6.5 is the future
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
![rqvvgmY[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/i330Yn7.png "rqvvgmY[1].png")
![wV5UVry[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/n5egKBt.png "wV5UVry[1].png")
>>29879801
>>29879804
>>29879827
>>29879827
>10-fucking-lb for a carbine
>>29879847
6,5 is deceiving, read the pdf in the other thread. It's a CT 6,5 that's basically above and beyond 7,62 NATO. Just the mil being fucking stupid instead of adopting the LSAT as the finest LMG ever. I'm sure the guy who thought up this trash will get his promotion.
>>29879880
This is part of the LSAT program
>>29879899
I know, CT 5,56 was the way to go. This hybrid battle rifle wannabe abortion is a dead end. This will kill any chance we have of CT 556 lmgs being adopted which I suspect is the goal.
>>29879910
the CT 5.56 LMG was always just a test bed. I welcome any chance to finally get away from 5.56
>>29879827
>weighs as much as a milled receiver AK with a fully loaded steel brick slabside old-timey magazine
>doesn't even factor in optics or other accessories yet
WHY
>>29879847
>>29879954
>(not optimized)
It's a prototype that they built extra chunky to stress test
>>29879827
>>29879840
Ugly as sin
>>29879947
>Still not reading the PDF
The LSAT in 5.56 was ready with production facilities available.
>>29879954
>Muh battle rifle
Muh marksmanship will rule the day
>Muh +14 USA modifiers vs +1 Russia modifiers
What the fuck does that even mean? It's not even a quantifiable variable. Fuck this guy. Seriously ruined the best chance we had to get something innovative.
>>29879827
>>29879840
MG's level of goodness is rivaled by carbine's level of shittiness.
>>29880007
>Pilot production facility for ammunition operational
>for ammunition
>10 Light Machine Guns fabricated
That doesn't sound like they were ready to produce more of those machine guns
>>29880047
It went as far as the military let it. It's as ready as the AR15 was when it was adopted.
>>29879827
>not optimized
>800rds
How do they plan to shoot them all without barrel melting? They need to steal Pecheneg shrouded barrel.
I've just realised that I will be a fudd in 80 years time. Everyone will be running around with lasers and caseless ammo and I will still be saying fuck anything not in a brass case.
But I'm fine with that. Look at this disgusting shit.
Can someone explain the advantage of telescoping ammo for small arms?
Isn't 5.56mm weaker on purpose
>>29880111
Same performance, significant weight and volume savings. This I very beneficial when you have a large military that you wish to project force with and when you're allies are too incompetent to function without your logistics tail.
>>29880137
Thanks, that makes sense. Seems like the best gains to be made would be with 7.62 (or I guess the 6.5 if they go that direction) since 5.56 already weighs the same as 9mm
>>29880111
The chamber can rotate sideways after being fired and a new round can be inserted, pushing the old shell out
Obviously with caseless there's no shells
>>29879847
>>29879954
because it's still a fucking prototype you fucking mongoloids.
>>29879827
that shit is fucking gayyyyyy. just chamber ar-10s for 260 rem.
>>29880256
That rifle in your picture weighed under 7 lbs dipshit.
![DSCF4027s-vi[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xSPaLMq.jpg "DSCF4027s-vi[1].jpg")
FUCK YES!
finally we will go back to the superior caliber 6.5, and this time with proper performance without needing longer actions.
we all know 6.5x55 is gods given cartridge, except for its length that doesnt work too well in automatics
>>29879801
How the fuck is that 7.62 heavier than the 6.5 under it that looks basically twice its size
Corollary question: costs?
Can anyone explain how telescoped ammo works? And why if it has equal performance aren't LR shooters using in it comps?
>>29880298
And you are comparing it to a gun that does not actually exist.
>>29880367
>SCAR 17S in 6.5mm
My pee pee feels funny.
>>29880419
The bullet is in the case and when fired "telescopes out" while ignition continues
I'm not sure how reloadable it is but it is probably way harder than conventional ammo. Last I checked there wasn't any telescoped ammo at Walmart but there is plenty of conventional brass ammo that can be reloaded which is key to load development which is key to accuracy.
>>29880484
On a different note, if you were to go completely caseless (assuming it could be as reliable and effective as brass cased ammo) would it be easier to make your own rounds be exactly what you need?
>>29880484
Why would reloading be an issue? As long as the case is solid (similar to brass, not too soft like poly), why couldn't you just have a longer press to seat the round lower?
>>29880517
I'd imagine not impossible, but you'd need a hollow form to press the propellant into the block, then insert the bullet.
>>29880551
This advance seems to be taking ammo and firearm manufacture away from your average civilian.
>>29879801
>6.5 is the future
You mean .264 USA is the future.
>>29880570
There was a time before home reloading presses. By the time someone solves the issues with caseless, there should be home tools that would allow reloading. Maybe not day 1 mass production in your garage, but something and soonish.
>>29880570
>millions of 'obsolete' guns will disappear when caseless becomes a thing
>manufacturers will decide that making brass case is beneath them and they also hate money
Christ, people on here are fucking stupid.
>>29879801
Oh, i thought they were going to compare that to real boolits.
6.5 still a shit in the real world.
>>29880444
No, YOU'RE the one who made the comparison, retard.
>>29880652
>6.5 still a shit in the real world.
fite me.
its got the penetration and speed
>>29879827
what the fuck is the bulk belwo the barrel for? anyone got some plans or stuff for these guns?
>>29880631
I was more saying that the capabilities of civcies are getting further and further behind that of the military.
are the cases combustible? or does the guns eject them?
>>29880536
Where do you buy the components and dies to reload telescopic ammo though
>>29880693
Yeah, but that's been the case since industrial warfare showed it's terrifying head back in WW1.
>>29880682
>what the fuck is the bulk belwo the barrel for?
No fucking clue.
And no fucking clue why they wouldn't put in a stock folding mechanism either. Wouldn't that be a huge selling point if they went with piston anyway?
>>29880803
>wouldn't put in a stock folding mechanism either
muh AR
but yeah, agreed. the buffer tube design is the worst and most retarded part of piston ARs
What is the likelihood of this thing actually entering full production? Will they just make the light machine gun, or are they going to try to make the carbine too, cause it seems like this sort of project would be best left to one weapon system.
>>29880836
>What is the likelihood of this thing actually entering full production?
