Firearms! - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=DrMortician;20296466]Rifles are rifles, pistols are pistols. Also, faster twist rate=more stable bullet. Slower twist rate=more unstable and erratic bullet. The best wounds from the 5.56 are delivered by the 1/9 or slower. And with the heavier bullets, like the 75gr.[/QUOTE] That's why M-16's have a 1/7 twist rate. I already said this but giving it a 1/7 made it tumble terribly causing HORRIFIC colateral damage. It was a way to get around the geneva convention. (They couldnt use hollow points).

[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20315072]It's chaimbered in .30 luger, and it's extremely expensive to fire. [URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/1151.JPG[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/1161.JPG[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/1171.JPG[/IMG][/URL] Bonus: [URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/100.JPG[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/1011.JPG[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/34157-1.html[/url] Doesn't seem to expensive to fire at $20 per box of 50.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;20315190][url]http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/34157-1.html[/url] Doesn't seem to expensive to fire at $20 per bocx of 50.[/QUOTE] It cost us 30 for 30.

[QUOTE=professional;20294123]I'm not sold either. I've shot boars and deer with .223s before, no such damage (to be fair, boars have pretty thick hides as is, and the mud they love to roll in gets caked on nice and hard) . I've seen countless photographs of 5.56 wounds from over in Iraq and A-stan. The wounds are characteristic of the round : small entry points with a slightly larger malformed exit wound. [/QUOTE] Get a full size 20 inch barrel. Report back to FP. My 20 inch RRA Ar-15 DESTROYS tissue.

[QUOTE=ubertaco;20314625]True. I like your youtube videos.[/QUOTE] Aww thank you, I might make some more some day but I badly need a tripod. [editline]09:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=zombiefreak;20315072][URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/1011.JPG[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] You know, if that was made out of an aftermarket Luger (not an original one) then I would really love to shoot it, looks fun as hell. [editline]09:11PM[/editline] [QUOTE=EurofanBMW;20315226]Get a full size 20 inch barrel. Report back to FP. My 20 inch RRA Ar-15 DESTROYS tissue.[/QUOTE] How do you know this...? But uhh, questionable ethics aside, I agree. 20" AR/M16 barrels > 16" or shorter barrels, with the AR platform there's no point in having such a short barrel, it's incredibly light as it is, the only reason to have anything shorter is if you're fighting in crawl spaces.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;20315326]Aww thank you, I might make some more some day but I badly need a tripod. [editline]09:09PM[/editline] You know, if that was made out of an aftermarket Luger (not an original one) then I would really love to shoot it, looks fun as hell. [editline]09:11PM[/editline] How do you know this...? But uhh, questionable ethics aside, I agree. 20" AR/M16 barrels > 16" or shorter barrels, with the AR platform there's no point in having such a short barrel, it's incredibly light as it is, the only reason to have anything shorter is if you're fighting in crawl spaces.[/QUOTE] I shoot tissue? AKA I hunt? but yeah, 20 inches makes a huge difference.

[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;20315491]I shoot tissue? AKA I hunt? but yeah, 20 inches makes a huge difference.[/QUOTE] For some reason I had it in my head that you had people strapped up in your basement for testing purposes. Nevermind, I'm insane.

barrel twist rate has nothing to do with bullet impact performance and more to do with stabilizing different weight bullets/barrel life seriously to say that the military purposefully wants a barrel that shoot bullets unstably because it makes "better wounds" is horeshit and I'm sure gunfox will back me up on this

