Stupid question about guns

[Fragony]

For our gun-nuts.

What's the practical use of various ammunition types, what's the difference between getting hit with a 5.62 or a 7.something. I mean both most must hurt, so why prefer one over the other. Does it wound differently. Most baffling, a .22 pistol. Whattehque. Seen a video on youtube and it doesn't even go through 2 5-liter jerriecans of water. What are you going to shoot with that. For a rifle ok pest control and all that but wouldn't a person just lol it off.

Also, a Barret .50 sniper rifle. Seen video of how it completely tears someone apart, poor guy heh. Why use anything else.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gun-enthusiasts.

In short - 5.56 (USA rifle ammo) is lighter and smaller than 7.62. Which means soldiers can carry more, and shoot more bullets at the enemy.

.22's are just for plinking - shooting at the range or wherever for fun. You don't need large calibers to practice aiming.

.50 caliber is significantly bigger than 7.62. Which means you can carry even less of it. For a person it's overkill - smaller bullets can neutralize people reliably. It's got a lot of recoil too.

See that thread where Vuk had his "vision" for America and posts by PJ for more detailed discussion of the effects of 5.56 vs 7.62.

CR

[Fragony]

See that thread where Vuk had his "vision" for America and posts by PJ for more detailed discussion of the effects of 5.56 vs 7.62.

CR

Took a quik glance that's more than I could ask for, lock/delete requested

[Fragony]

Also worth noting that it's considered proportionally incorrect to shoot at individual troops with a Barret. According to "teh Book" it is for anti-material use.

Learned that from Rainbow Six game hehe

Read up a bit interesting stuff, we tend to forget that there is actually a lot of science behind it, why are some rounds considered to be 'inhuman'? Doubt there are any bullets that exist only to wound

Oh and why does the musscle flash out of an assault rifle looks like it does, you know 6 'lines', is a bullet stabilised?

[Centurion1]

certain rounds do terrible things to the human body. same reason we only use certain kinds of rounds in battle shotguns. and dont use trench knives, etc.

cute attempts post ww1 to limit human death i suppose? im not sure tbh.

[PanzerJaeger]

The 5.56 versus 7.62 (x51, not to be confused with the x39 AK round or the x54r Mosin round) was discussed in the other thread. Basically the 7.62 is descendent from the .30-06 which was used in the Garand and reflects old school military thinking - ie that soldiers should be effective out to 1000+ meters. The 8mm round used in the Mauser rifles, the 7.62x54r used in the Mosins, and the British .303 used in the First and Second World Wars all reflected the same line of reasoning. They rely on raw energy from the amount of gun powder used and bullet weight for wounding. The 5.56, on the other hand, was a revolutionary change in that way of thinking (although high velocity rounds were not new). The 5.56 relies on velocity and the resulting fragmentation of the round for wounding.

Assuming the round does fragment (which the old NATO M855 round had trouble doing against non-body-armor-wearing combatants) the wounding is actually more severe than the 7.62 within normal combat distances, <500 meters. This is extremely hard for some people to understand/accept, as countless internet debates demonstrate. 'The 5.56 is much smaller and less powerful than the 7.62 - how could it do more damage?' Physics. The 5.56 in the lighter 55 grain M193 form was extensively tested before being accepted, and was found to be so devastating as to be inhumane, hence the move to the heavier and lower velocity 62 grain M855.

To sum up, both rounds have their advantages and disadvantages. The 5.56 is smaller and lighter, both in weight and recoil, allowing more ammunition to be carried (both on the soldier and in his magazines) and more accurate follow up shots. It is also more effective within normal combat distances. The 7.62 is more effective at range where the 5.56 loses its velocity. It is also more effective at shooting through things like doors, cars, lightly constructed buildings, etc. as it does not immediately fragment upon impact. Taking all factors into consideration, the 5.56 is the better round for line infantry and assaulter type units. The 7.62 has been retained for designated marksmen, snipers, and certain machine guns.