They'll test the system, and then ask large manufacturers to adapt it for full scale production or make something similar.
It's possible for the military to make a full design spec and force manufacturers to make it exactly as they say, but I somehow doubt that'll happen.
what's the accuracy hit of using CT cartridges though? The bullet will not have a smooth rifling engagement when fired, due to the distance it must first travel. That either leads to throat erosion (if aggressive rifling is used in the throat) or loss of accuracy (if the throat has gradual rifling), I'd imagine.
>>29880789
But until the past 15 years (maybe 25) civs have been able to play the catch up game remarkably successfully I'm terms of small arms development.
>>29880419
>And why if it has equal performance aren't LR shooters using in it comps?
Because it is still in the R&D phase. It's not something you can just buy off a shelf yet
>>29880933
>That either leads to throat erosion (if aggressive rifling is used in the throat) or loss of accuracy (if the throat has gradual rifling), I'd imagine.
They use double stage ignition. First bullet is propelled into barrel by weak charge and only after main charge ignites with full pressure.
>>29881039
>They use double stage ignition. First bullet is propelled into barrel by weak charge and only after main charge ignites with full pressure.
But that can cause a delay which throws your shot off, even by the tiniest margin, no?
I don't see this being popular for precision guns at least.
>>29880872
I see. So we're not really seeing anything close to a final weapon that can be fielded, this is just a test of the technology. That's a relief I suppose, that carbine is truly ugly as hell.
Also what gives on its capacity specs? I thought these rounds were supposed to be skinnier.
>>29881074
>Also what gives on its capacity specs? I thought these rounds were supposed to be skinnier.
The 6.5 rounds use the same case as the 7.62 ones for testing purposes. It's just cheaper to test them that way.
So capacity on the 6.5 is utter shite.
>>29880773
Where the fuck do you think people get dies and components to reload regular ammo you fucking obtuse retard.
>>29881053
>But that can cause a delay which throws your shot off, even by the tiniest margin, no?
the pressure curve will just be different, I really doubt it will matter, shits happening to fast
>>29880656
That was my first post in the thread, but thanks for trying.
I can't wait for the Army's retarded chasing of the "one round for everything short of HMGs" dream kills the single most promising technological leap in firearms tech since the assault rifle concept emerged.
>>29880665
I can see the argument for the mil cartridge. But lately a lot of faggots have been trying to argue the creedmore specifically conceringing long range bolt competitions, and getting BTFO by even fudd cartridges.
>>29879801
How recently was this released? I know that the LSAT team has been pushing for 6.5 mm. Is this an old infographic or something new?
>>29880374
>How the fuck is that 7.62 heavier than the 6.5 under it that looks basically twice its size
The 6.5mm CT uses a polymer case instead of brass, which is super dense, and therefore heavy.
Also, the M240 is SUPER fucking heavy, while the cased telescope ammo guns top out at around 15 pounds for the LMGs.
>>29881409
yeah over 1000m there are much better calibers for accuracy.
but the 6.5 is a pretty baller military caliber. and thats really what we're talking about here
>>29879801
.50 is the future. Scrubs have to learn how to deal with recoil and aim, sprayers-and-prayers be damned.
>>29880682
Might be for the chamber rotating stuff, or just really shitty test implementation.
>>29880803
>>29880833
I think they just grabbed a bunch of off-the-shelf parts for the less important stuff (charging handle and stock) and slapped them on the prototype to save money.
>>29881417
This stuff just got publicly released a few days ago.
>>29881306
Can you honestly blame the logistics bean counters? Making sure everyone has enough of ammo of in a plethora of flavors would be maddening.
![_MSBS-556_03[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/x32B33u.jpg "_MSBS-556_03[1].jpg")
>>29880682
>>29880803
>>29880833
It's a testbed carbine. They're just trying to see how a carbine with this ammo would perform, so they used a form that they are very familiar with. Once the ammo gets fully developed, they'll probably get a bunch of well known firearms manufacturers to propose rifles designed around the new ammo
Either way, prototypes can end up looking nothing like the final product. See pic related, the MSBS prototype
Apparently, someone who claims to have been at the presentation these slides were used in says that soldiers REALLY love the 6.5mm:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/08/lsat-6-5mm-plastic-cased-ammo-armys-next-small-arms-program/#comment-2664777281
Also, supposedly AAI (who's working on these things) said that they could make CT round uppers that are compatible with AR-15/M16 lowers... which would explain why the prototype has an AR/M16 charging handle and buttstock.
>>29881141
Then fucking start reloading telescoping ammo you cuck
>>29881685
it doesnt even exist beyond R&D m8
if and when it gets adopted, you can buy that shit you fucking mongoloid
>>29881679
>>29879840
tl:dr its a fucking awesome squad weapon and makes the M249, M240 and 7.62x51 obsolete
>>29881790
Well, it's probably going to replace 5.56mm too, because the soldiers didn't really care too much about the 5.56mm CT rounds.
>>29881434
this small penis anon gets it
>>29881409
Are you for real saying that for competition the creedmoor and such are getting beat by... What?
Look at the PRS top shooters and tell me what ammo they're using.
>>29881428
You're saying the creedmoor isn't one of the absolute best LR cartridges ever?
>>29881969
6x47mm Lapua, 6mm Creedmoor, and much less common .243 Winchester. Where have you been?
>>29882006
But the 6.5 calibers of the 47 and the Creed have better ballistics accuracy wise. Currently the too shooters are heading the 6mm route but 6.5 is just as good and better in some ways (wind drift) while being worse in others (drop). I suspect that a shooter who can call wind better will be better with a 6.5 but a shooter who has an inaccurate distance will be better of with 6mm. Neither is better, theres yet to be a substantial difference between the two.
>>29882006
Tbh the 6mm rounds ae winning because of the shooters using them, bot because they are better.
>>29882065
Don't know don't care. 300WM master race here. Just pointing out that 6mm is the top 10 choice in PRS
>>29881679
For those wondering why the 6.5 case is as long as the 7.62 case:
> the decision to use the same case for the 6.5mm as the 7.62mm was driven by the convenience of being able to just switch barrels when testing the carbine and LMG in both calibres. The 6.5mm case is therefore bigger than it needs to be.
>>29882190
So is 6.5 dummy.
I agree though, .300WM is great. Excellent ballistics. To bad it doesn't have lower recoil.
Oh, they make something like that, it's the 6.5 creedmoor.
