Post: #126

That is exactly why myths about specific bullet effect to human body actually came to existence. Not many of us would shoot at animals, let alone other humans. Others who were in war are not likely to talk about "ripping humans to shreds" or such.

Post: #127

This diagram on various wound channels created by different types of ammunition gives a good example of what we're talking about, and this is of course done under controlled conditions.



Note that the fourth (a 5.56 round) doesn't even start to open up until 20cm of penetration.

Post: #128

(02-24-2017 07:52 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  This diagram on various wound channels created by different types of ammunition gives a good example of what we're talking about, and this is of course done under controlled conditions.



Note that the fourth (a 5.56 round) doesn't even start to open up until 20cm of penetration.

What does "NL" stand for - neck length? Because I noticed the third and fourth rounds are the exact same cartridge at the exact same velocity, but different results.

Post: #129

^Generally neck length refers to the ammunition itself but I have heard it referred to in reference to the shape of a wound channel, ie the distance the bullet travels before tumbling or expanding.

Post: #130

All pontification aside, civilians have this to consider: rounds on target = bad guys running away, or otherwise shitting their pants.

Yes, studies show x, y, or z in military combat situations is the best. Such are not the situations into which most of us will fall.

I know a guy who saved his life in an armed robbery, using a 25ACP pistol as his defense (the bad guy didn't make it). This caliber is the least lethal round invented, yet it did the trick at the time.

Carry something that lets you get rounds on target. Nothing else matters.

Post: #131

Looks like 7.62 x 39 is winning in penetration.
Interesting note, in Croatia during the war, guns with soviet caliber 5.45 x 39, such as AK-74 were called "Kostolomci", (English: "Bone breakers"), because of the wounds they inflicted.

It says on wikipedia that afghan fighters against soviets called it "poison bullet" because of severe wounds it produces, forcing medics to even amputate limbs.

Post: #132

My understanding of the AK-74 round is that it contains a hollow section just behind its nose cone, so when it hits, the lead inside shifts forward and unbalances the round, causing it to tumble erratically and make a grievous wound.

Such "stinger" rounds are purportedly against the rules of war that NATO espouses. Our 5.56 rounds instead have a section of brass in front of the lead, preventing the shift in weight. Yay us, so humane.

In other news, the 5.56 WOULD tumble nicely on impact (due to its rear-biased weight imbalance) if it were fired from rifles that had less twist in the barrel. However, top brass's insistence on a universal round/rifle requires more twist because the dense air in arctic theaters makes the 5.56 somewhat inaccurate at longer distances unless it has the ballistic stability that more twist (spin) gives it. This increased stability means that the "tumble upon impact" ability of the round is negated.

Ain't empire-building grand? Every country we invade has an effective round that works for it, but we (USA + many NATO stooges) suffer from the politics of war.

7.62 rounds make all these problems go away, but also bring a few drawbacks.

Really, the only solution is to stop warring. Problem is: humans.

Post: #133

(02-25-2017 09:45 AM)Hoser Wrote:  My understanding of the AK-74 round is that it contains a hollow section just behind its nose cone, so when it hits, the lead inside shifts forward and unbalances the round, causing it to tumble erratically and make a grievous wound.

Such "stinger" rounds are purportedly against the rules of war that NATO espouses. Our 5.56 rounds instead have a section of brass in front of the lead, preventing the shift in weight. Yay us, so humane.

In other news, the 5.56 WOULD tumble nicely on impact (due to its rear-biased weight imbalance) if it were fired from rifles that had less twist in the barrel. However, top brass's insistence on a universal round/rifle requires more twist because the dense air in arctic theaters makes the 5.56 somewhat inaccurate at longer distances unless it has the ballistic stability that more twist (spin) gives it. This increased stability means that the "tumble upon impact" ability of the round is negated.

Ain't empire-building grand? Every country we invade has an effective round that works for it, but we (USA + many NATO stooges) suffer from the politics of war.

7.62 rounds make all these problems go away, but also bring a few drawbacks.

Really, the only solution is to stop warring. Problem is: humans.

The 5.56 isn't designed to tumble like the 5.45, but it is designed to fragment in soft tissue. Fragmentation is less reliable than tumbling, and depends on velocity, but causes more damage when it actually happens.

Post: #134

I can't help but think that if I were a squad designated marksman I would have family members send me care packages with standard medium-game copper plated hollow point rounds that I could discreetly pocket on my way out of the base for patrol.

I sincerely doubt that the special forces are going into missions with that shitty UN approved ammo.

Post: #135

Wasn't 6.8 created for SF as a better 5.56?

Post: #136

Not sure about that.

The thing with 5.56 is that it's not a bad round if you tailor your ammunition to the task at hand. I have three factory-boxed variants from one manufacturer sitting in my ammunition safe for small, medium and large game.

So just like when I go out to hunt a particular beast, the SFs are going to choose ammunition that's best suited to knocking over the guys they're planning on meeting at the ranges they're likely to meet them wearing the armour (or lack of it) they're likely to be sporting.