The .22 is very lethal, even at longer ranges. It is actually one of the most dangerous rounds out there, because its small size and power give it a less than lethal reputation (it is also more prone to ricochet than any other standard round). I have seen at range after range people who would normally be very careful shooters treat their .22s like toys. Lots of muzzle sweep, weapons left on safety instead of cleared when people are down range, and the passing around of loaded weapons are all common. People just do not see .22s as 'real' guns.

Finally, that flash coming out of assault rifles is due to the muzzle brake. These direct the gas created by the bullet discharge in the optimal direction to reduce both recoil and muzzle rise. There are many different types made for different guns and bullet types. A famous example is the AK, which is just a slice cut out of a tube angled up and to the right - the same direction the gun would rise when fired in fully automatic. This had the effect of pushing the gun back down somewhat, allowing the user to stay on target a bit better (although just a bit). Most modern muzzle brakes are actually flash suppressors, and take a more sophisticated approach toward finding the optimal gas direction.

[InsaneApache]

the British .303 used in the First and Second World Wars all reflected the same line of reasoning. They rely on raw energy from the amount of gun powder used and bullet weight for wounding

Lee Enfield 303. It had one hell of a kick. Not recommended for left handers either.

[Husar]

Question:

Is there still a distinction between hollow point and what we call steel-mantlet bullets? Or is that just stuff for crazy gunmen who want the craziest bullets?

Wouldn't a 5.56 that is harder and doesn't fragment also penetrate more things? Does that exist? What about a 7.62 that fragments?

Tanks also use under-caliber penetrators or what they're called that are fin-stabilized so they can increase the velocity and get a higher penetration than with a rifled barrel and slower projectiles. So wouldn't a high-velocity 5.56 round that doesn't fragment also penetrate similarly or even better (smaller point of impact and more concentrated force?) than a bigger but slower 7.62 round? Or does the additional weight of the bigger round make up for it?

Oh and how would you rate 4mm caseless ammunition?

[rvg]

So wouldn't a high-velocity 5.56 round that doesn't fragment also penetrate similarly or even better (smaller point of impact and more concentrated force?) than a bigger but slower 7.62 round? Or does the additional weight of the bigger round make up for it?


5.56 will penetrate just fine IF the target is unarmored. Taking a shot in the chest from a 7.62 at 300 ft while wearing a kevlar vest with ceramic tiles will leave a nasty bruise, possibly a shattered rib, and a whole lot of pain. A 5.56 in the same scenario is unlikely to shatter any ribs and the bruise will be smaller.

7.62 is superior when it comes to dealing with armored targets.

[Husar]

Would it change anything if the round were solid tungsten or depleted uranium, assuming the same muzzle velocity?

[rvg]

Would it change anything if the round were solid tungsten or depleted uranium, assuming the same muzzle velocity?

DU is super tough and very expensive. I would say that something like DU rounds is a non-issue from a logistics perspective. They are way too expensive. There's absolutely no reason to have a DU 5.56 round when a normal ball 7.62 will work just as well for a fraction of the cost. There's no reason to get a DU 7.62 round when a Winmag or a BMG can do the job just fine. A DU BMG round? Sure, but that gets us out of the realm of assault rifles and into the realm of highly specialized sniper or even anti-material weapons.

[Husar]

DU is super tough and very expensive. I would say that something like DU rounds is a non-issue from a logistics perspective. They are way too expensive. There's absolutely no reason to have a DU 5.56 round when a normal ball 7.62 will work just as well for a fraction of the cost. There's no reason to get a DU 7.62 round when a Winmag or a BMG can do the job just fine. A DU BMG round? Sure, but that gets us out of the realm of assault rifles and into the realm of highly specialized sniper or even anti-material weapons.

I'm not in any of these realms.

I'm in the realm of what are the differences made by changing weight, velocity, material and layout of the bullet? And how do or would these changes affect efficiency in certain scenarios? PJ said a 7.62 round is better at penetrating doors and cars and walls and whatnot than the standard US 5.56 round that is made to fall apart on impact. So I'm saying that's fine, but what if someone were to use a different 5.56 round, one that does not fall apart or get deformed as easily on impact? Obviously it wouldn't create as large a wound, but could it rival the 7.62's penetration power or not?