>>29881983
> Absolute best LR cartridges ever
Like with most things, that heavily depends on things like maximum distance, recoil, and price/round. As a general rule though, no, not the absolute best, especially since it's not a magnum.
If we're just being totally unfair, for example, Sierra makes matchkings for .375 Cheytac now.
140gr Hornady .284 bullets:
G1: .610
350gr Matchking .357 (Cheytac)
G1: 805
>>29881709
Wow and you finally realize my point that it is a little hard to reload this shit because components and dies don't exist
>>29881679
>supposedly AAI (who's working on these things) said that they could make CT round uppers that are compatible with AR-15/M16 lowers
so anyone with an AR lower could buy one and skip a lot of hassle, neat
6.5 is only popular because gamers use it in Arma.
>>29882913
Isn't 6.5 used by the Iranians in game? NATO uses 6.8
>>29882950
Your point being?
>>29882913
>people actually think Arma has any relevance
>>29882995
How did you find out about these rounds initially?
>>29882913
Maybe so. Or maybe it has a better BC than many popular bullets and the Swiss have been killing moose with it for 100 years.
You're right though. Probably the video game.
>>29883055
Seriously? Bolt action hipsters have been drooling over Tikka rifles in 6.5x55 since I've been on /k/.
>>29883115
Which was like what, a week ago?
>>29883097
Thats the only thing swiss have killed in a century.
>>29883126
> Week ago
God, if only. I remember when /r9k/ got turned up. But don't worry anon, it'll happen to you too.
>>29879847
Found the manlet.
#makeamericagreatagain
>>29881679
>Also, supposedly AAI (who's working on these things) said that they could make CT round uppers that are compatible with AR-15/M16 lowers.
This gives me a boner
>>29883192
You're right, more like 5 days ago.
>>29883460
6.5 is a great round. Good enough ballistics for 1200 meters, especially with a 260 rem.
Uses the same bolt as 7.62, so a barrel change is all that is needed. Shoots hotter, and less drop and drift than .308.
Caseless or telescoping is a whole different game though. They could go so many different routes
>>29883724
>SIX POINT FIVE IS DUH GREATEST ROUND EVER CONCEIVED OF BY MANKIND
>IF YOU LOOK AT DUH BALLISITCS IT IS SUPERIOR TO .308
>ITS THE FUTURE OF MIL
>"s-sir this is a mcdonalds......"
>LOL FUCKING FAGGOT PROBABLY STILL USES 7.62 NATO
Thats how you sound
>>29882774
you are literally retarded because no one else is saying to start reloading an ammo that doesn't even commercially exist but that it won't be much more difficult than regular ammo for if it is commercially sold you poor troll
>>29883460
why do you insist everyone is as new as you are? Just accept it that you dindn't know about 6.5 before arma but other people who actually own and shoot firearms may have known about it earlier.
So anyway...
Anyone know why they used the 130gr 7.62x51 instead of 150gr, 168gr, or (be still, my beating heart) 180gr?
>>29883739
Not him but why are you so butt-hurt?
>ARMA 3 predicted the future
>>29883942
Probably the most common load in the inventory.
>>29882065
>6.5
>one of the lightest accepted "long range" rounds
the lighter the round, the more wind effects it. Not to mention the .270, 7mm, and .338 cals all have bullets with higher B.C., and all have higher muzzle velocities.
>>29882241
I haven't done any balistic calculators for it, so i could be wrong, but IIRC the .338 federal should perform quite well and be soft shooting.
>>29880298
And it's also a much simpler design that was set out to be lightweight for the start.
The fact that you assumed he was comparing it for weight and not as an example of a prototype is fucking retarded
>>29884002
that the negev is the ultimate future weapon?
>>29879801
Here We Go!
>>29885571
>surefire magazines
>>29879801
>>29880601
Those aren't 5.56p
>>29884701
Well color me surprised. I've always assumed the .270 was just redneck bluster, but I should have given the bullets a closer look.
Now I kind of wish I'd gone with the 7mm-08 instead of .308 on my Savage. It's not like I need the larger wound diameter for 200lbs hogs.
>>29885765
Let's just assume for now that the powder in 5.56p weighs exactly the same as current powders in production, and just burns hotter.
On one hand, go with a straight wall case, drop the powder weight, get a lighter cartridge, and end up with less privates with blown knees.
On the other, you keep the case and current powder weight charge, maybe push a 123gr 6.5mm bullet at 2800fps, and the entire cartridge goes up by 4grams, or 120grams per magazine.
>>29883942
MK319?
>>29885993
How is hog hunting with .308? And will I be ok to hunt with 6.5 creedmoor?
>>29886242
>MK319
Huh, I didn't even know that existed. Do the 168gr bullets perform so poorly out of 16" barrels that they had to cut the weight by 20%?
>>29886284
Plenty of guys here take them with 5.56, so I'd imagine you would be fine.
As for popping a hog with .308, I wouldn't know. I bought the rifle at the beginning of the year to cull hogs on my in-laws land, which got rezoned residential in February when 7 plots around them got bought up by Californians moving to DFW. So now I have to find another option to hunt, because I'm not paying for a fucking deer lease.
>>29886311
I think its that light because it is a hollowpoint, I mean made to bite into angled barriers.
>>29883739
... do I?
Because that seems to sound more like something you typed up on a mongolian cartoon board.
I'm very seriously considering this in 6.5x55 Swede.
While I have heard it is a great caliber in general I have some concerns. I fear that if I shoot something like a boar with it some Somalis will appear out of nowhere and begin to take turns raping the entry wound. If I attempt to prevent them from tainting my dinner the bullet will refuse to leave the muzzle because it's afraid of being called a racist.
>>29887008
Are you in america? Or do you have access to american-made bullets?
Only bullets made in sweden have that problem. Brass casing also has to apologize to steel-cased rounds for brass-privilege.
>>29879801
NOT FICTION ANYMORE
http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/MX_series
ACR/SCAR WITH 6.5MM AMMO IS A GO!
>>29884701
Man those couldn't possibly have any drawbacks
>>29882246
You I agree with
>>29879801
Fucking caliberfags. They're like a wind-up toy. Never learn. Always repeat the same shit.
