Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 22:55:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate I would but I dont know how to shoot guns.
BUT that does not mean ill give up my arguement.
$10,000 on me in round 1
() () (â;..;)â (")(") |
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:01:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate I would but I dont know how to shoot guns.
BUT that does not mean ill give up my arguement.
I bet if somebody gave you an m9 and you fired it it would fly out of your hands.
Dont look down on people because they cannot do what you cant even attempt.
|
Keorythe
Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:45:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny $10,000 on me in round 1
$10,000 on Surfin in round 1. For a side bet I'll put down another $5000 that Zephyr will try and use the gun as a club if he gets a stop-jam or stovepipe.
Back on topic though, the torso area is what you should always be shooting for in a combat situation. The biggest reason? Torso's can't move like your head can. 80's dancers doing head bops and shuffles would give any sniper a headache even at close ranges whereas the chest area really doesn't do that much. Slllllide to the right, sllllide to the left.
Because of the large amount of movement that occurs in combat its hard enough to track and hit someone who's sprinting into cover. Hence the need for something that will do as much damage as possible in the chest area. Trying to shoot someone in the legs is even worse since they naturally do the most movement. Of course if you have a 203 then you just need to lead them a bit like bird hunting.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 02:41:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Keorythe
80's dancers doing head bops and shuffles would give any sniper a headache even at close ranges
That should be in the training manual
() () (â;..;)â (")(") |
mercyonman
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 05:25:00 -
[155]
ok you want bullets that will hit and stay in a target
|
blkmajik
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 05:45:00 -
[156]
a lot has been said about the 6.8mm round. I assume thats about the Remington 6.8SPC round? I shoot an AR15 with a 6.8SPC 16" upper with a 1:10 twist by stag (LMT lower, but <3 my lefty setup). I also have a 16" 6.5mm Grendel upper by Alexander Arms. The 6.5 is better in pretty much every way, especially beyond 300 yards. Its more accurate at short ranges (and long ranges, but i get around 1/4 MOA at 100 yards 3-gaps) and has a much better ballistics coefficient past 300 yards. I've noticed its less susceptible to wind and small obstructions. Its obviously also 'smaller' (and cheaper). So as far as the topic of this thread goes, bigger is NOT always better. but getting away from the 'standard' rounds is always a financial gamble
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 07:27:00 -
[157]
Originally by: blkmajik a lot has been said about the 6.8mm round. I assume thats about the Remington 6.8SPC round? I shoot an AR15 with a 6.8SPC 16" upper with a 1:10 twist by stag (LMT lower, but <3 my lefty setup). I also have a 16" 6.5mm Grendel upper by Alexander Arms. The 6.5 is better in pretty much every way, especially beyond 300 yards. Its more accurate at short ranges (and long ranges, but i get around 1/4 MOA at 100 yards 3-gaps) and has a much better ballistics coefficient past 300 yards. I've noticed its less susceptible to wind and small obstructions. Its obviously also 'smaller' (and cheaper). So as far as the topic of this thread goes, bigger is NOT always better. but getting away from the 'standard' rounds is always a financial gamble
That round just freaking rocks and the gov't is just stalling because they too blind to see it
() () (â;..;)â (")(") |
Keorythe
Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:52:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny That round just freaking rocks and the gov't is just stalling because they too blind to see it
Thats a big negative there sir. The 6.5 and 6.8 rounds have been overhyped a great deal. So far on paper they look really good. However, dedicated testing on a FMJ round has been light at best and mostly done by civilians. The results so far are a mediocre combat round that might possibly split along its cannelure (if its given one which most do not have) but does not fragment. Specialized rounds such as the Hornady 115gr. TAP (Tactical Application Police) have shown great potential...but so did the 5.56 75gr TAP which fragmented at ranges up to 240m . And as you have probably noticed most of the tests are done with...TAP type ammo or other specialized rounds. To add to the shame the so called "military testing" info has only been released by..Remington the manufacturer not the actual military. Both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC rely strictly on yaw to do damage. So far only the 6.5 Grendel has the advantage as it has a longer bullet which will cause more crushing damage when it does a 50% yaw (tumbling). Unfortunately its mounted in a Winchester Short Magnum (WSM) style cartridge which no military in their right mind is going to want to deal with.
For the extra weight the performance gains aren't that substantial for the 6.8 SPC. Combine that with the expensive retooling and the fact that the new MK262 has reports of effective kills out to 600m in Afganistan and Iraq the military just isn't going to go for it. Some sport rifle teams will be sure to pick it up but then those guys have been using 6-7mm "wildcat" rounds for ages. Heck they had a staright 6mm round chambered in a neck upped 5.56x45 cartridge which was giving some pretty good results since the early 1990's.
Oh and dont even bother with the "designed by a Special Operations operator" stuff. I have a knife which was designed by some spec ops guy which is rusting in a corner and replaced by my "made in pakistan" type. Spec ops guys are great at what they do but aren't more of an authority on ballistics than bob the Walmart night manager who knows his coefficient numbers.
|
pwnedgato
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 02:07:00 -
[159]
What about something exotic like airburst rifle rounds? It detects an obstacle and fractures itself resulting in a very nasty wound/kill profile.
