The War
Headlines
Movies
Screenshots
Alliance Community
2011: We're Back!

Alliance: The Silent War

Community Forums for Alliance: The Silent War
It is currently Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:30 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:38 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 258
Quote:
.45 makes bigger holes, and is subsonic so works well with a silencer, but 9mm has the most stopping power.

Quote:
Stopping power on the other hand the thompson wins


.45 has more stopping power, 9mm has more stopping power... that stopping power is malleable stuff. Perhaps you guy should define stopping power first.

Quote:
9mm>.45 Hence most submachines use 9mm.


7.62x51>5.56mm but 5.56mm is by far the most popular. There are a variety of reasons .45ACP isn't used in submachineguns. It's heavier, harder recoiling, more expensive, and so forth.

Weapons are often chosen for reasons having nothing to do with their effectiveness.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:49 pm 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:50 am
Posts: 78
It isn't used because a 9mm has more stopping power.
It kills better.
Don't take my word for it, check out which calibre your local special forces are using. These people are the experts.

.45 is more expensive because the calibre is not as mass produced. It's not as mass produced because 9mm is more favoured. 9mm is more favoured because it is better.
.45 rounds are still very cheap. This is a mass produced and extremely popular bullet.
The actual raw material cost and machine tool cost is comparable. When The Thompson was introduced I think I could imagine that .45 was cheaper than 9mm. Your arguement for calibre choice and economics holds true.
However when it was superceded by the 9mm in Britain, the 9mm was not a cheaper round, production of it had to be started from scratch. Neither were any of Britains allies using 9mm.
Likewise the same must be true when 9mm was adopted by the U.S. military. Up until that point the major manufacturing must have been geared to .45.
9mm wasn't cheaper when they originally adopted it. It was more expensive. .45 was cheaper, but still they left it behind.

9mm is not just favoured in defense markets but also in domestic.
The difference in the weight of ammunition is irrelevant. Paratroops have been successfully equiped with both in the past.
In domestic policing and anti terrorist operations where operatives are not kitted to soldiers maximum carry weight and logistics plays no part, .45 is still not the prevalent choice.

Recoil is a factor of kinetic energy vs inertia. A fast firing 9mm produces more recoil than a slow .45. Weight, ammunition type, barrel length and rate of fire are all factors in this. Recoil must be calculated by the gun + Ammo, not just the ammo.

For example the Thompsons RPM of 580-700 is significantly lower than the MP5's 800. This, combined with it's greater weight, makes it every bit as controlable despite having a larger calibre bullet.
Recoil is weapon specific not ammunition specific. The Uzi has less recoil than the MP5, despite firing the same bullets.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:17 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:09 pm
Posts: 1312
Location: Texas
Only a few things to say.

The Socom pistol is in .45 ACP, which is in use with the Special Forces.

I thought the standard ROF for a Thompson M1 was about 700 (or more). I've never heard of the cyclic ROF on a Thompson M1 being lower than 650 RPM.

_________________
Image
Head of Zombie Suit Manufacturing, Supplying Guns to the Mentally Stable, Lead Researcher for Weapons, Grand Requisitioner, and Master Keeper of the NZG Armoury.
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:26 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
DerMann wrote:
Only a few things to say.

The Socom pistol is in .45 ACP, which is in use with the Special Forces.
I love the HK MK 23.

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:49 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 258
baff wrote:
It isn't used because a 9mm has more stopping power.
It kills better.
Don't take my word for it


I won't, since you provide nothing to back up your assertions.

Quote:
check out which calibre your local special forces are using. These people are the experts.


Soldiers in the special forces are not experts on terminal ballistics. They don't get a chance to shoot a guy with a 9mm and then shoot a guy exactly like him in the same place with a .45. However, our special forces favor .45ACP. The Combat Pistol program(formerly the Joint Combat Pistol program) is currently attempting to find a suitable .45ACP pistol. When it was the Joint Combat Pistol program, the Army was trying to find a .45ACP replacement for the 9mm M9.