Yes, Afghanistan saw 50% of engagements at ranges beyond 300m. That doesn't mean we need a bigger caliber. Probability of hit is completely dominated by shooter error, which is orders of magnitude bigger in combat compared to on a rifle range. At these ranges you don't hit shit in combat. This isn't an argument for bringing back bigger calibers. It's an argument for outfitting infantry with many more handheld mortars in 40-60mm.
>>29880111
The cartridges are shorter. That's all. The real gain comes from using polymer as case material, not from telescopic ammo. In fact, telescopic ammo is worse, as it requires more propellant because before the round gets in the barrel, there's a lack of obturation, which leads to gas losses.
>>29880180
Can telescoped rounds be reloaded?
>>29880211
And this is a dangerous method, because in case there's a failure to ignite the primer, the new round will push on the rear end of the old round, which may cause the primer to go off. Because of this the chamber in the G11 only rotated in one direction, so the new round would push on the tip of the old round and not the primer. But this requires a chamber rotating around an axis that's not parallel with the bore. In the LSAT it's parallel with the bore.
>>29885765
5.56 pencil?
>>29879801
An intermediate automatic rifle cartridge in the 6mm to 7mm range has been trying to come into existence for almost a century now. This new cartridge will be buried in the good ideas graveyard alongside the likes of .276 Pedersen, .280 British, and the dozens of AR snowflake cartridges.
>>29886149
>drop the powder weight,
It is not only weight but loading dencity too. Comressed or even solid charge. Less volume.
>>29886311
It is hollow point bullet designed for guns including 13'' barrel Mk 17. Heavier bullet didn't have enough velocity for fragmentation from 13''.
>>29888431
I'd imagine this was their only option when it came to designing a gun to shoot both caseless AND telescoped polymer ammo.
>>29885765
Long skinny casings burn powder inefficiently.
Sounds to me like using 5.56CT and 6.5CT makes the most sense.
Give most dudes lightweight 5.56CT carbines, use the reduced weight to allow for more GLs (XM25?), mortars and so on. That fancy lightweight 5.56CT SAW also sounds more useful than a 6.5 that weighs as much as an M249.
If the 6.5CT really outperforms 7.62 NATO so greatly then give it to marksmen and machine gunners. They'd actually get reduced weight, unlike if you issue it to all troops. 1200m or whatever ranged small arms for everyone just doesn't make sense when you can just have lighter weapons and carry more explosives and stuff instead
>>29888350
when your mgs cant reach shit, you have a problem.
5.56 lmgs are shit.
6.5 also brings the benefit of much better barrier penetration than 5.56
5.56 are a shit caliber. its just too standarised to get rid of.
>>29888643
>Give most dudes lightweight 5.56CT carbines
Honestly for rifles CT look meh. Unconventional operation makes rifle bulky. Round has larger diameter, less rounds per cli... magazine. I think conventional layout cases but made of lightweight materials are better suited for carbines.
>>29888643
Also how much powder is behind the 6.5?
Assuming that they're going for creedesque performance, that's way excessive for most use. If they can get Grendel-like or even slighly lower velocity out of a CT cartridge that weighs perhaps slighly less than brass 5.56 then they should go with that for carbines and SAWs and use the current 6.5 for marksmen and LMGs. That way you could perhaps save dosh by using the same bullets across the board.
>>29888749
>Grendel
Grendel is byproduct of AR-15 limitations. With new weapon system there are no reasons to be hindered by AR-15 dimensions.
>>29880977
>civilians caught up to US military capability
>>29888749
gerndels are bad, they cant use the good longer bullets and fit in AR mags,
>>29888560
There's no reason why the G11 chamber setup couldn't be used for CT ammo as well.
No, the real reason why the LSAT chamber is the way it is, is not that is had to accomodate both caseless and CT ammo but because it was to be a) belt-fed and b) polymer cases can't be made with an extractor groove because the forces acting on it are too big.
>>29888653
The problem isn't reach. The maximum shooting distance of 5.56x45mm NATO from an 20 inch barrel is more than 2.5km. The problem is that you can't hit shit at long distances unless you're calm, have all the time in the world and the target doesn't move, like on a rifle range. But that's simply not the case in combat, regardless of caliber. In fact with bigger calibers you're reducing your chances to hit because you have less attempts at hitting as you can't carry as many rounds.
>>29888807
>b) polymer cases can't be made with an extractor groove because the forces acting on it are too big.
Their earlier attempt was to make caseless ammo, obviously you can't make extractor groove in the caseless. Polymer-cased CT was safer solution if caseless would not work. Now they concentrate on polymer case what says us that caseless doesn't work. What raises the question is telescoping configuration inherited from caseless is right thing to do with polymer?
>>29888857
> caseless
why dont the just make a polymer casing that leaves the barrel and works as a sabot for the bullet. you get both casings and no ejection
>>29888857
To my understanding they wen't for a dual path strategy from early on, in case they can't make caseless work. Their caseless version is on TRL 5 iirc, their CT version TRL 7. The G11 was ready for serial production and had already passed all Bundeswehr tests. I guess that's equivalent to TRL 8. Money that was already approved by the German parliament for serial production got cancelled due to the political changes of the ending of the Cold War (CFE treaty, reunification costs, etc).
>>29888857
>What raises the question is telescoping configuration inherited from caseless is right thing to do with polymer?
Yes, because it's simpler to make, smaller, and endures less mechanical stress than a conventionally shaped polymer case.
>>29888866
With this approach you'd have the same obturation and heat problems as with caseless ammo plus the added uncertainty of whether a saboted round in small arms can even be made accurate. In the ACR program the flechette weapons had a lower probability of hit. Whether that was inherent to the flechettes themselves or because they required sabots I don't know.
And you'd still have to devise a system for ejection in case a round is a dud.
>>29880693
Don't worry, any malnourished farmer with a rusty chink ak surplus will destroy every american tentative to install democracy by force even if said american tentative is made with gauss rifles, laser machine gun and exo-armors.
>>29886388
>>29888541
Wait, so they only compared their 123gr .284 against the 130gr .308, whose low velocity and barrier requirements drop it's SD and by extension BC right into the toilet.
What do they think is going to happen with their .284 bullets when they find out they don't go through windshields and need a 20" barrel at least to keep fragmentation velocity at any range over 300m?
Those anons claiming cherry picked data were spot on.
>>29888837
I'm not disagreeing with you regarding better hand held mortars, but unless we come up with some new and extremely more efficient explosive, those are going to remain heavy as fuck all.
