nasty 308 round... "duplex"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nasty 308 round... "duplex"

    Don't know if it's been posted here or anything or if anyones heard of them... or indeed if I'm posting this in the rite sub-forum but check out this nasty little piece of work
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1387869456

  • #2
    Looks particularly nasty, wonder how accurate it is.
    Not suitable for mature audiences

    Comment


    • Guest's Avatar
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Originally posted by several" post=46786
      Looks particularly nasty, wonder how accurate it is.
      accurate enough to hit a lump of jelly at 3 yards... apparently the US army tested them back in the 60's and determined that "duplex ammunition was 14 to 22 % more effective in hitting personnel type targets in simulated infantry squad combat conditions" ... according to a comment on live leaks anyway...

  • #3
    Originally posted by SLAiN" post=46777
    Don't know if it's been posted here or anything or if anyones heard of them... or indeed if I'm posting this in the rite sub-forum but check out this nasty little piece of work
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1387869456
    The duplex was also experimented in 5.56mm form as well.
    The Hague and Geneva conventions ban multiple projectile small arms ammunition.

    Comment


    • Guest's Avatar
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Originally posted by Oddball" post=46787
      Originally posted by SLAiN" post=46777
      Don't know if it's been posted here or anything or if anyones heard of them... or indeed if I'm posting this in the rite sub-forum but check out this nasty little piece of work
      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b9_1387869456
      The duplex was also experimented in 5.56mm form as well.
      The Hague and Geneva conventions ban multiple projectile small arms ammunition.
      I guess your only gunna need one projectile from a 308 to do the job anyway

  • #4
    I seem to recall some technical compromises with duplex rounds too, such as accuracy.
    I think it was the first projectile was generally on target, but the second one tended to be a roll of the dice at longer ranges.

    Wait one, it was the ACR project the Yanks ran about 20 years ago:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forward!
    Where we are, where we belong, where we should be.

    Comment


    • Jester308
      Jester308 commented
      Editing a comment
      Would make for effective barrier penetration, ie to defeat glass, IF it provided accuracy at typical engagement ranges. Otherwise it's more a liability than an advantage.

      JJ

  • #5
    Be a bugger to reload.

    Comment


    • #6
      It's Military stuff for killing people....we don't do that shit.....leave it to them.
      I'm in love with Jennifer Hawkins and Alessandra Ambrosio

      Comment


      • #7
        You're welcome JJ.
        Yeah, 'tis interesting to examine that window into the past. Most of the Yank small arms projects at the time were in search of increasing hit probability against massed targets (ala Korea) or fleeting targets (ala Viet Nam and every other "low intensity" we've been involved in ever since) by barely trained conscripts. It was that classic problem: looking for a hardware solution to a problem that is essentially software based - ie. the simplest, most effective solution is increased small arms and combat marksmanship training, with attendant smallarms ammunition expenditure budget. And only the hardware to better accomplish that task, like better aiming systems and optics.

        It's the old line: if you don't know where you've come from, it's awfully hard to avoid making the same mistakes as you work out where the hell you're going!
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Forward!
        Where we are, where we belong, where we should be.

        Comment

        Working...
        X