Discovery Channel: AK 47 No 1. Combat Rifle of all time

[CHE with an AK]

http://www.propertysigns.com/img/sm/K/Warning-Firearms-Range-Ahead-Sign-K-7708.gif
[ps. this thread is not for those who are against guns, and accuse those who like guns of "gun fetishism" or "violence fetishism"
let's just assume that we may be guilty as charged. We all have our own hobbies and interests, and nobody makes fun of your origami.]
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________




This discussion actually started in another unrelated thread, that I don't want to thread jack. Now, it should be obvious that I am biased on the issue, but I am curious if the rest of you also agree?


First to the video ...
(my apologies for the Chinese subtitles, but hey, they own the U$ now)
KvrG4T2K4sE



(1) Do you agree? If not, then historically, what would you say is the #1 combat rifle of all time?


(2) If you were allowed to take one gun into battle which one would you personally prefer? And Why?


(3) Have you ever personally shot an AK 47, and if yes, what did you think of it?


(4) What is your favorite gun (any type) of all time, for whatever reason?

[Rusty Shackleford]

1: yes, it has an impressive history.
2: fap fap fap
3: .
4: chainsaw rocket launcher.

[Teacher]

Easily the AK47 to the first two. Along with the T-34, the Katyusha, Migs, and all the space stuff, the Soviet Union proved that a socialist society can be scientifically and technologically dynamic.

Never shot one though -- I really don't like shooting automatic weapons they kinda scare me. Favorite gun is my 20 gauge pump action shotgun cause hunting birds and skeet shooting is fun.

[The Man]

I own, and have shot an AK. It is is invariable shit. Here is me shooting one at the Knob Creek Machine gun shoot (The thing is fucking impossible to control.):

_TMunal29bk

[CHE with an AK]

I own, and have shot an AK. It is invariable shit.
I assume you mean "shit" in a bad way, and not like "that gun is the shit man"! If so, why do you say that?

Also, from the video, I think once you get older and bigger that you may find it easier to "control".

But nice video though and thanks for sharing.

[The Man]

I assume you mean "shit" in a bad way, and not like "that gun is the shit man"! If so, why do you say that? and is yours automatic?

Yes, in the bad way. I do not own an automatic one as it is way to expensive. I have shot multiple automatic ones though. American made weapons are 100000000% times better (AR-15 specifically.)

Don't get me wrong, AK-47s are a lot of fun, and the Mosin Nagant is just as comparable. But American made weapons are just so much better in almost every way, except power of course. By the way, as a disclaimer to those who are not around gun enthusiasts, I shoot these things for sport and for fun, I have no violent intentions with them at all.

[khad]

Excuses. I think you're just weak. I knew a guy who was in the Bundeswehr who fired a G3 full auto, no problems, but obviously that's not everyone.

Kinda like this:

mr14_2Z2m0A

Or this:

g3aFiLH6KPU

You could also step down to the 5.45x39. Even for an average shooter, the 74 has low enough recoil where you can comfortably fire it one handed.

ybAyrAF4Y1E

[The Man]

Excuses. I think you're just weak. I knew a guy who was in the Bundeswehr who fired a G3 full auto, no problems, but obviously that's not everyone.

Kinda like this:

mr14_2Z2m0A

Or this:

g3aFiLH6KPU

You could also step down to the 5.45x39. Even for an average shooter, the 74 has low enough recoil where you can comfortably fire it one handed.

ybAyrAF4Y1E

I'm just saying that AR-15s are superior in almost every way except the power of the caliber. I've shot an H&K G3 as well. I've shot a whole lot of Class III weapons. I've grown up around guns my whole life, and besides an M-1A, an AK is the MG with the most recoil I have shot.

[Susurrus]

I gotta say, the AK-47 is awesome. I've heard that a construction crew in South Korea unearthed the body of a Korean War combatant with an AK-47. One of the workers took bets on whether it would still fire or not, then fired off a full clip without it jamming.

Though over all the types of guns, the AA-12 is pretty goshdarn awesome as well.

WOoUVeyaY_8

[khad]

Another note, of course the AK is the perfect infantry weapon, but only if you understand what the role of the rifle is on today's battlefield.

Coming out of WW2, it was determined that infantrymen rarely needed to shoot past 200-300m, so the assault rifle was born as an intermediate design between an SMG and a rifle. The tendency over time has been to reduce caliber (from 7.62 to 5.56 and 5.45), reducing the energy delivered on target and thus killing power at range.

But that's no biggie for real militaries because anything at range will be handled by support MGs, AGLs, artillery, and air strikes. Even for poorly equipped insurgent force, small arms cause miniscule numbers of casualties--the real killers are RPG and bomb attacks.

This is why militaries don't give their infantrymen uber-rifles. This is why Russia has stuck with the somewhat dated AK design and the US with the jammy ARs for so long. The real killers on the battlefield are support weapons. They only need assault rifles to go bang and lay down suppression fire.

If you're looking for a rifle for personal use like hunting/survival, you should look into full-sized cartridges. 5.56 and other military subcalibers won't reliably drop deer and other animals of that size. Sucks for everyone who is recoil-phobic, but this is a fact.

You can take a look at this discussion on the 5.56 as a hunting round:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080922141357AAmhPKU
If someone I was guiding showed up with a .223 for anything other than varmints I'd send them home with no refund. Yes it can work, but it's horrible ethics to hope for the perfect shot and risk wounding an animal that's going to suffer to death over the next month. It's giving it's life to you and it deserves to go down instantly and as humanely as possible.

I took my 1st deer with a .243. The deer was the largest mulie I've seen taken and the .243 didn't penetrate through the 1st rib. I got lucky and it still dropped, but the bullet performance was 1 in a million and I still can't figure out how it did what it did. I've never used a .243 for hunting again, and the .243 is much better than the .223.

I've hunted with a minimum 30-06 or similar and better caliber ever since, make damn sure I have an excellent shot and my longest track to date has been an elk at 350 yards that covered 15 yards.

I'd recommend a .270 or better for big game hunting. Leave the plinkers at home for this trip.

[The Man]

I gotta say, the AK-47 is awesome. I've heard that a construction crew in South Korea unearthed the body of a Korean War combatant with an AK-47. One of the workers took bets on whether it would still fire or not, then fired off a full clip without it jamming.

Though over all the types of guns, the AA-12 is pretty goshdarn awesome as well.

WOoUVeyaY_8

Oh.. I hate that fool :thumbdown:

[The Man]

Another note, of course the AK is the perfect infantry weapon, but only if you understand what the role of the rifle is on today's battlefield.

Coming out of WW2, it was determined that infantrymen rarely needed to shoot past 200-300m, so the assault rifle was born as an intermediate design between an SMG and a rifle. The tendency over time has been to reduce caliber (from 7.62 to 5.56 and 5.45), reducing the energy delivered on target and thus killing power at range.

But that's no biggie for real militaries because anything at range will be handled by support MGs, AGLs, artillery, and air strikes. Even for poorly equipped insurgent force, small arms cause miniscule numbers of casualties--the real killers are RPG and bomb attacks.

This is why militaries don't give their infantrymen uber-rifles. This is why Russia has stuck with the somewhat dated AK design and the US with the jammy ARs for so long. The real killers on the battlefield are support weapons. They only need assault rifles to go bang and lay down suppression fire.

If you're looking for a rifle for personal use like hunting/survival, you should look into full-sized cartridges. 5.56 and other military subcalibers won't reliably drop deer and other animals of that size. Sucks for everyone who is recoil-phobic, but this is a fact.

You can take a look at this discussion on the 5.56 as a hunting round:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080922141357AAmhPKU

When I go hunting with my grandfather I use a Mosin Nagant 91/30 in 7.62x54R. Damn, that thing leaves a bruise.

[Susurrus]

Another note, of course the AK is the perfect infantry weapon, but only if you understand what the role of the rifle is on today's battlefield.

Coming out of WW2, it was determined that infantrymen rarely needed to shoot past 200-300m, so the assault rifle was born as an intermediate design between an SMG and a rifle. The tendency over time has been to reduce caliber (from 7.62 to 5.56 and 5.45), reducing the energy delivered on target and thus killing power at range.

But that's no biggie for real militaries because anything at range will be handled by support MGs, AGLs, artillery, and air strikes. Even for poorly equipped insurgent force, small arms cause miniscule numbers of casualties--the real killers are RPG and bomb attacks.

This is why militaries don't give their infantrymen uber-rifles. This is why Russia has stuck with the somewhat dated AK design and the US with the jammy ARs for so long. The real killers on the battlefield are support weapons. They only need assault rifles to go bang and lay down suppression fire.

If you're looking for a rifle for personal use like hunting/survival, you should look into full-sized cartridges. 5.56 and other military subcalibers won't reliably drop deer and other animals of that size. Sucks for everyone who is recoil-phobic, but this is a fact.

You can take a look at this discussion on the 5.56 as a hunting round:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080922141357AAmhPKU

Actually, the Iraqi army uses a sniper rifle that's a modified AK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabuk_Sniper_Rifle

[Susurrus]

Oh.. I hate that fool :thumbdown:

Doesn't diminish the gun.

[Teacher]

Z4VD8IhHmX4

[khad]

Actually, the Iraqi army uses a sniper rifle that's a modified AK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabuk_Sniper_Rifle
Have you ever seen the drop off of 7.62x39 past 350m?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/DavePAL84/projects/ak-drop.jpg

Or the energy bleed of a 223 for that matter?
http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm

These this to a real rifle round:
http://www.snipercentral.com/762R.htm

Just because the Iraqi army did moronic things like make helmets out of pressed canvas instead of steel and put the 7.62x39 into service as a sniper round doesn't make these practices any more viable.

[Susurrus]

Have you ever seen the drop off of 7.62x39 past 350m?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/DavePAL84/projects/ak-drop.jpg

Or the energy bleed of a 223 for that matter?
http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm

These this to a real rifle round:
http://www.snipercentral.com/762R.htm

Just pointing it out...

I actually agree that the Mosin-Nagant is epic.

[khad]

Just pointing it out...
That, what, an army moronic enough to give soldiers helmets made out of canvas instead of steel is capable of the equally moronic decision to press an intermediate cartridge into service as a sniper round?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_M80_Helmet

[Rusty Shackleford]

Probably the rifle with the most kick ive fired was a Mosin Nagant.

M1A operates like magic and the SKS and AK-47(CA Legal) are great fun to shoot.
Also the Mk.II No. 4 is the sex. and cordite smells delicious.

there i said it.

Also, if you ever get the chance. try shooting something that is chambered in 7.62x25. such a fun little bullet.

do i own any firearms? no. closest thing to a real looking gun is my airsoft gun. closest thing to a deadly gun is my rusted and corroded crossman 760 pumpmaster that i had since i was 13-14.

http://www.defensearms.com/store/pc/catalog/CR764SB_1.jpg


lost the scope too :crying: still shoots. but at 20 ft it is already way off the mark

[CHE with an AK]

http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as01/ak47_2.jpg


One of the best things about the AK 47, is that you can teach anyone how to strip it down and put it together in about 15 minutes.


imo, only the Soviets could have developed such a reliable, hearty, and simple gun in my opinion. You could even call it the Proletariat machine gun - since nearly anyone of any age, size, skill, ability, or gender can use it.


It reminds me of the old joke ...




When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface, and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 degrees Celsius.

The Russians used a pencil.

[CHE with an AK]

I've always liked this scene from the movie Lord of War ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fAHXosoNlvo

(embedding is disabled)

[Magón]

But American made weapons are just so much better in almost every way, except power of course.

Actually, comparisons between the AK and say an AR-15, say a bit of another story than just power. I've shot both myself, and just handling the AK, I found that most of what people say about it, are true. It's a lot easier to field strip and put back together, than the AR-15/M-16, and the punishment it can take, is a lot more, plus it's lighter in weight (if you're shooting one of the more modern AK designs, that have polymer stocks.)

American manufacturers, often make their guns tight knitted, so they become more complicated than old Soviet designs, which if you shake either an AK or AR-15, you'll see that there are parts in the AK that seem loose and will probably break off the next time you shoot, which they're meant to be loose and won't break off, and in the AR-15, not so much in that area. The AR-15 is usually pretty firm and fit together. Another thing about American made guns, is that the guts of the guns, are usually very intricate and complicated, unlike an AK's which are simple and not so numerous.

The same goes for comparing the older American M1 Garand, and Russian Mosin-Nagant. The guts and operating system of the M1, is a lot more complicated, than a Mosin, which can be a good or bad thing, depending. Personally I'd want a gun where I could shoot it as much as I want, knowing it was going to get hammered and beat, without having to worry of when it does get beaten and hammered, it's going to jam or I'm going to have to go through all these steps, just to replace a spring or something.

[CHE with an AK]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Rifle_AK-47.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Rifle_AK-47.jpg)


An interesting 2 part (20 min) documentary by Al Jazeera on the AK47


na2_Nw31BBIPB1VuBWTyvY


(If you want to watch in full screen)
Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=na2_Nw31BBI
Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=PB1VuBWTyvY

[piet11111]

Actually, the Iraqi army uses a sniper rifle that's a modified AK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabuk_Sniper_Rifle

Then its no longer an assault rifle but an infantry support rifle.

The idea about smaller caliber's is that a wounded soldier requires 2 other soldiers to transport to safety.
That is why a wounding shot it preferable to a killing shot but in situations like Afghanistan they are again looking for killing shots and turning to compromise bullets like the 6.5mm grendel round http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel

[t.shonku]

AK 47 is a great gun and probably the "Peoples Gun" it has for years kicked imperialist as*. Starting from Vietnam to today's Iraq and Afghanistan , it is battle hardened veteran gun far better than unreliable jam prone American M 16 . The AK is so much robust and reliable and so easy to maintain and shoot,the gun has great stopping power making it ideal, it makes an ideal weapon for a Guerrilla force, I hope to see this gun kick more imperialist as*.

http://www.engology.com/images/Kalashnikov1.jpg

Red Salute to Comrade Kalashnikov for delivering instant fire into hands of freedom fighters and defenders of proletariat


He will always be inspiration for Engineers and Inventors who believe in Communism

[Rss]

I have been using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62 and folding stock east german AKM-variant. Both are great guns, but I preferred AKM-variant for portability. RK-62 has good sights and if you spend some effort to zero them in, it is very accurate up to 300 meters. Only downside is that aperture sight is almost impossible to use in winter as snow clouds the peep hole. Just flip the sights and use open tritium night sights. Just have to aim a little lower.

About reliability; Neither of these guns ever crapped out on me. They always fired, no matter how much sand, mud, peat, gravel and burned traces of oil were inside. I've heard those horror stories about reliability of M-16/AR-15, and if even half of them are true, fuck that gun. It might suffice on gun range, but in hard situation reliability is paramount.

Recoil isn't really an issue, as a matter of fact, I find it kinda comfortable. Even for a scrawny little fuck like me. Short bursts are quite accurate if kneeling or prone and one guy even managed to put entire magazine on target at 30 meters. While shooting from hip. :p

MG-3 is also quite fun to shoot. Tons of dakka going down the range but it jams if you don't show it some love.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The thing is fucking impossible to control.

