Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Triplebaconation]

It's not that it will be perfectly consistent, only that it will be more consistent. As gravity is exponential, as in it provides constant acceleration and not just a static speed, as an object falls, it will continue to fall faster, until it reaches terminal velocity due to air resistance. It's not that it will be the same in between range increments, it's that it will be closer in drop between range increments.

I think I see what gave everyone so much trouble. Your "not flatter, more consistent!" trajectory is actually the very definition of "flatter."

The basic gist of it is this; there are known knowns, unknown unknowns, and also known unknowns, things we know we don't know. I think the focus needs to shift back to the known unknowns so we can try to know what we don't know instead of grasping at straws with the complete unknowns. You know?

Or maybe you should learn to write clearly, concisely, and consistently before you start insulting other people's reading comprehension?

[Puzikas]

Is that a fucking Boondocks reference?

[Manokan Republic]

So something I've been thinking about a lot recently is essentially an "electric flare" to replace a flash-bang, basically a reusable flashbang using lightbulbs of some kind and a noise emitting speaker to deafen and blind people instead of an explosive. While it may be less effective in some ways depending on how bright the light and how loud the noise is, it would be reusable, and be able to pulse on and off for several seconds, and allow you to more effectively clear rooms with less equipment, as you could pick it up and reuse it after every use, assuming it turns off. You could control the brightness and sound levels, which would be useful for many reasons, as well as how long it pulses for, which would make it safer as you could more easily temporarily blind and deafen someone without it having to be quite as powerful to make the effect last several seconds, with one big boom. An idea as well might to be able fire it off like a rifle grenade, such as in to a building, and then for several minutes, until it runs out of power, blind everyone in the building or at least on the same floor, and make them much easier to defeat. While an extremely bright flair could do this as well, at least for the blinding element, I like the idea of a flashbang grenade that can be used over and over again in different rooms, so you aren't consuming a half a pound several hundred dollar piece of equipment every time you want to clear a new room. So reusable and longer lasting, as well as more controllable, and only needing to be recharged after a couple of minutes, or potentially even hours of use, depending on how powerful it would be.

I've seen some floodlights in my time that were extremely bright, and deliberately designed in a way not to be blinding, which of course would be removed in such a device. With some kind of special lense or camera that you could look through, you yourself might not be blinded, and with hearing protection that did the same, you could design it so you could effectively walk through the blinding light and deafening noise only barely being effected by it, and defeat a completely incapacitated enemy. How this would be exactly designed I'm not sure, but I do like the idea of a reusable electronic flashbang, and there are similiar things out there that already exist, but don't seem to be as powerful as ordinary flash bangs. I know that "light grenades" are already a thing, but if designed to be as effective as a chemical flashbang, and very durable so it can be thrown around a lot without breaking, I think there's some real potential for it.

1) Good luck getting enough power into a throw able device to create blinding light and deafening noise. Either or would be hard enough.

2) You generally require rather large bulbs and reflectors to create enough light to really be blinding outside of dark circumstances. I don't think you could fit large enough bulbs, that can resist being thrown. Plus reflectors focus the light while you would want it to be omni directional.

3) Speakers are going to be a real basically impossible, as to create any noise that would be deafening they would have to be very large. Plus again speakers are rather directional instead of being omni directional, like you would want a flash bang to be.

4) Where are you going to put controls and recharging port? That would just create a gap in the light/sound coverage.

End result is that this probably wouldn't create anywhere near the effects of a true flash bang, while probably costing much more.*

*If you can really even make it

These are all the fundamental problems with such a design. As for a power source, a lithium polymer battery or a fuel cell of some kind are usually your best bets. Ideally it would be rechargeable with a battery, for obvious reasons, by a fuel cell design is not implausible, especially if it uses something like methanol, which has half the power of hydrogen but is a liquid so it stores easier. The biggest problem would likely be heat dissipation, but a simple aluminum body shaped like a heat sink can likely handle a lot of that.

