Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the 458 Socom very popular?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    It's true that I don't embrace all new technology. Possibly, it's a lack of understanding, because of a lack of interest.

    WOW! How can you say that? I think they are a "radial departure", in pretty much everything that comes to usage. They don't look the same way, carry the same way, OR handle the same way.

    Compare it with the Mini 14. Don't you see a difference? If the Mini 14 had the benefit of the same development, would it not be a better choice for a Military Service Rifle?

    Not to suggest that LOOKs are everything, but the Mini 14, For Example, looks like a rifle, not like a platform. Tripods are "platforms".

    To function like a rifle, a rifle conceivably LOOK like a rifle, rather than a Ray-Gun.

    Since, you're so good with the lingo, and rationalizations, you might research how the AR15 was chosen in the first place in spite of all the problems, and the credit to American Ingenuity, that made it as functional as it is today.

    I'm not offended, and hope I'm not being offensive.

    Smitty of the North
    Certainly nothing wrong with not embracing new tech. It's not for every one. I've always been exposed to the cutting edge from the time I was very young. My dad used to be a programmer for IBM and we had one of the first home computers in our house back in the late 70's. I think that's kind of driven me to embrace new tech more than others my age even.

    I think we aren't too far off, but maybe thinking from different angles on the "departure". I think more along the lines of the action itself rather then the outward view. To me a semi-auto is a semi-auto. They all have different mechanical action but the result is the same. So I don't really differentiate base on how it looks. That said, the mini-14 was (and still does) have a reputation of accuracy issues. I'm not saying it can't be accurate, but it inherently has issues that need to be resolved. They actually competed for dominance (mini-14 was produced after the AR-15) but the flexibility of the AR eventually won out. Initially the M-16 had issues. BAD issues. Through trial by fire, that was worked out. I think (and this is really only my opinion) that the simplicity and flexibility of the AR design was what won out. It's very easy to maintain an AR and parts are pretty easy to swap if needed. You can pretty much tear the thing down to a pile of parts with not much more than a punch and your fingers. That and if a barrel was damaged you could literally do an upper swap in the middle of a battle without any tools at all. And while aesthetics means something, they don't really matter to the military. What caused the general public to embrace it? Why to girls like barbie dolls. It's not the doll, it's all the accesories. So yeah, the AR is the barbie doll of the gun world. You can put whatever dress and shoes on it you fancy. I really think that is what has made it so popular. The fact that it's relatively cheap and cheap to add jewelry to. That and it's about the most flexible foundation for a firearm I can think of. I mean look at the list you posted. Many of those calibers are not much more than a simple barrel change. The rest are little more than an upper receiver. You could pretty much have one lower that allows you to have everything from a .22LR plinker/rodent control up to a pretty decent medium game hunter. And the total cost would probably be cheaper in the long run, plus as far as Uncle Sam is concerned, you only have 1 gun. The lower is the gun. Uppers ship regular mail with no FFL involved.

    I may come across as an "AR fanboy", but in reality I'm a gun fanboy. I like em all! I just can't afford to OWN them all...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mobius View Post
      Certainly nothing wrong with not embracing new tech. It's not for every one. I've always been exposed to the cutting edge from the time I was very young. My dad used to be a programmer for IBM and we had one of the first home computers in our house back in the late 70's. I think that's kind of driven me to embrace new tech more than others my age even.