Do such rounds exist? And what is the difference between an M8whatever US standard round, a hollow point round and a dum-dum or are they all different words for the same kind of bullet?

[Vuk]

Question:

Is there still a distinction between hollow point and what we call steel-mantlet bullets? Or is that just stuff for crazy gunmen who want the craziest bullets?

Wouldn't a 5.56 that is harder and doesn't fragment also penetrate more things? Does that exist? What about a 7.62 that fragments?

Tanks also use under-caliber penetrators or what they're called that are fin-stabilized so they can increase the velocity and get a higher penetration than with a rifled barrel and slower projectiles. So wouldn't a high-velocity 5.56 round that doesn't fragment also penetrate similarly or even better (smaller point of impact and more concentrated force?) than a bigger but slower 7.62 round? Or does the additional weight of the bigger round make up for it?

Oh and how would you rate 4mm caseless ammunition?

The two most important factors concerning armour penetration (assuming identical materials) are Sectional Density and Velocity. Heavier bullets (as a rule) generally have better SD. (because of the greater mass for the same width) While the 5.56 has a few 100 ft/s v than the 7.62, it has a far less advantageous SD. Also, because of the lighter bullet, it loses velocity a lot more quickly than the 7.62. The 7.62 also retains greater KE at longer ranges.

[rvg]

You must be referring to the Armor Piercing (AP) rounds. Yes, they do exist for both the 5.56 and 7.62. As for whether or not a 5.56AP has same or greater penetrative power than a ball 7.62 round, regular 7.62 ball is still better.

[Vuk]

BTW, don't believe everything that PJ and others have said about ballistics and ballistic performance. While right on some points, they are mistaken on others. I am going to be writing up responses to them after the Holidays. School has just gotten in the way.

[Fragony]

Interesting stuff. I can totally understand why gun enthousiasts like to play with that stuff.

Is there a reason by the way why people use hunting rifles for hunting, and not a just take something out of Panzer's no doubt impressive arsenal.

[rvg]

Interesting stuff. I can totally understand why gun enthousiasts like to play with that stuff.

Is there a reason by the way why people use hunting rifles for hunting, and not a just take something out of Panzer's no doubt impressive arsenal.

Same reason why some people hunt with bows I presume: there's a challenge in killing the game with a lighter weapon. Just like fishing with dynamite is a less than fulfilling experience, so is hunting with a Browning machine gun.

[Husar]

Ok, so if the two rounds reach their target with the same kinetic energy and have the same shape and materials (+ density), the 5.56 is faster and the 7.62 has more mass, but overall kinetic energy is the same as I said, would there be a difference in penetrating power? Would the mass of the 7.62 help it penetrate because it simply is harder to stop and would the smaller size of the 5.56 help it get through as it has to "cut a smaller hole" to get through whatever is in it's way?

I'm wondering about this because if caliber and weight are so important, why do tank gun designers increase the velocity of their penetrators instead of weight and caliber? I would think a very, very fast small bullet should cut through armour quite well, after all it take less energy to shove a needle into your skin than it takes to get a pencil there., even if it's a very sharpened pencil, or am I wrong? (not feeling like testing that last thought right now ~;) )

[Zim]

I always like gun-cranks myself. :beam:


Gun-enthusiasts.

[rvg]

I'm wondering about this because if caliber and weight are so important, why do tank gun designers increase the velocity of their penetrators instead of weight and caliber? I would think a very, very fast small bullet should cut through armour quite well, after all it take less energy to shove a needle into your skin than it takes to get a pencil there., even if it's a very sharpened pencil, or am I wrong? (not feeling like testing that last thought right now ~;) )

5.56 being lighter runs out of loses velocity faster than 7.62 which means that the longer the distance of the shot, the better 7.62 is compared to 5.56

at 50 ft either caliber is pretty much guaranteed to kill regardless of body armor

at 300 ft 5.56 is significantly weaker than 7.62

[Vuk]

Ok, so if the two rounds reach their target with the same kinetic energy and have the same shape and materials (+ density), the 5.56 is faster and the 7.62 has more mass, but overall kinetic energy is the same as I said, would there be a difference in penetrating power? Would the mass of the 7.62 help it penetrate because it simply is harder to stop and would the smaller size of the 5.56 help it get through as it has to "cut a smaller hole" to get through whatever is in it's way?