The real question comes down to mechanics. A flashbang typically produces a flash of light of around 7 million candela (cd) and a loud "bang" of greater than 170 decibels (dB). I don't believe necessarily that an electronic one would need to be nearly as bright, as it could be continuous and thus doesn't need to cause the 5 second blinding effect from a single blast, but nonetheless, what would it take to achieve this? There's a few method; creating speakers which can produce 160+ decibels would be hard, but other things can do this, for example a jackhammer. Taking something that makes a ton of noise, such as a certain type of metal and just having it bang together really loudly could produce a lot of noise for a lot lower energy level, sort of eliminating that problem. A live rockband or even high end headphones can get up to 140 decibels though, which is pretty irritating especially over a long period of time, so I think it's more plausible that even with a speaker this is possible. Although not explicitly electrical, an oxygen torch will produce 120 decibels and make blinding light, as will other torches, and a plasma generator also makes a lot of noise and a bright light. Lightning bolts are essentially plasma, and plasma producing devices tend to be extremely loud and bright, so that's one particular option, as opposed to trying to make a light bulb filament capable of doing this. An existing example of such a weapon that produces 130 decibels and a fairly bright flashing strobe light exists and was designed by the DEA, but it's still under the desired levels, used more for distraction or marking than as a true flashbang weapon, albeit this would still be useful for a number of reasons, and it paired with something like tear gas.

In the case of candela vs. lumen, lumen is how much light covers a wide area, vs. candela which is total brightness in general and not over a wide area. A lamp will produce a lot more lumen given the continous light and wider area of effect than a brief pulse of bright light, so in the end you don't need to reach as high a candela level to be sufficiently blinding. Within this vein, 300 lumens is typically sufficient to be blinding, and anything over that is more than sufficient. You don't need the light to go in every direction equally, as it will still be blinding even if not 100% of the surface of the device is covered. 80-90% would be sufficient. There are a number of self defense flashlights that can easily reach these levels, so basically having the same type of flashlight but pointing in every direction would be sufficient to replicate this effect, and as these flashlights can last for several hours, gives us the sufficient power we need.

According to wikipedia, you can produce around 200 lumens per watt with LED's, which is quite a lot actually. "Experimental white LEDs have been demonstrated to produce 303 lumens per watt of electricity (lm/w); some can last up to 100,000 hours.[71][72] However, commercially available LEDs have an efficiency of up to 223 lm/w.[73][74][75] Compared to incandescent bulbs, this is not only a huge increase in electrical efficiency but – over time – a similar or lower cost per bulb". 1 Watt is essentially 1 joule per second, so if we are assuming the calculation already takes in to account ineffiencies, then something akin to lithium ion, which has about .5 to 1 megajoule per kilogram of energy density, would be able to store easily 50,000 joules in 50 grams, which if you wanted to consume 5 watts of energy a second (which is redunant, but) for 1000 lumens, would give you something like 10,000 seconds, or 2.8 hours of power. This seems fairly easily doable, with your only main goal to be to have the light point in every direction, which is doable with a reflecter, LED's in every direction, or lights which move around. However, this would only be effective at close range and not be particularly blinding. Something close to the levels of a flare would be 40,000 lumens, which would be extremely blinding especially given that the light would travel a longer distance if focused like a beam in many flashlights (although ideally focused as a beam, in many directions). So, at 200 watts a second for 40,000 lumens, you would get about 4 minutes of power. This is still practical, and would likely be extremely blinding, although the candela would still be quite low.

The other option is a plasma arcing device, which can be quite loud and bright if you've ever seen something like a tesla coil, but, as they try hard not to make them super bright and loud, I can't really find that many good figures for use as a flashbang. Apparently they're hard to hear by humans when they're really powerful, although that doesn't really explain thunder. The other, other alternative is that the flashbang propellant of an M84 flashbang is itself only about 4.5 grams, so in theory, you could have it go off like every 5 seconds simply by having 100 grams of the stuff, given that it doesn't need that much fuel to work. The canister it's housed in itself is quite heavy and it uses an aluminum container to make the loud boom but, this likely can be overcome in various ways; nonetheless, with that small amount of fuel, I'm guessing you could extend the time frame of which such a weapon works. Flash powder, like used in old timey cameras was electrically activated, and that could be the case in a flashbang setting off multiple explosive propellants.

