|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:13 am
the 7.62 DOES have more stopping power however, most poeple who got shot with it survived unless the wound was in a vital area. Musket balls may have been more powerful but they took forever to reload and were very inaccurate. so yes some older weapons had more stopping power but it wasn't worth trading accuracy for power
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:14 pm
hockeyboy96 the 7.62 DOES have more stopping power however, most poeple who got shot with it survived unless the wound was in a vital area. Musket balls may have been more powerful but they took forever to reload and were very inaccurate. so yes some older weapons had more stopping power but it wasn't worth trading accuracy for power And that's different from 5.56mm how, exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:46 pm
Ubasti hockeyboy96 the 7.62 DOES have more stopping power however, most poeple who got shot with it survived unless the wound was in a vital area. Musket balls may have been more powerful but they took forever to reload and were very inaccurate. so yes some older weapons had more stopping power but it wasn't worth trading accuracy for power And that's different from 5.56mm how, exactly? It transfers ******** more energy into the target. it'd be downright destructive if we weren't limited to using hardball in combat. Which is the biggest thing. Musket balls were pure lead. THey quickly expanded and put all of their energy into the target. Hardball does not expand, so it jut penetrates through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:06 pm
uryu ishida Ubasti hockeyboy96 the 7.62 DOES have more stopping power however, most poeple who got shot with it survived unless the wound was in a vital area. Musket balls may have been more powerful but they took forever to reload and were very inaccurate. so yes some older weapons had more stopping power but it wasn't worth trading accuracy for power And that's different from 5.56mm how, exactly? It transfers ******** more energy into the target. it'd be downright destructive if we weren't limited to using hardball in combat. Which is the biggest thing. Musket balls were pure lead. THey quickly expanded and put all of their energy into the target. Hardball does not expand, so it jut penetrates through. I fail to see how hollow-point rounds are any less humane than FMJs. It'll kill the target faste, and you're less likely to get overpenetration, and yet it's somehow "inhumane" to use them on a target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:22 pm
hockeyboy96 the 7.62 DOES have more stopping power Which 7.62?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:36 pm
uryu ishida Ubasti hockeyboy96 the 7.62 DOES have more stopping power however, most poeple who got shot with it survived unless the wound was in a vital area. Musket balls may have been more powerful but they took forever to reload and were very inaccurate. so yes some older weapons had more stopping power but it wasn't worth trading accuracy for power And that's different from 5.56mm how, exactly? It transfers ******** more energy into the target. it'd be downright destructive if we weren't limited to using hardball in combat. Which is the biggest thing. Musket balls were pure lead. THey quickly expanded and put all of their energy into the target. Hardball does not expand, so it jut penetrates through. There's a new 77gr match hardball that the military picked up for long-range shooting, and it's incredible. The wound profile shows the bullet pretty much EXPLODES after about an inch or two, and penetrates suprisingly deep. But because it was designed for accuracy, and not for fragmentation, it's Hague Convention legal. I forget the round designation, but it's fairly new. The army's replacing all its M885 stores with it. @Requiem: Because the doctors have to dig out all the fragments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:43 pm
Fresnel Because the doctors have to dig out all the fragments. So? This is what I hate about Hague. I respect what they are trying to do, but in war the point is to kill the enemy by the most effective means available, not to humanely euthanize them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:56 pm
Ubasti Fresnel Because the doctors have to dig out all the fragments. So? This is what I hate about Hague. I respect what they are trying to do, but in war the point is to kill the enemy by the most effective means available, not to humanely euthanize them. It was not so long ago that some military thinkers examined the costs of wounded versus dead on a battlefield and determined that milking the resources to train and supply a system of battlefield medical staff and the behind the lines resources needed to heal and treat wounded was a far more desirable outcome than killing enemy combatants outright. Dead cost little to deal with. Caring for wounded costs a lot! Thus, the 5.56mm. Making war cost too much to sustain was the hope of these military thinkers. Then the European courts got uncomfortable with this concept. I don't know where the US stands on battlefield wounded vs. battlefield kills these days. Given that we're using .50 as an anti-personel sniper weapon, I guess it's back to 'make the other b*****d die for their country".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:07 pm