I'm wondering about this because if caliber and weight are so important, why do tank gun designers increase the velocity of their penetrators instead of weight and caliber? I would think a very, very fast small bullet should cut through armour quite well, after all it take less energy to shove a needle into your skin than it takes to get a pencil there., even if it's a very sharpened pencil, or am I wrong? (not feeling like testing that last thought right now ~;) )

At that point I think the 7.62 would still have the advantage as it would retain its mass better than the smaller 5.56 which would break up a lot faster.

[rvg]

perhaps not entirely on topic, but this is my all time favorite article about large caliber penetration...

http://www.mit.edu/people/daveg/Humor/ravioli_as_gas

[CBR]

The specs for the 7.62 mm NATO standard is quite flexible and there are several rounds that fragments. The Danish army changed its round in '94 after tests showed fragmentation within ranges of 100 meters or so and IIRC it was similar to the Swedish round. AFAIK the Germans still use a round that fragments.

The US military use a special sniper round that is meant to fragment and apparently there is a steel jacket version of the M80 that also does fine within 100'ish meters.

[Husar]

2.) Mass helps armor peircing. An Abrams Anti-Tank Round (called a Sabot) has a Depleted Uranium tip, among who's unusual properties include a tendancy to get sharper the further it burrows into armor. Other nations prefer Tungsten. For Armor-Peircing bullets, I believe Steel and Lead is still the standard for making them heavier--although all kinds of specialty bullets exist for bigger-calibre guns. IIRC there is a Sabot-style .50 Round, but I'm not sure if it has DU in it.

Yes, the question is, what makes for betterer penetration, more mass or more speed? For example sabot, you have a 120mm cannon, the actual tungsten rod that hits the enemy in the end is maybe 50mm or less in diameter, the point being that when fired from a smoothbore gun it can have a much higher speed and thus more penetration.

If mass were the bigger factor in penetration I would expect them to use a 120mm rifled gun and fire a tungsten rod that is 120mm in diameter and thus has a whole lot more mass but is also slower. Of course the latter would retain more efficiency at longer ranges but the decision went towards the former because at the usual ranges tanks engage eachother, the smaller projectile with higher speed has a better chance to penetrate the target.

It's also notable that german guns with lower calibers in WW2 often had better penetration characteristics than larger caliber guns of other nations because the projectiles had a much higher velocity AFAIK.

Why would the penetration of an assault rifle bullet be much different?


At that point I think the 7.62 would still have the advantage as it would retain its mass better than the smaller 5.56 which would break up a lot faster.

Why would the bullet break up faster if it's the same material, same density and same form? The kinetic energy is the same after all, which also means that the smaller bullet concentrates the same kinetic energy in a smaller area, which usually makes a difference in penetrating power.

Due to the higher speed of the smaller bullet the material being hit also has less "time to react" as was also somewhat jokingly mentioned in rvg's link.
The smaller bullet would simply concentrate the same kinetic energy in a smaller area, helping it to punch through in that smaller area.
I know mass also plays a role in which object gives way in a collision etc., the question is which effect s bigger?

[Vladimir]

You're German. Find the formula to calculate kinetic energy and it will answer your question.

[Husar]

You're German. Find the formula to calculate kinetic energy and it will answer your question.

I know it, I was asking about the same kinetic energy but with different mass and diameter, basically whether kinetic energy is the only factor or not.

Vuk and rvg seem to be saying that a bullet with higher mass and bigger diameter is superior to a smaller but faster bullet even when the kinetic energy is the same.

[Vuk]

I know it, I was asking about the same kinetic energy but with different mass and diameter, basically whether kinetic energy is the only factor or not.

Vuk and rvg seem to be saying that a bullet with higher mass and bigger diameter is superior to a smaller but faster bullet even when the kinetic energy is the same.

