What is the main military weapon of your country?

[Zinaire]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, running totally biased IC "tests" does not allow you to claim a product is awesome. You can't just wank stats, give an incredibly vague explanation of how you get the stats to be so awesome, and then claim that the round has been tested and that it exceeded expectations. I love how when you get backed into a corner, you switch from your know-it-all gun fan persona to the IC "don't ask me, I'm just an ambassador" character. Stop trying to back up your fail guns with IC fappery and just accept that you've been wrong and should probably do some major redesigning.

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

You've got a fictional gun IRL? I would like to see you shoot that at the range

OOC: This is in an IC forum. Please keep in mind that this whole thing is RP, and anyone who takes anything in this thread too seriously is a douchebag.

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, running totally biased IC "tests" does not allow you to claim a product is awesome. You can't just wank stats, give an incredibly vague explanation of how you get the stats to be so awesome, and then claim that the round has been tested and that it exceeded expectations. I love how when you get backed into a corner, you switch from your know-it-all gun fan persona to the IC "don't ask me, I'm just an ambassador" character. Stop trying to back up your fail guns with IC fappery and just accept that you've been wrong and should probably do some major redesigning.

See my above post.

[Verlorenen]

Violence is a very uncreative way to solve conflict.

Unfortunately, when people start shooting at you, you can't just yell back, "That's very uncreative, you bastards!"

[Questers]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

You've got a fictional gun IRL? I would like to see you shoot that at the range

OOC: This is in an IC forum. Please keep in mind that this whole thing is RP, and anyone who takes anything in this thread too seriously is a douchebag.

Don't you think designing your own weapons/cartridges when there's a variety of IRL ones out there is serious?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

You've got a fictional gun IRL? I would like to see you shoot that at the range

OOC: This is in an IC forum. Please keep in mind that this whole thing is RP, and anyone who takes anything in this thread too seriously is a douchebag.

Don't you think designing your own weapons/cartridges when there's a variety of IRL ones out there is serious?

OOC:

Not as much as it seems to be to you. FFS, this is a game.

[Zinaire]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, running totally biased IC "tests" does not allow you to claim a product is awesome. You can't just wank stats, give an incredibly vague explanation of how you get the stats to be so awesome, and then claim that the round has been tested and that it exceeded expectations. I love how when you get backed into a corner, you switch from your know-it-all gun fan persona to the IC "don't ask me, I'm just an ambassador" character. Stop trying to back up your fail guns with IC fappery and just accept that you've been wrong and should probably do some major redesigning.

See my above post.

You honestly want to tell me that every post you make in here is IC? If so, you have major problems with keeping your character consistent. Maybe you should take a creative writing class. And yes, I am a douchebag, but that doesn't make me any less right.

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

Actually, the 7.62 is extremely stable, which is the reason it doesn't fragment often. It's not as accurate as other rounds such as the 5.56 though, because of the propellant to projectile ratio.

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, running totally biased IC "tests" does not allow you to claim a product is awesome. You can't just wank stats, give an incredibly vague explanation of how you get the stats to be so awesome, and then claim that the round has been tested and that it exceeded expectations. I love how when you get backed into a corner, you switch from your know-it-all gun fan persona to the IC "don't ask me, I'm just an ambassador" character. Stop trying to back up your fail guns with IC fappery and just accept that you've been wrong and should probably do some major redesigning.

See my above post.

You honestly want to tell me that every post you make in here is IC? If so, you have major problems with keeping your character consistent. Maybe you should take a creative writing class. And yes, I am a douchebag, but that doesn't make me any less right.

OOC: Most of my posts are.

[Questers]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

You've got a fictional gun IRL? I would like to see you shoot that at the range

OOC: This is in an IC forum. Please keep in mind that this whole thing is RP, and anyone who takes anything in this thread too seriously is a douchebag.

Don't you think designing your own weapons/cartridges when there's a variety of IRL ones out there is serious?

OOC:

Not as much as it seems to be to you. FFS, this is a game.

You can't do something totally contradictory to your own advantage under the guise of "its only a game." I don't have any problem at all of it doesn't affect other players but what you're claiming is that something you've made, which is directly contradictory, as Anglo-Saxon pointed out, gives you an IC advantage over other people. It's not about being serious, its about feasibility & fairness. Those two things are intrinsically linked in NS. If it's not contradictory, you should defend it to prove that it isn't (as you are doing now.) It's nothing to do with taking it too seriously at all.

[Zinaire]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, running totally biased IC "tests" does not allow you to claim a product is awesome. You can't just wank stats, give an incredibly vague explanation of how you get the stats to be so awesome, and then claim that the round has been tested and that it exceeded expectations. I love how when you get backed into a corner, you switch from your know-it-all gun fan persona to the IC "don't ask me, I'm just an ambassador" character. Stop trying to back up your fail guns with IC fappery and just accept that you've been wrong and should probably do some major redesigning.

See my above post.

You honestly want to tell me that every post you make in here is IC? If so, you have major problems with keeping your character consistent. Maybe you should take a creative writing class. And yes, I am a douchebag, but that doesn't make me any less right.

OOC: Most of my posts are.

The only posts that seem to be IC are the ones where you introduce new guns or claim you're just a lowly diplomat who can't answer the question. I really doubt such a diplomat would get dragged into an argument about the merits of x39 or ever say the phrase "moar rails".

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

Actually, the 7.62 is extremely stable, which is the reason it doesn't fragment often. It's not as accurate as other rounds such as the 5.56 though, because of the propellant to projectile ratio.

A ballistic coefficient basically tells you how efficiently a round travels, a high ballistic coefficient means that a round has a flatter trajectory, and retains energy longer. The ballistic coefficient of the 7.62x39mm Speer 130 gr hp is 0.263, the BC of the 5.56mm Mk262 77gr is 0.362, the 6.5mm Grendel 123gr is 0.510. So your round doesn't have a flat trajectory, compared to those two rounds, now that you make it less stable, it is going to have even worse accuracy, to the point where you are basically firing off rounds with the accuracy, and that retains the energy of of pistol rounds.

[Questers]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

Actually, the 7.62 is extremely stable, which is the reason it doesn't fragment often. It's not as accurate as other rounds such as the 5.56 though, because of the propellant to projectile ratio.

A ballistic coefficient basically tells you how efficiently a round travels, a high ballistic coefficient means that a round has a flatter trajectory, and retains energy longer. The ballistic coefficient of the 7.62x39mm Speer 130 gr hp is 0.263, the BC of the 5.56mm Mk262 77gr is 0.362, the 6.5mm Grendel 123gr is 0.510. So your round doesn't have a flat trajectory, compared to those two rounds, now that you make it less stable, it is going to have even worse accuracy, to the point where you are basically firing off rounds with the accuracy, and that retains the energy of of pistol rounds.

Do you have a source for these lists / a formula for calculation? looks interesting & I am trying to learn more about ballistics in general.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

Actually, the 7.62 is extremely stable, which is the reason it doesn't fragment often. It's not as accurate as other rounds such as the 5.56 though, because of the propellant to projectile ratio.

A ballistic coefficient basically tells you how efficiently a round travels, a high ballistic coefficient means that a round has a flatter trajectory, and retains energy longer. The ballistic coefficient of the 7.62x39mm Speer 130 gr hp is 0.263, the BC of the 5.56mm Mk262 77gr is 0.362, the 6.5mm Grendel 123gr is 0.510. So your round doesn't have a flat trajectory, compared to those two rounds, now that you make it less stable, it is going to have even worse accuracy, to the point where you are basically firing off rounds with the accuracy, and that retains the energy of of pistol rounds.

Do you have a source for these lists / a formula for calculation? looks interesting & I am trying to learn more about ballistics in general.

The last two are for the 6.5 Grendel's site http://www.65grendel.com/ (probably very biased), the first is from http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/inde ... 64654.html .

These may, or may not have been accurate, they were the only sources I could find.

[Questers]

These may, or may not have been accurate, they were the only sources I could find.

I see. According to this, .30-06 180gr spitzer has a BC of .474, so I imagine my 190gr .30-06 probably has a similar BC. Not bad, I think.

[The Ularn]

And yes, I am a douchebag, but that doesn't make me any less right.

Sigged!:lol:

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

These may, or may not have been accurate, they were the only sources I could find.

I see. According to this, .30-06 180gr spitzer has a BC of .474, so I imagine my 190gr .30-06 probably has a similar BC. Not bad, I think.

This site calculates the ballistic coefficient of a round, all you have to do is put in the stats.

[Crookfur]

These may, or may not have been accurate, they were the only sources I could find.

I see. According to this, .30-06 180gr spitzer has a BC of .474, so I imagine my 190gr .30-06 probably has a similar BC. Not bad, I think.

Questers:

Tony Williams does have a very nice article explaining ballistics and some nice quick calcualtions for estimating the BC. I've pimped the article before and I will continue to do so:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm

[Nyelon]

A dart gun.... darts filled with cobra venom, however some are filled with taipan venom

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, running totally biased IC "tests" does not allow you to claim a product is awesome. You can't just wank stats, give an incredibly vague explanation of how you get the stats to be so awesome, and then claim that the round has been tested and that it exceeded expectations. I love how when you get backed into a corner, you switch from your know-it-all gun fan persona to the IC "don't ask me, I'm just an ambassador" character. Stop trying to back up your fail guns with IC fappery and just accept that you've been wrong and should probably do some major redesigning.