[Manokan Republic]

It's not that it will be perfectly consistent, only that it will be more consistent. As gravity is exponential, as in it provides constant acceleration and not just a static speed, as an object falls, it will continue to fall faster, until it reaches terminal velocity due to air resistance. It's not that it will be the same in between range increments, it's that it will be closer in drop between range increments.

I think I see what gave everyone so much trouble. Your "not flatter, more consistent!" trajectory is actually the very definition of "flatter."

The basic gist of it is this; there are known knowns, unknown unknowns, and also known unknowns, things we know we don't know. I think the focus needs to shift back to the known unknowns so we can try to know what we don't know instead of grasping at straws with the complete unknowns. You know?

Or maybe you should learn to write clearly, concisely, and consistently before you start insulting other people's reading comprehension?

It's a matter of the beholder what they perceive my point to be, but more consistent doesn't mean perfectly consistent between range increments. There's an obvious difference in more consistent and perfectly consistent. I know that gravity won't allow the drop to be perfectly consistent in between range increments, but flatter is not the same as, completely flat. Every time I would explain my point you would go too far the other way, jumping to a really extreme conclusion that I never actually said, or focus really highly one little element of what I said rather than reading in between the lines and just inferring what I meant. There's a lot to be learned by not taking the least charitable interpretation of what someone says every single time.

Also the second part is a uh, well a joke to try to defuse the tension, which obviously had the opposite effect. It would sort of in reference to how pedantic everything had become.

[Manokan Republic]

Also, in the middle of a "dynamic" operation do you really want to have stop to scramble around the floor looking for a device?

Yeah I think it would be fine. You carry around like 4-5, about as much is used in a normal room-clearing operation, and pick it all up at the end, or if you have time for it. Ideally each thing would only be a little bit more expensive than a normal flashbang grenade which is a few hundred dollars, so if you end up leaving it behind, it's not the end of the world. Being able to reuse doesn't mean you have to, and I'm sure there's situations where they would get broken or damaged over time, which would be an element of the design. For not a whole lot higher price, like a couple of really high powered LED's and a noise maker of some kind, it would be able to temporarily blind the enemy. There's a few designs out there that aren't perfect but look promising, such as one apparently developed for the DEA.

[Manokan Republic]

Is that a fucking Boondocks reference?

I prefer Donald Rumsfeld, but yeah.

[Triplebaconation]

It's a matter of the beholder what they perceive my point to be, but more consistent doesn't mean perfectly consistent between range increments. There's an obvious difference in more consistent and perfectly consistent. I know that gravity won't allow the drop to be perfectly consistent in between range increments, but flatter is not the same as, completely flat. Every time I would explain my point you would go too far the other way, jumping to a really extreme conclusion that I never actually said, or focus really highly one little element of what I said rather than reading in between the lines and just inferring what I meant. There's a lot to be learned by not taking the least charitable interpretation of what someone says every single time.

It's not the reader's job to infer what you mean. It's your job to convey your meaning in a manner that's easily understandable, not go off at tangents of hundreds of words worth of irrelevant factoids or needless repetition and rephrasing. Now that you've done so, if you graph it out (or even think about it for a moment) it will be clear a faster projectile will have a flatter or "more consistent" trajectory.

Your advice is especially rich after "There's an obvious difference in more consistent and perfectly consistent," which is incredibly pedantic. Why didn't you just read between the lines?

Now I will attempt to do the impossible and reply to two posts with just one of my own!

The primary disadvantage of conventional flash-bangs is that they're dangerous. They can injure people with blast and start fires. Cost isn't a huge issue since they're relatively cheap anyway (much less than a "few hundred dollars"), though a reusable flash-bang simulator is nice for training.

There are a few reusable flash-bangs out there already. One type uses LEDs to produce a series of flashes and CO2 cartridges with a bursting diaphragm for noise. Due to the magic of capacitors, a simple flashlight battery is sufficient and no exotic power technology is required.

Another type generates flash and noise by dispersing aluminum powder with inert gas. The fuel-air explosion produces less overpressure than a conventional flash-bang and the aluminum cools quickly to ambient temperatures so the risk of fire is greatly reduced. After use the powder can be refilled.

On a related note, a blinking LED that shows a flash-bang is armed can increase its effectiveness, since people will tend to instinctively look at it.

[Manokan Republic]

It's a matter of the beholder what they perceive my point to be, but more consistent doesn't mean perfectly consistent between range increments. There's an obvious difference in more consistent and perfectly consistent. I know that gravity won't allow the drop to be perfectly consistent in between range increments, but flatter is not the same as, completely flat. Every time I would explain my point you would go too far the other way, jumping to a really extreme conclusion that I never actually said, or focus really highly one little element of what I said rather than reading in between the lines and just inferring what I meant. There's a lot to be learned by not taking the least charitable interpretation of what someone says every single time.

It's not the reader's job to infer what you mean. It's your job to convey your meaning in a manner that's easily understandable, not go off at tangents of hundreds of words worth of irrelevant factoids or needless repetition and rephrasing. Now that you've done so, if you graph it out (or even think about it for a moment) it will be clear a faster projectile will have a flatter or "more consistent" trajectory.

Your advice is especially rich after "There's an obvious difference in more consistent and perfectly consistent," which is incredibly pedantic. Why didn't you just read between the lines?

You can't seem to help equivocating things, and my point was never about the trajectory's relative curve to another projectile, but it's curve relative to itself. There is less change in how much the bullet drops at each range interval, and not the ballistic trajectory itself. This is generally what people mean by a flat trajectory, as in the trajectory itself changes less, not in comparison to another trajectory. It would be like saying the 5.56mm has a curved trajectory in comparison to an M1 abrams round or 25mm chaingun, or the M1 abrams trajectory is curved in comparison to a NASA space shuttle which goes all the way in to space and doesn't curve at all. It's not in reference to another projectile, it's in reference to itself. These are common terms that are widely used in the gun world, and it's sort of obvious. It was an offhand remark about something I said in a broader post about my preferences on the .45, and you've taken it and extrapolated it in to something else entirely.

Rather than getting angry at someone because you didn't understand what they said and insist they mean something else, you could just tone it down a bit.

Now I will attempt to do the impossible and reply to two posts with just one of my own!

The primary disadvantage of conventional flash-bangs is that they're dangerous. They can injure people with blast and start fires. Cost isn't a huge issue since they're relatively cheap anyway (much less than a "few hundred dollars"), though a reusable flash-bang simulator is nice for training.

There are a few reusable flash-bangs out there already. One type uses LEDs to produce a series of flashes and CO2 cartridges with a bursting diaphragm for noise. Due to the magic of capacitors, a simple flashlight battery is sufficient and no exotic power technology is required.

Another type generates flash and noise by dispersing aluminum powder with inert gas. The fuel-air explosion produces less overpressure than a conventional flash-bang and the aluminum cools quickly to ambient temperatures so the risk of fire is greatly reduced. After use the powder can be refilled.

On a related note, a blinking LED that shows a flash-bang is armed can increase its effectiveness, since people will tend to instinctively look at it.

There are already a few one's out there, although not quite as bright as flashbangs, but I think sufficient given that it has a longer continuous pulse instead of a sudden one, so you don't necessarily need to cause a person's ear's to ring or eyes to be temporarily photobleached to deafen or blind them, lowering the threshold quite a bit. It would work better indoors or at night of course, but would also be safer as it would be below certain thresholds, like under 150 decibels to avoid ear drum rupturing, while still being annoying enough to make it hard to tell what is going on. Strobing lights also tend to be more likely to stun people, and some less-lethal weapons already attempt to do this, although the effect of strobing lights works better on some than others, just like how some people have seizures and other's don't. Nonetheless it's a neat idea to lengthen the effectiveness of the weapon and make it reusable which, ideally saves on weight, as instead of needing 4-8 flashbangs to clear a building, and needing many more for more and more buildings, instead you can reuse the handful you have. Another advantage is that you aren't afraid to use it since you won't exactly run out, so you can use it before every single room clearing operation with no obvious drawbacks or strain on resources. It would be like a door breaching tool as opposed to door breaching shotgun rounds, so you would never run out of ammunition for the job.

[Spirit of Hope]

It's not the reader's job to infer what you mean. It's your job to convey your meaning in a manner that's easily understandable, not go off at tangents of hundreds of words worth of irrelevant factoids or needless repetition and rephrasing. Now that you've done so, if you graph it out (or even think about it for a moment) it will be clear a faster projectile will have a flatter or "more consistent" trajectory.

Your advice is especially rich after "There's an obvious difference in more consistent and perfectly consistent," which is incredibly pedantic. Why didn't you just read between the lines?

You can't seem to help equivocating things, and my point was never about the trajectory's relative curve to another projectile, but it's curve relative to itself. There is less change in how much the bullet drops at each range interval, and not the ballistic trajectory itself. This is generally what people mean by a flat trajectory, as in the trajectory itself changes less, not in comparison to another trajectory. It would be like saying the 5.56mm has a curved trajectory in comparison to an M1 abrams round or 25mm chaingun, or the M1 abrams trajectory is curved in comparison to a NASA space shuttle which goes all the way in to space and doesn't curve at all. It's not in reference to another projectile, it's in reference to itself. These are common terms that are widely used in the gun world, and it's sort of obvious. It was an offhand remark about something I said in a broader post about my preferences on the .45, and you've taken it and extrapolated it in to something else entirely.

Rather than getting angry at someone because you didn't understand what they said and insist they mean something else, you could just tone it down a bit.

Except that is still wrong.

You posted a nice little calculation of bullet drop, we shall use this. Specifically we will compare 9mm and .45 in this. Why? Both are pistol cartridges sighted at 50 meters.

To begin with, what is the change in elevation every 25 meters after the target in MOA?

9mm meters past target:
25: 2.00 MOA
50: 4.71 MOA
75: 7.81 MOA
100: 11.22 MOA
125: 14.88 MOA
150: 18.78 MOA
175: 22.88 MOA

.45 meters passed target
25: 5.64 MOA
50: 11.96 MOA
75: 18.67 MOA
100: 25.66 MOA
125: 32.91 MOA
150: 40.38 MOA
175: 48.08 MOA

This tells us that the 9mm drops less than the .45. This is not a surprise, it is what we were expecting. If we take the difference between the range intervals it will tell us the change in drop, i.e. which cartridge has more change in how much the bullet drops between each interval

Now lets crunch some numbers:

9mm change
2.71 change in MOA
3.1 change in MOA
3.41 change in MOA
3.66 change in MOA
3.9 change in MOA
4.1 change in MOA

.45 change
6.32 change in MOA
6.71 change in MOA
6.99 change in MOA
7.25 change in MOA
7.47 change in MOA
7.7 change in MOA

So what have we learned? 9mm has less change in how much the bullet drops between range intervals. A better way of doing this would have been to pull out that calculus and do an integral, but that is way to much work, and it is way to late for calculus.
Edit: meant derive, not integrate. A derivative would give us the slope, the integral gives us nothing useful. A reminder to not calculus when tired.
EDIT 2: Just looked back on my numbers, and decided to do another test, see what the range is for each calibers change in drop. Both it turns out have nearly identical ranges of 1.4 MOA.