That is not what Vuk is saying. Sectional Density is the ratio of an object's mass to its cross-sectional area (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectional_density)). It is what makes a needle penetrate skin better than a copy of the unabridged War and Peace. Heavier rounds tend to have a better sectional density. A 7.62 usually has superior SD to a 5.56. SD and velocity are the two most important factors in determining whether or not something will penetrate armour. Basically mass is important, but it needs to be concentrated into as small an area as possible.

[Husar]

That is not what Vuk is saying. Sectional Density is the ratio of an object's mass to its cross-sectional area (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectional_density)). It is what makes a needle penetrate skin better than a copy of the unabridged War and Peace. Heavier rounds tend to have a better sectional density. A 7.62 usually has superior SD to a 5.56. SD and velocity are the two most important factors in determining whether or not something will penetrate armour. Basically mass is important, but it needs to be concentrated into as small an area as possible.

I see, it confused me because I kept on saying that factors like density would be the same, yet you kept saying the bigger round is better.

Good to know we can agree on that though, I wouldn't even have a copy of war and peace handy to prove you wrong. :sweatdrop:

[rvg]

I see, it confused me because I kept on saying that factors like density would be the same, yet you kept saying the bigger round is better.

Bigger round far more deadly. Forget 5.56, forget 7.62 for a moment. Let's look at the good old Civil War era Minie Ball used in Springfield rifled muskets. Big, slow and FAR deadlier than any modern bullets. If it hits a limb, that limb's as good as gone. If it hits the torso, oh boy, it's game over. Why? Because it's so big. Bigger is better.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bigger round far more deadly. Forget 5.56, forget 7.62 for a moment. Let's look at the good old Civil War era Minie Ball used in Springfield rifled muskets. Big, slow and FAR deadlier than any modern bullets. If it hits a limb, that limb's as good as gone. If it hits the torso, oh boy, it's game over. Why? Because it's so big. Bigger is better.

That has much more to do with rubbish battlefield medicine and high levels of infection than anything else. By modern standards wounds from musket shot are trivial, especially in the limbs.

[rvg]

That has much more to do with rubbish battlefield medicine and high levels of infection than anything else. By modern standards wounds from musket shot are trivial, especially in the limbs.

Trivial? Far from it. While field medicine in those days was indeed atrocious, minie ball injuries would present big problems even for the modern medicine. They were FAR deadlier than either 7.62 or 5.56 rounds.

A quick quote from wiki....

"Like the musket ball, the Minié ball produced terrible wounds on those struck in battle. The large-caliber rounds easily shattered bones, and in many cases the attending surgeon simply amputated the limb rather than risk a typically fatal secondary infection. Due to the increased accuracy of rifled muskets firing these rounds, the American Civil War and to a lesser extent the Crimean War resulted in mass casualties on a larger scale than any previous conflicts..."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Trivial? Far from it. While field medicine in those days was indeed atrocious, minie ball injuries would present big problems even for the modern medicine. They were FAR deadlier than either 7.62 or 5.56 rounds.

A quick quote from wiki....

"Like the musket ball, the Minié ball produced terrible wounds on those struck in battle. The large-caliber rounds easily shattered bones, and in many cases the attending surgeon simply amputated the limb rather than risk a typically fatal secondary infection. Due to the increased accuracy of rifled muskets firing these rounds, the American Civil War and to a lesser extent the Crimean War resulted in mass casualties on a larger scale than any previous conflicts..."

Frequent shattering of limbs was a problem at least from the time of the English Civil War, and shattered limbs were generally amputated then too. Even so, 7.62 will happily break any bone in your body, or punch a hole in your skull.

Look at it like this, having a lead ball punch a hole in your liver is bad, having it rip a hole through your liver and out the other side is worse.

If memory serves, even during the American Civil War the majority of casualties were still from disease or secondary infection than from actual wounds. That didn't tip the other way until WWI.

Also look at what you quoted, just because Minie Ball inflicted "terrible" wounds does not make it the wrath of God, there are certain crossbow bolts that can do pretty horrific things, too.