Quote:
However when it was superceded by the 9mm in Britain, the 9mm was not a cheaper round, production of it had to be started from scratch.


The initial cost of 5.56mm production would have exceeded 7.62x51 costs, yet they still adopted a ballistically inferior cartridge.

Quote:
Likewise the same must be true when 9mm was adopted by the U.S. military.


The M9 was adopted because of a Non-Developmental Initiative* that required the armed forces to standardize with NATO, which used 9mm ammunition. It was because of 9mm's availability that it was chosen.

Quote:
Recoil is weapon specific not ammunition specific.


Weapons have no recoil without ammunition. They are both part of the equation. However, all things being equal, a .45ACP cartridge has more recoil.

*:http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/f0b7e4939a6df0a08525627b007382e1?OpenDocument

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:53 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
Quote:
Quote:
However when it was superceded by the 9mm in Britain, the 9mm was not a cheaper round, production of it had to be started from scratch.


You have to think everytime our gov't hears NEW before anything they jump on it like a bee to honey. Just look at the new round they are looking to replace the 5.56 uhhh I think its 6.8grendal correct? Its expensive as hell but if the military does replace the 5.56 like THEY SHOULD then in a few years it will be very inexpensive.

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:40 pm 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:50 am
Posts: 78
Feanaro wrote:
Soldiers in the special forces are not experts on terminal ballistics. They don't get a chance to shoot a guy with a 9mm and then shoot a guy exactly like him in the same place with a .45. However, our special forces favor .45ACP. The Combat Pistol program(formerly the Joint Combat Pistol program) is currently attempting to find a suitable .45ACP pistol. When it was the Joint Combat Pistol program, the Army was trying to find a .45ACP replacement for the 9mm M9.

Despite a lot of macho talk about H&K .45's your special forces like mine still use 9mm.

I don't see them using any .45 Smg's either.



Quote:
The M9 was adopted because of a Non-Developmental Initiative* that required the armed forces to standardize with NATO, which used 9mm ammunition. It was because of 9mm's availability that it was chosen.
9mm was adopted in the U.S. military long before the Beretta was.
Uzi and Mp5 were/are standard issue. I'm willing to believe Nato standardisation was key to this decision. (Although Uzi chose to make his smg in 9mm and he wasn't in Nato. Neither are the Russians who also favour 9mm for pistols and SMG.


What difference does Nato harmonisation make? Nato chose 9mm.
Why did all the other Nato nations adopt 9mm if it was worse?
Again I refer you to the British adoption of 9mm over .45 . despite that their allies used .45. despite they also had a Thompson factory and their own army had been using .45, why did they switch?


Quote:
Weapons have no recoil without ammunition. They are both part of the equation. However, all things being equal, a .45ACP cartridge has more recoil.

All things aren't equal. All things are never equal. For all things to be equal you would have to be firing 2 identical guns.
A .45 cartridge has no recoil at all. Recoil is an effect on a gun.
A fired .45 cartridge may well deliver more kinetic energy than a 9mm cartridge but recoil has a few more factors to take into account.

N.B. A 9mm doesn't have the pentration of a .45. Despite having a lower kinetic energy than a comparble .45, the bullet can transfer a greater amount of it's energy to the target than a .45. It loses it's shape and flattens. The bullet is stopped by the body. 100% of it's kinetic energy transferred.
It has more stopping power.

Similarly a 9mm has more stopping power than a 5.56 or 7.62 (at the correct range). A 5.56 or 7.62 is more likely to pass straight through the body. Marines in Iraq complained of this as their weapons were designed to fight body armour, but the enemy wasn't wearing any.


Last edited by baff on Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:13 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:42 pm 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:50 am
Posts: 78
Bigdaddy wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
However when it was superceded by the 9mm in Britain, the 9mm was not a cheaper round, production of it had to be started from scratch.