As for a bigger caliber, if they can put together a round with higher SD that keeps a similar weight and case volume, then adding <4 grams a bullet shouldn't hurt too much. That's an additional 4kg every 1000 rounds, which the lighter LMG would more than make up for.
IF they can keep the weight and case volume the same.
>>29888837
yes the problem is reach. when an enemy infantry squad can supress you effectively beyond your own range, you have a problem.
with real fucking nato you get the range, but the gun is heavy and 308 looses alot of energy over longer distances.
this isnt about hitting targets and killing them, infantry cant hit shit beyond 100m anyways. its being able to supress
>>29888921
>smaller
>>29889022
Everything for hitting something beyond 300m is going to be fucking heavy, except maybe for DMRs and sniper rifles. But you can't train everyone to be a superb marksman. In combat snipers are on average already 2 shots one kill. And they have to operate concealed/camouflaged, apart from the regular platoon. DMRs are much worse. That's a problem that can only be overcome with heavy weapons. But on the bright side, the enemy isn't hitting us at long distances with their AKs and Enfields either. Their kills come predominantly from IEDs and setting up ambushes.
>a round with higher SD
Don't know what that means. Small diameter? Standard deviation? Self-defense?
>IF they can keep the weight and case volume the same.
When the savings come from using polymer cases it's better to use that for the current caliber in order to save overall weight and/or increase the number of rounds carried.
>>29889107
SD is sectional density.
>>29889104
there's more to size than diameter.
>>29889059
>yes the problem is reach. when an enemy infantry squad can supress you effectively beyond your own range, you have a problem.
If they do it's because they got the advantage of surprise because they set up an ambush. And I'm not talking about some computer simulated salvo combat model, but our actual experiences in Afghanistan which prompted the insufferable caliber discussion in the first place (which btw has already been adressed with the M855A1 round. In thorough testing the varying reports of effectiveness of the M855 round were attributed to fleet yaw problems and rectified with the M855A1).
>with real fucking nato you get the range, but the gun is heavy and 308 looses alot of energy over longer distances.
The energy of 5.56 is always enough to kill a guy, provided it hits. Hitting is the problem. Not the size of the hole. And that can't be solved by a bigger caliber.
>this isnt about hitting targets and killing them, infantry cant hit shit beyond 100m anyways. its being able to supress
With less rounds carried you suppress for a shorter duration. Nobody stands out in the open because the enemy shoots "only 5.56" instead of 7.62. The battle for fire superiority is won by those who achieve more volume of fire, which primarily means number of rounds downrange. But when you get into an ambush, the enemy has already made sure it has fire superiority from early on and it's hard to win it back. This can't be solved by a bigger caliber.
Besides, suppression is also a matter of wrong training in Western armies. We do it with MGs. We should do it with aimed single shot fire every couple of seconds and use the MGs for actually hitting at distance. In combat they're better at that than Mausers or Enfields, because even though they have worse mechanical accuracy, their rate of fire overcompensates for that as targets are visible only for very short durations and they get off a couple fo rounds in a burst during those fleeting windows of opportunity.
>>29889119
Ok, well that's a function of density of the round and length-to-diameter ratio. Increasing the former will increase the weight of the round, the latter can't be increased arbitrarily for stability reasons. It also depends on the form factor, but we're pretty much at the limit here with boat tail bullets (again for stability reasons), which are already less accurate than flat ended bullets.
>>29889173
Different anon here.
> Volume of fire is most important
> Suppress with single shot fire
So, which is it?
>>29889172
Magazine capacity is decided by diameter not other dimensions.
>>29889203
The one is the battle for fire superiority, the other is suppression when you already have it.
>>29889173
>but our actual experiences in Afghanistan
How many NATO soldiers were casualties of 7.62x54R caliber fired from 500+ meters range?
>yfw there is no such things as quantifiable Afghanistan experience
>just memes and feels
>>29889173
norwegian army found that minimi was shit in A-stan and continued using mg3s.
>>29889173
>The energy of 5.56 is always enough to kill a guy,
its not about killing, its about supression and barrier penetration. infantry doesnt really kill stuff long range. they supress untill they are up close and handgrenade/shoot. or just call in bombs.
>less round = less volume of fire.
thats true and its a tradeoff
>If they do it's because they got the advantage of surprise because they set up an ambush.
or you know if you attack enemy positions, and they can engage you at much longer ranges with much more of their weaponry. while we have to rely on vehicle support, or the odd 7.62 mg available
>>29889203
to be fair, if grunts supress with single shot fire, thats more volume of fire
and to other anon again, thats already part of western doctrine.
>>29889245
>How many NATO soldiers were casualties of 7.62x54R caliber fired from 500+ meters range?
Exactly!
As I said, their kills come from IEDs and setting up ambushes. Nothing at which a bigger caliber helps reducing our casuaties.
>>29889233
With that gentlemen, I'm out.
It will be interesting to see if they make it work, and if they can see some weight savings along with range increase. Or I'd they can even replicate current reliability.
>>29889265
>norwegian army found that minimi was shit in A-stan and continued using mg3s.
Doesn't surprise me. Rate of fire is most important for hitting at distance.
>its not about killing, its about supression and barrier penetration.
Read the post you quoted for suppression. There's enough in there. As for barrier penetration. It's silly to make that a requirement for a hand weapon. They found they couldn't penetrate the common mud compounds in Afghanistan even with .50 cal. In some cases even 20mm wasn't enough. If you need to breach through a wall or enemy defilade, use a heavy weapon, like a Bunkerfaust or a Javelin, not a bigger small arms caliber. Or use and actual counter-defilade weapon, i.e. a mortar. Smaller barriers like car doors and wind shields can now be reliably be penetrated with the M855A1.
>or you know if you attack enemy positions, and they can engage you at much longer ranges with much more of their weaponry. while we have to rely on vehicle support, or the odd 7.62 mg available
Let's make a test. You stand out in the open at 500m and I shoot at you with 5.56. That was somehow the point you tried to make, right? That the enemy doesn't care for 5.56? Let's see if that theory holds up to the test.
>>29879801
5.56x45 nato is great for infantry, intermediate caliber, it will never die.
6.5 is better than 7.62x51 for short action, heavy portable weapons.