[Vladimir]

I believe mini- and round shot were less effective because they were propelled by black powder, regardless of their increased mass.

[rvg]

Look at it like this, having a lead ball punch a hole in your liver is bad, having it rip a hole through your liver and out the other side is worse..

Here's the thing... if a minie ball hits you in the liver you will have no liver. Not a punctured liver, not a badly damaged liver. NO liver. It will literally cease to exist as an organ.

here's some numbers....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19485111

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here's the thing... if a minie ball hits you in the liver you will have no liver. Not a punctured liver, not a badly damaged liver. NO liver. It will literally cease to exist as an organ.

here's some numbers....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19485111

Comparing an American Civil War rifle musket to a late 19th Century rifel is not the same as comparing one to a modern weapon, or even a WWII weapon, due to improvements in rifle barrel construction, bullet shape, and propellent.

Take a gander at the development of the British .303: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British

Further, most wounds are recieved at greater distances. I would be more interested in tests at 25, 50, 100 and 200 metres than 3 metres.

As to "no Liver", I want that from an autopsy before I believe it.

[rvg]

Comparing an American Civil War rifle musket to a late 19th Century rifel is not the same as comparing one to a modern weapon, or even a WWII weapon, due to improvements in rifle barrel construction, bullet shape, and propellent.


You do realize that .30 caliber is 7.62mm, right? .30" = 7.62mm
With that in mind let's make it even simpler... In the study that I linked you can see that a Minie made a 121 mm gash. That's 4.7 inches. Can you get a 7.62 round to make that kind of gash?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You do realize that .30 caliber is 7.62mm, right? .30" = 7.62mm
With that in mind let's make it even simpler... In the study that I linked you can see that a Minie made a 121 mm gash. That's 4.7 inches. Can you get a 7.62 round to make that kind of gash?

Actually, 7.62 is .308, but that's beside the point.

READ MY LAST POST.

It's not just about the diameter of the round, it's the velocity of the bullet, the shape and mass.

[rvg]

It's not just about the diameter of the round, it's the velocity of the bullet, the shape and mass.

The point remains though: you are far more likely to survive a shot from a 7.62mm firearm than from a good old Springfield.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The point remains though: you are far more likely to survive a shot from a 7.62mm firearm than from a good old Springfield.

5 metres, yes, at 10, maybe, at 100? At that range and up my money is on the 7.62, because that bullet will go though and out the other side, a kind of wound a hole order of magnitude worse, because the exit would is MUCH bigger than the entry wound.

[rvg]

5 metres, yes, at 10, maybe, at 100? At that range and up my money is on the 7.62, because that bullet will go though and out the other side, a kind of wound a hole order of magnitude worse, because the exit would is MUCH bigger than the entry wound.

Springfield Rifled Musket has an effective range of 100-400 yards.

[CBR]

You do realize that .30 caliber is 7.62mm, right? .30" = 7.62mm

That test is with an Krag-Jørgensen rifle using the old style ammo for that era. Muzzle velocity of 1852 fps at 3 meters and a weight of 14 grams would be typical of the slow round-nosed bullets used back then. A maximum temporary cavity of just 38 mm is low compared to modern rounds http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M80.jpg

[rvg]

A maximum temporary cavity of just 38 mm is low compared to modern rounds

But 121mm is high, is it not?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But 121mm is high, is it not?

12.1 cm, or about 4.5", the exit would from 7.62 might be larger than that, the graph above, which I have seen elsewhere shows a temporary wound over 20 cm after 20cm of penetration through the balistic gelatin.

[rvg]

12.1 cm, or about 4.5", the exit would from 7.62 might be larger than that, the graph above, which I have seen elsewhere shows a temporary wound over 20 cm after 20cm of penetration through the balistic gelatin.

An FMJ round? I can imagine 20 cm temp cavity from an HP round, but not from FMJ. I would like to see some evidence of an FMJ round getting a 20 cm temp cavity.