You have to think everytime our gov't hears NEW before anything they jump on it like a bee to honey. Just look at the new round they are looking to replace the 5.56 uhhh I think its 6.8grendal correct? Its expensive as hell but if the military does replace the 5.56 like THEY SHOULD then in a few years it will be very inexpensive.

At the time when Britain changed over, they didn't have "a few years".
It was 1941, smack in the middle of WW2.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:16 pm 
A gun nerd battle of epic proportions!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:37 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:05 am
Posts: 107
Location: California
its not the gun that wins the fight, but the man behind it. wow that sounds kinda cool, i think ill make it a CoD quaote or something and sell it for millions. I MADE IT, ITS MINE. and smack dead in the middle of world war 2 would have been 1942-43 :D !!!!!!OCD!!!!!!

_________________
If you're reading this, thank a Teacher. If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:16 am 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
a wwI rifle is not inherently "worse" then modern seal weapons, just has a different purpose.

at long range, say 300m+ the czech platoon has the advantage.

of course training, and tactics are always the deciding factor.

a seal team could do something stupid and get themselves slaughtered, wont matter if the enemy are using muskets or machine guns, if you mess up the enemy will not be forgiving.




as for .45 vs 9mm, the .45 is most definately the better military round with far more stopping power.

remember this is military we're talking, the military can only use FMJ rounds, so they is not that much flattening involved.


there are currently plenty of .45 in service and the military was looking at making a .45 replacement for the beretta.

the marine special forces currently use .45 kimbers.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:12 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class

Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 258
baff wrote:
Despite a lot of macho talk about H&K .45's your special forces like mine still use 9mm.


And soon they will be using 50,000 spiffy new .45ACP pistols. I'd ask why they are purchasing pistols using an inferior round, despite the current supply of 9mm pistols and ammo, but that would be hypocritical. :P

Quote:
Although Uzi chose to make his smg in 9mm and he wasn't in Nato.


He was, however, in the business of selling firearms. He chambered it in a popular caliber for which there was a demand.

Quote:
What difference does Nato harmonisation make? Nato chose 9mm.
Why did all the other Nato nations adopt 9mm if it was worse?


Why do US police favor .40S&W over the more powerful 10mm, which came first? Why did many nations switch from their 7.62x51 rifles to 5.56mm? If cartridge effectiveness was the only consideration, we'd still be using 30-06.

Quote:
A fired .45 cartridge may well deliver more kinetic energy than a 9mm cartridge but recoil has a few more factors to take into account.


For subguns, this is true. For pistols, there aren't really many other factors. Weight and action type. Not many pistols deviate from a recoil operation method. So weight becomes the only real deciding factor.

A 9mm pistol will rarely have less recoil than a .45ACP pistol. If you want to plug the numbers for M1911 ball and M882(Specs here. If asked for a user name and pass use "manuals" and "chipin") into a recoil calculator. I'll use the one on handloads.com because you can compare two loads. We'll use 2.55 pounds for the 9mm pistol(the fully loaded weight of the M9). You would need to add .9 pounds to the .45 pistol to have the recoil velocity of the M882 round exceed that of M1911 ball. You'd have to add 2.12 pounds to the .45 pistol to get the free recoil energy under the 9mm(In both cases, I mean under 9mm by .01 fps or ft/lb).

Quote:
A 9mm doesn't have the pentration of a .45. Despite having a lower kinetic energy than a comparble .45


A standard 9mm round(M882 for example) has more KE than a standard .45ACP round(M1911). This can bed confirmed by using the numbers from the link above(one thing left off the M1911 ball specs is the weight of the bullet, which is 230 grains) with the formula KE=½*m*v^2(for the math challenged, that's half of the mass times the velocity squared).

Quote:
the bullet can transfer a greater amount of it's energy to the target than a .45.


Which then does what? The energy has to go somewhere but not necessarily in any useful way. It could be converted into heat or noise. The best experts I've ever seen energy transfer advocates trot out are two police officers who may have faked their data. They definately didn't submit it for peer review.