>>29889299
>Let's make a test. You stand out in the open at 500m and I shoot at you with 5.56. That was somehow the point you tried to make, right? That the enemy doesn't care for 5.56? Let's see if that theory holds up to the test.
if you stand out in the open during an attack, you're doing something horribly wrong.
if an enemy has, say a sandbagged mg position, and you're attacking that. you'd have to advance over 1000m under effective fire, while using shitty cover. which 7.62 penetrates better than 5.56.
at the same time you are firing at him with 5.56 to supress him, it will take a much longer time to gnaw through the barrier, and at long ranges 5.56 gets fucked by wind in a larger degree.
as i've said before, it isnt about hitting a person and killing him, its about limiting their cover, reducing their cover.
furthermore, using afghanistan isnt really a good example since its asymmetrical as fuck.
>>29889059
>implying someone shooting with 7,62x39 or some shit will engage me from a longer range than I am able to engage at with 5.56.
Actually you're just spouting bullshit. Of course you can kill and hit beyond 100 metres
You're not wrong about the ability to supress, but suppressing fire equals a lot of "random" kills which is WHY it is so effective.
>>29888775
I meant in terms of propellant, a better bullet is a given as you'd want the same one as with the heavier 6.5.
If you can get like, 450m out of a really light cartride with good barrier penetration you're set. Even 450 is already almost excessive
>>29889365
>which 7.62 penetrates better than 5.56.
You don't penetrate a sandbagged defilade with either.
You might just as well write into the requirements that the weapon needs to be able to penetrate the top edge of irrigation canals, as those were frequent covers for enemies. You don't penetrate that even with 20mm. A defilade needs to be tackled with a counter-defilade weapon: a mortar. Using small arms for this is simply silly.
>and at long ranges 5.56 gets fucked by wind in a larger degree.
Yes, but it's irrelevant because in combat the shooter error is several orders of magnitude greater than the error of the rifle-ammunition combination. So you don't hit with 7.62 either. You increase your chances of hitting by firing lots of rounds in a small amount of time, i.e. full auto.
>as i've said before, it isnt about hitting a person and killing him, its about limiting their cover, reducing their cover.
And as I've said before you can suppress longer with more rounds. You won't shoot away their cover with small arms, regardless of caliber.
Dude, this discussion is more than 50 years old. In the 50s the generals of old were just as reluctant to adopt the SCHV concept, despite the overwhelming evidence from WWII. If it had been up to them, we'd still be using bolt action rifles and hadn't even adopted assault rifles.
>furthermore, using afghanistan isnt really a good example since its asymmetrical as fuck.
Oh yeah? So when's our war against Russia or China gonna start? Oh, right, never because it would go nuclear in an instant. Asymmetric wars will remain the only wars we actually fight.
>>29889432
by 308 and real fucking nato, I meant 308 win aka 7.62x51.
7.62x39 and 5.56x45 is equal.
missions are planned around this stuff. its not about the "random" chances, but about whats effective.
requesting that infograph with infantry accuracy in combat/stressed situiations.
and supressing fire dont really ammount to "alot of random kills" anyways, and is in no way the reason why it is effective.
it just stops the enemy from doing stuff, and keeps the initiative.
>>29889492
>7.62x39 and 5.56x45 is equal.
Except for the fact that 5.56 is lighter, more accurate, and easier to control during rapid-fire.
>>29889449
>Oh yeah? So when's our war against Russia or China gonna start? Oh, right, never because it would go nuclear in an instant. Asymmetric wars will remain the only wars we actually fight.
keep telling that to yourself, and while we're at it why dont we just swap out our fighters with coin aircraft only. designing your doctrine and military around assymmetrical warfare only is stupid as fuck.
>You don't penetrate a sandbagged defilade with either.
you need more sandbags to build an effective cover for 7.62x51 and 7.62x54r than for 5.56 and 7.62x39.
small arms will and do reduce cover.
>>29889543
>you need more sandbags to build an effective cover for 7.62x51 and 7.62x54r than for 5.56 and 7.62x39.
Yeah, you need two. And everyone building sandbags wall will be placing two bags not one to defend just from 5.56/5.45.
>>29889543
>keep telling that to yourself, and while we're at it why dont we just swap out our fighters with coin aircraft only. designing your doctrine and military around assymmetrical warfare only is stupid as fuck.
Oh, we will keep buying equipment for symmetrical wars. But we won't fight such a war unless it's being forced on us. Just look at the war in Ukraine. There is literally zero difference between what Putin did in 2014 and what Saddam did in 1990: invading a neighbor and annexing territory. The events of Ukraine 2014 were the best excuse for the international community to act, to go to war with the agressor, drive him out and restore the status quo ante. A casus belli doesn't get more clear cut than that. But what did we actually do? Economic sanctions. That's about it. We won't go to war with a nuclear power/near peer unless the war is being forced on us. This means the primary function of our weapons for symmetrical wars is deterrence. So what matters is just having them.
Besides, even in a symmetrical war the SCHV concept is valid. It's where it actually originated from. In WWII they examined tens of thousands of combat casualties and looked at millions of combat reports. They found that the distribution of bullet wounds is just as random as that of fragmentation weapons like artillery and mortars. Take a moment to sit back and process that information. Let it really sink in. The distribution of bullet wounds is just as random as that of fragmentation weapons. In other words: in combat marksmanship skills are completely irrelevant. There are very few exceptions, like snipers and special operations people with years and years of training and experience. But you can't train everybody to do that. For the regular soldier marksmanship skills are completely irrelevant. What matters is the number of rounds he carries and the rate of fire of his weapon.
Oh, and don't be ridiculous. If sandbags wouldn't offer proper protection we wouldn't bother using them.
>>29890028
>There is literally zero difference between what Putin did in 2014 and what Saddam did in 1990: invading a neighbor and annexing territory.
>zero difference
>what are nukes
>>29890067
Oh you found the point I was making. Congratulations!
>>29888787
>in small arms
Lern 2 reed
>>29889196
>boat tail is less accurate
Wew lad
>>29890874
Yep, it is. It retains more energy at long distances because of its higher ballistic coefficient but it's less accurate. It's a problem of transition ballistics. This is because a slender tail provides surface area on which gases exert force upon asymmetrically immediately after the bullet leaves the muzzle.
>>29890963
Actually, it's more accurate because they provide a graduated exit of gasses. Same reason barrels are crowned, actually. Between the two and the increase in form factor, BT bullets are far more accurate.