[CBR]

But 121mm is high, is it not?
If we compare with modern rounds, then it is similar to intermediate rounds and therefore not bad at all. It is of course just temporary cavity and not the permanent one. But it can still produce damage to most organs and bones.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An FMJ round? I can imagine 20 cm temp cavity from an HP round, but not from FMJ. I would like to see some evidence of an FMJ round getting a 20 cm temp cavity.

There's some a few posts up, and 7.62 is known to tumble on entry, unless it's German, in which case it might fragment. It also tends to exit, which is two holes to patch.

[Fragony]

As to "no Liver", I want that from an autopsy before I believe it.

What for makes total sense, it's blunt it's big it's fast. Much more energy released on impact as it doesn't penetrate, even if sharp bullet is faster

[Sigurd]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/panzer_king_tiger/2008%20Bovington/af8a3edb.jpg



Look--- a T54.
I know exactly where I would have put a shell in that tank... eh.. if I were a gunner behind a S70 gun. :sneaky:

[Vuk]

And, of course, for regular assault rifles I must refer you to the ongoing debate between the M4/M16 and the AK-Family. It's exactly the trade off--do you want velocity, or do you want impact weight? It's situational.

Of course you have to remember GC that the .308 is a pissy little carbine round. Honestly I cannot believe we even use it as the 30-06 has superior ballistics in every regard and only has marginally more kick. (it is the difference between ~15 ft/lbs of free recoil on an M14 (depending on the load) and ~18 ft/lbs on a 30-06 of the same weight (and since a 30-06 rifle would likely be a little heavier, probably even less). If you were to use a full power .30 cal, you would not have to sacrifice velocity and you would have the mass advantage.
Since it is currently our military's policy to go for small caliber rounds though, I am surprised that no one uses a .25 cal magnum. I actually designed the concept for one built off the 7mm Rem Mag using some ballistics software and if I did everything correctly, it would end up having some impressive statistics.
Here are some numbers assuming a 20" barrel and a 3.0 o'clock 10 MPH wind.



Range(Yards)

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000

Velocity(Ft/Sec)

4097.7
3810.1
3539.1
3285
3045.8
2819.4
2604.2
2399.1
2203.2
2016.5
1839.6

Energy(Ft/Lbs)

3731.9
3222.9
2780.7
2395.8
2059.6
1764.7
1505.7
1277.8
1077.7
902.8
751.3

Bullet Path(inches)

-1.6
0
-0.8
-4.37
-11.18
-21.73
-36.67
-56.74
-82.87
-116.18
-158.06

Bullet Path(1 MoA)

0
0
-0.4
-1.4
-2.7
-4.2
-5.8
-7.7
-9.9
-12.3
-15.1

Wind Drift(inches)

0
0.48
1.99
4.6
8.41
13.55
20.16
28.41
38.5
50.67
65.21

Wind Drift(1 MoA)

0
0.5
0.9
1.5
2
2.6
3.2
3.9
4.6
5.4
6.2

Time of Flight(Seconds)

0
0.0759
0.1576
0.2456
0.3405
0.4429
0.5536
0.6736
0.8041
0.9465
1.1022



It would out perform both the 7.62X51 and the 5.56X45 at most ranges that the military is likely to be engaging targets at. The only downsides would be ammunition almost the size of the .308, and higher recoil than the 5.56X45. That said however, its advantages would far outweigh its disadvantages, and I would love to see some terminal ballistics test done for it.

[Vladimir]

On the .308: Many law enforcement agencies chose that round over the 30-06 because it offers better ballistics within the expected engagement range of ~100m.

Maybe it wasn't ballistics but cost. Basically the .308 was better for urban sniping.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look--- a T54.
I know exactly where I would have put a shell in that tank... eh.. if I were a gunner behind a S70 gun. :sneaky:

That would be just below the turret? In order to hit the ammunition directly below said turret and blow it into the air?