[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;20315138]That's why M-16's have a 1/7 twist rate. I already said this but giving it a 1/7 made it tumble terribly causing HORRIFIC colateral damage. It was a way to get around the geneva convention. (They couldnt use hollow points).[/QUOTE] Quote where in the geneva convention where it says anything about hollow points. It's the Hague Convention, damnit. Also, finally finished my .460 rowland project gun. Yes, I've posted lots of pictures as I've progressed, but this is it in complete form. [IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/96vl21.jpg[/IMG] [editline]11:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;20315938]barrel twist rate has nothing to do with bullet impact performance and more to do with stabilizing different weight bullets/barrel life seriously to say that the military purposefully wants a barrel that shoot bullets unstably because it makes "better wounds" is horeshit and I'm sure gunfox will back me up on this[/QUOTE] It wasn't on purpose. It was more or less a discovery they made after the M16 originally saw combat and they started playing with different twist rates. Slower twist rates make for a more unstable bullet, which makes it more likely to yaw and fragment, instead of just punching straight through.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;20316203]Quote where in the geneva convention where it says anything about hollow points. It's the Hague Convention, damnit. Also, finally finished my .460 rowland project gun. Yes, I've posted lots of pictures as I've progressed, but this is it in complete form. [IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/96vl21.jpg[/IMG] [editline]11:16PM[/editline] It wasn't on purpose. It was more or less a discovery they made after the M16 originally saw combat and they started playing with different twist rates. Slower twist rates make for a more unstable bullet, which makes it more likely to yaw and fragment, instead of just punching straight through.[/QUOTE] this isn't entirely true, barrel twist rates have more to do with ammunition types and not with ballistic performance explicitly (you can't just say one barrel makes bullets do one thing and another makes bullets do another). 1 in 7 twist barrels are good for heavier bullets (77 grain), while 1 in 9 are better for bullets like 55 grain .223 (using .223 and an example). To say that slower twist rates make bullets more unstable just isn't true. Granted, you can shoot any load interchangeably and it'll still shoot fine, but if someone's getting real picky about twist rates they likely intend to shoot a specific weight of bullet for specific performance/cost reasons (55 grain is more commercially available/common so most people should use 1 in 9 twist or some other rate slower than 1 in 7, etc). your main point is true, though, bullets do yaw better when not properly stabilized. You sacrifice accuracy, though.

[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;20315226]Get a full size 20 inch barrel. Report back to FP. My 20 inch RRA Ar-15 DESTROYS tissue.[/QUOTE] Twas a Remington 700 with a 22 inch barrel. Can't remember what ammunition was used. As I said, I saw no such tissue damage on either Boars or Deer. Again, I was looking purely at the entry and exit wounds. Also as I said before, I have no doubt about the 5.56's ability to make terrible looking wound channels. The fact remains however, that there were no complaints of terminal performance until the 5.56 was adopted. Coincidence? Chalk it up to old timers not liking the "puny" round? I don't know.

[QUOTE=professional;20319048]Twas a Remington 700 with a 22 inch barrel. Can't remember what ammunition was used. As I said, I saw no such tissue damage on either Boars or Deer. Again, I was looking purely at the entry and exit wounds. Also as I said before, I have no doubt about the 5.56's ability to make terrible looking wound channels. The fact remains however, that there were no complaints of terminal performance until the 5.56 was adopted. Coincidence? Chalk it up to old timers not liking the "puny" round? I don't know.[/QUOTE] There have been complaints of every round providing inadequate terminal performance, really. When 7.62x51 NATO was adopted they complained. There have even been complaints during WWII of even the mighty .30-06 being inadequate; which is just ridiculous. Most of these complaints are due to the soldiers either missing or superficially wounding their target.

[QUOTE=Loen;20325088]There have been complaints of every round providing inadequate terminal performance, really. When 7.62x51 NATO was adopted they complained. There have even been complaints during WWII of even the mighty .30-06 being inadequate; which is just ridiculous. Most of these complaints are due to the soldiers either missing or superficially wounding their target.[/QUOTE] Provide a source please. The only recorded complaints I can find regarding the .30-06 was A) recoil and B) not enough capacity in rifles. These complaints were central to the Korean war in regards to the human wave tactics.