[Triplebaconation]

You can't seem to help equivocating things, and my point was never about the trajectory's relative curve to another projectile, but it's curve relative to itself. There is less change in how much the bullet drops at each range interval, and not the ballistic trajectory itself. This is generally what people mean by a flat trajectory, as in the trajectory itself changes less, not in comparison to another trajectory. It would be like saying the 5.56mm has a curved trajectory in comparison to an M1 abrams round or 25mm chaingun, or the M1 abrams trajectory is curved in comparison to a NASA space shuttle which goes all the way in to space and doesn't curve at all. It's not in reference to another projectile, it's in reference to itself. These are common terms that are widely used in the gun world, and it's sort of obvious. It was an offhand remark about something I said in a broader post about my preferences on the .45, and you've taken it and extrapolated it in to something else entirely.

Your point was never about the "trajectory's curve relative to another projectile?" It's Monday night and I don't have anything better to do.

How did this all start? You maintained the .45 ACP had better range than the 9mm. Why? "It's easier to hit the target since the trajectory is flatter."

This was obviously wrong in any conventional sense, so it quickly became "the bullet drop is more consistent." In explaining this you mentioned paper airplanes and various types of 5.56mm ammunition. "The bullet drop is higher, but more consistent, although in the case of the 5.56mm is still longer range than a .45, where as in comparison to a 9mm, this is less of the case." You also stated heavier objects have "a more consistent, albeit it greater drop."

"None of this translates to "flatter," answered Sevvania. "It does, a more consistent trajectory is flatter and less curved," you replied.

After this point, your clearest definition of "consistent trajectory" emerged.

"Also I'm explaining what I mean by flatter trajectory, which is a more consistent drop, less loss in velocity. It's relative to itself, and not to a higher velocity round. A "flat" trajectory refers to, a consistent trajectory pattern, as opposed to one that shifts abruptly, like many high velocity rounds."

Note that in although this "consistent trajectory" is "relative to itself, and not to a higher velocity round, it's also "opposed to one that shifts abruptly, like many high velocity rounds."

Now, your "point was never about the trajectory's relative curve to another projectile, but it's curve relative to itself," and "it's not in reference to another projectile, it's in reference to itself," though in fact the entire conversation was about comparing the .45 ACP to the 9mm, and your opinion that a "more consistent trajectory" was a desirable trait that gave the .45 ACP an advantage.

"There is less change in how much the bullet drops at each range interval, and not the ballistic trajectory itself," even though "how much the bullet drops at each range interval" is literally "the ballistic trajectory itself."

Equivocation, by the way, means using ambiguous language to avoid committing yourself to a position that may be wrong. Only one person is equivocating here. You're using "consistent" in a completely ambiguous way that can mean anything.

The reader is now left to imagine a curve that's more consistent (i.e., "flatter and less-curved") in reference to itself.

Nobody is pretending not to understand you. You're Time Cube at this point, only with more self-contradiction.

[Sevvania]

It's Monday night and I don't have anything better to do.

You're doing God's work.

[Triplebaconation]

Anyway, here's what a "consistent trajectory" really means. It's one that varies little from shot to shot. A consistent trajectory is one with little vertical dispersion.

The primary cause of vertical dispersion is variations in muzzle velocity, unavoidable even in the highest quality ammunition. High velocity rounds with actual flatter trajectories are less sensitive to variations in muzzle velocity. Snipers and marksmen use high-BC bullets because they maintain higher velocity (and a flatter trajectory) at longer ranges, not because slower bullets have less aerodynamic drag. Of course they do, but it's easy to see why this doesn't matter - the drag force is constantly decreasing! They do not maintain this higher velocity because they have low muzzle velocity. A high-BC cartridge with higher velocity would be even better! This may not be practical, however.

Again, it's the ballistic coefficient and not the overall mass of the projectile that matters for long-range accuracy. This is why long and skinny bullets like the 6.5 Creedmoor are better than something like normal .308 loads for long range shooting despite being lighter. They have higher sectional density.

At typical pistol ranges, none of this matters. At longer ranges, an 800-900 fps muzzle velocity is not an advantage. At all.