On the other hand we have Doctor Martin Fackler, a retired Colonel who did research on terminal ballistics for the Army Medical Corps. He has spent a lot of time and energy to prove that energy transfer/dump is bunk. He founded the International Wound Ballistics Association(unfortunately disbanded), which published a yearly review. Contributers include Douglas Lindsay(M.D, Ph.D), Carroll E. Peters(Ph.D), Ken Newgard(M.D), John B. Moore(M.D.), Michael L. Hawkins(M,D.), Edgar A. Suter(M.D.), etc. (you can view a table of their material at http://www.firearmstactical.com/wbr.htm)

There is one fellow with some merit, a Michael Courtney(Physics Professor, unsure of his degrees as he has not spoken of them, AFAIK) who posts on another gun forum. He claims to be conducting a study of damage caused by shockwaves from high velocity(for pistols) jacketed hollow points. But the study has yet to be published and he is working with JHPs.

Until I see some hard evidence, I remain highly skeptical of "energy transfer." Find me a 9mm FMJ that causes a wound larger than its diameter through energy transfer and I'll believe. Until then, it's a muddled theory without much evidence in its favor, IMO.

(I'd like to note that this bit, as well as the rest of my post, was written mostly for the benefit of parties watching this argument. I have always found that, even when I am undeniably right[and I am not implying I am in this case], it's hard to make someone admit defeat. On the other hand, you can sway the fence sitters to your side and wait for your opponets to die off. :D)

Quote:
It loses it's shape and flattens. The bullet is stopped by the body. 100% of it's kinetic energy transferred.
It has more stopping power.


Another unsupported claim delivered ex cathedra. For all that energy and stopping power, a 9mm JHP that penetrated Michael Platt's right arm and stopped just short of his heart didn't prevent him from killing two FBI agents and wounding 5 others on the 11th of April, 1986. He wasn't "stopped" by that shot and he didn't die of shock or "energy transfer." He expired because his brachial artery was severed and 1300 mililiters of blood wound up in his right lung. (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm)

Quote:
Similarly a 9mm has more stopping power than a 5.56 or 7.62 (at the correct range). A 5.56 or 7.62 is more likely to pass straight through the body.


It's been interesting but I'm afraid that I am removing my hat from the ring. On this particular argument, anyways. We both have our opinions and are firmly entrenched. Besides, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to argue with someone who thinks a fairly mild pistol cartridge has more "stopping power" than a 7.62 round.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:25 pm 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:50 am
Posts: 78
The advantage of 7.62 is it's range.
Wars are no longer fought at 600 metres across no mans lands against entrenched targets. It's had it's day.

7.62x39mm is only better than 7.62 x 51(?) because it is used for closer range on the move. Russian infantry doctrine.

I'm not really intrested in pursuing the 7.62 vs 5.56 discussion. One at a time is about as much as I am willing to keep track of, and I don't have any experience of 5.56 to personally draw upon.
I suspect the change in expected engagement range is the big factor.



Do U.S. Police favour .40? I wasn't aware they had standard firearms. I willing to believe you if you say so. I've heard U.S. police wax lyrical about the 1911 and also Beretta's. I see no reason why they shouldn't like .40s too.

As for 50,000 .45 acp. Seeing is believing. If you say they are buying 50,000 of them O.K.
I've also heard they are buying XM8 and all sorts of other stuff before. I'll wait until I see it, I prefer to eat my humble pie when it's cooked.

If as you say a 9mm has a higher KE than a .45 that's another good reason. More KE and better transference = better on two fronts.

Critical injury is always going to be a killer. Be it .22 9mm or .50.
If you severe his major artery splatter his brainstem put a hole in his heart, calibre is no longer a factor. Of course one might argue that the size of the hole increases the chance of hitting a vital organ... but I think that would be over analysing beyond my depth of understanding. When it comes down to all that gelatin suff, I really don't care to learn. I just let the experts make their choice and follow their lead.