People whine too much about round effectiveness. Most people wouldn't be happy unless they were carrying a 20mm around it seems. I've seen insurgents return fire after getting half their head taken off by a 7.62x51 nato... I've also seen their heads completely explode after being hit with a 5.56mm. (You can find the videos if you try.) There's nothing out there that's always going to effectively kill with 1 shot every single time. Not even a .50bmg will always kill someone on the 1st shot. 5.56mm gets the job done, it's just not as consistent as it could be. It's a great versatile little round which is why almost all allied nations use it. It has very little recoil, and very good terminal performance. Give a 150lb soldier a 7.62 that weighs 7 pounds and is fully automatic, and lets see him make lethal bursts at 400 yards, because it just isn't going to happen, which is why we use the 5.56mm.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;20326271]People whine too much about round effectiveness. Most people wouldn't be happy unless they were carrying a 20mm around it seems. I've seen insurgents return fire after getting half their head taken off by a 7.62x51 nato... I've also seen their heads completely explode after being hit with a 5.56mm. (You can find the videos if you try.) There's nothing out there that's always going to effectively kill with 1 shot every single time. Not even a .50bmg will always kill someone on the 1st shot. 5.56mm gets the job done, it's just not as consistent as it could be. It's a great versatile little round which is why almost all allied nations use it. It has very little recoil, and very good terminal performance. Give a 150lb soldier a 7.62 that weighs 7 pounds and is fully automatic, and lets see him make lethal bursts at 400 yards, because it just isn't going to happen, which is why we use the 5.56mm.[/QUOTE] As I understand it, logistics are a more important factor. By using such a small round, a soldier can carry much more ammunition.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;20326369]As I understand it, logistics are a more important factor. By using such a small round, a soldier can carry much more ammunition.[/QUOTE] That's one part of it, plus having almost every nation using the same round and same magazine design helps a lot too. But 20 vs 30 rounds is really a moot point unless you're just holding the trigger down and spraying. I prefer the more compact 20 round magazines even with my AR. Less weight, and it lets you go a lot lower when prone. Plus they sit better in magazine pounces since they're straight. I also have mis-placed trust in the 20 round magazines being more reliable, even when it's not necessarily true, it's better peace of mind to me.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;20316507]this isn't entirely true, barrel twist rates have more to do with ammunition types and not with ballistic performance explicitly [/QUOTE] Ok, lets think about this. What makes a bullet accurate? A tighter twist rate which leads to faster spinning. So if you have a twist rate of 1/7 (which is a VERY small twist rate) its not going to be as stable, and when it HITS an object it WILL tumble. Yes, the Military might not have intentionally set the rate at 1/7 just to create huge wounds, but they discovered what it did and kept the design. [editline]02:42PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DrMortician;20326271]People whine too much about round effectiveness. Most people wouldn't be happy unless they were carrying a 20mm around it seems. I've seen insurgents return fire after getting half their head taken off by a 7.62x51 nato... I've also seen their heads completely explode after being hit with a 5.56mm. (You can find the videos if you try.) There's nothing out there that's always going to effectively kill with 1 shot every single time. Not even a .50bmg will always kill someone on the 1st shot. 5.56mm gets the job done, it's just not as consistent as it could be. It's a great versatile little round which is why almost all allied nations use it. It has very little recoil, and very good terminal performance. Give a 150lb soldier a 7.62 that weighs 7 pounds and is fully automatic, and lets see him make lethal bursts at 400 yards, because it just isn't going to happen, which is why we use the 5.56mm.[/QUOTE] All these MW2 kids that say "223 is poopy" will never be happy until they see someone get blown off their feet.

