearms enthusiasts can have lengthy arguments about this given reality tends not to fall into neat categories, and doctrinal intention often does not line up with how weapons were used by troops at the front (WWII US tank destroyers are a great example of this).

Is the M1 carbine an assault rifle? Is the FG42 a battle rifle? Discuss

 catbarf wrote:
And speaking of fuddlore, 'modern rifles are designed to wound' is one of those chestnuts of wisdom that seemingly everybody knows- except the ordnance board at APG. Suffice to say that the institution that rejected the .276 Pedersen, .280 British, and 9x19 on grounds of insufficient lethality did not do a sudden and temporary 180 on their stance during the 1960s. Methinks they were swayed more by the fact that when a barely-stabilized M193 hits flesh at 3000fps, it blows apart in a way that FMJ .308 doesn't and produces comparable terminal effect.

I think because it is repeated to recruits in training and stated in briefs to staff and politicians. People then take that with them and spread it. Of course rounds are selected for terminal effect against whatever criteria the assessment is given (range, body armour to defeat, etc. etc.). You then have stuff like (I want to say Swedish) rounds that are designed to minimise fragmentation to be a more humane way of killing people. In line with that whole unnecessary suffering thing. Indeed if we were presented with a weapon whose brochure stated is all about maiming people instead of killing them (the new XR13 will cause widespread brain damage in a single application with zero loss of life!) our lawyers would have a fit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
I thought there were also treaties about landmines, but with not great signature coverage so plenty of nations still use them.

I'm not convinced landmines are obsolete in modern warfare. They are cheap and therefore can achieve massive coverage, as seen in Ukraine. Breaching defended minefields is very challenging.

Yep. We are big fans but have to go through hoops to use versions of them.

To go back to firearms and uses though, and the US, it is fascinating that for home defence landmines/booby traps seem to be treated very differently to using a sidearm (no ideal about cannon ). I really don't get the patchwork of laws you lot have! Got to say being risk adverse it would turn me off firearm ownership there.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

To go back to firearms and uses though, and the US, it is fascinating that for home defence landmines/booby traps seem to be treated very differently to using a sidearm (no ideal about cannon ). I really don't get the patchwork of laws you lot have! Got to say being risk adverse it would turn me off firearm ownership there.

Cannon, weirdly, depends on the date of manufacture (Before 1898 or after) and ammunition type (artillery munitions not being something one buys at Walmart, anyway).

In a SHTF moment, where the world goes to hell, the only thing I'd want is a reliable 9mm. Easily the best cartridge for the weight, class, and ease of use. You can literally find it anywhere on the planet as every major country uses some form of it, be it police forces, military, government armament, or as with the US, sold in most every store. There is no catching up to the availability of the 9mm no. You may have made the case for the 7.62x39, but again, weight, ease of use, ability to find. Nope, best weapon in a world gone to hell scenario is some form of 9mm carbine or short rifle. Anything that needs longer range than is provided can be avoided all together.

Booby traps are one of those things which will most definitely get you in trouble, there are a few cases in the US where that happened so it is pretty well established as a no no. Though I must confess I personally don't see a ton of moral distinction between setting up a deadly booby trap which kills an intruder and you personally opening fire on said intruder and killing them.

Land mines are destructive devices which have to be registered and tax stamped, and I doubt anybody who does own any is going to be casually using them to defend their home.

Cannons, as in black powder cannons, aren't legally considered firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know. Neither are black powder small arms.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Booby traps are one of those things which will most definitely get you in trouble, there are a few cases in the US where that happened so it is pretty well established as a no no. Though I must confess I personally don't see a ton of moral distinction between setting up a deadly booby trap which kills an intruder and you personally opening fire on said intruder and killing them.

Land mines are destructive devices which have to be registered and tax stamped, and I doubt anybody who does own any is going to be casually using them to defend their home.

Cannons, as in black powder cannons, aren't legally considered firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know. Neither are black powder small arms.

I think, again, it comes down to indiscriminate triggering vs a conscious decision to open fire. Would kind of suck to blow up a kid who was chasing a ball into your yard - sure, technically trespassing, but also... yeah.

Then add the factor of things like paramedics or firies attending your property for your benefit and getting killed or maimed, and, again, I can see why indiscriminate weapons are frowned upon.

It's also why cluster munitions are banned, but America still uses them. Because some of those little freedom pellets don't always spread dreams and hope, and some farm steps on them 2 years later and accidentally kills himself and 3 other people. Incredibly stupid design for a weapon. It's like the self dispersing landmine ordinance. You let it fly/glide onto/over the target from a sufficient height, raining landmines with internal clocks that are SUPPOSED to self detonate after a set period. Guess what impacting the earth at a high rate of speed does to internal clocks?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's also why cluster munitions are banned, but America still uses them. Because some of those little freedom pellets don't always spread dreams and hope, and some farm steps on them 2 years later and accidentally kills himself and 3 other people. Incredibly stupid design for a weapon. It's like the self dispersing landmine ordinance. You let it fly/glide onto/over the target from a sufficient height, raining landmines with internal clocks that are SUPPOSED to self detonate after a set period. Guess what impacting the earth at a high rate of speed does to internal clocks?

only really if you can't make clocks.

Not Online!!! wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's also why cluster munitions are banned, but America still uses them. Because some of those little freedom pellets don't always spread dreams and hope, and some farm steps on them 2 years later and accidentally kills himself and 3 other people. Incredibly stupid design for a weapon. It's like the self dispersing landmine ordinance. You let it fly/glide onto/over the target from a sufficient height, raining landmines with internal clocks that are SUPPOSED to self detonate after a set period. Guess what impacting the earth at a high rate of speed does to internal clocks?

only really if you can't make clocks.

Well, apparently we can't because mud is still going pop in Laos and Cambodia, if we want to go 50+ years back. Iraqistan and Afghanistan are both in the last 20 years and those pop rocks are still killing kids. You know what. US AIRFORCE DOESN'T GET ANY MORE TOYS OR MONEY TILL IT PICKS UP ALL IT'S TOYS.

How about we stay away from the blatant politics?

Thanks.

Yes, lets very much do that.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Cannons, as in black powder cannons, aren't legally considered firearms anywhere in the US as far as I know. Neither are black powder small arms.

Even non black powder artillery. It's weird. I've seen British deck guns from 1893 for sale, and they're basically 75mm, but because they're made before a particular date, and the ammunition isn't commonly available, they don't fall under FFA.

I have seen some great content online about black powder weapons. So would that extend to black powder revolvers? Is it the design or the year they were made?

I am currently trying to work out how smoothbore cannon can be used in home defence scenarios, hunting and recreational shooting. Not sure on the first, flushing game on the second, and showing off on the third?

Really though I want to see one of those US TV series on biker gangs or similar using cannon to target the opposing gangs club!