>>29891046
No they are less accurate for the reasons I stated. When the bullet leaves the muzzle the gases are still very much under pressure and this stream of gases is able to overtake the bullet. In fact, a bullet is accelerated even shortly after it left the muzzle because of the energy that's still in the gases. A flat tail bullet provides surface area only for acceleration in line with the bore, but with a slender tail some part acts perpendicular to the flight path. And because the gases are highly chaotic they're also asymmetrical. This introduces additional yaw through additional precession and nutation, which deteriorates the accuracy.
A barrel that opens up slowly at the end would be a terribly inaccurate barrel. In fact, barrels are manufactured such that the very end has a decreasing bore diameter precisely because transition ballistics has such a great influence on accuracy.
>>29891046
Forgot to add: The crown of a barrel is so that the actual muzzle sits deeper than the face of the front end of the barrel, so that it doesn't get affected in case the front end hits something.
>>29891130
Note how long range artillery shells use base bleed instead of boat tails.
>>29891168
Yep, for range.
>>29891130
Boat tail and crowning reduces inconsistencies in gas pressure location tho. Check out the video by tibosaures Rex (or whatever he's called) regarding this subject. This is why short range BR shooters recrown barrels and use BT bullets.
If you can cite sources I'd gladly check them out BTW.
>>29880271
6.5 creedmore bitch
>>29891207
Just repeating what you said doesn't make it more true. I don't care what YT videos you like to watch. Neither boat tail nor crowning "reduce inconsistencies in gas pressure" nothing can do that. In reality gases aren't ideal which has implications when you stop talking about general phenomena and get to the nitty gritty details. There's always variations in pressure of a gas, the most prominent example is sound. That's nothing but pressure variation in the air. Similar things happen inside a barrel. Interfering pressure waves from burn inconsistencies of the propellant as well as the oscillation properties of the barrel make the gases inside the barrel have locally different pressures. This is why crowning a barrel is important: It is to make the muzzle as regular and precise as possible so that the whole circumference of the bullet ceases to touch the barrel at the same time to avoid gases acting asymmetrically on the bullet. A boat tail is worse in accuracy because it provides ample opportunity for the gases to do just that.
>>29891313
And yet all physical evidence is against you.
>>29891313
Go to BR forums and ask them what they use, or LR forums and ask what bullets they use. The vast majority will be using BT bullets for various reasons, including what I've said. These are competition winning folks. What about Bryan Litz? I can guarantee you he recommends BT for precision 100% of the time, given equal quality construction and manufacturing tolerances.
>>29891259
One of these can be made using existing tooling and case manufacturing from .308.
One of these uses brass casings from an oddball Thompson Center cartridge with less availability than even .284 Winchester.
>>29891358
Just saying so doesn't make it so.
>>29891358
>>29891381
Ignore him gents. You asked for sources, he provided none. He wants to type verbose paragraphs and has zero intentions of convincing anyone of his position.
>>29891381
To add to this. I'm not saying there aren't outstanding results seen every day with FB bullets, I'm saying that one average a rifle will perform better with a BT bullet. Of course there are barrels out there that like FB for whatever reason, but that is not the trend we see in precision rifles.
>>29890963
Meet the best of both worlds.
>>29891381
>go to BR forums
6mmbr.com universally recommends a 68gr flat base for benchrest.
Flat base bullets are, unequivocally and scientifically demonstrably more accurate than boattail bullets. The only reason boattail bullets exist is they have a higher BC, making it easier for the shooter to hit things past ~300m, because they have less wind drift.
>>29891432
No they don't. Everyone has their own pet loads.
Quite few are using SMK, VLD, and A-max bullets. In fact from a quick look it seems the amount of boattail reccomnedations greatly exceeeds the flat base ones.
>>29891381
A flatter trajectory due to shorter flight path does have its own benefits, mainly less time for wind to act on the bullet. This is advantageous when you can't reliably measure and account for wind. When you can, the flat tail bullet will, ceteris paribus, be more accurate. Human shooters aren't a measure of accuracy btw. Accuracy must always be measured with a fixed weapon and the inaccuracies of the used ammunition lot must be determined beforehand with special ultra thick test barrels that exist for that purpose. Human shooters are just anecdotal evidence and serve more to cloud understanding than to illuminate.
As for manufacturing tolerances you probably mixed up things. There's two methods of constructing a bullet: drawing it from the front and drawing it from the rear. Drawing it from the rear has several advantages. First, it doesn't leave lead in the barrel. Front drawn bullet with an open end do, because the hot gases evaporate some of the exposed lead. Second, the ballistic coefficient is better because the tail vortices contribute to most of the drag and drawing it from the rear leads to a more precise rear.
>>29891398
>"After the bullet has left the barrel, the gases are still under considerable pressure (several hundred bar; see Table 2-12). They expand, accelerating rapidly. Their velocity then exceeds that of the bullet and they flow past and around it. The flow surrounding the bullet is not symmetrical, so in addition to imparting some slight additional acceleration to the bullet, the flow subjects it to irregular lateral forces, causing it to oscillate about its centre of gravity. This effect is particularly marked in the case of long bullets and those with a long boattail."
Source: Kneubuehl et al: Wound Ballistics, Basics and Applications, p.70
Now fuck off, cunt!
>>29891561
Gladly, and thank you for the reading material. There isn't a lot of physics material on this subject online.
>>29891427
where is that from?
>>29891561
So then why is it that 85-90% of precision bullets use BT?
Also, I'd like to see data on the subject. All the data ive seen is that the vast majority of winning bullets have used BT designs. I have yet to see anything showing that fb designs are more accurate. Might I refernyou to Bryan Litz again, shoot him a message on his website. He will be able to explain to you using DATA why and how BT are better than FB.
>>29891561
>>29891636
Whoa whoa whoa, wait a sec. What the fuck do you do that you need a $200 reference text on forensic pathology for gun shot wounds?
>>29891745
Talking out of my ass, but most likely because any yaw or lateral acceleration introduced by a boat tail can be overcome by the stabilizing gyroscopic force from the barrel. I'm wondering if this is why you hear old timers who shoot stupidly high velocity rounds mentioning the distance it takes a heavier (i.e. longer) bullet to go to sleep.
Karpov B.G. wrote a white paper on this exact subject, and I'll see if I can find it.
>>29891862
>Whoa whoa whoa, wait a sec. What the fuck do you do that you need a $200 reference text on forensic pathology for gun shot wounds?