Spray and pray....

....Or shoot it in concentrated 3-round bursts.


I took my 1st deer with a .243. The deer was the largest mulie I've seen taken and the .243 didn't penetrate through the 1st rib. I got lucky and it still dropped, but the bullet performance was 1 in a million and I still can't figure out how it did what it did. I've never used a .243 for hunting again, and the .243 is much better than the .223.

I don't know about all that. I've shot plenty of deer with a .243. It was my first rifle and I used it for years. I've seen whitetails knocked down like a pile of bricks at 200 yards with a single 100 grain .243 shot. You can take down black bears with it too. It's a great round that stays pretty flat from up close to way out. I had no drop at 100 yards and only 3 inches at 200. After ~250 it starts to drop a lot more.

I think the .270 is about as good as it gets for general use. It's pretty good as an all around gun and the recoil is negligible (not that it really matters if you use firearms properly... I've seen 95 pounds teenage girls shoot .300 magnums with no problem, and hit the 10 ring from hundreds of yards out).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Red Salute to Comrade Kalashnikov for delivering instant fire into hands of freedom fighters and defenders of proletariat

"Mr Kalashnikov recently said he wished he had invented the lawn-mower instead.... He claims he has made no money from his rifle and is said to live on a meagre pension." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2772975.stm

And, according to him, his creation didn't come out of any internationalist spirit.

"I constructed arms to defend my country."

"I created this weapon primarily to safeguard our motherland... I have been creating weapons to defend the borders of my fatherland, to be simple and reliable." - http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/26/us-russia-kalashnikov-idUSTRE59P34H20091026?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604

The last I heard he sold the rights to use his name to a company making Vodka.

The AK-47 is owned by Izmash, a Russian company originally founded by Tsar Alexander the Blessed. They are currently on a quest to end "piracy" of "their weapon."

[Blackscare]

The last I heard he sold the rights to use his name to a company making Vodka.

If the guy is poor and desperate, I don't blame him.


Make me an offer to use my name for Vodka and watch how fast I'll take out my pen to sign on the dotted line.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You missed my point.

[Kosakk]

I hate the G3. It was used in my army for decades, as AG3. It works as a flak cannon and only holds 20 rounds. Besides, mine jammed everytime. But it was probably 40 years old, though.


(1) Agreed.


(2) AK 74M, for obviuos reasons. possible to attach attachments like red dot sight, etc. And off course, reliability. It's also made with plastic stock, instead of AK47's wooden stock, which makes it lighter.



(3) Not a real one. Own one AK 74M Airsoft version.


(4) I kinda like the M16 aswell. and G36. But I still will have to say AK is my all time favorite.

[Dr Mindbender]

If black ops is anything to go by it should be the FAMAS. :rolleyes:

Fuck id even take the armalite over the AK47. It was the favoured weapon of the IRA for a reason.

[Rss]

If black ops is anything to go by it should be the FAMAS. :rolleyes:

Fuck id even take the armalite over the AK47. It was the favoured weapon of the IRA for a reason.

And that reason is...? You have watched that episode of Deadliest Warrior, haven't you?

[Metacomet]

Don't know a whole lot about guns (would like to get more into them, but kinda hard ATM)

What is anyone's opinion on the AN-94? Do you think it will eventually replace the AK series?


And I don't know if it's any good but for name/ and look I like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX-05_Xiuhcoatl

[khad]

Fuck id even take the armalite over the AK47. It was the favoured weapon of the IRA for a reason.
Actually, you're completely wrong. The Armalite has a legendary cultural reputation because it was the first modern weapon delivered to the IRA, but later arms shipments from places like Libya consisted primarily of AK-type weapons. These generally replaced the ARs in service by the 1980s.

http://iskra1916.hubpages.com/hub/The-Armalite-Rifle-and-Irish-Republicanism


By the late 1980's, Kalashnikov assault rifle variants, with their distinctive banana magazine more or less overtook the Armalite, as the weapon most closely associated with Irish Republican guerrillas. This was no doubt due to the large stocks of AK47 type rifles arriving in Ireland courtesy, of Libya which made the AK a near defacto IRA standard issue weapon! The Kalashnikov also had a worldwide mystique as the weapon of choice for Leftist guerrilla armies, combined with it's Eastern Bloc lineage.

Increasingly, Irish Republican propaganda footage featured armed volunteers brandishing AK47 (http://daryl2007.hubpages.com/hub/Why-AK-rifle-is-the-Best-Kalashnikov) type rifles and the Kalashnikov arguably replaced the Armalite as a symbol of resistance, especially on political wall murals in Republican areas. It is debatable whether the Kalashnikov type rifles were a better weapon compared to the Armalite, but what is beyond debate is that there certainly appeared to be a lot more of them!
An article on Janes in the 90s, right when decommission was going on, gave these figures for the IRA inventory:

Webley .455
60

AK-47/AKM
650

Armalite AR-15
A few dozen

Barrett M82A1
1

7.62 mm FN MAG
12

12.7 x 107 mm DshK
20

RPG-7
40

SAM-7 (may not be serviceable)
1

LPO-50
6

Detonators
600

Semtex
3 tonnes

[Rafiq]

I'm just saying that AR-15s are superior in almost every way except the power of the caliber. I've shot an H&K G3 as well. I've shot a whole lot of Class III weapons. I've grown up around guns my whole life, and besides an M-1A, an AK is the MG with the most recoil I have shot.

Well try taking one of those fancy failures to battle, see how reliable it'll be.


Ak's aren't famous because they're better than M16's with how good they feel(Though Ak74's are better) they are because they're super reliable..

[Rss]

LPO-50
6


IRA had flamethrowers?

[Kosakk]

What is anyone's opinion on the AN-94? Do you think it will eventually replace the AK series?

I believe it was supposed to, but was to expensive. Used in limited numbers today.

[khad]

Well try taking one of those fancy failures to battle, see how reliable it'll be.

Ak's aren't famous because they're better than M16's with how good they feel(Though Ak74's are better) they are because they're super reliable..
Anyone who says the AK has more recoil than a G3 is either full of shit or doing something completely wrong.


IRA had flamethrowers?
They also had surface-to-air missiles.

[ellipsis]

If anybody is making statements about guns based solely on videogame or movies or airsoft, consider yourselves WARNED.

[Dr Mindbender]

If anybody is making statements about guns based solely on videogame or movies or airsoft, consider yourselves WARNED.

Unfortunately some of us live in countries without constitutional rights to arms, videogames and airsoft are as close as we come to real weapons!

[Kosakk]

Anyone who says the AK has more recoil than a G3 is either full of shit or doing something completely wrong.

I've shot with the AG3 once, the norwegian version of the G3, and it's recoil is like getting kicked by a horse.
My shoulder was all numb that day. I also misjudged it's recoil the first time firing and ended up with a black eye :blushing:

[t.shonku]

In many countries particularly in Asia it is very hard to get guns the gun law is very oppressive it only favours the elite. That is why lot have to improvise or reverse engineer fire arms. During my University I had a friend who happened to be a Mechanical Engineer the guy was a gun crazy dude he was very smart too, he basically build his own gun when in high school without a lathe or a mill . But getting hold of ammo would be a problem in such cases. Do you guys know about Fillipino Gun Industry,Pakistani Dera Gunsmiths and India's Munger Gunsmiths? Got to love this guys for their ingenuity they build cloned western guns without much tooling.

[Kosakk]

For more about the AK 47, I would recommend the book "AK 47, The story of the people's gun" by Michael Hodges.
It's not about specs, etc, but more of it's history and why it is "the people's gun".
With first hand accounts from a few conflicts.

And episode 12 of Weaponology, 2. season.
It's mainly about Spetznatz, but also take on the AK.
And you get to know a few good facts.

[Fulanito de Tal]

The M-16 is great if it is perfectly clean and you have zero-ed in the sights. The rounds being smaller than an AK's is nice considering that you have to carry the weight of the rounds. The M-16 itself is also lighter than an AK-47. The M-16 is precise up to 550m for a point target. Any US Marine should be capable of hitting a stationary person from 500m. Wikipedia says that the AK-47 has a maximum effective range of 400m. However, the M-16 jams up if it sees a grain of sand 100m away. Not really, but it does jam fairly easily. Go to any military rifle range and just watch all of the M-16s that jam on the first day. Also, the bolt off the m-16 is relatively complicated making it more likely to break and ruin the weapon's firing capability.

If I were to choose a weapon to go into battle, I would go for the AK-47 for its reliability and simplicity. Cleaning an M-16 in dirty areas such as a dessert or swamp is a pain in the ass and that weapon has to be clean to function.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Personally, my weapon of choice is the keyboard.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i like nerfbats

[Psy]

The M-16 is great if it is perfectly clean and you have zero-ed in the sights. The rounds being smaller than an AK's is nice considering that you have to carry the weight of the rounds. The M-16 itself is also lighter than an AK-47. The M-16 is precise up to 550m for a point target. Any US Marine should be capable of hitting a stationary person from 500m. Wikipedia says that the AK-47 has a maximum effective range of 400m. However, the M-16 jams up if it sees a grain of sand 100m away. Not really, but it does jam fairly easily. Go to any military rifle range and just watch all of the M-16s that jam on the first day. Also, the bolt off the m-16 is relatively complicated making it more likely to break and ruin the weapon's firing capability.

If I were to choose a weapon to go into battle, I would go for the AK-47 for its reliability and simplicity. Cleaning an M-16 in dirty areas such as a dessert or swamp is a pain in the ass and that weapon has to be clean to function.
Uhh why wouldn't you want a AKM over a AK-47, you know the upgraded version of the AK-47 that came out in 1959 that can easily be mistaken for a AK-47 as the upgrades were to the guts of the rifle and shooter that doesn't open it up will only notice a slight weight reduction.

[khad]

Uhh why wouldn't you want a AKM over a AK-47, you know the upgraded version of the AK-47 that came out in 1959 that can easily be mistaken for a AK-47 as the upgrades were to the guts of the rifle and shooter that doesn't open it up will only notice a slight weight reduction.
And M16s aren't in widespread service anymore either. Quit being pedantic; you know what he meant.

[RED DAVE]

This whole thread is tankie porn. :rolleyes:

RED DAVE

[Rusty Shackleford]

This whole thread is tankie porn. :rolleyes:

RED DAVE
then you havent seen tankie porn :lol:

[Psy]

And M16s aren't in widespread service anymore either. Quit being pedantic; you know what he meant.
Naming convention, descendants of the AK-47 share the AK name so AK-47 by naming convention just means the AK-47, decadents of the M-16 share the M16 ie the M16A4 so by the M16A4 is a M16 by naming conventions.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Naming convention, descendants of the AK-47 share the AK name so AK-47 by naming convention just means the AK-47, decadents of the M-16 share the M16 ie the M16A4 so by the M16A4 is a M16 by naming conventions.
what about polish, romanian, czech, finnish, hungarian, chinese, korean, indian, iraqi, iranian, egyptian and so on variants of the Kalashnikov?

[khad]

Naming convention, descendants of the AK-47 share the AK name so AK-47 by naming convention just means the AK-47, decadents of the M-16 share the M16 ie the M16A4 so by the M16A4 is a M16 by naming conventions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Derivatives
Of course. All the descendents of the M16 are named M16, even the xm177, C8, and M4. All these have more differences from the original M16 than the AKM from the AK-47.

You always try to show off your so-called "knowledge," but the only thing you succeed at is failing.

[Psy]

what about polish, romanian, czech, finnish, hungarian, chinese, korean, indian, iraqi, iranian, egyptian and so on variants of the Kalashnikov?
They tend to fall under the AK family . I understand why people do it but it can get really confusing if people use this bad habit elsewhere. For example the TU-1 diesel locomotive sucked even engineers of the Kaluzhskii Mashinostroitelnyi Zavod admitted that the TU-1 was a spectacular failure thus why they worked hard to fix the problems in the TU-2 that turned out to be a huge break through for diesel engine technology for the USSR but what if you called all the TU diesel locomotives TU-1 wouldn't that be insulting the better engineered locomotives?

Now the AK-47 came out a solid rife so it is would be like calling the rest of the TU Kaluzhskii Mashinostroitelnyi Zavod diesel locomotives all TU-2, so this TU-8
http://zavod-kmz.ru/data/files/ch_tu_8.jpg

would be lumped with this TU-2

http://www.ngr.lt/tu2/tu2brezinm.jpg

So following naming conventions is a good idea.




Of course. All the descendents of the M16 are named M16, even the xm177, C8, and M4. All these have more differences from the original M16 than the AKM from the AK-47.


You are missing the point, the point is naming conventions. Naming conventions exist so we can describe models with less confusion. So if am to interpret AK-47 meaning AK does that include the AK-100 series? Or just AK riles close to the AK-47?

[Die Neue Zeit]

For more about the AK 47, I would recommend the book "AK 47, The story of the people's gun" by Michael Hodges.
It's not about specs, etc, but more of it's history and why it is "the people's gun".
With first hand accounts from a few conflicts.

And episode 12 of Weaponology, 2. season.
It's mainly about Spetznatz, but also take on the AK.
And you get to know a few good facts.

So what about the whole AK rifle family? AKM? AK-74? AK-200 demonstrated to Putin last year for modernization?

[Rss]

Fun fact: You can cock AKM-variant weapons by holding the barrel and doing a golf swing. Bolt is so heavy that it goes back all by itself. Not recommended, but many conscripts find this very amusing.


This whole thread is tankie porn. :rolleyes:

RED DAVE

If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything.

[Kosakk]

So what about the whole AK rifle family? AKM? AK-74? AK-200 demonstrated to Putin last year for modernization?

Well, the book is manly about AK 47. Been long since I've read it, but basically, the author mention at least the Iraqi version of the AK. The book is more about the "AK-myth" though.

Weaponology take on the AK 47 (maybe AKM) and AK 74.
But since it's about Spetznatz during the Soviet period, they manly focus on the old rifles.

I don't know about any good documentaires about every AK, but if anyone know, please let me know :)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Fun fact: You can cock AKM-variant weapons by holding the barrel and doing a golf swing. Bolt is so heavy that it goes back all by itself. Not recommended, but many conscripts find this very amusing.



Any numbers on self-inflicted gunshot wounds in the Red Army and Russian Army?



god thats a terrible idea hahahah

[khad]

more fun stuff to do

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/729/1238985027801.jpg

[Rss]

Any numbers on self-inflicted gunshot wounds in the Red Army and Russian Army?



god thats a terrible idea hahahah

No idea about Red/Russian Army but most finnish conscripts were smart enough to try it without magazine. :lol:

Other extraordinary uses for AK-type weapons, done by these same conscripts:



Coathanger; slam your AK charging handle first into a spruce and hang your coat on it
Bench; put your AK between two treestumps and no more wet ass!
Bottleopener; crank the bottlecap open with AK magazine, just dont do it with plastic ones, they break.
Backscratcher; obvious use
De-icer; shoot some blanks until your AK is smoking and use the barrel to melt any ice
Bacon machine; wrap some bacon in tin foil, wrap it around AK barrel and shoot lots o' boolets. Yum, yum!
Wrench; depending on size of a bolt in question, folding stock can function as poor wrench
Candy/Cig/Pill stash; Just stash your stuff inside the stock, they have small maintenance kit inside
Shoestraps; Burned your shoelaces near that fire? No worries, mate! Just remove your AK sling and use it as shoestrap.