See my above post.

You honestly want to tell me that every post you make in here is IC? If so, you have major problems with keeping your character consistent. Maybe you should take a creative writing class. And yes, I am a douchebag, but that doesn't make me any less right.

OOC: Most of my posts are.

The only posts that seem to be IC are the ones where you introduce new guns or claim you're just a lowly diplomat who can't answer the question. I really doubt such a diplomat would get dragged into an argument about the merits of x39 or ever say the phrase "moar rails".

OOC: Actually, that is IC. I RP that the UAWC is informal and comical with foreign affairs.

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

Actually, the 7.62 is extremely stable, which is the reason it doesn't fragment often. It's not as accurate as other rounds such as the 5.56 though, because of the propellant to projectile ratio.

A ballistic coefficient basically tells you how efficiently a round travels, a high ballistic coefficient means that a round has a flatter trajectory, and retains energy longer. The ballistic coefficient of the 7.62x39mm Speer 130 gr hp is 0.263, the BC of the 5.56mm Mk262 77gr is 0.362, the 6.5mm Grendel 123gr is 0.510. So your round doesn't have a flat trajectory, compared to those two rounds, now that you make it less stable, it is going to have even worse accuracy, to the point where you are basically firing off rounds with the accuracy, and that retains the energy of of pistol rounds.

By "stable" I was specifically referring to the bullet and how it reacts to impact.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

Actually, the 7.62 is extremely stable, which is the reason it doesn't fragment often. It's not as accurate as other rounds such as the 5.56 though, because of the propellant to projectile ratio.

A ballistic coefficient basically tells you how efficiently a round travels, a high ballistic coefficient means that a round has a flatter trajectory, and retains energy longer. The ballistic coefficient of the 7.62x39mm Speer 130 gr hp is 0.263, the BC of the 5.56mm Mk262 77gr is 0.362, the 6.5mm Grendel 123gr is 0.510. So your round doesn't have a flat trajectory, compared to those two rounds, now that you make it less stable, it is going to have even worse accuracy, to the point where you are basically firing off rounds with the accuracy, and that retains the energy of of pistol rounds.

By "stable" I was specifically referring to the bullet and how it reacts to impact.

How the bullet reacts after impact has absolutely no effect on how it travels, during flight your round will pretty much tumble through the air, and hit the ground after traveling 100 meters (of course this is an exaggeration, but the point is if you try too hard to make your round fragment after impact, you will cause it to be less stable in flight) if you want to increase lethality so much, just make a soft point, or hollow point bullet.

[Uawc]

You're welcome to visit and see for yourself if you'd like. I've got a CAAW-9 PDW which fires it and it does pretty well. Come of one of our shooting ranges, 7.62C is the most commonly used round here.

Okay, how can you have a round that is already unstable (the 7.62x39mm round), that is made more unstable in order to make it fragment (give it a deep cannelure for example), and yet somehow it is accurate?

Actually, the 7.62 is extremely stable, which is the reason it doesn't fragment often. It's not as accurate as other rounds such as the 5.56 though, because of the propellant to projectile ratio.

A ballistic coefficient basically tells you how efficiently a round travels, a high ballistic coefficient means that a round has a flatter trajectory, and retains energy longer. The ballistic coefficient of the 7.62x39mm Speer 130 gr hp is 0.263, the BC of the 5.56mm Mk262 77gr is 0.362, the 6.5mm Grendel 123gr is 0.510. So your round doesn't have a flat trajectory, compared to those two rounds, now that you make it less stable, it is going to have even worse accuracy, to the point where you are basically firing off rounds with the accuracy, and that retains the energy of of pistol rounds.

By "stable" I was specifically referring to the bullet and how it reacts to impact.

How the bullet reacts after impact has absolutely no effect on how it travels, during flight your round will pretty much tumble through the air, and hit the ground after traveling 100 meters (of course this is an exaggeration, but the point is if you try too hard to make your round fragment after impact, you will cause it to be less stable in flight) if you want to increase lethality so much, just make a soft point, or hollow point bullet.

We have versions of both, but they aren't as good at penetration of armor and obstacles.

[Fatatatutti]

We have versions of both, but they aren't as good at penetration of armor and obstacles.

So you have one version that can't hit the target and one version that can't penetrate it?