      I think we aren't too far off, but maybe thinking from different angles on the "departure". I think more along the lines of the action itself rather then the outward view. To me a semi-auto is a semi-auto. They all have different mechanical action but the result is the same. So I don't really differentiate base on how it looks. That said, the mini-14 was (and still does) have a reputation of accuracy issues. I'm not saying it can't be accurate, but it inherently has issues that need to be resolved. They actually competed for dominance (mini-14 was produced after the AR-15) but the flexibility of the AR eventually won out. Initially the M-16 had issues. BAD issues. Through trial by fire, that was worked out. I think (and this is really only my opinion) that the simplicity and flexibility of the AR design was what won out. It's very easy to maintain an AR and parts are pretty easy to swap if needed. You can pretty much tear the thing down to a pile of parts with not much more than a punch and your fingers. That and if a barrel was damaged you could literally do an upper swap in the middle of a battle without any tools at all. And while aesthetics means something, they don't really matter to the military. What caused the general public to embrace it? Why to girls like barbie dolls. It's not the doll, it's all the accesories. So yeah, the AR is the barbie doll of the gun world. You can put whatever dress and shoes on it you fancy. I really think that is what has made it so popular. The fact that it's relatively cheap and cheap to add jewelry to. That and it's about the most flexible foundation for a firearm I can think of. I mean look at the list you posted. Many of those calibers are not much more than a simple barrel change. The rest are little more than an upper receiver. You could pretty much have one lower that allows you to have everything from a .22LR plinker/rodent control up to a pretty decent medium game hunter. And the total cost would probably be cheaper in the long run, plus as far as Uncle Sam is concerned, you only have 1 gun. The lower is the gun. Uppers ship regular mail with no FFL involved.

      I may come across as an "AR fanboy", but in reality I'm a gun fanboy. I like em all! I just can't afford to OWN them all...
      The ARs ARE what might be described as "Modular".

      Approximately, How many parts does the typical AR have?

      I'm sure, a lot more than an M1 Carbine.

      The AR was chosen more for Political reasons than any other, and a mistake, IMO. There were many deaths as a result.

      Especially, the cartridge. Now, we have the 6.5 Grendel, but it will never be chosen, and if it was, we'd still need another rifle.

      We would have been better served by the M14. Which is why it is still in use to some degree.

      You are fun to talk to. Thanks for your indulgence.

      SOTN
      Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
      Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
      You can't out-give God.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Smitty of the North View Post

        The AR was chosen more for Political reasons than any other
        Do me a favor, please elaborate on this statement.
        ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

        Comment


        • #64
          This round was well thought out, here is an excerpt about the history of the cartridge.

          The .458 SOCOM (aka: 11.5x40mm RB) cartridge was developed by Teppo Jutsu as a result of an informal discussion with a senior member of the US Special Operations community following the Task Force Ranger debacle in Mogadishu, Somalia, as described in the book “Blackhawk Down”. In the book, several members of TF Ranger comment on the apparent ineffectiveness of the 5.56mm ammunition in their engagement of the assailants, stating that often multiple shots were required to disable a target. The aforementioned discussion focused on the possibility of developing a new cartridge capable of providing superior stopping power for AR-15/M-16 based weapon systems.

          To make a long story short, the .458 SOCOM was born, with a 40 mm long case to allow the use of a variety of .458 Dia bullets and still function through the AR magazine, a rim rebated to 0.473” to allow easy retrofit to existing bolt actions AND leave more material on the AR bolt. On top of that, by the fact that the case is a pistol case, it operates at relatively low pressure, and thus imparts less stress on parts of the rifle. The case length of 40 mm, ensures that the cartridge was still short enough to function through the AR magazine. The .458 SOCOM uses standard AR-15 magazines with no modification. The case diameter is 13.6 mm, so 20-round magazines will hold seven rounds, the 30-round magazines will hold 10 rounds and the 40-round 5.56 mm magazines will hold 15 rounds.

          Through the design and research process in developing the 458 SOCOM, the early obvious candidate was the 7.62 x 39 M43 cartridge that originated in the former Soviet Bloc. As the AR-15/M-16 has already been adapted to fire this cartridge, this seemed a simple solution. To increase the flexibility of the new cartridge, however, the decision was made to increase the bullet diameter to be able to employ heavier projectiles. This, too, has already been explored by the Soviets in the 9 x 39 “Grom” variant of the M43 cartridge. Teppo Jutsu explored the idea of modifying the 6mm PPC case to accept the 9mm bullet, but dismissed this design as it felt it offered too much potential for disaster by accidentally chambering either a standard 7.62 x 39 round or 6mm PPC round in a rifle chambered in “9mm PPC”.

          To avoid this issue, Teppo Jutsu designed a separate cartridge, dubbed the .358 CQB, to offer similar performance as the 9x39. This cartridge was designed to accept the standard .357 caliber JHP bullets, as well as the heavy (200-250 gr.) .358 caliber hunting bullets, the latter for subsonic suppressed applications. By choosing the 35 caliber, existing 9mm suppressors can be used without modification, and standard 7.62x39 magazines will accept the cartridge. – But that’s a whole other story …The 338 Spectre was also developed.