Floyd Ubasti Fresnel Because the doctors have to dig out all the fragments. So? This is what I hate about Hague. I respect what they are trying to do, but in war the point is to kill the enemy by the most effective means available, not to humanely euthanize them. It was not so long ago that some military thinkers examined the costs of wounded versus dead on a battlefield and determined that milking the resources to train and supply a system of battlefield medical staff and the behind the lines resources needed to heal and treat wounded was a far more desirable outcome than killing enemy combatants outright. Dead cost little to deal with. Caring for wounded costs a lot! Thus, the 5.56mm. Making war cost too much to sustain was the hope of these military thinkers. Then the European courts got uncomfortable with this concept. I don't know where the US stands on battlefield wounded vs. battlefield kills these days. Given that we're using .50 as an anti-personel sniper weapon, I guess it's back to 'make the other b*****d die for their country". The Taliban don't care for their wounded, though. If we wound them and they get away, they often just tie off the wound, put him in a car loaded with explosives, and tell him to go kill the infidel and meet Allah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:28 pm
Shrantics Pretentious Ego hockeyboy96 the 7.62 DOES have more stopping power Which 7.62? I'm assuming this is a 5.56 vs 7.62x39 thread, IE AR vs AK thread. Flames and mortar fire incoming. Anyway, saw the Lock N Load episode, the AK blew the brick back into Brick Hell while the AR blew a neat little hole through the brick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:48 pm
Floyd Ubasti Fresnel Because the doctors have to dig out all the fragments. So? This is what I hate about Hague. I respect what they are trying to do, but in war the point is to kill the enemy by the most effective means available, not to humanely euthanize them. It was not so long ago that some military thinkers examined the costs of wounded versus dead on a battlefield and determined that milking the resources to train and supply a system of battlefield medical staff and the behind the lines resources needed to heal and treat wounded was a far more desirable outcome than killing enemy combatants outright. Dead cost little to deal with. Caring for wounded costs a lot! Thus, the 5.56mm. Making war cost too much to sustain was the hope of these military thinkers. Then the European courts got uncomfortable with this concept. I don't know where the US stands on battlefield wounded vs. battlefield kills these days. Given that we're using .50 as an anti-personel sniper weapon, I guess it's back to 'make the other b*****d die for their country". Your timeline is off. The Hague Convention was signed in 1899, and the last war we fought that it applied to ended when Hitler ate a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:05 am
Fresnel Your timeline is off. The Hague Convention was signed in 1899, and the last war we fought that it applied to ended when Hitler ate a gun. Indeed. This thinking came out of a most shocking period in US military history. Viet Nam. The b*****d who headed the DoD at this point was Robert McNamara. He controlled much of what happened in our armed forces from '61 to '68. This was the era of wounded over dead I am referring to. His was the signature that confirmed the M-16 as our standard shoulder rifle and the 5.56mm round with it. It is right to say that our enemies care little to nothing for their own losses. In Islam, it is an honor to suffer and/or die for that belief. But you can be sure they care nothing either way if they kill or wound their enemies. Either is a victory in their eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:30 am
Well, The issues were logistics and practicality. The Germans were the first to make an intermediate round because when fireing a rifle on full auto, the fourth round had you pointing at incoming aircraft because of the recoil. Less powder, less kick. They basicly shotrend there standard 8mm round by half for that, russians did the same but in 46.
The us scaled there round down till it was lil more then a glorified .22. Then they forced nato to use it.
As for the mieni ball? Its almost impossable to get that thing to move accuratly. It just too damn heavy. Hence why during the civil war the world was still shooting in massed ranks. The evolution to ww1 weapons made rifles so accurate and well, bolt action massed ranks were inpractical at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:14 am
Actually if I recall the weight of the meini ball helped it's accuracy by giving it more momentum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