The difference with energy transference, is not when you hit a vital organ, so much as when you miss one. Hence a 7.62 FMJ passsing straight through will do less damage than a 9mm mushrooming out and sticking in. It will also have less impact and create less shock.



The core of my argument is none of these quasi scientific refutes. I am no expert in this field, although I have read a few and these were some of the things they suggested. The core of my argument is that most professional gunmen worldwide use 9mm not .45. I am not willing to take your word for it over theirs. Even if you added all the U.S. special forces and policemen's opinions to your own, I am still unwilling to rule against the rest of the world.
.45 was an option the world decided against in favour of 9mm.

.45 is iconic and macho in a way that 9mm isn't, and that's where I think the core of it's support comes form. Old timers, macho bravadoes or kitch enthusiasts.
I feel the 7.62 vs 5.56 is rooted in the same. I was trained with 7.62. I consider 5.56 to be a girls calibre. However it was adopted in war time so it was done with the benefit of superior experience to mine. Weapons have evolved. The successful ones have been adopted, the less successful left behind.

9mm is without any doubt the most successful SMG round in history. Probably the pistol too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:03 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Houston, TX
Damn Feanaro, you know your facts man.


I have to disagree about the 9mm round being a more effective caliber than a .45

There have been countless reported cases of the 9mm round being inadequate in stopping a crazed gunman or knife wielding maniac who is high on crack.

And the proffesional gunmen that you speak of Baff, im wondering if they are proffesionals at target shooting, or match shooting..

Also, the 9mm may indeed have more penetration, but it most certainly does not have more stopping power. I know first hand, by shooting at a big piece of wood with a 9mm, and a .45. The 9mm barely moved it, whereas the .45 made it noticabley jump.


In my opinion, the reason that some people prefer the 9mm over the .45, is not due to the face that it kills better, it is becase the lighter recoil of it lets the shooter have an accurate and quick follow up shot.


And Baff, how do you figure that the 9mm has more stopping power than a 5.56 or 7.62 nato round?

_________________
Image
"Dream a little bit
This is the kush to your lighter"

The NZG Specialist, Stick Wielder, Shotgun Extraordinaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:24 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
Bigdaddy wrote:
Quote:
However when it was superceded by the 9mm in Britain, the 9mm was not a cheaper round, production of it had to be started from scratch.


You have to think everytime our gov't hears NEW before anything they jump on it like a bee to honey. Just look at the new round they are looking to replace the 5.56 uhhh I think its 6.8grendal correct? Its expensive as hell but if the military does replace the 5.56 like THEY SHOULD then in a few years it will be very inexpensive.


At the time when Britain changed over, they didn't have "a few years".
It was 1941, smack in the middle of WW2.

uhhh I was just pointing out how we were talking about how the 9mm was expensive when it first came out not if they had the time to buy it..
Quote:
baff Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject:

The advantage of 7.62 is it's range.
Wars are no longer fought at 600 metres across no mans lands against entrenched targets. It's had it's day.

7.62x39mm is only better than 7.62 x 51(?) because it is used for closer range on the move. Russian infantry doctrine.

I'm not really intrested in pursuing the 7.62 vs 5.56 discussion. One at a time is about as much as I am willing to keep track of, and I don't have any experience of 5.56 to personally draw upon.
I suspect the change in expected engagement range is the big factor.



Do U.S. Police favour .40? I wasn't aware they had standard firearms. I willing to believe you if you say so. I've heard U.S. police wax lyrical about the 1911 and also Beretta's. I see no reason why they shouldn't like .40s too.

As for 50,000 .45 acp. Seeing is believing. If you say they are buying 50,000 of them O.K.
I've also heard they are buying XM8 and all sorts of other stuff before. I'll wait until I see it, I prefer to eat my humble pie when it's cooked.

If as you say a 9mm has a higher KE than a .45 that's another good reason. More KE and better transference = better on two fronts.