[The Man]

Unless I was a maoist that made bombs out of fermented shit, whilst carrying a reactionary baby's head in a jungle, I would never carry an AK.... He'll, I'm selling my AK next week.

[Rusty Shackleford]

have fun paying a shit ton for ammo with your silly ARs :lol: (giving you a hard time)

to be fair though. ive never shot an AR variant of any kind. mostly just vintage stuff.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

1. No, the mosin-nagant is the best weapon in history, most mass produced weapon ever.
2. Ak-104, it looks awesome
3. No
4. ppsh-41, it's fucking epic

[Nox]

(1) Do you agree? If not, then historically, what would you say is the #1 combat rifle of all time?


(2) If you were allowed to take one gun into battle which one would you personally prefer? And Why?


(3) Have you ever personally shot an AK 47, and if yes, what did you think of it?



(4) What is your favorite gun (any type) of all time, for whatever reason?


1.) Yes, I agree, the AK47 is very cheap, very sturdy, the most reliable gun on earth by far (yep, from personal experience I have seen someone fire a severely rusted AK47 with a bent barrel), it is surprisingly accurate despite the misconceptions surrounding its accuracy and the bullets deal so much damage to the target that its almost a guaranteed kill.

2.) AK47, for the reasons stated above. I don't want an American plastic piece of crap.

3.) No, I haven't fired any gun myself.

4.) My favourite gun of all time is the AK47, simply because it represents struggles across the world, and it is a fucking deadly piece of equipment. :cool:

[Rusty Shackleford]

the gun doesnt represent the struggle. the people do.


prolier than thou

[ellipsis]

Unfortunately some of us live in countries without constitutional rights to arms, videogames and airsoft are as close as we come to real weapons!

Or could always enlist.

But seriously my heart goes out to you. I am living in California where the anti-gun culture is very strong and buying a gun is expensive and troublesome.

Also BTW, almost the whole lot of you is full of shit with your so called knowledge. Khad and I aren't impressed.

[Magón]

This whole thread is tankie porn. :rolleyes:

RED DAVE

But I don't even like Tankies. :crying:


When I go hunting with my grandfather I use a Mosin Nagant 91/30 in 7.62x54R. Damn, that thing leaves a bruise.

What grain of bullet do you use? I suggest the classic 148gr. bullet, because of several reasons I have against the higher grained bullets.

1. The high grained bullets, aren't really meant for the Mosin-Nagant, but for guns like the cloned Dragunov's, and other guns that are meant to have higher pressured bullets.

2. The wear and tear, including the high pressures the high grained bullets give, aren't good for an 81+ year old rifle, and you can soon be out of a good rifle.

3. If you're buying or shooting rounds with a red ring around the primer, don't shoot them. They're more or less a machine-gun round, and those will definitely end up eating away at your Mosin.

[The Man]

But I don't even like Tankies. :crying:



What grain of bullet do you use? I suggest the classic 148gr. bullet, because of several reasons I have against the higher grained bullets.

1. The high grained bullets, aren't really meant for the Mosin-Nagant, but for guns like the cloned Dragunov's, and other guns that are meant to have higher pressured bullets.

2. The wear and tear, including the high pressures the high grained bullets give, aren't good for an 81+ year old rifle, and you can soon be out of a good rifle.

3. If you're buying or shooting rounds with a red ring around the primer, don't shoot them. They're more or less a machine-gun round, and those will definitely end up eating away at your Mosin.

I just end up buying Soviet Surplus. I don't really buy a specific brand.

[Rusty Shackleford]

question:

is buying 50 yr old british surplus .303 ok to shoot in an equally old enfield? i know it may take some extra cleaning, but other than that. any possible damage?

[Rss]

Or could always enlist.

Or move to a country with conscription. One great thing about it is that you can always talk about army memories in a party and someone understands what the hell you are talking about.

[Magón]

question:

is buying 50 yr old british surplus .303 ok to shoot in an equally old enfield? i know it may take some extra cleaning, but other than that. any possible damage?

You'll want to make sure none of the bullets have any dings or dents on them, that can cause serious problems, especially if you're loading it with a clip. I'm not all that well versed in Enfield or .303 knowhow, but from what I've seen and read, if you buy .303 British from Pakistan (which is usually surplus itself), then you're going to have a lot of miss fires and hang fires, which hang fires are where you pull the trigger but nothing happens for a second or two, and people can get hurt if they don't know about that.

Also, you want to look at the rifle itself. If there's still good riflings in the barrel, I say go ahead and shoot it, but if they're hard to see or pitted too bad, then I wouldn't bother with any of that.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You'll want to make sure none of the bullets have any dings or dents on them, that can cause serious problems, especially if you're loading it with a clip. I'm not all that well versed in Enfield or .303 knowhow, but from what I've seen and read, if you buy .303 British from Pakistan (which is usually surplus itself), then you're going to have a lot of miss fires and hang fires, which hang fires are where you pull the trigger but nothing happens for a second or two, and people can get hurt if they don't know about that.

Also, you want to look at the rifle itself. If there's still good riflings in the barrel, I say go ahead and shoot it, but if they're hard to see or pitted too bad, then I wouldn't bother with any of that.
good to know. there was only one time where i thought that had happened when i was shooting. it was with a semiautomatic rifle and i pulled the trigger but it didnt fire. opened the bolt and realized... i pulled it back far enough to cock the hammer but not enough to actually catch a round from the magazine :lol:

[t.shonku]

I recommend people Gabe Suarez DVD on AK 47, he not only dissects the tactics but also teaches some "on the field quick trouble shooting techniques" for clearing minor problem that may arise during field operation.He also teaches some clever tricks with an AK that he gained from personal experience. He also describes to us how reliable AK is, he knows all of this from his years of experience .

Gabe was a SWAT member and is well known around the world for his fire arms training.

[Salyut]

[CENTER]It reminds me of the old joke ...


[LEFT]

Both sides of the Space Race used felt markers. Graphite dust is not a good thing to get in your electronics. The Space Pen was a private development - and it is pretty damn sweet ($12 on ebay woo).

Side note: the AK and anything based off it (including Saiga's) are verboten in Canada. Now the Vz. 58? Legal. Our politicos actually went and banned the G11 by name as well. :lol: Granted there is no real lobby to defend gun rights in Canada - just a bunch of reactionary asshats (I ended association with the gun culture here after I was called a RCMP plant for exposing one forum member's fascist ties*).

*oh and at least one guy was a hardline MRA. ie, the people who think Marc Lepine is a hero.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thing about canada though is that gun culture there is lucky to not have groups like the NRA.


gun culture there seems to be much more tame and sensible than in the US. I probably have it wrong though since i have no experience with anything canadian except for Prince Rupert (a port)

oh and speaking of kalashnikovs.

27( i think) AK-74s were stolen from a military armory a few hours from where i live a few weeks ago.

[ellipsis]

27( i think) AK-74s were stolen from a military armory a few hours from where i live a few weeks ago.

Link? Also why would an American military armory stock russian rifles it doesn't issue?

Also I will make a productive comment in this thread at some point.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Link? Also why would an American military armory stock russian rifles it doesn't issue?

Also I will make a productive comment in this thread at some point.
correction: 26
and a Dragunov
stolen from Ft. Irwin
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/CRIME/07/30/california.stolen.firearms/story.ak74.jd.jpg
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-30/justice/california.stolen.firearms_1_assault-rifles-atf-official-firearms?_s=PM:CRIME



Im guessing they had them there for familiarization or destruction. Those look like they were shipped in from Iraq and Afghanistan.


Also, i thought they came form some place in the Central Valley. i got that confused with one of them being found in Fresno or whatever.

[Fopeos]

http://www.propertysigns.com/img/sm/K/Warning-Firearms-Range-Ahead-Sign-K-7708.gif

[ps. this thread is not for those who are against guns, and accuse those who like guns of "gun fetishism" or "violence fetishism"
let's just assume that we may be guilty as charged. We all have our own hobbies and interests, and nobody makes fun of your origami.]
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________




This discussion actually started in another unrelated thread, that I don't want to thread jack. Now, it should be obvious that I am biased on the issue, but I am curious if the rest of you also agree?


First to the video ...
(my apologies for the Chinese subtitles, but hey, they own the U$ now)
KvrG4T2K4sE



(1) Do you agree? If not, then historically, what would you say is the #1 combat rifle of all time?


(2) If you were allowed to take one gun into battle which one would you personally prefer? And Why?


(3) Have you ever personally shot an AK 47, and if yes, what did you think of it?



(4) What is your favorite gun (any type) of all time, for whatever reason?

1) Yes. It may not be the most accurate or have the smoothest action but you just can't beat it's simplicity and durability.
2) I'd take the AK74. All the same positives that the 47 has but it and it's ammo are much lighter. Not to mention, it has a flatter trajectory, giving it a bit more accuracy and it's bullets topple on impact creating an uglier wound-channel.(borrowed from the M-16's 223)
3) Yes i have, and I enjoy it every time.
4) Any Kalashnikov variant. The simplicity and durability make it the perfect weapon for guerilla warfare. Anyone could learn to field-strip and clean any AK in minutes. It's accuracy is "good enough" for combat. With practice, one can put every round on a paper plate at 100 yards.(in semi auto with a muzzle-brake)

[gendoikari]

(1) Do you agree? If not, then historically, what would you say is the #1 combat rifle of all time?I agree and disagree. Taking historical track record into account, there are two rifles that deserve the top spot. The M-16 and it's varients, and the Kalashnikov Platform and it's varients. The two weapons are huge in terms of their historical impact, and ability. However, their abilities are quite different. The M-16 or AR platform rifles, are percision pieces of weaponry, more so that most guns. kept clean they are fairly reliable and extremely accurate. Now, while the 5.56 NATO round may not have a high obstacle penetration, it does inflict nasty wounds due to cavitation. In all the M-16 marks the Sniper rifle-> autofire development tree of assault rifle designs. The AK platform however, is big clunky, and not as accurate however just as hard hitting if not more. It does it's damage via brute force. It is a nigh unstoppable weapon which rarely if, well lets face if it if all you want it to do is fire, then you don't ever need to clean it. There have been AK's pulled out of the ground unprotected for 18 YEARS oiled up, and fired. In all the AK platform marks the Machine gun-> infantry weapon line of assault rifles.

There is another distinction between the rifles however. The AR platform is for a highly well trained military, the AK, well the AK can be given to children and have them hitting targets in under 3 hours with all the training they will ever need on the gun.

In conclusion, the Two guns are both extremely historically siginificant, and effective in their own rights but mark different design goals and technological paths. This can even be seen in their operating mechanisms. The AR platfrom still uses a bolt while the AK uses a more machine gun like receiver.

(2) If you were allowed to take one gun into battle which one would you personally prefer? And Why? SCAR. It's accurate, reliable and can be switched over to 5.56NATO or 7.62x39R with a simple barrel change. Now that's for the Basic rifle man stuff. If i'm doing house to house work i'd take a P-90 with the controlled fragmentation rounds. Long rang? Probably a WA 2000 if I could get my greedly little hands on that 75K gun.

(3) Have you ever personally shot an AK 47, and if yes, what did you think of it? Jammed every second round, chinese made SKS turned TACTICOOL... yeah get a real AK guys not some SKS dressed up to look like one.

(4) What is your favorite gun (any type) of all time, for whatever reason?Real? P-90, Fictional? Harkonnen, 30mm rifle.

[Kosakk]

I recommend people Gabe Suarez DVD on AK 47, he not only dissects the tactics but also teaches some "on the field quick trouble shooting techniques" for
clearing minor problem that may arise during field operation.He also teaches some clever tricks with an AK that he gained from personal experience. He also describes to us how reliable AK is, he knows all of this from his years of experience .

Gabe was a SWAT member and is well known around the world for his fire arms training.

Where can one find it?

[khad]

The two weapons are huge in terms of their historical impact, and ability. However, their abilities are quite different. The M-16 or AR platform rifles, are percision pieces of weaponry, more so that most guns. kept clean they are fairly reliable and extremely accurate. Now, while the 5.56 NATO round may not have a high obstacle penetration, it does inflict nasty wounds due to cavitation. In all the M-16 marks the Sniper rifle-> autofire development tree of assault rifle designs. The AK platform however, is big clunky, and not as accurate however just as hard hitting if not more. It does it's damage via brute force. It is a nigh unstoppable weapon which rarely if, well lets face if it if all you want it to do is fire, then you don't ever need to clean it. There have been AK's pulled out of the ground unprotected for 18 YEARS oiled up, and fired. In all the AK platform marks the Machine gun-> infantry weapon line of assault rifles.
So many useless myths from another tacticool gangster. The M16 and its variants are not much more accurate than the AK series under military conditions. The fact that people like to put handloaded match through their sub-MOA ARs doesn't mean a damn thing when you have to use the shitty ammo that most militaries provide.

These guys took a 5.56 match rifle, the DPMS sweet sixteen, which gets 0.3 MOA with handloads and a sandbag rest, and ran a bunch of standard issue military ammo through it.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu8.htm

#1 - Israeli IMI, 2002 1.25" group
#2 - South African M1A3, 1988 1.125" group
#3 - Federal Cartridge USGI, 1970 2.25" group
#4 - Federal XM193, Lot 23 2.75" group
#5 - Malaysian 4-85, M193, Lot 15 2.75" group
#6 - Winchester Q3131 3.375" group

(Interesting note. Smaller countries often have tighter manufacturing tolerances than larger ones.)

These are reports from 7.62x39 Saiga (not a match rifle by any means) owners, who report regularly tagging 2-4" groups at 100 yards with Wolf ammo:

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?/topic/1426-saiga-accuracy-group-size/


All assault rifles are at best 3-5 MOA rifles under combat conditions (military ammo, barrel heating, etc). Factor in adrenaline, fatigue, moving enemies, cover, etc., and you can see why the basic infantryman's assault rifle produces very few kills on the battlefield. ALL assault rifles are intended for ranges <300m with emphasis on suppressive fire. If the US army wanted to give every infantryman a sniper-capable weapon, they'd all be using M14EBRs.

[The Douche]

The AK is over-rated, I'd take an M14 (or any version of it) over an AK any day. I would also take an AR over an AK.

I have owned two AKs, and an AR, and have carried an AR in combat.

[Rss]

The AK is over-rated, I'd take an M14 (or any version of it) over an AK any day. I would also take an AR over an AK.

