Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
severedDEATHelemental
God Emperor Akhenaton

I wouldnt say its deadlier than a 7.62, but I would go as far as to say its better than most magnum rounds.

******** .22? Really? Thats the biggest slug you could give us?
Its a .22 backed up by a ******** of powder. Have you ever seen a rifle round? Even an AK round is tiny, smaller than a 9mm. Smaller than a .32 for that matter. What makes a 5.56 round so deadly is common physics. It is smaller, but it is backed up by much more powder. That means that there is more force behind it once it impacts at a higher speed. Speed magnifies the weight of the object and causes more damage. Not only that but it can also tumble after impact, making an ever larger hole. If you take round like lets say a .45 though larger, has a lower speed. A bullet like that tends to kill you by making you bleed out. A5.56 though lighter, goes at a much faster speed. That round tends to kill you by shockwave. Meaning that the round will tear through you, damaging organs, sending involuntary nerve actions and causing vessels to burst. All without even touching them physically.


Actually a 7.62mm x 39mm round is typically 8 grams while a 9mm round is typically 7.5, so the Ak round is technically bigger.

And a heavier round tends to have better energy transfer, power, and momentum, which is what results in immediate take down power and incapacitation.


A smaller object traveling quickly, like a micro meteorite has a tendency to poke holes in things rather than tear holes or transfer energy.

So you're just wrong on that part.



That didn't really...

Refute anything I said at all. O_o


Also large temporary cavity, small permanent one.

In terms of actual damage it would be small.


Plus if you noticed it over penetrated.

In any case, the consistency of the round is way off, it depends on your range (for instance it generally has better performance at 200 yards than straight out the muzzle) and this is just a youtube video, they could be using 2% gelatin instead of 20% or 10% or whatever for all I know.

First off, the entrance cavity if you actually paid attention to the video expanded a great deal. More so than what I would expect from a pistol or even a magnum round. The 5.56 has been used by just about every NATO force in just about every assault rifle old and new. Its lethality has been proved by every conflict we have been in since Vietnam. It is also more powerful than the Beretta, M1911 or any service pistol that has been used. I went into this argument already knowing the answer.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

God Emperor Akhenaton
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
Its a .22 backed up by a ******** of powder. Have you ever seen a rifle round? Even an AK round is tiny, smaller than a 9mm. Smaller than a .32 for that matter. What makes a 5.56 round so deadly is common physics. It is smaller, but it is backed up by much more powder. That means that there is more force behind it once it impacts at a higher speed. Speed magnifies the weight of the object and causes more damage. Not only that but it can also tumble after impact, making an ever larger hole. If you take round like lets say a .45 though larger, has a lower speed. A bullet like that tends to kill you by making you bleed out. A5.56 though lighter, goes at a much faster speed. That round tends to kill you by shockwave. Meaning that the round will tear through you, damaging organs, sending involuntary nerve actions and causing vessels to burst. All without even touching them physically.


Actually a 7.62mm x 39mm round is typically 8 grams while a 9mm round is typically 7.5, so the Ak round is technically bigger.

And a heavier round tends to have better energy transfer, power, and momentum, which is what results in immediate take down power and incapacitation.


A smaller object traveling quickly, like a micro meteorite has a tendency to poke holes in things rather than tear holes or transfer energy.

So you're just wrong on that part.



That didn't really...

Refute anything I said at all. O_o


Also large temporary cavity, small permanent one.

In terms of actual damage it would be small.


Plus if you noticed it over penetrated.

In any case, the consistency of the round is way off, it depends on your range (for instance it generally has better performance at 200 yards than straight out the muzzle) and this is just a youtube video, they could be using 2% gelatin instead of 20% or 10% or whatever for all I know.

First off, the entrance cavity if you actually paid attention to the video expanded a great deal. More so than what I would expect from a pistol or even a magnum round. The 5.56 has been used by just about every NATO force in just about every assault rifle old and new. Its lethality has been proved by every conflict we have been in since Vietnam. It is also more powerful than the Beretta, M1911 or any service pistol that has been used. I went into this argument already knowing the answer.


Being able to kill =/= Good at it.

A teddy bear can kill someone, that doesn't make it a good or ideal weapon.


Also the .45 ACP technically has more power, in that it dumps it's energy out faster.

The 5.56mm with it's high penetration has less power sense it's spread out over a farther area- power = work over time.


It's also good to note that, that's a .223 remington.
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
Its a .22 backed up by a ******** of powder. Have you ever seen a rifle round? Even an AK round is tiny, smaller than a 9mm. Smaller than a .32 for that matter. What makes a 5.56 round so deadly is common physics. It is smaller, but it is backed up by much more powder. That means that there is more force behind it once it impacts at a higher speed. Speed magnifies the weight of the object and causes more damage. Not only that but it can also tumble after impact, making an ever larger hole. If you take round like lets say a .45 though larger, has a lower speed. A bullet like that tends to kill you by making you bleed out. A5.56 though lighter, goes at a much faster speed. That round tends to kill you by shockwave. Meaning that the round will tear through you, damaging organs, sending involuntary nerve actions and causing vessels to burst. All without even touching them physically.


