Results 1 to 30 of 54

Thread: Stupid question about guns

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Stupid question about guns

    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.
    Last edited by Fragony; 12-21-2011 at 07:04.

  2. #2
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Stupid question about guns

    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
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  3. #3
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Stupid question about guns

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post
    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
    Last edited by Fragony; 12-21-2011 at 16:23.

  4. #4
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: Stupid question about guns

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Fragony; 12-21-2011 at 08:23.

  5. #5
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: Stupid question about guns

    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.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Stupid question about guns

    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.
    Last edited by PanzerJaeger; 12-21-2011 at 10:14.

  7. #7
    Wandering Metsuke Senior Member Zim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,190

    Default Re: Stupid question about guns

    I always like gun-cranks myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit View Post
    Gun-enthusiasts.
    V&V RIP Helmut Becker, Duke of Bavaria.



    Come to the Throne Room for hotseats and TW rpgs!

    Kermit's made a TWS2 guide? Oh, the other frog....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO