Main Military Weapon of Your Country: Mod 7

[Puzikas]

It would make one hell of a mess.
from experience.

Russia: Like a video game, but in Russian.

Now thats funny.

Surprisingly, I got that from the US

Hot damn page topper.

[Fordorsia]

Seeing as though the gas isn't propelling the shot after it leaves the shell, it can't have anywhere near the stopping power it should. Simple minded gangsters.

[San-Silvacian]

Russia: Like a video game, but in Russian.

Now thats funny.

Surprisingly, I got that from the US

Hot damn page topper.

Needs more bayonet.

[Coltarin]

So I've been looking at some things and have discovered that my 6.8x45 is about the size of a AA battery.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Never realised before just how short a trench gun's receiver was.
What witchcraft allows that?

[Nua Corda]

Never realised before just how short a trench gun's receiver was.
What witchcraft allows that?

The bolt exits the reciever;

[Fordorsia]

Never realised before just how short a trench gun's receiver was.
What witchcraft allows that?

The bolt exits the reciever;

I bet on a few occasions the bolt has literally exited the receiver and hit someones face. That reminds me of another shotgun, where the upp receiver flies backwards in a not-so-comforting manner. Can't remember it's name though.

[Sevvania]

I've seen semi-auto conversions of the Lee-Enfield, the 1917 Enfield, Mausers, and Springfields. Were there any semi-auto conversions of the Mosin-Nagant?

[Puzikas]

Never realised before just how short a trench gun's receiver was.
What witchcraft allows that?

As been said, magical bolt.

Mine is built like a god damned tank however, and with well over 2,000 rounds though it by myself the damned thing wont quit. I have had very few malfunctions with it, and it is over 100 years old.

[San-Silvacian]

Never realised before just how short a trench gun's receiver was.
What witchcraft allows that?

As been said, magical bolt.

Mine is built like a god damned tank however, and with well over 2,000 rounds though it by myself the damned thing wont quit. I have had very few malfunctions with it, and it is over 100 years old.

Trench guns run on the fuel of all the Germans they killed in WW1.

They get about one Fritz to the century.

[Alimeria-]

The bolt exits the reciever;

I bet on a few occasions the bolt has literally exited the receiver and hit someones face. That reminds me of another shotgun, where the upp receiver flies backwards in a not-so-comforting manner. Can't remember it's name though.

Sjögren Shotgun?

[Nua Corda]

And further development of the Leatherneck Tank;

[Puzikas]

Please forgive the period of time it takes me to write this.

Hydrostatic shock is the principal that a projectile (read: bullet) of a very high rate of velocity and a smaller size is more terminal on a soft target than those of the slow and heavy variety. The good 9mm vs. .45ACP debate.

I will not say if I believe it or not; and I will not say you should all immediately change to one or the other. I will let my facts dictate your minds.

In Fluid Dynamics, Shock is defined as "Referring to an abrupt discontinuity in the flow field". Lost? Stay with me. It is caused by the coalescing of sound and pressure waves in the medium.
Still with me? Good.

Now, Hydrostatic shock is based upon the observation that a penetrating projectile is able to produce unforseen wounding effects, causing wounding and incapacitating, in a live target. This is due to an effect in our liquid filled tissues, as we are, mostly, water. There is evidence that suggests hemorrhaging effects are possible, if not a common occurrence. Neurological effects can be found as well. This wounding effect is due to a pressure wave that moves though our bodies, displacing and damaging organs and soft tissue, as well as blood vessels. These findings were first reported and affirmed in the late 1940s following studies from the second world war.

If the effect exists, typically wounds away from the wound channel would be present with these fast moving, light projectile struck s live target. Sure enough, they do. A study of 30 kills in Iraq showed a projectile moving at 2,500FPS+ (760M/s+) did indeed show wounding effects away from the projectiles path.

Im sorry this isn't in depth, but I'm still working.

Edit time.

What does this mean?

This means that a large, slow-moving bullet, while dealing large amount of soft tissue damage, as well as internal damage, may NOT be as effective on a soft target. There are rounds designed to kill by what is called a "yaw", basically the deformation and traveling of said deformed bullet. In a military application, this is moot, as they were deemed unlawful (Yes, laws in war) some time ago. In a lethal area they will kill, just as well as any fat mover, but in a non-lethal? They may not incapacitate/kill as quickly as a fast-moving, small projectile.

Now, that is not to say everyone should dun out and start developing a sniper rifle in 5.56x85 or something. A large round is JUST as effective. Though in terms of a main service rifle,he who carries more ammunition is better off than he who does not. And lets not forget in many cases these smaller, faster rounds do not offer as good as armor penetration as larger, heavier rounds (See: 5.45x39 versus 7.62x39).

Any major questions? I'm bored and slightly intoxicated, so I'm sorry if this makes no sense.

[Nua Corda]

Please forgive the period of time it takes me to write this.

Hydrostatic shock is the principal that a projectile (read: bullet) of a very high rate of velocity and a smaller size is more terminal on a soft target than those of the slow and heavy variety. The good 9mm vs. .45ACP debate.

I will not say if I believe it or not; and I will not say you should all immediately change to one or the other. I will let my facts dictate your minds.

In Fluid Dynamics, Shock is defined as "Referring to an abrupt discontinuity in the flow field". Lost? Stay with me. It is caused by the coalescing of sound and pressure waves in the medium.
Still with me? Good.

Now, Hydrostatic shock is based upon the observation that a penetrating projectile is able to produce unforseen wounding effects, causing wounding and incapacitating, in a live target. This is due to an effect in our liquid filled tissues, as we are, mostly, water. There is evidence that suggests hemorrhaging effects are possible, if not a common occurrence. Neurological effects can be found as well. This wounding effect is due to a pressure wave that moves though our bodies, displacing and damaging organs and soft tissue, as well as blood vessels. These findings were first reported and affirmed in the late 1940s following studies from the second world war.

If the effect exists, typically wounds away from the wound channel would be present with these fast moving, light projectile struck s live target. Sure enough, they do. A study of 30 kills in Iraq showed a projectile moving at 2,500FPS+ (760M/s+) did indeed show wounding effects away from the projectiles path.

Im sorry this isn't in depth, but I'm still working.

Edit time.

What does this mean?

This means that a large, slow-moving bullet, while dealing large amount of soft tissue damage, as well as internal damage, may NOT be as effective on a soft target. There are rounds designed to kill by what is called a "yaw", basically the deformation and traveling of said deformed bullet. In a military application, this is moot, as they were deemed unlawful (Yes, laws in war) some time ago. In a lethal area they will kill, just as well as any fat mover, but in a non-lethal? They may not incapacitate/kill as quickly as a fast-moving, small projectile.

Now, that is not to say everyone should dun out and start developing a sniper rifle in 5.56x85 or something. A large round is JUST as effective. Though in terms of a main service rifle,he who carries more ammunition is better off than he who does not. And lets not forget in many cases these smaller, faster rounds do not offer as good as armor penetration as larger, heavier rounds (See: 5.45x39 versus 7.62x39).

Any major questions? I'm bored and slightly intoxicated, so I'm sorry if this makes no sense.

Would this apply to pistols?

If so, the 8mm Cordian would probably be more effective than the 10mm Auto, since it has all the power and base diameter, necked down to a smaller round.

[Puzikas]

The theorys first and foremost application is generally applied to pistols.

But there is something to keep in mind; if your round is too fast, it will penetrate right through and wont deliver the energy dump. If it is to small in diameter, it wont do enough damage.

[Benomia]

Please forgive the period of time it takes me to write this.

Hydrostatic shock is the principal that a projectile (read: bullet) of a very high rate of velocity and a smaller size is more terminal on a soft target than those of the slow and heavy variety. The good 9mm vs. .45ACP debate.

I will not say if I believe it or not; and I will not say you should all immediately change to one or the other. I will let my facts dictate your minds.

In Fluid Dynamics, Shock is defined as "Referring to an abrupt discontinuity in the flow field". Lost? Stay with me. It is caused by the coalescing of sound and pressure waves in the medium.
Still with me? Good.

Now, Hydrostatic shock is based upon the observation that a penetrating projectile is able to produce unforseen wounding effects, causing wounding and incapacitating, in a live target. This is due to an effect in our liquid filled tissues, as we are, mostly, water. There is evidence that suggests hemorrhaging effects are possible, if not a common occurrence. Neurological effects can be found as well. This wounding effect is due to a pressure wave that moves though our bodies, displacing and damaging organs and soft tissue, as well as blood vessels. These findings were first reported and affirmed in the late 1940s following studies from the second world war.

If the effect exists, typically wounds away from the wound channel would be present with these fast moving, light projectile struck s live target. Sure enough, they do. A study of 30 kills in Iraq showed a projectile moving at 2,500FPS+ (760M/s+) did indeed show wounding effects away from the projectiles path.

Im sorry this isn't in depth, but I'm still working.

Edit time.

What does this mean?

This means that a large, slow-moving bullet, while dealing large amount of soft tissue damage, as well as internal damage, may NOT be as effective on a soft target. There are rounds designed to kill by what is called a "yaw", basically the deformation and traveling of said deformed bullet. In a military application, this is moot, as they were deemed unlawful (Yes, laws in war) some time ago. In a lethal area they will kill, just as well as any fat mover, but in a non-lethal? They may not incapacitate/kill as quickly as a fast-moving, small projectile.

Now, that is not to say everyone should dun out and start developing a sniper rifle in 5.56x85 or something. A large round is JUST as effective. Though in terms of a main service rifle,he who carries more ammunition is better off than he who does not. And lets not forget in many cases these smaller, faster rounds do not offer as good as armor penetration as larger, heavier rounds (See: 5.45x39 versus 7.62x39).

Any major questions? I'm bored and slightly intoxicated, so I'm sorry if this makes no sense.

So a 7.8mm bullet travelling as fast as a 5.56 NATO would be the be all end all for main service rounds?

[Purpelia]

By that logic 7.62TT is better than 9mm para since they both use the same casing but TT is necked down to 7.62. I like.

Also, why is penetration considered as a bad thing? After all if a human body takes X J to penetrate and my bullet penetrated all the way through I know I delivered at least X+1 J. By comparison if it does not I know I delivered <X J. So ain't penetrating better?

[Nua Corda]

Edit time.

What does this mean?

This means that a large, slow-moving bullet, while dealing large amount of soft tissue damage, as well as internal damage, may NOT be as effective on a soft target. There are rounds designed to kill by what is called a "yaw", basically the deformation and traveling of said deformed bullet. In a military application, this is moot, as they were deemed unlawful (Yes, laws in war) some time ago. In a lethal area they will kill, just as well as any fat mover, but in a non-lethal? They may not incapacitate/kill as quickly as a fast-moving, small projectile.

Now, that is not to say everyone should dun out and start developing a sniper rifle in 5.56x85 or something. A large round is JUST as effective. Though in terms of a main service rifle,he who carries more ammunition is better off than he who does not. And lets not forget in many cases these smaller, faster rounds do not offer as good as armor penetration as larger, heavier rounds (See: 5.45x39 versus 7.62x39).

Any major questions? I'm bored and slightly intoxicated, so I'm sorry if this makes no sense.

So a 7.8mm bullet travelling as fast as a 5.56 NATO would be the be all end all for main service rounds?

No. A 7mm bullet travelling as fast or faster is the be all end all. Get above 7mm, and your ballistic coefficient starts to drop unless you compensate with more powder (and thus more recoil and round size)

[Nua Corda]

The theorys first and foremost application is generally applied to pistols.

But there is something to keep in mind; if your round is too fast, it will penetrate right through and wont deliver the energy dump. If it is to small in diameter, it wont do enough damage.

What if Terra Firma never had a ban on expanding rounds?

[The Republic of Lanos]

The theorys first and foremost application is generally applied to pistols.

But there is something to keep in mind; if your round is too fast, it will penetrate right through and wont deliver the energy dump. If it is to small in diameter, it wont do enough damage.

What if Terra Firma never had a ban on expanding rounds?

Fuck. That. Shit.

[Nua Corda]

What if Terra Firma never had a ban on expanding rounds?

Fuck. That. Shit.

There's really no reason for it, since they're no less humane than FMJ rounds.

[Purpelia]

I newer understood why anyone would ban any sort of weapon. Seriously war is about butchering the other guy. There is no point in pretending to be civil while doing it. That's about as pointless as having your officers walk out of the trenches and perform gentlemen duels while the rest of the army fights as normal.

[Puzikas]

By that logic 7.62TT is better than 9mm para since they both use the same casing but TT is necked down to 7.62. I like.

Also, why is penetration considered as a bad thing? After all if a human body takes X J to penetrate and my bullet penetrated all the way through I know I delivered at least X+1 J. By comparison if it does not I know I delivered <X J. So ain't penetrating better?

OVER penetration is not. Penetration, as per the FBI, is optimal at at least 300mm. That is what they call the minimum for a weapon suitable for service.

And truthfully, that's part of the reason some of us who study this closely consider it a theory. Though 7.62x25 is very effective, so is the 7N series of 9x19 rounds, as well as 9mm+P+. Both are really very good, though for overall in a military I would take 9x19 7N family OR an 7.62x25 load.

@Beno
You are, in a way, correct. Though the round would be very large and heavy to accommodate such effect, and may possibly over penetrate. As a result, it will live in theory for some time. And there is also ballistic coefficient, though that can be circumvented by very skilled gunsmiths and experts in aerodynamics; something none of us are, im sure.

The theorys first and foremost application is generally applied to pistols.

But there is something to keep in mind; if your round is too fast, it will penetrate right through and wont deliver the energy dump. If it is to small in diameter, it wont do enough damage.

What if Terra Firma never had a ban on expanding rounds?

Afraid it isn't feasible as small arms development would stem off in a totally new direction; and all our ideas and designs would be moot as we all raced to develop rounds made of frangable materials with rounds inside them.

Also, as someone who has seen what particular rounds do to people, I can honestly say that warfare would have reach a point where they would generally be so brutal that warfare as a whole would want to be avoided at all costs.

[Sevvania]

I newer understood why anyone would ban any sort of weapon. Seriously war is about butchering the other guy. There is no point in pretending to be civil while doing it. That's about as pointless as having your officers walk out of the trenches and perform gentlemen duels while the rest of the army fights as normal.

Because trying to maintain a degree of civility, even in war, is what seperates society from savages. People who don't try to maintain this civility are generally demonized in the end.

[Benomia]

So a 7.8mm bullet travelling as fast as a 5.56 NATO would be the be all end all for main service rounds?

No. A 7mm bullet travelling as fast or faster is the be all end all. Get above 7mm, and your ballistic coefficient starts to drop unless you compensate with more powder (and thus more recoil and round size)

Well, it is a large round and has a lot of powder.