Actually a 7.62mm x 39mm round is typically 8 grams while a 9mm round is typically 7.5, so the Ak round is technically bigger.

And a heavier round tends to have better energy transfer, power, and momentum, which is what results in immediate take down power and incapacitation.


A smaller object traveling quickly, like a micro meteorite has a tendency to poke holes in things rather than tear holes or transfer energy.

So you're just wrong on that part.



That didn't really...

Refute anything I said at all. O_o


Also large temporary cavity, small permanent one.

In terms of actual damage it would be small.


Plus if you noticed it over penetrated.

In any case, the consistency of the round is way off, it depends on your range (for instance it generally has better performance at 200 yards than straight out the muzzle) and this is just a youtube video, they could be using 2% gelatin instead of 20% or 10% or whatever for all I know.

First off, the entrance cavity if you actually paid attention to the video expanded a great deal. More so than what I would expect from a pistol or even a magnum round. The 5.56 has been used by just about every NATO force in just about every assault rifle old and new. Its lethality has been proved by every conflict we have been in since Vietnam. It is also more powerful than the Beretta, M1911 or any service pistol that has been used. I went into this argument already knowing the answer.


Being able to kill =/= Good at it.

A teddy bear can kill someone, that doesn't make it a good or ideal weapon.


Also the .45 ACP technically has more power, in that it dumps it's energy out faster.

The 5.56mm with it's high penetration has less power sense it's spread out over a farther area- power = work over time.


It's also good to note that, that's a .223 remington.

The .45 is a pistol round, meaning that it is a crap round. The 5.56 is a rifle round. Not only does it have more speed, but more speed means more force going into the object. You can talk about the effectiveness of a subsonic round, but when comparing speeds, it's almost comparable between a car and a jet with the speed differences in the bullet. The .45 may leave a bigger hole, may is the keyword, but it doesn't matter when a 5.56 liquifies organs.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

God Emperor Akhenaton
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton
Suicidesoldier#1
God Emperor Akhenaton



That didn't really...

Refute anything I said at all. O_o


Also large temporary cavity, small permanent one.

In terms of actual damage it would be small.


Plus if you noticed it over penetrated.

In any case, the consistency of the round is way off, it depends on your range (for instance it generally has better performance at 200 yards than straight out the muzzle) and this is just a youtube video, they could be using 2% gelatin instead of 20% or 10% or whatever for all I know.

First off, the entrance cavity if you actually paid attention to the video expanded a great deal. More so than what I would expect from a pistol or even a magnum round. The 5.56 has been used by just about every NATO force in just about every assault rifle old and new. Its lethality has been proved by every conflict we have been in since Vietnam. It is also more powerful than the Beretta, M1911 or any service pistol that has been used. I went into this argument already knowing the answer.


Being able to kill =/= Good at it.

A teddy bear can kill someone, that doesn't make it a good or ideal weapon.


Also the .45 ACP technically has more power, in that it dumps it's energy out faster.

The 5.56mm with it's high penetration has less power sense it's spread out over a farther area- power = work over time.


It's also good to note that, that's a .223 remington.

The .45 is a pistol round, meaning that it is a crap round. The 5.56 is a rifle round. Not only does it have more speed, but more speed means more force going into the object. You can talk about the effectiveness of a subsonic round, but when comparing speeds, it's almost comparable between a car and a jet with the speed differences in the bullet. The .45 may leave a bigger hole, may is the keyword, but it doesn't matter when a 5.56 liquifies organs.


The .500 S&W is a testament to how that really isn't true. Along with the .454 Casull, more energy than a 5.56mm round.

A .44 magnum generally has more energy and power than a 5.56mm. A .357 from a 16 inch barrel generally has over 1800 joules a well.


A .45 used to be fired from a Thompson. They're pretty powerful.

The .223 and 5.56mm are notorious for having a poor effect in the whole liquifying organs regard. It generally pokes holes in things.


A small bullet traveling fast= higher PSI.

I.E. poking holes instead of staying behind.
Suicidesoldier#1
theothermanoverthere
Zion International
DlCK CATSTY
Zion International
DlCK CATSTY


I've never liked the way the Galil looks but from reading about it it sounds like a good weapon.
I do know that skeletal stocks ******** HURT!


I've only ever used one on a CZ 858/Sporter Vz 58 but it wasn't long enough to really get a feel for it so I don't really have an opinion on them.

Do you think it would be that bad with the 5.56 cartridge though?
A 5.56 should recoil harder than a 7.62x39mm so yeah it will hurt.
No the 7.62 as more recoil the the 5.56 NATO.


In theory it should have quite a bit more.

10% more energy and a bullet that's twice as heavy.
? Are you disagreeing with me?
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

The best weapon would be the one not used.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

theothermanoverthere
Suicidesoldier#1
theothermanoverthere
Zion International
DlCK CATSTY


I've only ever used one on a CZ 858/Sporter Vz 58 but it wasn't long enough to really get a feel for it so I don't really have an opinion on them.

Do you think it would be that bad with the 5.56 cartridge though?
A 5.56 should recoil harder than a 7.62x39mm so yeah it will hurt.
No the 7.62 as more recoil the the 5.56 NATO.


In theory it should have quite a bit more.

10% more energy and a bullet that's twice as heavy.
? Are you disagreeing with me?


lol no

The 5.56mm has a 4 gram round instead of 8 gram and has 1760 joules instead of 2000, like the Ak. 3nodding
Suicidesoldier#1
theothermanoverthere
Suicidesoldier#1
theothermanoverthere
Zion International
DlCK CATSTY


I've only ever used one on a CZ 858/Sporter Vz 58 but it wasn't long enough to really get a feel for it so I don't really have an opinion on them.

Do you think it would be that bad with the 5.56 cartridge though?
A 5.56 should recoil harder than a 7.62x39mm so yeah it will hurt.
No the 7.62 as more recoil the the 5.56 NATO.


In theory it should have quite a bit more.

10% more energy and a bullet that's twice as heavy.
? Are you disagreeing with me?


lol no

The 5.56mm has a 4 gram round instead of 8 gram and has 1760 joules instead of 2000, like the Ak. 3nodding
Oo ok lol. It was how you said it. Lol but yea that's why the 5.56 can but shot faster without as much clime.
Avgvsto
The best weapon would be the one not used.
Wasn't that Einstein that said that? I can't remember.
I figure you want reliability over new. I wouldn't think basic infantry needed fully automatic weapons all the time so things like the FAL could suffice and be much cheaper.
i don't think there is anything wrong with the current guns in use today. Most historically famous weapons were somtimes better than what replaced them.
Courage The Cowardly Doge's avatar

Friendly Friend

DlCK CATSTY
Zion International
Vercingetorix VII
Zion International
Vercingetorix VII
I don't have a duck in this fight, I just wanted to post this.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
I actually know the guy that posted that.


Salute him for me.
PM him yourself his Gaia username is Das Rabble Rouser.


Das Rabble Rouser is seriously Ivan Chesnokov?

emotion_jawdrop

I've seen him around the GD for years.

emotion_jawdrop emotion_jawdrop emotion_jawdrop
I just want to point this out for everyone else. I am NOT the original Chesnokov from /k/. I have the Chesnokov account here on gaia as a mule for lulz, but I did not make the original persona.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

rage4545
i don't think there is anything wrong with the current guns in use today. Most historically famous weapons were somtimes better than what replaced them.
I question why we didn't just have rows of archers in the civil war? Higher hit rate, higher firing rate by at least 10x, never kills you when it misfires.

Armor was partially what stopped people from using bows, and we didn't even have armor in the civil war. So why use guns when bows were better in every conceivable way?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

False Dichotomy
rage4545
i don't think there is anything wrong with the current guns in use today. Most historically famous weapons were somtimes better than what replaced them.
I question why we didn't just have rows of archers in the civil war? Higher hit rate, higher firing rate by at least 10x, never kills you when it misfires.

Armor was partially what stopped people from using bows, and we didn't even have armor in the civil war. So why use guns when bows were better in every conceivable way?


Harder to train with.

It can take over 20 years to get good with one and depending on the power you may have to work up your tendons, I.E. not just your muscles but that which keeps your muscles to your bone, to be able to handle that kind of stress.


Archery was considered an amazing skill even back in it's day. Compound bows can alleviate this problem somewhat but they are still hard to pull back.

Comparatively almost anyone can use a gun. It's just point and shoot.


Plus not everyone in those days were very smart; they stood in big lines after all and shot each other.

The American revolution thought about using them but they didn't really know how to make mongol esque bows, actually very few people do, even with today's technology and the internet and whatnot. In reality they just didn't know how to and it would have taken forever to train with them, and even so compound bows would have been where it was at, and even so it's take quite a bit of strength to use a powerful one.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Suicidesoldier#1
False Dichotomy
rage4545
i don't think there is anything wrong with the current guns in use today. Most historically famous weapons were somtimes better than what replaced them.
I question why we didn't just have rows of archers in the civil war? Higher hit rate, higher firing rate by at least 10x, never kills you when it misfires.

Armor was partially what stopped people from using bows, and we didn't even have armor in the civil war. So why use guns when bows were better in every conceivable way?


Harder to train with.

It can take over 20 years to get good with one and depending on the power you may have to work up your tendons, I.E. not just your muscles but that which keeps your muscles to your bone, to be able to handle that kind of stress.


Archery was considered an amazing skill even back in it's day. Compound bows can alleviate this problem somewhat but they are still hard to pull back.

Comparatively almost anyone can use a gun. It's just point and shoot.


Plus not everyone in those days were very smart; they stood in big lines after all and shot each other.

The American revolution thought about using them but they didn't really know how to make mongol esque bows, actually very few people do, even with today's technology and the internet and whatnot. In reality they just didn't know how to and it would have taken forever to train with them, and even so compound bows would have been where it was at, and even so it's take quite a bit of strength to use a powerful one.
The ranges they fought at, and the idiotic lines they stood in meant that even a novice archer could at least hit a target, even if they weren't aiming at that distinct person. And besides the guns were notoriously inaccurate, at least with bows it takes next to no time to draw back and fire. Fire more shots, hit more targets.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games