|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:10 pm
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:06 pm
I thought this was a contest of uselessness. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:46 pm
But, in a contest of uselessness, the laser sight is really useful!
They put the laser on there for testing purposes, so you can see how accurate the weapon is, and how powerful it is. xp
Actually, I can see that pistol bayonet being pretty useful...
You see a guy, don't want to shoot him, so your like "BAM, UPPERCUT!", and them you stab him in the gut! blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:36 pm
That's what a knife is for.
And I didn't mean the laser-sight, you may notice a red-dot sight on there as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:37 pm
Yeah, it's to test the accuracy of the weapon and it's power at a range. xp As a matter of fact, they put lasers and scopes on bows and arrows and crossbows to do the same thing. And on rail guns, tanks, etc. In a useless competition, though, I think I have you beat. Link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Nope. The M16 can still kill people in modern combat, despite sucking really badly. A flintlock pistol though (especially smooth-bore versions) is another story.
At 40 feet you're absolutely safe from a smooth-bore pistol, even of modern build. In WWII the Allies air-dropped packages with small, smooth-bore pistols that were .45 caliber into countries occupied by Germany. The point was that the civilians could take one of these guns and kill a German, take his weapon, and then start rebelling. The problem wasn't that the pistols were small (less than six inches long, even), or that they were single shot, but the smooth-bore barrel. You had to be three feet away to guarantee a hit, and nearly point-blank to be sure it was fatal.
So yes. I think I have you beat in uselessness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:14 pm
Uh, the M16 that the military uses is a smooth bore weapon too.
And a flintlock pistol is probably more reliable than an M16.
Point and case, the Flintlock pistol CAN shoot, even if it's inaccurate, and it's using a heavy .45 round.
The M16 can't shoot, and it's using a lightweight .22 4 gram round. So even if you did hit someone, it wouldn't do anything "Unless your three feet away".
I wouldn't be surprised if the flintlock was using a 15 gram+ round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:08 pm
Dude, NO modern gun is smooth-bore. Do you know what smooth-bore is? It's when a gun doesn't have the rifling (basically threading inside the barrel) that makes the bullet spin and go straight. The AK-47 is fairly accurate. It has rifling. The M16 is more accurate, which obviously means it does too. Sure it lacks stopping power, but that's from a bad choice in rounds. And you have to take into consideration that the M16's 5.56 mm round is VERY high velocity, which adds its own form of stopping power in a way. It'll kill people pretty damned dead, otherwise it wouldn't have been abandoned long ago. See here what the 5.56x.223 round does to ballistic gel. 5.56 Balistic Test
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:23 am
That's if it fires xd
And penetration does not equal death.
A lot of times it over penetrates, leading to small, long holes.
What you want is hydro static shock and to liquefy the organs.
That's what results in death. xp
And, actually, the contract MOA for an M16 is "7 MOA". Although generally you can expect 3-4 MOA from an M16.
The muzzle velocity from a rifled, 20 inch long AR-15 is around 920 m/s, while it's around 948 m/s for an M16.
The Standard MOA from an Ar-15 is 2 MOA, compared to the "7 MOA" (ehh, 3-4 usually) for an M16.
Basically, a lot of M16's don't NEED rifling, to match those statistics, and to get 948 m/s from a rifled barrel you would need like a 24+ inch barrel. Too long of a barrel and the muzzle velocity will actually be lower O_o
Smooth bore equals higher velocity but lower accuracy, and seeing as how the M1 Abrams uses smoothbore, I'd say this isn't the first time the military has decided to substitute accuracy for power...
Basically, a rifled M16 is a LOT more expensive and powerful than an unrifled one.
So they don't buy them.
But I suppose they aren't technically COMPLETELY unrifled, it's just really light rifling.
Also, the rifling makes it less reliable, due to the need for "Direct Impingement".
1 MOA = 1 inch spread at 100 yards, 2 inches at 200 yards etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:41 am
And your video is about a .223, not a 5.56mm.
The .223 is generally better.
This because it can fragment, expand, etc.
Compared to a 5.56mm, which isn't allowed to fragment or expand.
The best 5.56mm round is a 5 gram "hollowpoint" flat nose boat tailed Mk. 262, but those are too expensive and generally discouraged, so their basically used by Special Forces and Snipers.
The reason the .223 is used is because it's lightweight and inexpensive, not because it's a good "killer". xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:23 pm
The round is 5.56 BY .223 milimeters. At least that's what it said. You try finding a ballistic test for the 5.56 that's exactly what you want.
Anyway, I didn't say that the 5.56 was a great round, I just said it DOES kill. Why do you think the M16 of today has a three-round burst? One bullet generally isn't enough and they don't want to wait around to see if someone is going to get back up, so they just put three into a target and move on.
But yes. I agree with you one the reliability problem. The M16 is probably as close as you can come to the opposite of reliable. I much prefer the AKM series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:35 pm
.223mm?
It would be .223 inches, so either they guy put that in wrong, you did, or it's a different round. xp
And commercial .223 rounds are typically different than NATO 5.56mm rounds, even though the caliber and bullet diameter is the same.
Actually, 7.62mm rounds and .308 Winchester are considered different rounds like the .223 and 5.56mm are considered different rounds.
The parent case of the 7.62mm and 5.56mm are actually considered the ".308 Winchester" and ".223 Remington".
This is mostly due to higher pressures, different cartridge lengths, and the use of a different bullet (5.56mm rounds for instance can't use commercial "Hunting rounds" because fragmenting and expanding are illegal in the Geneva convention. xP).
While somewhat interchangeable, they are not designed to be, and not considered "safe" to do so.
But, there are some flint lock pistols which have a reputation for low reliability, so it really depends on the flint lock and the m16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prussian Imperial Guard Crew
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:15 pm
After a while of searching, I think I've found something that beats everything in uselessness. BEHOLD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