[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;20329013]Ok, lets think about this. What makes a bullet accurate? A tighter twist rate which leads to faster spinning. So if you have a twist rate of 1/7 (which is a VERY small twist rate) its not going to be as stable, and when it HITS an object it WILL tumble. Yes, the Military might not have intentionally set the rate at 1/7 just to create huge wounds, but they discovered what it did and kept the design. [editline]02:42PM[/editline] All these MW2 kids that say "223 is poopy" will never be happy until they see someone get blown off their feet.[/QUOTE] You do realize that the military uses both XM193 (55gr) and M855 (62gr), and both bullets will perform differently when shot out of the same barrel. The military settled on 1/7 because that's what stabilized tracer rounds the best. By the way you post you make it seem like the military just shoots ~*bullets*~ and the barrel twist rate is the sole indicator of what said ~*bullets*~ do. Twist rates do affect bullets, but they affect different bullets in different ways. You can't just put a barrel on a gun with a quick twist rate and expect it to shoot accurately without taking the projectile into account. Also, I am now the proud owner of a CPO Sig P220. I settled on the 220 because I was tired of waiting for a cheap 226 to pop up on the internet, I like how it fit in my hand, and I got it for a real good price ($550). It's a doubly good price because it came with 3 8 round magazines, which are expensive themselves. Also apparently it has a set of Hogue grips and night sights. Here's a pic [URL=http://img109.imageshack.us/i/p2205.png/][IMG]http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1880/p2205.th.png[/IMG][/URL]

[url]http://sgworks.com/[/url] I'm gettin one of these tacticool things for my sks.

Quick, someone answer this: Romanian TT-33 or Bulgarian Makarov? THIS IS IMPORTANT.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;20357117]Quick, someone answer this: Romanian TT-33 or Bulgarian Makarov? THIS IS IMPORTANT.[/QUOTE] TT-33 I guess.

[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20357173]TT-33 I guess.[/QUOTE] I can't find any in stock, that's the main problem. Cheapest I found on Gunbroker was $230, which isn't too bad I guess.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;20357117]Quick, someone answer this: Romanian TT-33 or Bulgarian Makarov? THIS IS IMPORTANT.[/QUOTE] as far as AKs are concerned Bulgarians make far better guns than the Romanians but I dunno about pistols, read some reviews maybe?

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;20357254]as far as AKs are concerned Bulgarians make far better guns than the Romanians but I dunno about pistols, read some reviews maybe?[/QUOTE] It's not really about the manufacturer, I know both are really good guns, I just dunno which I'd prefer, so I was just wondering what everyone's opinions on those two guns would be, and I'd like to see if anyone still has TT-33s in stock. Kinda leaning more towards the Makarov, always wanted one, but same goes for the TT-33.

[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20356940][url]http://sgworks.com/[/url] I'm gettin one of these tacticool things for my sks.[/QUOTE] Somehow that reminded me of my last outing with my SKS. I loaded it, pulled the bolt handle back and let it go, and it fired without my pulling the trigger. Scared the living shit out of me. Is there anything wrong with it? Or is that just something that will happen every once in a while?

[QUOTE=Thomas849;20357751]Somehow that reminded me of my last outing with my SKS. I loaded it, pulled the bolt handle back and let it go, and it fired without my pulling the trigger. Scared the living shit out of me. Is there anything wrong with it? Or is that just something that will happen every once in a while?[/QUOTE] Your trigger sear could be getting worn down. Have a gunsmith look at it?

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20357844]Your trigger sear could be getting worn down. Have a gunsmith look at it?[/QUOTE] I can do that.

[QUOTE=Thomas849;20357751]Somehow that reminded me of my last outing with my SKS. I loaded it, pulled the bolt handle back and let it go, and it fired without my pulling the trigger. Scared the living shit out of me. Is there anything wrong with it? Or is that just something that will happen every once in a while?[/QUOTE] Slamfire, check your firing pin, could be broken or clogged with dirt. If not, then check your sear.

What is the best site for making refinishing my M1 Garand. I kinda want that gray steel finish.

[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20357950]What is the best site for making refinishing my M1 Garand. I kinda want that gray steel finish.[/QUOTE] I'd advise against refinishing it. But if you do, get it reparkerized, don't go for guncoat or duracoat or any of that shit, lots of places can do it, but I can't really name any.