Of course you have to remember GC that the .308 is a pissy little carbine round. Honestly I cannot believe we even use it as the 30-06 has superior ballistics in every regard and only has marginally more kick. (it is the difference between ~15 ft/lbs of free recoil on an M14 (depending on the load) and ~18 ft/lbs on a 30-06 of the same weight (and since a 30-06 rifle would likely be a little heavier, probably even less). If you were to use a full power .30 cal, you would not have to sacrifice velocity and you would have the mass advantage.
Since it is currently our military's policy to go for small caliber rounds though, I am surprised that no one uses a .25 cal magnum. I actually designed the concept for one built off the 7mm Rem Mag using some ballistics software and if I did everything correctly, it would end up having some impressive statistics.
Here are some numbers assuming a 20" barrel and a 3.0 o'clock 10 MPH wind.



Range(Yards)

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000

Velocity(Ft/Sec)

4097.7
3810.1
3539.1
3285
3045.8
2819.4
2604.2
2399.1
2203.2
2016.5
1839.6

Energy(Ft/Lbs)

3731.9
3222.9
2780.7
2395.8
2059.6
1764.7
1505.7
1277.8
1077.7
902.8
751.3

Bullet Path(inches)

-1.6
0
-0.8
-4.37
-11.18
-21.73
-36.67
-56.74
-82.87
-116.18
-158.06

Bullet Path(1 MoA)

0
0
-0.4
-1.4
-2.7
-4.2
-5.8
-7.7
-9.9
-12.3
-15.1

Wind Drift(inches)

0
0.48
1.99
4.6
8.41
13.55
20.16
28.41
38.5
50.67
65.21

Wind Drift(1 MoA)

0
0.5
0.9
1.5
2
2.6
3.2
3.9
4.6
5.4
6.2

Time of Flight(Seconds)

0
0.0759
0.1576
0.2456
0.3405
0.4429
0.5536
0.6736
0.8041
0.9465
1.1022



It would out perform both the 7.62X51 and the 5.56X45 at most ranges that the military is likely to be engaging targets at. The only downsides would be ammunition almost the size of the .308, and higher recoil than the 5.56X45. That said however, its advantages would far outweigh its disadvantages, and I would love to see some terminal ballistics test done for it.

Look up .280 British, a superior round to the .308, but unfortunately the American establishment wanted a "full size" round. How you can call .308/7.62 a "carbine" round though, I have no idea. Seriously, Vuk, 7.62 is almost the same size as WWII era rounds, and it has better propellant, and therefore better performance all round.

[Sigurd]

That would be just below the turret? In order to hit the ammunition directly below said turret and blow it into the air?

Nearly.
The driver sits on the left side (right if you are facing it). There is a large ammunition storage to the right of the driver (left if you are facing it). So.. if you have a good gun, say 260mm average penetration, I would have put a shell right above the shrapnel screen on the front glacis just where the light is mounted. The whole tank could go BOOM with that one shell.

To illustrate:
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/t4464.gif

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nearly.
The driver sits on the left side (right if you are facing it). There is a large ammunition storage to the right of the driver (left if you are facing it). So.. if you have a good gun, say 260mm average penetration, I would have put a shell right above the shrapnel screen on the front glacis just where the light is mounted. The whole tank could go BOOM with that one shell.

To illustrate:
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/t4464.gif

Main Gun on a Challenger II will do for that pretty good.

Ahhh.

To be 18 again.

[Sigurd]

Main gun on anything will go through a T-55. Even the Main Gun on a T-55. You can tell that's a T-55 (or, more likely, some Iraqi variation of the T-55) and not a T-54, by the way, because the Bore Evacuator is at the very end of the gun. You are probably right considering this is a gulf war tank (Iraqi). The only real (noticeable) difference between them is a ventilation dome on the right front side of the turret. You can't see that on the picture. I think some of the T54As had evacuators. I believe Wiki do call these tanks T54/55 because many T54s were upgraded to T55. You can even see Iraqi T55s that used to be T54. The clue is the tiny gun hole on the center glacis front which was a T54 feature but not a T55. Sadly the picture is not sharp enough to see if this particular tank used to be a T54. What you learn playing a tank game... :beam: And yes.. the T54/55 is no match against modern tanks, but back in 1945 when it was a prototype, it was THE tank.. (at least one of THE tanks)