Why? Stopping power or are you more comfortable with them? If I had to hump around something in infantry action (I wasn't trained as infantry), it would probably be folding stock AKM, PKM General Purpose Machine Gun (often referred as PoKeMon by conscripts) or MG-3. I know how they work, I'm kinda comfortable with them and they don't malfunction if minimum maintenance is applied. They are heavy though.

I'd probably sell general issue FN Browning for more ammunition to aformentioned firearms. What a piece of fucking inaccurate garbage that thing is.

[The Douche]

Why? Stopping power or are you more comfortable with them? If I had to hump around something in infantry action (I wasn't trained as infantry), it would probably be folding stock AKM, PKM General Purpose Machine Gun (often referred as PoKeMon by conscripts) or MG-3. I know how they work, I'm kinda comfortable with them and they don't malfunction if minimum maintenance is applied. They are heavy though.

I'd probably sell general issue FN Browning for more ammunition to aformentioned firearms. What a piece of fucking inaccurate garbage that thing is.

The stopping power of the AR is less than I am comfortable with. Its certainly adequate, and I prefer the AR to the AK because of increased accuracy at extended range.

But I like the trajectory and ballistics of the .308 round better. And in retrospect, I guess I would prefer a .308 AR to the M14, but I figured we were only talking about military weapons, and there are no widely issued .308 ARs in military service.


As far as weight considerations, I spent so long in a long-range recon unit, and our combat loadout was so much heavier than a regular infantry unit, that I just feel confident/capable of carrying more weight, given the advantage of the weapon system.


I mean, if you're willing to carry a PKM or MG3, then an M14 or other .308 rifle is still gonna have a lighter weight than those.

[gendoikari]

So many useless myths from another tacticool gangster. The M16 and its variants are not much more accurate than the AK series under military conditions. The fact that people like to put handloaded match through their sub-MOA ARs doesn't mean a damn thing when you have to use the shitty ammo that most militaries provide.

These guys took a 5.56 match rifle, the DPMS sweet sixteen, which gets 0.3 MOA with handloads and a sandbag rest, and ran a bunch of standard issue military ammo through it.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu8.htm

#1 - Israeli IMI, 2002 1.25" group
#2 - South African M1A3, 1988 1.125" group
#3 - Federal Cartridge USGI, 1970 2.25" group
#4 - Federal XM193, Lot 23 2.75" group
#5 - Malaysian 4-85, M193, Lot 15 2.75" group
#6 - Winchester Q3131 3.375" group

(Interesting note. Smaller countries often have tighter manufacturing tolerances than larger ones.)

These are reports from 7.62x39 Saiga (not a match rifle by any means) owners, who report regularly tagging 2-4" groups at 100 yards with Wolf ammo:

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?/topic/1426-saiga-accuracy-group-size/


All assault rifles are at best 3-5 MOA rifles under combat conditions (military ammo, barrel heating, etc). Factor in adrenaline, fatigue, moving enemies, cover, etc., and you can see why the basic infantryman's assault rifle produces very few kills on the battlefield. ALL assault rifles are intended for ranges <300m with emphasis on suppressive fire. If the US army wanted to give every infantryman a sniper-capable weapon, they'd all be using M14EBRs.

Wrong again my friend. The AK 47 has a much slower initial velocity, reducing it's range and greatly reducing accuracy in it's long range flight. Drop at 300m for an ak is EXTREMELY significant, with the M-16 and it's variants, it's at least managable. I think the difference is something like 100+" for the AK and 30ish" for the M-16. When people talk about the accuracy advantages of the AR platforms they aren't just talking MOA on a benchrest, they're also talking effective range and you just can't get an AK to go the distance an AR can, and AR's at least in 5.56NATO aren't really considered long distance.

Bench rest is also going to be ever slightly less accurate but not a whole lot, and is highly dependant on where you get your AK from.


The stopping power of the AR is less than I am comfortable with. Its certainly adequate, and I prefer the AR to the AK because of increased accuracy at extended range.

But I like the trajectory and ballistics of the .308 round better. And in retrospect, I guess I would prefer a .308 AR to the M14, but I figured we were only talking about military weapons, and there are no widely issued .308 ARs in military service.


As far as weight considerations, I spent so long in a long-range recon unit, and our combat loadout was so much heavier than a regular infantry unit, that I just feel confident/capable of carrying more weight, given the advantage of the weapon system.


I mean, if you're willing to carry a PKM or MG3, then an M14 or other .308 rifle is still gonna have a lighter weight than those.

if I was ABSOLUTELY sure I could handle the .308's recoil in an assault rifle, my choice of battle rifle would be either a bullpup stock M14 or an FN FAL.

[Rusty Shackleford]

.308 is hardly unmanageable. then again, ive only shot that round semi-automatic :lol:

[gendoikari]

.308 is hardly unmanageable. then again, ive only shot that round semi-automatic :lol:

I haven't even shot it semi-auto. I have shot the .300 winmag though, and it's the sole reason the WA 2000 is relegated to my list of sniper rifles. (granted, the .300 winmag is to the .308 what the .22 magnum is to the .22LR)

[Rss]

As far as weight considerations, I spent so long in a long-range recon unit, and our combat loadout was so much heavier than a regular infantry unit, that I just feel confident/capable of carrying more weight, given the advantage of the weapon system.

Hahah, can't deny that. Lugging heavy crap around all day was quite common for armor crew so I can symphathise with that. I'm starting to think that regular (mech or mot.) infantry requires LESS physical strength and endurance than armor, recon or medics. Field medics were the most hard-ass strong motherhubbards I had seen. Ones in garrison hospital were had much smaller frame.


I mean, if you're willing to carry a PKM or MG3, then an M14 or other .308 rifle is still gonna have a lighter weight than those.

I don't know, I still liked the automatic fire even if it broke my back. Disembarked armor crew fire team had one guy carrying enormous amounts of ammunition so I guess that twists my perceptions of the weight issue.

[gendoikari]

Lol.what about a Shoulder fired M2 anyone? Anyone.... No I'm not crazy... I swear.

[The Douche]

Lol.what about a Shoulder fired M2 anyone? Anyone.... No I'm not crazy... I swear.

Would be the most useless shit ever, after three years in recon, and 2 in a light infantry unit, I'm spending my last year in a cavalry scout unit, I am an M2 gunner. Even with the weapons system mounted to a turret, fire is wildly inaccurate unless using the T&E bracket. I have never seen anybody, not even the biggest gunners effectively engage targets on the range while free gunning, if targets were inside 300 meters, yeah, free gunning will work. But obviously a shoulder fired M2 is the most impractical, inaccurate, and impossible thing to create.


I'm starting to think that regular (mech or mot.) infantry requires LESS physical strength and endurance than armor, recon or medics.

In the US army mechanized infantry definitely have it easier, they never dismount anything other than fighting equipment. Light infantry carry about 65 pound rucksacks, plus ammo/weapon/body armor, in the recon, I carried a 170 pound rucksack, plus ammo/weapon.body armor.

[Rusty Shackleford]

well, if you put a scope and a vertical fore-grip on the M2 it becomes more accurate right?

#tacticool

[Rss]

Lol.what about a Shoulder fired M2 anyone? Anyone.... No I'm not crazy... I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwu3ivAJ68U

[gendoikari]

Would be the most useless shit ever, after three years in recon, and 2 in a light infantry unit, I'm spending my last year in a cavalry scout unit, I am an M2 gunner. Even with the weapons system mounted to a turret, fire is wildly inaccurate unless using the T&E bracket. I have never seen anybody, not even the biggest gunners effectively engage targets on the range while free gunning, if targets were inside 300 meters, yeah, free gunning will work. But obviously a shoulder fired M2 is the most impractical, inaccurate, and impossible thing to create.

Lol, all joking aside I have seen someone shoulder fire a 1919, but that guy was HUGE. Still I don't think it brought him any real tactical advantage to the competition, a P-90 would have been much better at that range.

Now, if you think an M2 shoulder fire is just a totally stupid OMGTEHHAXORS NOOB weapon check this gun out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcEvBwMKZ9s

[Rusty Shackleford]

question, when cocking the modern Kord 12.7mms is it like a gas operated lawnmower? what i mean is, are you just pulling a cord?

[khad]

Wrong again my friend. The AK 47 has a much slower initial velocity, reducing it's range and greatly reducing accuracy in it's long range flight. Drop at 300m for an ak is EXTREMELY significant, with the M-16 and it's variants, it's at least managable. I think the difference is something like 100+" for the AK and 30ish" for the M-16. When people talk about the accuracy advantages of the AR platforms they aren't just talking MOA on a benchrest, they're also talking effective range and you just can't get an AK to go the distance an AR can, and AR's at least in 5.56NATO aren't really considered long distance.

Bench rest is also going to be ever slightly less accurate but not a whole lot, and is highly dependant on where you get your AK from.
You just confirmed yourself as a mall ninja, my friend.

100" bullet drop? Try about 35" at 300 yards.

Range Elevation Velocity Energy ETA Drop Max Y 10mph Wind Deflect
0 yds -1.50 in 2400 fps 1573 fpe 0.000 sec 0.00 in -1.50 in 0.00 in
25 yds 0.24 in 2333 fps 1486 fpe 0.032 sec 0.19 in -0.55 in 0.08 in
50 yds 1.58 in 2266 fps 1402 fpe 0.064 sec 0.79 in -0.40 in 0.35 in
75 yds 2.50 in 2201 fps 1323 fpe 0.098 sec 1.81 in -0.13 in 0.79 in
100 yds 2.96 in 2137 fps 1247 fpe 0.133 sec 3.28 in 0.26 in 1.39 in
125 yds 2.95 in 2073 fps 1174 fpe 0.169 sec 5.22 in 0.78 in 2.16 in
150 yds 2.46 in 2011 fps 1105 fpe 0.205 sec 7.65 in 1.44 in 3.08 in
175 yds 1.43 in 1950 fps 1038 fpe 0.243 sec 10.62 in 2.26 in 4.21 in
200 yds -0.15 in 1890 fps 975 fpe 0.281 sec 14.13 in 3.25 in 5.52 in
225 yds -2.38 in 1831 fps 916 fpe 0.322 sec 18.29 in 4.43 in 7.12 in
250 yds -5.29 in 1774 fps 859 fpe 0.364 sec 23.14 in 5.83 in 9.00 in
275 yds -8.91 in 1718 fps 806 fpe 0.407 sec 28.70 in 7.45 in 11.14 in
300 yds -13.27 in 1664 fps 756 fpe 0.452 sec 34.99 in 9.32 in 13.51 in

Of course, the round falls off sharply at around 325, but it's not a problem hitting man-sized targets out to 300m with an AK platform. Go to 350, and then we're talking about a problem.

The energy bleed on light rounds like 5.56 makes them pretty ineffective for military purposes past that point as well. The fragmentation effect doesn't happen consistently past 100m with the current generation of carbines.

[gendoikari]

You just confirmed yourself as a mall ninja, my friend.

100" bullet drop? Try about 35" at 300 yards.

Range Elevation Velocity Energy ETA Drop Max Y 10mph Wind Deflect
0 yds -1.50 in 2400 fps 1573 fpe 0.000 sec 0.00 in -1.50 in 0.00 in
25 yds 0.24 in 2333 fps 1486 fpe 0.032 sec 0.19 in -0.55 in 0.08 in
50 yds 1.58 in 2266 fps 1402 fpe 0.064 sec 0.79 in -0.40 in 0.35 in
75 yds 2.50 in 2201 fps 1323 fpe 0.098 sec 1.81 in -0.13 in 0.79 in
100 yds 2.96 in 2137 fps 1247 fpe 0.133 sec 3.28 in 0.26 in 1.39 in
125 yds 2.95 in 2073 fps 1174 fpe 0.169 sec 5.22 in 0.78 in 2.16 in
150 yds 2.46 in 2011 fps 1105 fpe 0.205 sec 7.65 in 1.44 in 3.08 in
175 yds 1.43 in 1950 fps 1038 fpe 0.243 sec 10.62 in 2.26 in 4.21 in
200 yds -0.15 in 1890 fps 975 fpe 0.281 sec 14.13 in 3.25 in 5.52 in
225 yds -2.38 in 1831 fps 916 fpe 0.322 sec 18.29 in 4.43 in 7.12 in
250 yds -5.29 in 1774 fps 859 fpe 0.364 sec 23.14 in 5.83 in 9.00 in
275 yds -8.91 in 1718 fps 806 fpe 0.407 sec 28.70 in 7.45 in 11.14 in
300 yds -13.27 in 1664 fps 756 fpe 0.452 sec 34.99 in 9.32 in 13.51 in

Of course, the round falls off sharply at around 325, but it's not a problem hitting man-sized targets out to 300m with an AK platform. Go to 350, and then we're talking about a problem.

The energy bleed on light rounds like 5.56 makes them pretty ineffective for military purposes past that point as well. The fragmentation effect doesn't happen consistently past 100m with the current generation of carbines.

Might have been 400. I'll have to find the test data I was referring to.

[Rss]

In the US army mechanized infantry definitely have it easier, they never dismount anything other than fighting equipment. Light infantry carry about 65 pound rucksacks, plus ammo/weapon/body armor, in the recon, I carried a 170 pound rucksack, plus ammo/weapon.body armor.

I've been thinking about that; if contact with the enemy is immediate and fast manouver is required, do you still lug around that rucksack or drop it for faster movement? There were some conflicting... "opinions" about that in training. I mean, that 170 pounds is a LOT. Regular "full load" for any grunt here is about 70 pounds plus ammo and weapon. There's not enough body armours for everybody, that's mostly for mech. and other "better" troops. More for recon, paratroopers, border troops and special jaegers.

EDIT: That 70 pounds isn't too much when it is strapped on the hull of a vehicle but lugging shells and maintenance alone is pretty heavy.

[gendoikari]

http://ballisticscalculator.winchester.com/ Tells the whole story khad. the Standard civilian round .223 version of the 5.56 which is a lower pressure than the full military, has the same drop at 300 yards as the 7.62x39R does at 200.

[Magón]

7.62x39R

There is no "R" at the end of 7.62x39. The R stands for Rimmed, the x39 bullet is rimless, so has no R.

[khad]

http://ballisticscalculator.winchester.com/ Tells the whole story khad.
That you're a mall ninja?

What you said originally was that the 7.62x39 round has a 100" bullet drop at 300 yards, which is patently false and disproved by your own tables.

Neither the 5.56 (stopping power; fragmentation effect doesn't happen past 100m) nor the 7.62x39 (bullet drop) are much good past 300. You'll have to step it up to a full power cartridge beyond that point.

[gendoikari]

That you're a mall ninja?

What you said originally was that the M43 round has a 100" bullet drop at 300 yards, which is obviously false.

So I was wrong about the distance it's been a while since I looked at the data. You however were still completely wrong.

[khad]

So I was wrong about the distance it's been a while since I looked at the data. You however were still completely wrong.
Hilarious, mall ninja.

Both the AK and AR platforms are used for ranges less than 300m emphasizing suppressive fire.

I ask you again, if US battle doctrine emphasized accurate fire and not volume of fire, then why did they use the M16 to replace the M14, a weapon, which by its sheer physical characteristics is a better man stopper at any range?

[gendoikari]

Hilarious, mall ninja.

Call names all you want, it's a sign you don't have the real data to prove you are right and in fact is a sign that i'm right, also my data does not lie, the AK 47 is not the long range or accurate weapon that the M-16 and that's a fact. Prooven scientifically and accepted by most of the shooting community, to think otherwise is stark evidence that you really are talking out your ass.

[gendoikari]

ah here we go, viewable data form

http://ballisticscalculator.winchester.com/StatsPage.aspx?c1=7&b1=7&g1=6&gunType1=0&c2=54&b2=7&g2=38&gunType2=0&c3=31&b3=7&g3=23&gunType3=0&c4=55&b4=7&g4=21&gunType4=0&AirDensityRatio=0&AirTemperature=59&CrossWindSpeed=10&GunElevationAngle=0&RangePrintInterval=25&RangeTerminateTrajectory=500&RangeWindSpeed=0&SiteInRange=100&SiteHeight=1.5&Altitude=1000

Drop

.223 at 300 yards: 11.2"
.223 at 400 yards: 27"

7.62 at 300 yards: 25.8"
7.62 at 400 yards:61"

so yeah I recalled incorrectly the 100" but still at 400 yards you can still make a kill with the M16, the AK 47 is almost impossible unless your a really good shot.

[khad]

Call names all you want, it's a sign you don't have the real data to prove you are right and in fact is a sign that i'm right, also my data does not lie, the AK 47 is not the long range or accurate weapon that the M-16 and that's a fact. Prooven scientifically and accepted by most of the shooting community, to think otherwise is stark evidence that you really are talking out your ass.
I call you a mall ninja because I have seen the facts, and you're just talking out of your ass.

Fact #1: US milspec ammo is pretty shitty, with a baseline accuracy of 3 MOA or more. At 300m, this is at least a 10-15" circle.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu8.htm

Fact #2: The fragmentation effect that accounts for much of the 5.56's killing power occurs at less than 50m for the M4 and <200m for the M16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Criticism

Fact #3: Because of Fact #1 and Fact #2, the 5.56's claimed effective range of 500m has been shown to be bullshit through combat in Afghanistan.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/09/the-small-arms-calibre-debate/


Then a secret German report, made public in 2009, showed that the Bundeswehr had experienced the same issues in Afghanistan. Problems with 5.56 mm ammunition fall into four categories:

1. Lack of effective range. More than 50% of infantry engagements in Afghanistan take place at ranges above 300 meters. When 5.56 mm ammunition was adopted, it was believed that 90% of combat engagements would take place under 300 meters. It frequently results in situations where ISAF troops cannot return fire when engaged by enemy snipers. 5.56 mm ammunition is meant to be effective at 500 metres, but combat feedback suggests that this is not the case.

2. Inconsistent lethality. There have been instances where enemy combatants have not been neutralised by 5.56 mm bullets, sometimes despite receiving multiple hits. This has happened at longer ranges, but also, surprisingly, at shorter ranges.

3. Poor barrier penetration. In certain situations, 5.56 mm ammunition has been defeated or deflected by barriers obscuring a target, including car windows, car doors, light masonry and woodwork. Even when a 5.56 mm succeeds in penetrating an intermediate barrier, its energy may be depleted so that lethality is compromised.

4. Inadequate suppressive effect. The UK MoD’s own analysis suggests that insurgent forces are not suppressed by 5.56 mm ammunition, whereas larger calibres have a more notable psychological effect.All assault rifles were designed to be used at 300m or less. Convincing yourself otherwise is just delusion.

And no, plinking your handloads at the range doesn't count.

[Salyut]

I'm glad that the "hurr Kalashnikov ripped off the Maschinenpistole 42/43/44" thing hasn't come up.

Please don't do this. :(

[gendoikari]

1. Irrelevant, just means that combat situations are expected to take place at less than 300m Doesn't make you right about which one has better long range, stop using irrelevant data. Or even what rifles are designed for.

2. yes this has been seen at medium range it can still be done, and the 7.62 has even worse issues, as well 300m in combat with an AK is a tough shot tobegin with. This is also why we're starting to see guys begging for the 7.62NATO round to be brought back in the form of M14's

3. no shit, I already covered taht

4. We're talking actual effects not psycological


All assault rifles were designed to be used at 300m or less. Convincing yourself otherwise is just delusion.

M-16 is listed as 550m Effective range. In truth it was designed for about 400. Stop talking out your ass.

Question Do you even own a Semi-auto rifle, or any guns? or are you really just pulling data off the internet because i've shot both of these weapons.


Fact #2: The fragmentation effect that accounts for much of the 5.56's killing power occurs at less than 50m for the M4 and <200m for the M16

CLOSE, cavitation accounts for most of the damage, your data is infactual, also don't use wikipedia. Granted same goes for 7.62

[Salyut]

CLOSE, cavitation accounts for most of the damage, your data is infactual, also don't use wikipedia. Granted same goes for 7.62

That has nothing to do with the cartridge and everything to do with bullet design.

[khad]

M-16 is listed as 550m Effective range. In truth it was designed for about 400. Stop talking out your ass.
Actually, when the army went to the M16, the prevailing school of thought was that infantry engagements happened under 200m. It was an adaptation to the conditions of the vietnam war. This is from the army's own sources. Observe the line denoting jungle engagements:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_V7Ehj7eG65Q/SkqMiCxKXFI/AAAAAAAAA1c/e22xAb7Cl4o/s1600/infantry%2Bcombat%2Branges%2Bgraph.jpg


Question Do you even own a Semi-auto rifle, or any guns? or are you really just pulling data off the internet because i've shot both of these weapons.Own? Not likely given the hassle in this state, but you know, you and I can plink off all the rounds we want at the range and it still wouldn't give us an accurate sense of combat conditions.

For that, I'd take the word of an internal study commissioned by an actual army about the shortcomings of their weapons.

That the 5.56 will not reliably fragment past 200m even with a 20" barrel should tell you quite a bit about the effectiveness of the round at range.

And yes, milspec is still shit quality no matter what you claim to the contrary.


CLOSE, cavitation accounts for most of the damage, your data is infactual, also don't use wikipedia. Granted same goes for 7.62

Fragmentation causes cavitation, you moron. Note the wound channel of the 5.45, which does not fragment, keeping a clean path:

http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/gif/545x39_wound_channel.gif

With the fragmentation of the 5.56 at close ranges:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg

[gendoikari]

That has nothing to do with the cartridge and everything to do with bullet design.

That is true but the cartridge design has a lot to do with the AK V. AR discussions. Even if you can get an AK semi in 5.56 now and an AR in 7.62.... you can even get a piston AR in 7.62 at which point i simply ask... why not just get an AK it's cheaper.

Also check out THV ammo. Brilliant close range stuff.

[Salyut]

That is true but the cartridge design has a lot to do with the AK V. AR discussions. Even if you can get an AK semi in 5.56 now and an AR in 7.62.... you can even get a piston AR in 7.62 at which point i simply ask... why not just get an AK it's cheaper.

Also check out THV ammo. Brilliant close range stuff.

Pretty sure it's verboten in Canada.


Thing about canada though is that gun culture there is lucky to not have groups like the NRA.

gun culture there seems to be much more tame and sensible than in the US. I probably have it wrong though since i have no experience with anything canadian except for Prince Rupert (a port).

Oh we do have lobby groups. There was a lot of screaming after a NRA rep came up here to teach the CSSA/NFA (our gun orgs are like trot sects) about organizing. One of them has a interest in lobbying for CCW...which is never going to happen.

the gun culture here is quieter and smaller; but it has the same reactionary component. I mean, Christ, they were letting Douglas Christie and Marc Lepine fanboys hang out at the one organization forum I was trying to get involved with at. Good luck ever achieving anything once a Liberal/NDP blogger gets wind of that - they had no concept of security culture.

[gendoikari]

Actually, when the army went to the M16, the prevailing school of thought was that infantry engagements happened under 200m. This is from the army's own sources:

Irrelevant, the army didn't design the AR Eugene Stoner did.


That the 5.56 will not reliably fragment past 200m even with a 20" barrel should tell you quite a bit about the effectiveness of the round at range.

yeah, your point? It'll still kill, and IIRC 200 yards is still cavitation range, and since the 5.56 round deals more damage with cavitation not fragmentation, your point is irrelevant


Own? Not likely given the hassle in this state,

So you've never really fired one, and you're trying to tell someone that's grown up around guns and and shot an AR for most of his life you know more about them than he does..... I don't really have a good point here just wanted to point that out.


And yes, milspec is still shit quality no matter what you claim to the contrary.

See this is where actually having knowledge about firearms comes in handy. See while the cartridge designs for 5.56 and .223 are nearly identical the leade and SAMMI CUP pressure ratings are different meaning military "grade" 5.56 is not EXACTLY identical to the civillian version, the Military grade is rated at 62,000 PSI while the civilian version is only rated at 55,000 PSI, making the military grade more powerful. Obviously with handloads you can turn up your .223's to military grade but you better damn well be sure your rifle is chambered in 5.56 or 5.56/.223, because you can damage a rifle chambered solely for .223 by firing at those pressures.


Pretty sure it's verboten in Canada.

Same here in america but I think that has to do with most thv rounds being out of turned brass. Not quite clear on the laws on this one.

[khad]

So you've never really fired one, and you're trying to tell someone that's grown up around guns and and shot an AR for most of his life you know more about them than he does..... I don't really have a good point here just wanted to point that out.
I guess you can't read either. You can rent these things at the range, you know.


See this is where actually having knowledge about firearms comes in handy. See while the cartridge designs for 5.56 and .223 are nearly identical the leade and SAMMI CUP pressure ratings are different meaning military "grade" 5.56 is not EXACTLY identical to the civillian version, the Military grade is rated at 62,000 PSI while the civilian version is only rated at 55,000 PSI, making the military grade more powerful. Obviously with handloads you can turn up your .223's to military grade but you better damn well be sure your rifle is chambered in 5.56 or 5.56/.223, because you can damage a rifle chambered solely for .223 by firing at those pressures.
And you think there's something novel in your stating that .223 and 5.56 NATO are different. Anyone who knows anything about those weapons knows that.

What I mean by shit quality is the tolerances during manufacture. Even if your rifle is a sub-MOA design, you're not going to get anywhere near that level of accuracy with milspec.

[gendoikari]

I guess you can't read either. You can rent these things at the range, you know.

So do you have any actual experience with both guns other than looking at pages on the internet? Because you have and have taken them out past 100 yards you'd know the difference between them is that the 5.56 A) is generally more accurate, and B) has a much flatter trajectory.

By the way the reason I know this Is because the friend who let me shoot his AK, is my shooting partner at the range. and yes I've let him shoot my AR.


And you think there's something novel in your stating that .223 and 5.56 NATO are different. Anyone who knows anything about those weapons knows that.

Really who was it calling the military round shit then?

[khad]

So do you have any actual experience with both guns other than looking at pages on the internet? Because you have and have taken them out past 100 yards you'd know the difference between them is that the 5.56 A) is generally more accurate, and B) has a much flatter trajectory.
When I said I rented them, you think I was just taking a picture?

And when did I say otherwise. I've stated emphatically throughout this thread that the 7.62x39 is good out to 300m.


Really who was it calling the military round shit then?
Milspec is absolutely shit. Just because it's slightly hotloaded doesn't mean that it has the accuracy of civilian rounds, which are manufactured with tighter specifications.

[gendoikari]

Fragmentation causes cavitation, you moron. Note the wound channel of the 5.45, which does not fragment, keeping a clean path:

......................... You really are an armchair moron. Cavitation is the bullet flipping inside the body, Creating a violent wound, It's also closely related to remote wounding effects and hydrostatic shock which are basically supersonic waves inside the body which tear tissue.

FRAGMENTATION on the other hand is the bullet tearing up, usually this is done by the extreme G forces of the CAVITATION. But the bullet doesn't always break up.


Milspec is absolutely shit. Just because it's slightly hotloaded doesn't mean that it has the accuracy of civilian rounds.

true, however civilian rounds are made for plinking/target shooting, military rounds are meant for killing people. Also, doesn't mean milspec isn't. In my experence it's fairly good. But then again my rifle is 5.56, and that means the leade is right for that round.

[khad]

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg

Fragmentation here is what causes the abnormally large expansion of the permanent cavity.

Again, compare that to the permanent cavity of a round that doesn't fragment:

http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/gif/545x39_wound_channel.gif


......................... You really are an armchair moron. Cavitation is the bullet flipping inside the body, Creating a violent wound, It's also closely related to remote wounding effects and hydrostatic shock which are basically supersonic waves inside the body which tear tissue.

Hydrostatic shock is a largely discredited theory. Temporary cavitation isn't much of a concern unless you hit a vital organ prone to shattering, like the liver.

[Rss]

And when did I say otherwise. I've stated emphatically throughout this thread that the 7.62x39 is good out to 300m.

I can confirm that. But that was on range, sights were zeroed in with love & care and milspec M43 was used. Beyond that it really is up to designated marksman rifles and machine guns, especially in combat.

[gendoikari]

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg

Fragmentation here is what causes the abnormally large expansion of the permanent cavity.

Again, compare that to the permanent cavity of a round that doesn't fragment:

http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/gif/545x39_wound_channel.gif
Just quit posting when you know nothing about a subject. That cavity is formed when the bullet flips. Or do I have to go get some ballistics jet photos to prove you wrong.... yup i'll have to do that.

This is pure cavitation, the bullet Flipped on it's side and back exiting in one whole piece
http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/22lrSSSrifle.JPG


THIS is a controlled fragmentation bullet where the bullet is designed to flip, break into two parts
http://www.fsdip.com/website/Portals/0/5.7x28%20mm/5.7B2Fgelat3.JPG





http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/22lrSSSrifle.JPG

THIS is a cavitation followed by an uncontrolled fragmentation

http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/545x39mmWolfHPBlk1.JPG
another
http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/223tbbc.jpg

THIS is a THV showing near PURE hydrostatic shock

http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/9x19mm%20Slovakian%2071gr%20THV%20after%20vest%20B are%20Gelatin%20Block%20Side%20View.JPG

[khad]

All right, this is the last time I deal with you, you fucking moron. These are actual ballistics gel photos of military 5.56 tests. Apparently you don't even know how to read a gel test, as you mistake minor perturbations in the gel as actual damage.

First, the M855, which fragments at close range:
http://imgur.com/C8Wnkhttp://i.imgur.com/C8Wnk.png

Then, the M955 AP round, which does not fragment at all (note how small the actual permanent cavity is):
http://imgur.com/f1Ixuhttp://i.imgur.com/f1Ixu.png

The M855 at range behaves just like the M955. It tumbles, but does not fragment:
http://imgur.com/KmAaS.png

Match grade rounds designed to enhance fragmentation effect, tested for use with special operations. Note the high weight and relatively low muzzle velocity of these rounds, which blows your flat trajectory fetish out of the water:
http://i.imgur.com/uLZWc.png

Another view, with the gel block cutaway:
http://i.imgur.com/cVf3F.png

[gendoikari]

also that green picture you keep showing is antiquated data made before we really knew much about the subject of terminal ballistics in the 5.56, well before even hydrostatic shock was observed.

[gendoikari]

All right, this is the last time I deal with you, you fucking moron. These are actual ballistics gel photos of military 5.56 tests. Apparently you don't even know how to read a gel test, as you mistake minor perturbations in the gel as actual damage.

yeah and you read the effect as the cause. go somewhere else and spout crap out your arse about shit you don't know.


Then, the M955 AP round, which does not fragment at all (note how small the actual permanent cavity is):

.... you just proved my own point, dispite you saying that's a small channel the picture itself saying it's good wounding effects and it's one of the larger wound channels of all of your pictures.

P.S. all that broken gel, while it may not mean tearing of tissue it still means bruising or rupturing, which is often times more damaging, it's called hydrostatic effects. again, quit talking about shit you don't know.

[khad]

also that green picture you keep showing is antiquated data made before we really knew much about the subject of terminal ballistics in the 5.56, well before even hydrostatic shock was observed.
Yes, hydrostatic shock is what makes deer explode when they get hit by 5.56, amirite?

[StarCityPartisan]

I spent some time in the army and have trained with all US small arms. The age of conventional war is over. Using hit and run tactics that are putting a wrench in imperialist conflicts, a Guerilla need not be more than 100 meters to engage his enemy. At that range the stopping power of the Model 47 is preferable to most rounds. I have seen one fire through a US vest with the ceramic plates at 100 meters. Of course the 47 is wildly inaccurate when fully auto, but a disciplined soldier prefers to place his shots with semi auto. However I prefer the SKS because its not necessary to have the 30 round magazine in Guerilla warfare (the magazine makes it difficult to keep the lowest profile in prone), and the bayonet is only a flip away. All of course if we are talking about a vanguard taking on a standing army.

[gendoikari]

Yes, hydrostatic shock is what makes deer explode when they get hit by 5.56, amirite?

Just admit you know nothing about the subject and are scavenging the internet drawing unfounded conclusions, you've already made my point for me with your previous post. though you drew some batshit stupid conclusions.

also I've already explained what hydrostatic shock is. If you want to know more read up on it and it the 9mm, where it was first really understood. see reading books like I do instead of scouring the internet like you is how you learn this stuff.

[gendoikari]

I spent some time in the army and have trained with all US small arms. The age of conventional war is over. Using hit and run tactics that are putting a wrench in imperialist conflicts, a Guerilla need not be more than 100 meters to engage his enemy. At that range the stopping power of the Model 47 is preferable to most rounds. I have seen one fire through a US vest with the ceramic plates at 100 meters. Of course the 47 is wildly inaccurate when fully auto, but a disciplined soldier prefers to place his shots with semi auto. However I prefer the SKS because its not necessary to have the 30 round magazine in Guerilla warfare (the magazine makes it difficult to keep the lowest profile in prone), and the bayonet is only a flip away. All of course if we are talking about a vanguard taking on a standing army.

Yeah engaugements are getting closer and closer. But if i'm getting that close i'm gunna want my P-90 with those controlled fragmentation rounds I showed before. Those are about as close to a THV as you can get. Excelent cavitation, high penetration of body armor, and the controlled fragmentation makes sure the two fragments themselves do a lot of damage in different directions. It's really giving you more than you can ask for out of a 5.7 caliber. The only problem with the P-90 is the ammo availibility, which is why in a gurilla war, rely on 5.56 and 7.62 only. ... actually come to think of it designations aren't really in order for that either... unless you get 7.62x54, I don't think that's too common.

[khad]

Just admit you know nothing about the subject and are scavenging the internet drawing unfounded conclusions, you've already made my point for me with your previous post. though you drew some batshit stupid conclusions.
With all the running around you've been doing on your end of the internet, you're hardly one to talk. I'll just give you a canned response from glocktalk, where the 9 is king:


From Dr. Gary Roberts:

"...I was a member of the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team, the U.S. government study that gathered numerous experts from a variety of disciplines, including military and law enforcement end-users, trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to conduct a 4 year, 6 million dollar study to determine what terminal performance assessment best reflected the actual findings noted in OCONUS combat the past few years. Courtney's "hydrostatic shock" was NOT found to be a valid or relevant factor. Likewise, I work at a large Level I trauma center and get to treat people who are shot in the face and jaws--guess what, NO remote CNS or other "hydrostatic shock" effects of the type Courtney espouses have occurred in ANY of these patients.

"...JSWB-IPT was initiated in 2002 and concluded in 2006. I should note that the joint USMC-FBI ammunition study of 2006 also found the same results. Oh...and the CTTSO/TSWG MURG program of 2007-2008 also made the same conclusions. Please think through this--the JSWB-IPT, FBI BRF, AFTE, and other organizations get to assess an extensive amount of post-shooting forensic data; the whole raison d'être of these independent, non-profit organizations is to interpret and disseminate information that will help LE and military personnel more safely and effectively perform their duties and missions. Why would they discount or ignore a potentially important incapacitation mechanism if there was any validity to it? I challenge you to read through all of the papers cited in Courtney's work and then make you own conclusions--everyone I know who has done just that has walked away utterly unconvinced of their merit."


About Dr. Roberts;

Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

[Magón]

The only problem with the P-90 is the ammo availibility, which is why in a gurilla war, rely on 5.56 and 7.62 only. ... actually come to think of it designations aren't really in order for that either... unless you get 7.62x54, I don't think that's too common.

If you're out there in the world, the three types of bullets you'll find most commonly used by either State forces, or otherwise, are 9x19mm Parabellum/Luger, 7.62x39, and 7.62x54R.

[ellipsis]

5.56 is certainly not known for its "energy dump" or keyholing for that matter. From my understanding, based on reading and talking with an afghan war vet, overpenetration in soft targets, i.e. people and dogs and under penetration through barriers are the main problems observed with 5.56. Of course the type of ammo used can cause considerably better performance in any number of situation.

[khad]

5.56 is certainly not known for its "energy dump" or keyholing for that matter. From my understanding, based on reading and talking with an afghan war vet, overpenetration in soft targets, i.e. people and dogs and under penetration through barriers are the main problems observed with 5.56. Of course the type of ammo used can cause considerably better performance in any number of situation.
With every generation, there's yet another variation of the pressure wave theory, and it's been invariably debunked by ballistics experts and physicians alike.

Proponents of the pressure wave just keep changing the goalposts. It used to be that pressure waves would cause the heat to stop, then it was bruising incapacitation, and when it was proved that animal tissue is quite resilient and would stretch back into shape, it's now the possibility of rupturing blood vessels in the brain. That's where Courtney is at now.

This is why the army keeps complaining about the ballistic characteristics of the 5.56 at range, and this is why anime nerds like gendo ikari keep on spouting inane, unconfirmed pseudoscience.

[gendoikari]

5.56 is certainly not known for its "energy dump" or keyholing for that matter. From my understanding, based on reading and talking with an afghan war vet, overpenetration in soft targets, i.e. people and dogs and under penetration through barriers are the main problems observed with 5.56. Of course the type of ammo used can cause considerably better performance in any number of situation.

yeah the light mass of the 5.56 combined with it's elongated shape and high velocity and low cross sectional density make it great for penetrating soft fluid like targets but not so good at hard targets. If by Keyholing you mean yawing, the 5.56 has had a rather notorious history with cavitation. There are even stories of soldiers getting hit in the chest and the exit wound being in the lower leg. I don't know if that's true it's just stories i've heard, so I wouldn't take them at face value.


Despite complaints that the 5.56 round lacks stopping power, others contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56

^ [1] Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1982;508:211-21.

Of course that same mechanism that makes it so good at cavitation, high speed long bullet, also are what give it it's good flat trajectory.


The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm was more a matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest

PROJECT MANAGER SOLDIER WEAPONS SOLDIER WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT 6-03

[gendoikari]

with every generation, there's yet another variation of the pressure wave theory, and it's been invariably debunked by ballistics experts and physicians alike.

Proponents of the pressure wave just keep changing the goalposts. It used to be that pressure waves would cause the heat to stop, then it was bruising incapacitation, and when it was proved that animal tissue is quite resilient and would stretch back into shape, it's now the possibility of rupturing blood vessels in the brain. That's where amy courtney's is at now.

This is why the army keeps complaining about the ballistic characteristics of the 5.56 at range, and this is why anime nerds like gendo ikari keep on spouting inane, unconfirmed pseudoscience.
hey dumbass hydra shock bullets i"m done with you you armchair fucking know nothing. IT"S NOT FUCKING PSEUDOSCIENCE IT"S CALLED THE DAMN THING THAT KILLED THE RED BARRON!!!!!!!!!! Bruising of internal tissue of the heart, lungs, liver or kidneys can be extremely and rapidly fatal. It's what killed the red barron, which is the most famous case of it being shown. Just because animal tissue stretches back in a test pig does not mean that tissue is unharmed you fucking moron.

Edit: sorry for calling you a fucking moron, but your ignorance of basic science and inferrance skills is pissing me off.

[gendoikari]

These so called studies you've been quoting Neglect that fact.

[khad]

hey dumbass hydra shock bullets i"m done with you you armchair fucking know nothing. IT"S NOT FUCKING PSEUDOSCIENCE IT"S CALLED THE DAMN THING THAT KILLED THE RED BARRON!!!!!!!!!! Bruising of internal tissue of the heart, lungs, liver or kidneys can be extremely and rapidly fatal. It's what killed the red barron, which is the most famous case of it being shown. Just because animal tissue stretches back in a test pig does not mean that tissue is unharmed you fucking moron.
Published in the Lancet. It's called a fucking concussion. The brain is one of the more fragile organs, but the point is moot when you're talking about bullets.
http://www.anzacs.net/MvR-FittoFly.htm

I ask you again. If your so-called hydrostatic shock was a reliable kill mechanism, then why is 5.56 not cleared to hunt deer?

[gendoikari]

actually I was talking about his death. The bullet that killed him


an inspection of the body by a Captain and a Lieutenant of the British Royal Army Medical Corps showed an entrance wound on the right side of the chest in the posterior fold of the armpit; the exit wound was situated at a slightly higher level nearer the front of his chest, about half an inch below the left nipple and about three-quarters of an inch external to it. On April 22, 1918, the consulting surgeon and the consulting physician of the British 4t h Army made a surface examination of the body. They found the wounds as described above "and also some minor bruises of the head [and] face. The body was not opened--these facts were ascertained by probing from the surface wounds". Thus ends the available medical record for the Red Baron.

The bullet actually passedthrough the body, however it was the hydrostatic forces that destroyed his heart that killed him. Though you are correct though as IIRC, they did hit the lungs. This was the results of his autopsy. and is why I personally believe it was likely to have been a shot from the sky, where the bullet would have easily have had the velocity to create such shock waves.


I ask you again. If your so-called hydrostatic shock was a reliable kill mechanism, then why is 5.56 not cleared to hunt deer?

It is down here, in fact it's what I hunt with, at least after my dad sold the SKS. But laws reguarding hunting and what is "sufficient to kill" are rarely made by those with the real knowledge to determine such things.

as a matter of fact I'll have to check but I think .22lr is cleared down here. Not SURE on that.... but I've heard it. Not something i'd trust to be a humane kill.

[khad]

Allow me to quote an article published last year in the Health Science Journal:


In all penetrating trauma, tissue is crushed
by the penetrating object. That tissue
does not survive. Similar to the effect of a
bullet passing through tissue, if a penetrating
object other than a bullet is large enough or
moving fast enough, some blunt trauma, due
to displacement of tissue adjacent to the
path of the penetrating object, will occur.
This is identical to the type of blunt trauma
occurring during temporary cavitation in
certain gunshot wounds. The ability to
survive temporary cavitation blunt trauma is
very specific. More elastic, more cohesive
tissue, such as skeletal muscle, lung, empty
intestine, nerve, blood vessel and to some
extent bone, can tolerate this quite well.
Less elastic, less cohesive organs, such as
liver, brain and heart, do not tolerate
temporary cavitation blunt trauma well1.

Blunt trauma can be local, such as from
being struck with a hammer or the local
blunt trauma of temporary cavitation
associated with penetrating trauma. Blunt
trauma can be diffuse, such as that resulting
from failing from a height or being an
unrestrained passenger in a high-speed motor
vehicle accident. The tissues that tolerate
well the blunt trauma from tissue
displacement during temporary cavitation
stretch also tolerate blunt trauma from other
causes well3.

If the tissue wounded is relatively elastic
and cohesive, the amount of tissue crushed is
the primary determinant of wounding2. All
crushed tissue is killed. Tissue stretch
(temporary cavitation) often has relatively
little wounding effect in elastic cohesive
tissue, such as skeletal muscle or lung. If an
organ is inelastic, near-water density and not
very cohesive, such as brain or liver,
temporary cavitation can cause a severe
wound5.

[khad]

This was the results of his autopsy. and is why I personally believe it was likely to have been a shot from the sky, where the bullet would have easily have had the velocity to create such shock waves.

Read your own source. This is just your speculation, as the body was not opened to confirm anything. They never even saw his heart, let alone ascertain whether or not it was crushed.


The body was not opened--these facts were ascertained by probing from the surface wounds". Thus ends the available medical record for the Red Baron.

[gendoikari]

Not immediately no, however there was an autopsy done.

[gendoikari]

If the tissue wounded is relatively elastic
and cohesive, the amount of tissue crushed is
the primary determinant of wounding2. All
crushed tissue is killed. Tissue stretch
(temporary cavitation) often has relatively
little wounding effect in elastic cohesive
tissue, such as skeletal muscle or lung. If an
organ is inelastic, near-water density and not
very cohesive, such as brain or liver,
temporary cavitation can cause a severe
wound5.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Because that also describes the heart, various important nerve bundles, intestines, and a lot of other vital organs.

[khad]

Not immediately no, however there was an autopsy done.
again, you're just making shit up. he was shot through in the heart and lungs:


Richthofen was shot by an unknown Australian soldier who fired his rifle at the triplane as it flew over him and who scored a lucky hit. This can never be disproved as the .303 rifle bullet was used by the Lee-Enfield service rifle as well as the Lewis gun and the Vickers machine gun. All that we can be sure of is that the entry and exit wounds on von Richthofen's body meant that the bullet passed through the heart, or great vessels, and he could not have remained conscious for more than about thirty seconds after being hit. The fatal bullet had therefore to have been fired at von Richthofen at the end of the pursuit and this is likely to have been at the time when the triplane was observed to turn away from the hill where the Lewis gun batteries were situated.
Thank you for agreeing with me. Because that also describes the heart, various important nerve bundles, intestines, and a lot of other vital organs.
Still not a reliable kill mechanism compared to bullets that actually punch big holes in people.
This is why fragmentation is crucial to produce enough permanent cavitation to guarantee kills through exanguination, even in nonvital hits. For the current generation of carbines, it's a concern that reliable fagmentation doesn't occur past 50-100m.

[gendoikari]

again, you're just making shit up. he was shot through in the heart and lungs:

It's not called making shit up it's called picking up a book and reading, not looking up bullshit on the internet. Hell I could make a website add some fake credentials and say he was killed by magical fairies with fruity beams and some people would believe it. Get out of your chair and go take a few physics classes and read some books, they're good for you.





Still not a reliable kill mechanism compared to bullets that actually punch big holes in people.
This is why fragmentation is crucial.

Tell that to Hydra shock or any of the several dozen models made specifically to do so.

Now I'm done with you because it's damn clear you're doing nothing but looking up information on the internet and making wrong conclusions i've prooved you wrong on two subjects I don't have time for a third. Good bye.

[khad]

Tell that to Hydra shock or any of the several dozen models made specifically to do so.
Hydra Shok is just a improved hollowpoint with a gimmicky name. It doesn't overpenetrate, it doesn't exit in the same state as it enters (if it exits at all). It does its damage by mushrooming and causing a large wound channel. The expanded bullet also meets more resistance, which allows for a better transfer of energy to the target. The fact that it makes a bigger splash in water can be attributed to its greater expansion.

Note the extreme deformation of the fired round and the intact center post. The FBI tested hydra shok rounds with the center post in place and milled out; the post contributed significantly to the uniformity and size of bullet expansion. At the end of the day, it's all about making bigger holes in people, and when it comes to mushrooming and expansion, there are even better rounds than the Hydra Shok, ie Gold Dot.

http://www.natchezss.com/images/products/FAP45HS1.jpg

A small caliber rifle bullet that doesn't fragment or deform and passes cleanly through a target has clearly reduced wounding potential. This has been reported in combat by troops in Afghanistan.

And no, temporary cavitation and hydrostatic shock don't do much unless they hit a weak organ.

But don't take it from me. Take it from peer reviewed medicine:


In all penetrating trauma, tissue is crushed
by the penetrating object. That tissue
does not survive. Similar to the effect of a
bullet passing through tissue, if a penetrating
object other than a bullet is large enough or
moving fast enough, some blunt trauma, due
to displacement of tissue adjacent to the
path of the penetrating object, will occur.
This is identical to the type of blunt trauma
occurring during temporary cavitation in
certain gunshot wounds. The ability to
survive temporary cavitation blunt trauma is
very specific. More elastic, more cohesive
tissue, such as skeletal muscle, lung, empty
intestine, nerve, blood vessel and to some
extent bone, can tolerate this quite well.
Less elastic, less cohesive organs, such as
liver, brain and heart, do not tolerate
temporary cavitation blunt trauma well1.

Blunt trauma can be local, such as from
being struck with a hammer or the local
blunt trauma of temporary cavitation
associated with penetrating trauma. Blunt
trauma can be diffuse, such as that resulting
from failing from a height or being an
unrestrained passenger in a high-speed motor
vehicle accident. The tissues that tolerate
well the blunt trauma from tissue
displacement during temporary cavitation
stretch also tolerate blunt trauma from other
causes well3.

If the tissue wounded is relatively elastic
and cohesive, the amount of tissue crushed is
the primary determinant of wounding2. All
crushed tissue is killed. Tissue stretch
(temporary cavitation) often has relatively
little wounding effect in elastic cohesive
tissue, such as skeletal muscle or lung. If an
organ is inelastic, near-water density and not
very cohesive, such as brain or liver,
temporary cavitation can cause a severe
wound5.

[khad]

hey dumbass hydra shock bullets i"m done with you you armchair fucking know nothing. IT"S NOT FUCKING PSEUDOSCIENCE IT"S CALLED THE DAMN THING THAT KILLED THE RED BARRON!!!!!!!!!! Bruising of internal tissue of the heart, lungs, liver or kidneys can be extremely and rapidly fatal.


It's not called making shit up it's called picking up a book and reading, not looking up bullshit on the internet. Hell I could make a website add some fake credentials and say he was killed by magical fairies with fruity beams and some people would believe it. Get out of your chair and go take a few physics classes and read some books, they're good for you.

You mean quoting the internet and calling it a book, you hysterical anime nerd.
http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/manfred-von-richthofen-death-of-the-red-baron


an inspection of the body by a Captain and a Lieutenant of the British Royal Army Medical Corps showed an entrance wound on the right side of the chest in the posterior fold of the armpit; the exit wound was situated at a slightly higher level nearer the front of his chest, about half an inch below the left nipple and about three-quarters of an inch external to it.

On April 22, 1918, the consulting surgeon and the consulting physician of the British 4th Army made a surface examination of the body. They found the wounds as described above "and also some minor bruises of the head [and] face. The body was not opened--these facts were ascertained by probing from the surface wounds". Thus ends the available medical record for the Red Baron.
What you wrote in post #136:


an inspection of the body by a Captain and a Lieutenant of the British Royal Army Medical Corps showed an entrance wound on the right side of the chest in the posterior fold of the armpit; the exit wound was situated at a slightly higher level nearer the front of his chest, about half an inch below the left nipple and about three-quarters of an inch external to it. On April 22, 1918, the consulting surgeon and the consulting physician of the British 4t h Army made a surface examination of the body. They found the wounds as described above "and also some minor bruises of the head [and] face. The body was not opened--these facts were ascertained by probing from the surface wounds". Thus ends the available medical record for the Red Baron.Word. For. Word.


But unlike a pseudoscientific anime nerd who imagines fairy dust effects as the causative agent for the Red Baron's demise, I can produce the actual coroner's report that was signed off by the RAF:


“We examined the body of Captain Baron Von Richthofen on the evening of 2lst instant. We found that he had one entrance and one exit wound caused by the same bullet. The entrance wound was situated on the right side of the chest in the posterior fold of the armpit; the exit wound was situated at a slightly higher level, near the front of the chest, the point of exit being about half an inch below the right nipple and about three quarters of an inch external to it. From the nature of the exit wound, we think that the bullet passed straight through the chest from right to left and also slightly forward. Had the bullet been deflected from the spine, the exit wound would have been much larger.

The gun firing this bullet must have been situated in the same plane as the long axis of the German machine and fired from the right and slightly behind the right of Captain von Richthofen.

Signed: A Smith, Capt. RAMC MO i/c 22 Wing RAFNote that the entrance wound is the posterior fold of the right armpit.

Allow me to define posterior for the illiterate:


- pos·te·ri·or[po-steer-ee-er, poh-]
(adjective) situated behind or at the rear of; hinder ( opposed to anterior (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anterior)). The posterior axillary fold of the armpit is adjacent to the scapula. I hope you can find your own scapula.

With me? Good. The exit wound is near the left nipple.

Now imagine a wound channel going from the back of your right armpit to your left nipple.

OMG! You just hit your heart!

[ellipsis]

Tell that to Hydra shock or any of the several dozen models made specifically to do so.

Now I'm done with you because it's damn clear you're doing nothing but looking up information on the internet and making wrong conclusions i've prooved you wrong on two subjects I don't have time for a third. Good bye.

Hydra shocks are not made for pressure waves, they are made to reliably mushroom/expand, as khad points out.

Also hydra shocks are old hollow point technology. now its about the federal HST, corbon dpx, hornandy, etc.

next you are going to tell me black talons are the best bullets ever made. and power-ball.

[Susurrus]

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/2/1312/ak_47.jpg

[Salyut]

next you are going to tell me black talons are the best bullets ever made. and power-ball.

http://i.imgur.com/08mp5.jpg

Granted the best ones I ever heard of were the "blended metal" bullets that were all the rage a few years back. Turned out that the company had taken off the shelf Gold Dots and given them a polymer coating. No fancy nanotech involved - just BS business practice.

I thought Cor-Bon was legit stuff though. Why list it alongside magical telfon bullets? :(

[Rss]

^^^ Haha, Mall Ninjas The Movie poster.

Bit offtopic, but does anybody know about chinese 5.8 mm DPB-88 "heavy" round? I read from somewhere that chinese are replacing their good ol' 7.62x54R Type 67 GPMGs with Type 88, which fires aformentioned heavy round. Pardon me, but I suspect that such a small round can compete with 7.62x54R when talking about power.

GPMG should be able to fuck up all kinds of targets, personnel, material, unarmored vehicles and light armor. I don't think that heavy round can cut it. I think that it has difficulties in wooded terrain as well, one of the reasons why 5.56 mm NATO isn't used here (having tons of M43 in storage helps too).

[gendoikari]

Hydra shocks are not made for pressure waves, they are made to reliably mushroom/expand, as khad points out.

Also hydra shocks are old hollow point technology. now its about the federal HST, corbon dpx, hornandy, etc.

next you are going to tell me black talons are the best bullets ever made. and power-ball.

No, THV's are, they take hydrostatic shock and turn it into a monster. of course if EITHER of you knew a damn thing about hydrodynamics you'd know that.


But unlike a pseudoscientific anime nerd who imagines fairy dust effects as the causative agent for the Red Baron's demise, I can produce the actual coroner's report that was signed off by the RAF:

................... RAF is brittish..... you do know that the red barron was german right?


A small caliber rifle bullet that doesn't fragment or deform and passes cleanly through a target has clearly reduced wounding potential.

On this you are right, IF it does not have sufficient velocity to produce hydrostatic shock or cavitation.


You mean quoting the internet and calling it a book, you hysterical anime nerd.

Yeah let me just go ahead and pull out pedrotti scan the pages, and paste them here. Get real dude. You've already prooven me right, if you would read what you yourself quote.

[Vendetta]

Isn't it against the rules to discuss weapons on RL?

[khad]

................... RAF is brittish..... you do know that the red barron was german right?
Your own source, quoted from post #136.


an inspection of the body by a Captain and a Lieutenant of the British Royal Army Medical Corps showed an entrance wound on the right side of the chest in the posterior fold of the armpit; the exit wound was situated at a slightly higher level nearer the front of his chest, about half an inch below the left nipple and about three-quarters of an inch external to it. On April 22, 1918, the consulting surgeon and the consulting physician of the British 4t h Army made a surface examination of the body. They found the wounds as described above "and also some minor bruises of the head [and] face. The body was not opened--these facts were ascertained by probing from the surface wounds". Thus ends the available medical record for the Red Baron.Of course, this isn't any surprise because the Allied powers got to his body first.

You should stick to your anime, because apparently reading isn't your forte.


Yeah let me just go ahead and pull out pedrotti scan the pages, and paste them here. Get real dude. You've already prooven me right, if you would read what you yourself quote.

Yep, fairy dust killed the Red Baron, as opposed to, like, getting shot through the heart.

[gendoikari]

Bit offtopic, but does anybody know about chinese 5.8 mm DPB-88 "heavy" round? I read from somewhere that chinese are replacing their good ol' 7.62x54R Type 67 GPMGs with Type 88, which fires aformentioned heavy round. Pardon me, but I suspect that such a small round can compete with 7.62x54R when talking about power.

all depends on how the bullet works. For instance a 9mm is powerful but a 7.62x51 is going to do a lot more damage, this is simply because the round travels so much faster.

[gendoikari]

Of course, this isn't any surprise because the Allied powers got to his body first. That actually I did not know.

Now khad. tell me why are rifle bullets that are so much smaller in diameter so much more damaging than similar handgun bullets of similar energy. Mind you, both break up at some point exhibiting your so called fragmentation.

[khad]

Now khad. tell me why are rifle bullets that are so much smaller in diameter so much more damaging than similar handgun bullets of similar energy. Mind you, both break up at some point exhibiting your so called fragmentation.
Similar energy...you mean something in the 1400-1700J range like a .50AE or .454 Casull?

Yeah, something that takes down 800lb hogs and small bears does so much less damage than a round that isn't even cleared to hunt deer.

[gendoikari]

Similar energy...you mean something in the 1400-1700J range like a .50AE?

Yeah, something that takes down 800lb hogs and small bears does so much less damage than a round that isn't even cleared to hunt deer.

yeah see 5.56 IS cleared to hunt deer. and no I mean something more like the 5.7x28 v a low end .45 or (even though this isn't a rifle v handgun round) 9mm Luger v .45acp. Which by the way, the 9mm round has a higher per hit kill ratio than the .45acp.

[khad]

yeah see 5.56 IS cleared to hunt deer. and no I mean something more like the 5.7x28 v a low end .45 or (even though this isn't a rifle v handgun round) 9mm Luger v .45acp. Which by the way, the 9mm round has a higher per hit kill ratio than the .45acp.

The 5.7x28 has about 550J of muzzle energy, whereas the 5.56 has about 1800J

Completely different energy classes.


tell me why are rifle bullets that are so much smaller in diameter so much more damaging than similar handgun bullets of similar energy.You wanted a comparison to rifle rounds, so I gave you one. Quit changing the goal posts.

On the 5.7x28, numerous papers have described its poor wounding profile. The first generation of 23 grain 5.7 rounds actually had to be withdrawn due to poor penetration and cavitation.

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.
--Roberts G: “Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.”, AFTE Journal. In Press.

[gendoikari]

also straight from the journal of neurosurgery



A myth is an assertion which has either been disproven by careful experiment or for which there is no historical or scientific evidence in cases where it is reasonably expected. Belief in remote effects of penetrating projectiles may have originated with hunters and soldiers, but their reality is now well established in a broad body of scientific literature...

Neurosurgery, February 2011 - Volume 68 - Issue 2 - pp E596-E597

[gendoikari]

The 5.7x28 has about 550J of muzzle energy, whereas the 5.56 has about 1800J

Completely different energy classes.

You wanted a comparison to rifle rounds, so I gave you one. Quit changing the goal posts.

Not changing goalposts you made an unfounded claim that the 5.56 was not cleared to hunt deer which it is. Quit making false shit up to support your claim.


The 5.7x28 has about 550J of muzzle energy, whereas the 5.56 has about 1800J

Completely different energy classes.

Irrelevant. Know what I'm just going to find all the peer reviewed papers I can find post them, and if you still don't get i'm marking you as a brick wall tea bagger type

[khad]

also straight from the journal of neurosurgery
From Courtney, the leading proponent of he hydrostatic shock theory. I've seen his self-references, and I'm not impressed.

Not changing goalposts you made an unfounded claim that the 5.56 was not cleared to hunt deer which it is. Quit making false shit up to support your claim.
Tell that to states like Kansas and Washington. Minimum .243; cougars are an exception.

[The Douche]

I've been thinking about that; if contact with the enemy is immediate and fast manouver is required, do you still lug around that rucksack or drop it for faster movement? There were some conflicting... "opinions" about that in training. I mean, that 170 pounds is a LOT. Regular "full load" for any grunt here is about 70 pounds plus ammo and weapon. There's not enough body armours for everybody, that's mostly for mech. and other "better" troops. More for recon, paratroopers, border troops and special jaegers.

EDIT: That 70 pounds isn't too much when it is strapped on the hull of a vehicle but lugging shells and maintenance alone is pretty heavy.

Well contact with the enemy is never immediate for us in the recon. We operate in 7 man teams, and are usually 25+ miles ahead of the closest friendly element. Our job was not to engage the enemy, unless it was of the upmost importance/opportunity (i.e. spotting a HVT that wasn't gonna be in the area long). My ruck had C4 strapped to it on a 30 second fuse, so if we did have to break contact (which is what we did if engaged) then we'd throw all the rucks around mine, I'd hit the fuse, everybody else would throw frags, and we'd peel the fuck out.

Now, when I was in the light infantry, when you were about to engage in a planned or hasty attack you always dropped your ruck, and if you were engaged the first thing you did after getting on the ground was get your ruck off and put it in front of you. So yeah, fighting is never done with the ruck on.

Everybody in the US army gets body armor, though in recon, a lot of times we didn't wear it cause it was to heavy, we also didn't wear helmets, they'd get cached after we jumped in.

[gendoikari]

case studies in humans showing remote pressure wave damage in the brain and spinal cord, and observations of blast waves causing remote brain injury.

We do not advocate
abandoning long-held aspects of the load
testing and selection process, but it seems
prudent to consider the pressure wave
magnitude along with other factors.

The Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory of Handgun Bullet Incapacitation
Michael Courtney, Amy Courtney 20 Mar 2008

The water coupled the pressure wave to the
thoracic cavity of the test subject without perforation. Bullets producing larger pressure waves
caused incapacitation, whereas a load producing smaller pressure waves did not.

In conclusion, the direct observation of
incapacitation by ballistic pressure wave apart
from permanent crush cavity and temporary
stretch cavity effects strongly supports the
validity of the pressure wave hypothesis, as
well as the independence of pressure wave
and wound channel contributions inferred from
analysis of the Marshall and Sanow data set
[COC06b].
While the experiment described here provides
compelling evidence for the incapacitation
effects of a sufficiently large ballistic pressure
wave, this work is primarily a qualitative
demonstration. This experimental method
should not be interpreted as a recipe for
evaluating the incapacitation potential of
individual handgun loads because the wound
channel also plays an important role in
incapacitation. A quantitative analysis of the
relative importance of the pressure wave and
wound channel as contributors to
incapacitation is presented elsewhere

Experimental Observations of Incapacitation via Ballistic Pressure
Wave without a Wound Channel
Michael Courtney, PhD
Ballistics Testing Group, P.O. Box 24, West Point, NY 10996
[email protected]
Amy Courtney, PhD
Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996
[email protected] only does this one show that hydrostatic effects are real, but it also shows some rounds for which hydrostatic effects account for more damage than the permanent wound cavity.

This supports the hypothesis that wound channel and pressure wave effects are independent (within the experimental error), and it also allows assignment of the relative contribution of each effect for a given handgun load. This model also gives the expected limiting behavior in the cases of very small and very large variables (wound channel and pressure wave), as well as for incapacitation by rifle and shotgun projectiles.

The few loads for which the crush cavity contribution to the
OSS rating exceeds the pressure wave contribution are
loads that do not expand. For example, the Fed 158 grain
semi-wad cutter (SWC) in .38 Special has OSS
PW
= 20.3%
and OSS
PCC
= 38.1%. These two mechanisms combine to
produce OSS
TOTAL
= 50.6%. (The M&S OSS rating is
51.8% for this load.) Similarly, the Rem 230 grain FMJ in
.45 ACP has OSS
PW
= 39.0% and OSS
PCC
= 46.2%. These
two mechanisms combine to produce OSS
TOTAL
= 67.2%.
(The M&S OSS rating is 64.8% for this load.)

B. Implications for Bullet Testing and
Selection
The success of our empirical model in describing bullet
effectiveness suggests that it might be used for
predicting bullet effectiveness before data from actual
shooting events is available. Estimating an OSS rating
from actual shootings requires at least 80 shooting
events meeting the selection criteria to provide the
expected level of accuracy offered by our model. Both
the pressure wave magnitude and surface area of the
permanent crush cavity can easily be determined by
using a chronograph to measure bullet energy and
results from shooting into calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin
to determine final bullet diameter, penetration depth, and
retained mass.
However, one should not be overly impressed by the
propensity for shallow penetrating loads to produce
larger pressure waves. Bullet selection criteria should
first determine the required penetration depth for the
given risk assessment and application, and only use
pressure wave magnitude as a selection criterion for
bullets that meet a minimum penetration requirement.
Reliable expansion, penetration, feeding, and functioning
are all important aspects of load testing and selection.
We do not advocate abandoning long-held aspects of
the load testing and selection process, but it seems
prudent to consider the pressure wave magnitude and
the predicted OSS rating along with other factors.

C. Implications for Bullet Design
The trend in bullet design over the last decade has
drifted toward bullets with little fragmentation and a 13
higher percentage of retained mass. Bullets that both
fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements
create larger pressure wave magnitudes and offer
improved incapacitation potential.
In addition to moving toward designs which both penetrate
and fragment reliably, we believe that the incapacitation
potential of a bullet can be further improved by delaying
expansion and fragmentation to a penetration depth of at
least 4”. This would place the peak pressure magnitude
closer to vital organs.
Optimal use of a bullet’s kinetic energy to produce
pressure wave incapacitation suggests a bullet design that
penetrates the first 4” or so prior to significant expansion or
energy loss, and then rapidly expands and transfers a
large percentage of its energy and 40% of its mass at
penetration depths between 4-8” before continuing to
penetrate to the depth desired for the application.

Relative incapacitation contributions of pressure wave and wound channel in
the Marshall and Sanow data set
Michael Courtney, PhD
Ballistics Testing Group, P.O. Box 24, West Point, NY 10996
[email protected]
Amy Courtney, PhD
Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996
[email protected]
Here's one that refutes your data of the non existance or effectiveness of hydrostatic shock


This article reviews published criticisms of several ballistic pressure wave experiments authored by Suneson et al., the Marshall and Sanow "one shot stop" data set, and the Strasbourg goat tests. These published criticisms contain numerous logical and rhetorical fallacies, are generally exaggerated, and fail to convincingly support the overly broad conclusions they contain.

In light of the demonstrated ad hominem attacks,
exaggerations and fallacies in the criticisms of these
experimental findings, one wonders whether the critical
authors were depending more on their reputation as
experts and the quantity of their fallacies (ad nauseum
fallacy) rather than quality arguments, sound reasoning,
and repeatable experiments. The critical authors left
quite a paper trail in the literature, but reason, the
scientific method, and repeatable experiments and
analysis have shown the original works to be more sound
than the published criticisms.

This is not to say that the criticized works are perfect or
beyond reasonable criticism or scrutiny, only that the
ultimate validity and value of these works should be
determined by the whole body of relevant literature, as
well as future work.
The level of exaggeration, ad hominem attack, and other
rhetorical fallacies in these critical reviews far exceeds
the boundaries of sober and rational discourse that
characterize modern peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Even in areas rife with pseudo-science (such as
nutritional supplements, psychic phenomena, global
warming, the creation/evolution debate), the tenor of the
peer-reviewed scientific literature is remarkably more
restrained and sound in its reasoning.
Since we (the authors, Michael Courtney and Amy
Courtney) are now contributors in a field with unusually
high levels of “ammonia and acetic acid,” we would like to
express our sincere hope that future debate will be
characterized by more civilized discussion without
resorting to personal attacks, insults, and unrestrained
rhetorical fallacies. Going beyond the accepted
boundaries of scientific discourse reflects poorly on the
field, on the law enforcement interests in the discussion,
and on firearms-related issues in general.


Review of criticisms of ballistic pressure wave experiments, the Strasbourg
goat tests, and the Marshall and Sanow data
Michael Courtney, PhD
Ballistics Testing Group, P.O. Box 24, West Point, NY 10996
[email protected]
Amy Courtney, PhD
Department of Physics, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996
[email protected]
From Courtney, the leading proponent of he hydrostatic shock theory. I've seen his self-references, and I'm not impressed.Be impressed or not as you will, the truth and experimental data do not lie, you are a mall ninja ignoring facts right in front of his face. YOu are a tea bagger and i'm ignoring you.

There's more but why bother when i've so thoroughly kicked your ass. Now if your done matching wits and coming up short I think i'll ignore you for now and get on with the original intent of this thread. goodbye.

[khad]

You posted from exactly one source, the Courtney and Courtney husband and wife team who have devoted their whole lives to publishing self-referenced papers on their pet theory.

Whereas multiple INDEPENDENT researchers have confirmed the poor wounding capability of high velocity subcalibers like the 5.7x28. If there were a mythical hydrostatic shock killer effect, they would have found it.

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.
--Roberts G: “Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.”, AFTE Journal. In Press.

[gendoikari]

You posted from exactly one source, the Courtney and Courtney husband and wife team who have devoted their whole lives to publishing self-referenced papers on their pet theory.

Whereas multiple INDEPENDENT researchers have confirmed the poor wounding capability of high velocity subcalibers like the 5.7x28. If there were a mythical hydrostatic shock killer effect, they would have found it.

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.
--Roberts G: “Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.”, AFTE Journal. In Press.

A) and your a mall ninja trying to make people think he knows something about a subject when he doesn't arguing with someone who's studied this all his life.

B) most of that has to do with the 5.7x28, which is barely on the edge of cavitation ability, much less hydrostatic shock.

look i'm going to break it down for your, there are four factors that go into wounding potential, and i'm going to list them in order of importance as commonly held in the shooting community.

1. Shot placement. It doesn't matter if it's a .50bmg round if you hit someone in the arm it's probably not going to immediately kill them.... well... maybe .50bmg but any reasonable round.

2. Permanent wound cavity. This is the cavity created by the bullet in the body that is torn or shredded. In this there is cavitation, fragmentation, expansion and caliber. All of which play important roles. Fragmentation and expansion, and caliber more for handguns, cavitation and and fragmentation more for rifle rounds.

3. Tissue damage. Bruising of surrounding tissue usually by rapid violent shock waves. Causes more pain in muscle tissue but can be lethal if on heart, or nervous system.

4. Remote wounding. Ballistic pressure waves, related to the cause of bruising above but usually called remote wounding in areas like the brain, which is sensitive.

[The Douche]

Hey, ballistics nerds, stop cluttering up this sweet weapon fetish thread with science.

It doesn't matter if its 7.62x39, 5.56, 9mm, .45, or 22lr, I don't wanna get shot by it, neither do you, neither does anybody else. And they can all kill if used effectively.

[gendoikari]

Hey, ballistics nerds, stop cluttering up this sweet weapon fetish thread with science.

It doesn't matter if its 7.62x39, 5.56, 9mm, .45, or 22lr, I don't wanna get shot by it, neither do you, neither does anybody else. And they can all kill if used effectively.

Good point.

actually on that note, anyone have any good data on the 6.8 and 6.5 rounds coming out, that are supposed to be intermediates?

[khad]

yeah see 5.56 IS cleared to hunt deer. and no I mean something more like the 5.7x28 v a low end .45 or (even though this isn't a rifle v handgun round) 9mm Luger v .45acp. Which by the way, the 9mm round has a higher per hit kill ratio than the .45acp.

B) most of that has to do with the 5.7x28, which is barely on the edge of cavitation ability, much less hydrostatic shock.
So, now the 5.7 doesn't do more damage than a .45? Quit changing your tune every 5 seconds.

3. Tissue damage. Bruising of surrounding tissue usually by rapid violent shock waves. Causes more pain in muscle tissue but can be lethal if on heart, or nervous system.

4. Remote wounding. Ballistic pressure waves, related to the cause of bruising above but usually called remote wounding in areas like the brain, which is sensitive.
First two points are true. The third point is conditional, as I've pointed out, and the last point is complete speculation. No law enforcement agency recognizes hydrostatic shock as a reliable kill mechanism.

For someone who claims to be a student of the science, you understand remarkably little about the field.

I just went through one such article by Courtney & Courtney and parsed through their footnotes.

Apart from generously citing their own papers, the only other papers on ballistics they reference in defense of their theory are studies from the 1980s. Stuff like the Suneson, Hansson, and Seeman paper from 1988 on periphal nervous damage. Or the Cederberg & Rokkanen tests on anaesthetized pigs from 1982.

The more recent studies they cite are actually papers on explosive blast effects, which generate far more overpressure than even a rifle bullet.

What this says is that apart from Courtney and Courtney, there's NO ONE else in recent history and current scholarship who upholds the pressure wave thesis--probably because a 4-year study between 2002-2006 conducted by the US government (the Joint Service Wound Ballistic Integrated Product Team) had not found this hydrostatic shock to be a valid or reliable kill factor.

[gendoikari]

What this says is that apart from Courtney and Courtney, there's NO ONE else in recent history and current scholarship who upholds the pressure wave thesis

Oh there's others, i just chose the top papers from a cornell university library search.

also go away mall ninja.

[khad]

Oh there's others, i just chose the top papers from a cornell university library search.
Other self-sourced papers from Courtney & Courtney, you mean.

[Magón]

all depends on how the bullet works. For instance a 9mm is powerful but a 7.62x51 is going to do a lot more damage, this is simply because the round travels so much faster.

You realize you're comparing a round originally meant for a pistol (which nowadays there are some carbines, chambered in the pistol round), and a round designed to be fired by a rifle, which because of that, has a higher grain of powder than a pistol round.


Which by the way, the 9mm round has a higher per hit kill ratio than the .45acp.

That mostly has to do with recoil/powder charge, than anything else. It's easier to get back on target with a 9mm, than a .45ACP.

[LegendZ]

(1) Do you agree? If not, then historically, what would you say is the #1 combat rifle of all time?No. MP44. The AK is just a rip off of the MP44.


(2) If you were allowed to take one gun into battle which one would you personally prefer? And Why?MG42. It can cut up a tree it can cut down you. Also the morale effect of 1200/min going over someones head would keep anyone down


(3) Have you ever personally shot an AK 47, and if yes, what did you think of it?No

(4) What is your favorite gun (any type) of all time, for whatever reason?MP44/G36C

[The Douche]

No. MP44. The AK is just a rip off of the MP44.

No, its not.


MG42. It can cut up a tree it can cut down you. Also the morale effect of 1200/min going over someones head would keep anyone down

Have fun carrying that weight.

[ellipsis]

Granted the best ones I ever heard of were the "blended metal" bullets that were all the rage a few years back. Turned out that the company had taken off the shelf Gold Dots and given them a polymer coating. No fancy nanotech involved - just BS business practice.

I thought Cor-Bon was legit stuff though. Why list it alongside magical telfon bullets? :(

Corbon is legit. the first list was good bullets, the second list was old outdated bullets


yeah see 5.56 IS cleared to hunt deer.

Sure you COULD use 5.56 for hunting, IF you got head or heart shots. IF NOT you are chasing down that wounded dear, maybe not finding it and leaving an animal to die a slow miserable death.

I am closing this thread now that it has be totally derailed.