          The name of the cartridge was chosen based on the caliber (obviously) and based on the fact that the initial impetus came from those “Beer and BBQ” discussions with Teppo Jutsu friend's in special operations. In addition, the fact that the round was also inspired by the Barnes .458 x 1.5” which had seen action in Vietnam in a Special Operations role played a part in naming the cartridge.

          Rifles in this caliber have seen action in Iraq and have reportedly proved very effective, especially against vehicles.
          "I'd rather be fishing!"

          Comment


          • #65
            Smitty,

            Why don't you stop complaining about the rifle and buy one. Or several for that matter. Learn them, use them, love them. Then you can be one of us. Don't stop at being a bolt turner. Take a walk on the wild side...it doesn't hurt...
            Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

            Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

            You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Akheloce View Post
              Do me a favor, please elaborate on this statement.
              Gee, I can't even think of the names of those hotshots in the Kennedy Administration who were largely responsible.

              I will only say that I remember at the time how it was promoted. There was Great opposition, but it was chosen, anyway, and then of course, improvements needed to be made, because it was unacceptable, as it was.

              SOTN
              Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
              Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
              You can't out-give God.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Nitroman View Post
                Smitty,

                Why don't you stop complaining about the rifle and buy one. Or several for that matter. Learn them, use them, love them. Then you can be one of us. Don't stop at being a bolt turner. Take a walk on the wild side...it doesn't hurt...
                I'm not complaining, just trying to be realistic about them.

                I find the idea of owning one distasteful. The ONLY thing I like about them is the fact that their popularity has added to the number of new shooters, and stimulated shooting among the older ones.

                The more of us, the better, for the cause.

                Smitty of the North
                Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
                Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
                You can't out-give God.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Smitty of the North View Post
                  Gee, I can't even think of those hotshots in the Kennedy Administration who were largely responsible.

                  I will only say that I remember at the time how it was promoted. There was Great opposition, but it was chosen, anyway, and then of course, improvements needed to be made, because it was unacceptable, as it was.

                  SOTN
                  So nothing concrete then
                  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Grayling Slayer View Post
                    This round was well thought out, here is an excerpt about the history of the cartridge.

                    The .458 SOCOM (aka: 11.5x40mm RB) cartridge was developed by Teppo1 Jutsu as a result of an informal discussion with a senior member of the US Special Operations community following the Task Force Ranger debacle in Mogadishu, Somalia, as described in the book “Blackhawk Down”. In the book, several members of TF Ranger comment on the apparent ineffectiveness of the 5.56mm ammunition in their engagement of the assailants, stating that often multiple shots were required to disable a target.
                    While I am not an AR fanboy, I am a .458 fan. So I own a .458 Socom and .45-70s and .458 Win mag. I don't think the problem is with the 5.56 round, but with FMJ bullets. If soft points could be used, I think you would see a lot of one shot kills. I think we should drop the FMJ round altogether. The last Geneva Convention country we fought against was Nazi Germany.

                    The .458 Socom has been marketed as a "special operations" cartridge from the beginning. It should have been pushed as a 100-150yd hunting round, "turn your AR into a .45-70!" . I bet it would sell better that way.
                    I may be slow, but I get where I'm going!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Smitty of the North View Post
                      Gee, I can't even think of the names of those hotshots in the Kennedy Administration who were largely responsible.

                      I will only say that I remember at the time how it was promoted. There was Great opposition, but it was chosen, anyway, and then of course, improvements needed to be made, because it was unacceptable, as it was.

                      SOTN
                      All of our service rifles from the M-1903 on have had design problems, not just the AR-15/M-16. And all of them have had those standing in opposition.

                      The M16 isn't the first weapon that came up short from the time it was designed to when it was placed in the hands of a soldiers in combat and that soldier died because of that short fall. The M1 Garand had plenty of its own, luckily many were worked out prior to it seeing combat, but not all. Wonder how many died because of the families ping after round number 8. Or because the M1 couldn't out perform the Enfield in muddy conditions and often jammed leaving the British to turn down a contract for the M1 that we later entered into WW2 with.