Originally by: Crumplecorn These is a forum for this.
|
Keorythe
Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 03:05:00 -
[160]
Originally by: pwnedgato What about something exotic like airburst rifle rounds? It detects an obstacle and fractures itself resulting in a very nasty wound/kill profile.
Airburst rounds rely on fragmentation to do damage or in some of the new thermobaric version rely on overpressure. The problem is the size of the round, the cost, and the manufacturing limits. Even a .50 explosive round doesn't throw out that much shrapnel. Shrapnel doesn't have that great of penetration either. You have to put some serious explosive power to make it lethal instead of wounding. Then there is price. If that thing is chip detonated its going to cost ALOT more than a mass produced lead bullet. Something like that should be left in the hands of a specialist like the M203 gunners. Finally there is manufacturing limits. The current war in Iraq was pushing bullet manufacturers to keep up with demand for just lead bullets. Imagine filling that kind of order for chip implanted/fuzed explosive rounds. You would have to retool the country for production like they did during WWII.
You also hit one of my biggest gripes with the 6.8 and 6.5 rounds. When I see a FMJ or OTM round fitted into cheap thick brass cartridge and packed with cheap high pressure and easy to mass produce ball powder produce decent results in gel is when I might take them seriously. For now its like comparing real thick english lager made in huge barrels to some micro-brewery stuff. Sure the micro-brew might be really really good but its got more time being tended than mass produced stuff and the mass produced stuff still does a good job.
Beer and guns. This thread is now packed full of win!
|
|
pwnedgato
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 03:23:00 -
[161]
Edited by: pwnedgato on 04/06/2008 03:23:26 Note I said fracture. As in it would have an effect similar to a frangible, but more pronounced because it would splinter into larger chunks. Also as an exotic round cost would be a secondary consideration. Then again cost should always be the dog wags the tail not the other way around.
Also since this topic seems to have led my mind in this direction I would just like to say. War should always be waged with the full intent of victory. Doing otherwise causes situations like the current one and Vietnam. I believe in modern anti-guerrilla warfare the answer is to change the role of infantry from eliminating hostiles to one of finding the hostiles then sitting on them until something larger and preferably far more explosive eliminates them. (regardless of situation, as a few team guys I knew said, "sucks to be a hostage")
Originally by: Crumplecorn These is a forum for this.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 06:10:00 -
[162]
Originally by: pwnedgato Edited by: pwnedgato on 04/06/2008 03:23:26 Note I said fracture. As in it would have an effect similar to a frangible, but more pronounced because it would splinter into larger chunks. Also as an exotic round cost would be a secondary consideration. Then again cost should always be the dog wags the tail not the other way around.
Also since this topic seems to have led my mind in this direction I would just like to say. War should always be waged with the full intent of victory. Doing otherwise causes situations like the current one and Vietnam. I believe in modern anti-guerrilla warfare the answer is to change the role of infantry from eliminating hostiles to one of finding the hostiles then sitting on them until something larger and preferably far more explosive eliminates them. (regardless of situation, as a few team guys I knew said, "sucks to be a hostage")
Nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure. =)
note my nuclear views are not able to be used today as we know the globial radiation and political effects of just Nukem and go home.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 08:23:00 -
[163]
Originally by: pwnedgato What about something exotic like airburst rifle rounds? It detects an obstacle and fractures itself resulting in a very nasty wound/kill profile.
The DoD went to 5.56 from 7.62 because of cost, what makes you think they'll ever give us high tech ammo like that???
() () (â;..;)â (")(") |
hylleX
Vigilante inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 12:18:00 -
[164]
Viewer discretion advised
This is a test done by the swedish military to test the effects of a 5,56mm NATO round on a dead pig. The round is fired from the FNC80 which is the standard swedish assualt rifle.Sufficent to say, if that round hit you and you dont have any armour, you wont get up again.
Having done my service and fired both the 7,62 and the 5,56 using both the FNC80 and the G3 assualt rifles, i'd pick the 5,56 in any situation i can think of. Reasons being better accuracy (the recoil between the rifles i used was big), larger clip size and lower weight.
|
Nomakai Delateriel
Shadow Company Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 14:03:00 -
[165]
Originally by: hylleX Viewer discretion advised
Gun that's being fired: FN FNC (aka AK5). Weapon used on the pig: H&K G3 (aka AK4).
Thus, the pig is hit by a 7.62mm round. ______________________________________________ -You can never earn my respect, only lose it. It's given freely, and only grudgingly retracted when necessary. |
hylleX
Vigilante inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 14:47:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Originally by: hylleX Viewer discretion advised
Gun that's being fired: FN FNC (aka AK5). Weapon used on the pig: H&K G3 (aka AK4).
Thus, the pig is hit by a 7.62mm round.
well the guy talking is saying that it is an G3, but the gun being fired is a FNC (5,56mm). hence its very hard telling what round it actually is, but its more likely to be a 5,56 because of the wound afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |