Aren't smaller rounds more effective at penetrating body armour but the power is diminished if the target is at long range or is not wearing armour. I say this because I'd imagine a target wearing armour would be hit harder due to the bullet going through the armour, as well as the force of the armour breaking.
If you get me, I'm not a ballistic expert.
Basically, I'm guessing that passing the energy through the armour does more damage over a bigger area. Correct?
[QUOTE=professional;16453682]That's not the argument here. For some reason he's got it stuck in his head that any bullet, no matter how small the diameter or how much energy it's pulling, will drop a man on his ass and put him out of the fight in one shot.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what your trying to say.
A .22LR wont put you out of action in one shot. A .303 probably will. But other posters are right, drugs will affect the time of them dropping to the ground.
One of the reasons they made intermediate calibres, is so that soldier could carry twice as much ammunition.
I had a quick scan of the list in the OP and I would like to suggest the G36 series, if it wasn't in the Weaboo Weaponry thread.
[QUOTE=dcalde78;16455266]I had a quick scan of the list in the OP and I would like to suggest the G36 series, if it wasn't in the Weaboo Weaponry thread.[/QUOTE]
While they are very sexy there a weaboo weapon
[QUOTE=Jawalt;16450803]Try it. Get a couple guns of similar ammunition size and have you get someone else and shoot at each other, see if you notice getting shot.[/QUOTE]
I think you should conduct this experiment.
Have a friend get 20 meters away from you with a nice 9mm and shoot you in the head.
You are a horrible debater. You were trying to defend that guy who killed his daughter by not giving her medical care, and even though you were getting your arguments slaughtered, you kept going.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;16451005]Where were the 4000 men who've died in the United State's military's adrenaline rush that kept them going? Or the 9000 others that had to be lifted to be treated at a hospital. From makeshift explosives and small arms fire, from all sorts of guns. What happened to their adrenaline rush?[/QUOTE]
Are you serious?!
why are you talking about lethality you nerdos, lethality isn't the only determining factor in bullet usage
some bullets are better for material penetration, some have better velocity at long range, etc
.308 is good for long range but you gotta be some sort of wiener to use it to clear rooms
On this subject there's also the bullet tips (that would make an interesting article). Like Solid, Core-Lokt and hollow pointed etc.
Apparently if a military uses a hollow pointed round against another person would technically get the nation of that military in deep shit with the Geneva Convention rules.
It's something to do with the wounds those things inflict.
Someone please do correct me if I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Oecleus;16448480]I didn't know the performance of the gun itself, I just knew that the gun didn't fill in the role it was trying to play, which was a cheap, easily manufactured machine gun that was better and more accurate then the thompson.[/QUOTE]
It performed pretty well, and it did serve up into the 1970s/80s, where as the Thompson lasted into the 60s.
[editline]05:21PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jawalt;16450741]I'm pretty sure if someone shot at me with an MP7, I'd be on the floor, and so would most people.
Not only that, but chances are that you ARE hit more than once. Since it can fire nearly 16 bullets in a second, by the time you pull that trigger once I'm pretty sure you've got a burst of bullets. If I was shot I'd be on the floor whimpering for my mother. I was stabbed by a spring once, in the leg. It was a light gash, I was dizzied in pain. I can't even begin to imagine a bullet.[/QUOTE]
I wish someone would shoot you with an MP7, or hell any gun will do, you're incredibly annoying.
[QUOTE=ksenior;16455294]While they are very sexy there a weaboo weapon[/QUOTE]
Really?
Damn, I was hoping that they weren't, and my attempt to rerail the thread failed.
[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;16460219]On this subject there's also the bullet tips (that would make an interesting article). Like Solid, Core-Lokt and hollow pointed etc.
Apparently if a military uses a hollow pointed round against another person would technically get the nation of that military in deep shit with the Geneva Convention rules.
It's something to do with the wounds those things inflict.
Someone please do correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to look it up but this is probably 100% bullshit
it's probably just a logistics thing/fmj being cheaper to make
I've heard something like that before, actually.
[editline]10:32PM[/editline]
[quote]1899 Hague Conventions consisted of four main sections and three additional declarations (the final main section is for some reason identical to the first additional declaration):
* I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
* II - Laws and Customs of War on Land
* III - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
* IV - Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
* Declaration I - On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
* Declaration II - On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases
* Declaration III - On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body[/quote]
I assume it's this part.
[QUOTE=DualReaver;16468783]I've heard something like that before, actually.
[editline]10:32PM[/editline]
I assume it's this part.[/QUOTE]
as if half that stuff applied during ww1 (unless those were postwar amendments or something, excuse my ignorance)
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16468677]I'm not going to look it up but this is probably 100% bullshit
it's probably just a logistics thing/fmj being cheaper to make[/QUOTE]
Wrong, there actually is a section in the Geneva Conventions that bans the use of HP rounds.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16468980]as if half that stuff applied during ww1 (unless those were postwar amendments or something, excuse my ignorance)[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I just remember hearing about the ban of JHP rounds before, and that's what Wiki says.
[QUOTE=Dark Descent;16430103]I am heavy veapons guy, and THIS is my veapon, she weighs 150 kg and fires...i don't remember
BWAHAHAHAHA[/QUOTE]
200$ custom tool carltriges at ten thousand wrounds per minute.
it costs 400,000dollars to fire 'dis weapon...for ten seconds.
[QUOTE=lintz;16468998]Wrong, there actually is a section in the Geneva Conventions that bans the use of HP rounds.[/QUOTE]
you're probably right
83)Arisaka Series
[img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/arisaka-38-1.jpg[/img]
Originally designed by Colonel Arisaka Nariakira in 1898 to replace the aging 8mm Murata the Arisaka Type 30 proved the first in a line of relatively decent firearms which is shocking considering all the other lemons that Japan made during that time. It is based off the Mauser's magazine and a bolt which is heavily influenced by the Mannlicher. In a way this would prove to be part of Japan's efforts to catch up with the rest of the world as an industrialized nation.
In truth the Type 30 saw very limited production due to deficiencies seen during the Russo-Japanese War, the Type 38 and 99 are the most common. In the beginning, while the quality was hit-or-miss the 38 was a huge success. It spread throughout neighboring countries such as China, Cambodia and Thailand who often used them to supplement stocks of other rifles, such as China's 8mm Mauser 98s. These weapons would see extensive use before and during WW2. More interestingly the 38 spread around Eastern Europe during the same time. Many were used in the Russian Revolution, most notably by a large Czech regiment. A few other countries such as Britain, Finland, Albania and even the US used them in some limited numbers, often for training since the smaller round had relatively little recoil.
Now the big difference between the 38 and 99 is the caliber. The former fired 6.5x50mm Arisaka which was a notably underpowered round for the time. By contrast the Type 99 fired 7.7x58mm which was also used by many other Japanese designs during WW2. Many 38s were also rechambered to this caliber. During the war it was found that while quality was occasionally shoddy the rifle's action was very strong. The Chinese often rechambered them for 30.06.
Another prominent feature was the bayonet. It was almost more important than the gun it was attached to. This could have been due to occasional ammunition shortages, outdated infantry tactics of the aforementioned quality control problems. In fact towards the end of the war the Arisakas made were called "Desperation Rifles". The quality was so poor that anyone shooting them risked life and limb in the process of doing so. They had a tendency to explode.
After the war Japan's arsenals had to stop all of their operations and dispose of their entire inventory. The soldiers were ordered to file off the Imperial Seal or "mum" in order to prevent anything with that seal being surrendered. Many such rifles had already been captured by GIs and brought back to the states, some of which were modified to fire more common ammunition. This would have been necessary since the production of all 7.7x58mm ammunition stopped abruptly in 1945 with Japan's surrender. Thus every Arisaka in this caliber suddenly became obsolete. Many were simply destroyed.
Today an original Arisaka in an original caliber with the mum still intact is a very rare collector's piece. Many, as mentioned, were rechambered by civilians or occasionally arsenals for more common calibers. While companies like Hornandy still make the obsolete ammunition it is incredibly rare. Firing any Arisaka rifle is considered dangerous because of the risk that you're either handling one of those "last ditch" or the risk that it had been rechambered to a caliber that the scant quality control didn't accommodate for, such as 30.06.
In all, several million were made. While not a truly great design it did prove that if anything, Japan wasn't as far behind in respect to industrialization as many of the other nations believed at the time it to be.
You should write a parody article on the Desert Eagle.
[QUOTE=Kman1;16470361]Anyone know how good the PPS-43 was?[/QUOTE]
Very good.
I had a demilitarized one at one point that I was going to convert to semi automatic only, they're incredibly simple, ingenious and well built guns.
Nice article Bean-O now on to the MP-40 please or the Type 99 Or the Type 11 Machine guns if you want to keep doing japanese weapons.
[QUOTE=DualReaver;16470642]You should write a parody article on the Desert Eagle.[/QUOTE]
Do it like the 1911 in Weaboo Weaponry.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16459234]why are you talking about lethality you nerdos, lethality isn't the only determining factor in bullet usage
some bullets are better for material penetration, some have better velocity at long range, etc
.308 is good for long range but you gotta be some sort of wiener to use it to clear rooms[/QUOTE]
I've seen an old man clear a room a with an M14 and a G3, does that count?
But why enter the room with a .308 when you can [B][I]shoot through it[/I][/B] :smug:
Do the Liberator :v:
[QUOTE=LOLturtle;16469580]Desert Eagle please.[/QUOTE]
Its not that bad of a weapon, but its just overused and all that [sp]But it doesnt deserve to be in this thread[/sp]
Its in the [B][I]weeboo weaponery[/I][/B] thread
[editline]03:16PM[/editline]
Also, is the G41 a varient of the G3?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
