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.

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). 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). 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.

[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.