                      If you have never been a grunt and marched, ate, slept, climbed, swam, or in general lived with your service rifle within arms length of you 24/7 while enduring the worst of conditions and depended on it, your opinion of it means nothing. Everything has strengths and weaknesses. All you can do is maximize the strengths and circumvent the weakness. Or you just get on line and share your displeasure (much of it stereo type) about something you have little to no experience with.


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                      If you think you're free, there's no escape possible.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Hoyt-Hunter View Post
                        All of our service rifles from the M-1903 on have had design problems, not just the AR-15/M-16. And all of them have had those standing in opposition.

                        The M16 isn't the first weapon that came up short from the time it was designed to when it was placed in the hands of a soldiers in combat and that soldier died because of that short fall. The M1 Garand had plenty of its own, luckily many were worked out prior to it seeing combat, but not all. Wonder how many died because of the families ping after round number 8. Or because the M1 couldn't out perform the Enfield in muddy conditions and often jammed leaving the British to turn down a contract for the M1 that we later entered into WW2 with.

                        If you have never been a grunt and marched, ate, slept, climbed, swam, or in general lived with your service rifle within arms length of you 24/7 while enduring the worst of conditions and depended on it, your opinion of it means nothing. Everything has strengths and weaknesses. All you can do is maximize the strengths and circumvent the weakness. Or you just get on line and share your displeasure (much of it stereo type) about something you have little to no experience with.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                        I'm sure there have been problems with all military service rifles and weapons, at their beginning.

                        I have the book, Hatchers Notes.

                        I'm not aware of problems with any of them on the same level as they had with the AR version. Or requiring such extensive modification, but you can enlighten me if you like.

                        Maybe you can tell me how many of them required a Mickey Mouse modification, like the "Forward Assist" to solve it's problems. And, now needs a more powerful cartridge to be as effective as it should be.

                        My opinion may mean nothing to you, for any number of reasons, including, this bit of offensive nonsense.....

                        ("If you have never been a grunt and marched, ate, slept, climbed, swam, or in general lived with your service rifle within arms length of you 24/7 while enduring the worst of conditions and depended on it, your opinion of it means nothing.")

                        BTW, you are not describing the kind of people who make the decisions, but the ones who must LIVE with the decisions.

                        Smitty of the North
                        Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
                        Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
                        You can't out-give God.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          What a disappointment, we have some "Zumbo" mentality here....

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by northwoods View Post
                            What a disappointment, we have some "Zumbo" mentality here....
                            I dunno what that means, but I'm sure you guys can find "The Saga of the M16 in Viet Nam" Part 1 and Part 2 on the Internet.

                            I have it in 2 .pdf files.

                            SOTN
                            Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
                            Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
                            You can't out-give God.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              On February 16, 2007, Jim Zumbo published an entry on his blog which read, in part:


                              "I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.


                              I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."


                              Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."


                              This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Smitty of the North View Post
                                I dunno what that means, but I'm sure you guys can find "The Saga of the M16 in Viet Nam" Part 1 and Part 2 on the Internet.

                                I have it in 2 .pdf files.

                                SOTN
                                I've read that essay. It refers to a quality control problem, not a design problem. Take your M-14 and ream the chamber undersized (possibly a scale of manufacturing increase problem with Colt, given the dramatic rise in orders at the time), and see how many stuck cases you get.

                                The "problems" with the M-16 surfaced after mass production.

                                How come Hal Moore's folks praised theirs so much (pre-Dick Culver story)?

                                "Brave soldiers and the M16 brought this victory" - LTC Hal Moore after the Ia Drang battle (LZ X-ray).


                                You want to read a better account? Try the book "American Gun" by Chris Kyle. It is a very interesting book chronicling 10 of the most influential and defining guns throughout the history of our country.

                                I'm not lauding the M-16 as perfect, nor the AR "platform" as the end all be all of firearms. However IMO, it gets a bum rap by some sensationalist memories of history, and furthest, by an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO AN IMAGE rather than a recognition of function.


                                Btw, what does all this have to do with the 458 SOCOM cartridge in AK?
                                ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X