The trouble with the 5.56 is when you try to give the same round to a million guys doing a 100,000 different missions with it. Jack of all trades means master of none. And no matter what caliber you choose, you're going to end up with the same problem in this regard. UN treaties, broad stroke policy and administrative bean counting will take all the best intentions and render them irrelevant.

Post: #137

(02-24-2017 08:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I've heard tell that the soldiers involved in the real life events that the movie Blackhawk Down was based on complained that the locals were so skinny that the fmj rounds the soldiers were issued had serious issues with stopping power. Evidently the "skinnys" were too skinny for the rounds to work properly.

Those same soldiers also complained of these locals get hit in the head and still keep coming.

The army is currently thinking about a 6.5mm caliber.

Post: #138

(02-25-2017 09:04 PM)Hoser Wrote:  Wasn't 6.8 created for SF as a better 5.56?

SF themselves created the round.

While an improvement over 5.56 in terminal ballistics, it is solely a close quarter round. It's effective range is about the same as 5.56.

With reports from Afghanistan complaining about being outranged, as the locals like to shoot at you from a mountain across the valley, often with soviet machine guns, US and Brits resurrected 7.62 NATO for their designated marksman rifles (DMR).

Post: #139

I can't find it at the moment, but I've seen a picture of 5.45 round where one was fired and one was not and both were sectioned.

You can clearly see the tip of the fired round was crooked.

Since this is a handgun thread. I think this is pretty cool

Post: #140

Looks interesting, like a normal sized gun but with "sawn off" front

Post: #141

(02-25-2017 08:48 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I can't help but think that if I were a squad designated marksman I would have family members send me care packages with standard medium-game copper plated hollow point rounds that I could discreetly pocket on my way out of the base for patrol.

I sincerely doubt that the special forces are going into missions with that shitty UN approved ammo.

DM and snipers don't use regular M80 ball. They use M118LR or the latest MK 316 MOD 0 with open tip match bullet. They are good for hunting, apparently.

Hollow points in warfare will get you sent to Ft. Leavenworth in a hurry.

Post: #142

My understanding with the Boberg is it's basically a bullpup style pistol, where the barrel is behind the magazine. It's an interesting concept but I'd be worried about burning/blowing off my fingers shooting two-handed.

Post: #143

(02-28-2017 10:00 AM)J. Spice Wrote:  My understanding with the Boberg is it's basically a bullpup style pistol, where the barrel is behind the magazine. It's an interesting concept but I'd be worried about burning/blowing off my fingers shooting two-handed.

You don't have to worry. Pistols generally don't go kaboom! in as spectacular fashion as rifles do. The rounds simply don't have as much pressure.



Of course there are Elmer Keiths out there who will manage to blow up whatever with their experimental loads, but that is not your everyday situation.

Boberg is a well-built steel gun that will survive a squib no problem. You may have to replace the barrel though.

The biggest problem with Boberg is that most ammo is not designed to be jerked backwards, as it is with this design. Some have reported of rounds disassembling during loading cycle, leaving bullets and powder in the mag well. Messy. I think Boberg now recommends ammo on their website that will not do that.

Post: #144

(02-28-2017 10:40 AM)MOVSM Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 10:00 AM)J. Spice Wrote:  My understanding with the Boberg is it's basically a bullpup style pistol, where the barrel is behind the magazine. It's an interesting concept but I'd be worried about burning/blowing off my fingers shooting two-handed.

You don't have to worry. Pistols generally don't go kaboom! in as spectacular fashion as rifles do. The rounds simply don't have as much pressure.



Of course there are Elmer Keiths out there who will manage to blow up whatever with their experimental loads, but that is not your everyday situation.

Boberg is a well-built steel gun that will survive a squib no problem. You may have to replace the barrel though.

The biggest problem with Boberg is that most ammo is not designed to be jerked backwards, as it is with this design. Some have reported of rounds disassembling during loading cycle, leaving bullets and powder in the mag well. Messy. I think Boberg now recommends ammo on their website that will not do that.

I was referring to my hands/fingers sticking out past the muzzle when firing, not a catastrophic failure.

Post: #145

(02-28-2017 10:43 AM)J. Spice Wrote:  I was referring to my hands/fingers sticking out past the muzzle when firing, not a catastrophic failure.

Yeah, don't do that. this model is for concealed carry. you may want something with longer barrel. Boberg (now bond arms) used to make pistols with longer barrels. Let's see if the new owners will resume that.

Post: #146

Draco sittin by the bookbag!!

Post: #147

The hell is a Draco?

Post: #148

(03-02-2017 11:11 PM)ShotgunUppercuts Wrote:  The hell is a Draco?

It's a pistolised version of an AK47.



They functionally exist to get around state laws banning "assault rifles" because in such a configuration they technically count as pistols. They of course can be very easily modified to become assault rifles once more if the need arises.

Post: #149

I found a new ballistics testing video that I'll have to watch when I get a minute.

Post: #150

(02-28-2017 09:23 AM)MOVSM Wrote:  Hollow points in warfare will get you sent to Ft. Leavenworth in a hurry.

As I recall, the Geneva Convention specifies only FMJ for military small arms ammo. Of course, this did not prevent the Germans from using dum-dums in WWI.