People have different interests. Some collect postage stamps or build railroad models. I like to thoroughly study the field of small arms. ;-)
Welcome to /k/
>>29891745
Well, I'd like to see data on the usage of bullets for precision shooting, not some made up statistics that you pulled out of your ass. As for what some individual prefers, I don't care. The science is unequivocal on that matter.
>>29880615
Except for, you know, the highly specialized and most likely restricted propellant
>>29892008
Not pulled out of my ass, pulled out of the asses of the very best precision rifle shooters in the PRS.
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/12/11/reloading-components/
Science is data driven, and seeing as you've yet to provide any data, you're not going at this scientifically. I'm not saying that my data is 100% without error but I'm basing this off of what the absolute best of the best shooters are using, rather than trusting the word of some retard on a norwegian rock painting forum.
>>29891862
>Talking out of my ass, but most likely because any yaw or lateral acceleration introduced by a boat tail can be overcome by the stabilizing gyroscopic force from the barrel.
Is it perhaps possible that the wind bucking effects of BT bullets+the fact that they even out the release of gasses from the barrel has anything to do with it?
>>29892170
Well, then it's clear what you are talking about: shooting at up to 1200 yards. Most certainly wind drift is by far the greatest contributor to POI shift at these ranges. A shorter flight time due to higher BC helps a lot, especially if wind speeds are unclear and/or varying in degree downrange. But seeing that we originally came from a discussion where we had already established that hitting beyond 300m is next to hopeless for the regular soldier, that is quite beside the point.
>>29892170
Oh and as for the science, I've cited from a 500 page scientific reference work.
>>29891466
>benchrest
>boattail
Im not sure if you're retarded or trolling. Those are used in shit like F class and Palma. Actual benchrest is shot at 100m or 300m with flat base, light for caliber bullets
>>29892367
Go on BR forums, they are currently leaning toward BT.
>>29889230
And how many magazines you can carry on your person, or how many cartridges can be carried in a container, and how many containers of that cartridge can be carried in a vehicle are decided by "other dimensions." Look at the volume figures from that table.
Poindexter wasn't lying. A boat tail does introduce an addition Magnus Force that affects the yaw. It grows more pronounced the longer the boat tail. I have no idea just how much yaw, because this shit is over my head.
Look up "The effects of various boat tail shapes on base pressure" by B.G. Karpov.
>>29892336
boat tail has less drag right? so you get more energy at long distances.
and is the benefit of FB big enough from 0-300m? to accept the energy loss over distance? how many MOA are we talking here, cant be much.
>>29892577
Well, drop and wind at those distances aren't a ton to worry about. But at the same time I figure if you can get precise, accurate shots out at 1000m with a BT, you could go BR at 100-300m and get wonderful results there too. IMO (and the general BR crowd) BT dominates all around.
>>29880977
Except we're not allowed new automatics and are at least heavily discouraged from other innovations because of the NFA.
>>29888431
That wouldn't be an issue if we used an electrical primer.
>>29892529
Thank you for this. So, now we have to look at practical effects of that tourque when applied to real life. How much will that affect accuracy at a choosen distance? And is choosing the FB to negate those accuracy disadvantages worth the loss in form factor? Energy downrange? Velocity? Probably not.
>>29880271
>>29891259
Barrel longevity is a concern. Just saying.
>>29892707
6.5 creedmoor has pretty good battle life tho
>>29892529
Also, the yaw has nothing to do with gas instability. It's entirely due to the gyroscopic motion and the change of center of mass a boat tail introduces.
>>29892577
Inside 300m the difference in mechanical accuracy will be very minor. Probably a tenth of an MOA. They're used in BR competitions because at state level shoots a 0.180" 10 shot group usually wont even be top 5, much less win.
>>29892911
When your group size begins approaching the radius of your bullet's cross section, it's time to admit that we have approached the limit of diminishing returns for small arms fire.
>>29892612
>That wouldn't be an issue if we used an electrical primer.
They tried that, too, at first with the G11. I'm too lazy now to look up why they didn't implement it. But that was very early in the development, before they even had a rotating chamber.
But in principle, if you can make it work, yes, an electrical primer should eliminate that problem if you want to keep the LSAT chamber setup.
>>29893360
Fuck it all. We should just use trounds.
>>29892529
Does anyone else find it ironic the US keeps ripping off Slavshit designs/ideas?
>Sikorsky was bought/coerced
>F117a was due to a russian professors dissertation on radar and geometry
>'New' bullet is an exact replica of 5.45x39mm but upscaled to 6.5mm
Whats next?
>>29892642
Most probably not. Soldiers with their service rifles is one thing. But the 5.56 is also used in MGs and crew served weapons where it actually can be used to hit targets at long distance with more than just luck. And as we use the same round everywhere for logistics reasons it makes sense to use a BT bullet.
>>29893459
Dumbest post of the day award.
>>29893459
>5.45x39mm is totally innovative. It definitely isn't a copy of .223 at all guise!
>>29891950
Got anything you'd be willing to upload and deem worthy for the ar/k/?
>>29893459
I'm trying to understand the thought process here. Did you see a Russian author's name and thus assumed the Yanks reversed engineered a .284 bullet that the Swiss have been using since the late 1800s by way of Russia?
>>29889449
>A defilade needs to be tackled with a counter-defilade weapon
Such as air bursting grenade launchers
Small arms are obsolete.
>>29890028
>There is literally zero difference between what Putin did in 2014 and what Saddam did in 1990
Except of course for the fact that Putin didn't invade anything, and that eastern ukraine/crimea are all russian,and that kuwait was the agression in 1990....
But who cares about facts huh?
>>29894775
>that eastern ukraine/crimea are all russian
>this is what vatniks actually believe
>>29894775
>But who cares about facts huh?
You don't, that is for sure.
>>29880601
>.264
Fudd dimensions must burn in hell.
>>29894929
Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil, Iraq was told by the US that they wouldn't defend Kuwait, thats how the gulf war started.
Then 10 years later the Kuwaiti repay the favor with 9/11.
>>29894313
Wait, /k/ actually has a documents folder? You guys have Michael Courtney's paper where he got the USAF to pay him money to write an essay about why the .30-06 was the most awesome caliber ever?
>>29894977
>Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil
Saddam claimed Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil, which it wasn't, to justify his invasion.
>>29895040
https://desustorage.org/k/thread/29345919/#29345919
Praise the /k/ube.