Critical injury is always going to be a killer. Be it .22 9mm or .50.
If you severe his major artery splatter his brainstem put a hole in his heart, calibre is no longer a factor. Of course one might argue that the size of the hole increases the chance of hitting a vital organ... but I think that would be over analysing beyond my depth of understanding. When it comes down to all that gelatin suff, I really don't care to learn. I just let the experts make their choice and follow their lead.

The difference with energy transference, is not when you hit a vital organ, so much as when you miss one. Hence a 7.62 FMJ passsing straight through will do less damage than a 9mm mushrooming out and sticking in. It will also have less impact and create less shock.



The core of my argument is none of these quasi scientific refutes. I am no expert in this field, although I have read a few and these were some of the things they suggested. The core of my argument is that most professional gunmen worldwide use 9mm not .45. I am not willing to take your word for it over theirs. Even if you added all the U.S. special forces and policemen's opinions to your own, I am still unwilling to rule against the rest of the world.
.45 was an option the world decided against in favour of 9mm.

.45 is iconic and macho in a way that 9mm isn't, and that's where I think the core of it's support comes form. Old timers, macho bravadoes or kitch enthusiasts.
I feel the 7.62 vs 5.56 is rooted in the same. I was trained with 7.62. I consider 5.56 to be a girls calibre. However it was adopted in war time so it was done with the benefit of superior experience to mine. Weapons have evolved. The successful ones have been adopted, the less successful left behind.

9mm is without any doubt the most successful SMG round in history. Probably the pistol too.


Ok first of all what 7.62 round are you speaking on...I CANT READ YOUR MIND...7.62x39? wait that wasnt used in ww1...7.62x51? nope not used in ww1(that I know of) or do you mean 7.62x54 from the mosin nagant...which didnt see to much action because of russia giving up.

You talk about the 5.56 being a grils caliber uhhh and your praising the 9mm? I would rather have 7 shots of .45 from a 1911 and knock them all done then shooting them with a 9mm more than once because they are on drugs or just really pissed off and me have to waist more ammo on him. Oh and btw you think just because of iraq wars arent being fought from far away...think of afghanistan not all of their battles are in houses mostly in the mountains where they need a round that can effectivly take out a target.

Also about russia favoring the 9mm......if they favored it so bad why are half their smgs chambered in 7.62x25?

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:29 pm 
Let me settle this: you all get the "I know a lot about guns" medal. Everyones a winner!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:30 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Houston, TX
hardBOILED! wrote:
Let me settle this: you all get the "I know a lot about guns" medal. Everyones a winner!



Yay! :lol:

_________________
Image
"Dream a little bit
This is the kush to your lighter"

The NZG Specialist, Stick Wielder, Shotgun Extraordinaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:03 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:38 pm
Posts: 192
personally, i find o so often that if i was given an smle (short magazine lee enfield) i would be quite happy. i think bolt rifles in the right situations, especially at the longer ranges, would be quite effective. it really depends on the firer tho. i have a little thing for lee enfields ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:18 am 
Offline
Private First Class

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:47 am
Posts: 29
6.8x43 mm is based on the old .280/30 (7x43mm created in 1946 by Enfield) and the 6.5mm Grendel is based on a bullet thats also based on the .280/30 which has a greater range and armour penitration than both the 6.8mm and 6.5mm. the next NATO trials gona be very interesting. Im willing to put money on the EM2 getting a revival no matter what round wins. Lets face it if they can change the upper for the 5.56 M16 to a 6.8mm and the same for 6.5mm Grendel then doing the same for the 7mm .280/30 round isnt out of the realm of posiblilty. .280/30 is less likely to be refused by the US this time round if BAE decide to modernise the old weapons that used it also as its in the same catagory as the new rounds being developed and the .280/30 having already won the 1950 NATO trial it stands a better chance than the other rounds.

The 9mm rounds been used since 1932 in the UK because of the Navy's Lanchester Machine Carbine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:20 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:51 am
Posts: 284
Location: Mass
I'm sure that the "seals vs -insert old military" will be played out a number of times and that depending on the map, the numbers, and the players (or even the AI) will cause a different scenario to unfold.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group