Furthermore, even in combat (or hunting) at 300-400 yards, most misses in the vertical plane are caused by range estimation errors. A higher velocity and flatter trajectory reduce the effects of these errors.

Low velocity and a steep trajectory are in no way an advantage for any direct-fire weapon. At best they're unavoidable side effects of some other positive attribute.

[Gallia-]

we all know the best pistol is vp70 anyway rly

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

we all know the best pistol is vp70 anyway rly

Yeah, but 9mm is for normies and three round burst on pistols is not the best idea.

[Gallia-]

an automatic pistol is quite useful for trashy europeans who dont have real subguns and army truck drivers who can't fit them

if youre worried about 9mm just use the lamer cousin 6.5mm CBJ

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Just start handing out MP9's in 9 mm to absolutely everybody who doesn't need or want to carry an FN FAL. <.< >.>

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

an automatic pistol is quite useful for trashy europeans who dont have real subguns and army truck drivers who can't fit them

if youre worried about 9mm just use the lamer cousin 6.5mm CBJ

What is the problem with 6.5 CBJ? I don't know anything about it

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

an automatic pistol is quite useful for trashy europeans who dont have real subguns and army truck drivers who can't fit them

if youre worried about 9mm just use the lamer cousin 6.5mm CBJ

What is the problem with 6.5 CBJ? I don't know anything about it

It's a meme round + weapons platform that wants to replace everything, from infantry rifles to machine guns, and in an attempt to prove this the manufacturers went and shot up a few shitty MT-LB side armour plates with their rounds and soft-lead 5.56/7.62 NATO to compare.

[Kazarogkai]

we all know the best pistol is vp70 anyway rly

Yeah i'm just going to stick with my .25 cal pistol cartridge shameless early 1900s replica of the 5.7mm and go from there. My inane and utterly in explainable hatred for the number nine has not and will not go hence I will not use a cartridge with that evil number as it's center point, yuck.

[Sevvania]

Yeah i'm just going to stick with my .25 cal pistol cartridge shameless early 1900s replica of the 5.7mm and go from there. My inane and utterly in explainable hatred for the number nine has not and will not go hence I will not use a cartridge with that evil number as it's center point, yuck.

Or you could do like, 8x20mm, if you want a Parabellum equivalent.

[Taihei Tengoku]

you arent doing 5.7 in 1900 LoL

[Puzikas]

Powders are hard x.x

[Gallia-]

Just start handing out MP9's in 9 mm to absolutely everybody who doesn't need or want to carry an FN FAL. <.< >.>

kampala actually uses tec9 as its rear area troop gun

for ghetto blasta memes ofc

galla uses a tiny loli m16 in 5.56x30mm (the old APG one not the MARS) because it doesnt believe in SMGs

i guess it invented an m1 carbine analogue in the 1940s and now it wont stop ever

the next step is assault smgs but galla hasnt reached that level of thinke yet it's still stuck in push of pike mode

[Manokan Republic]

You can't seem to help equivocating things, and my point was never about the trajectory's relative curve to another projectile, but it's curve relative to itself. There is less change in how much the bullet drops at each range interval, and not the ballistic trajectory itself. This is generally what people mean by a flat trajectory, as in the trajectory itself changes less, not in comparison to another trajectory. It would be like saying the 5.56mm has a curved trajectory in comparison to an M1 abrams round or 25mm chaingun, or the M1 abrams trajectory is curved in comparison to a NASA space shuttle which goes all the way in to space and doesn't curve at all. It's not in reference to another projectile, it's in reference to itself. These are common terms that are widely used in the gun world, and it's sort of obvious. It was an offhand remark about something I said in a broader post about my preferences on the .45, and you've taken it and extrapolated it in to something else entirely.

Your point was never about the "trajectory's curve relative to another projectile?" It's Monday night and I don't have anything better to do.

How did this all start? You maintained the .45 ACP had better range than the 9mm. Why? "It's easier to hit the target since the trajectory is flatter."

This was obviously wrong in any conventional sense, so it quickly became "the bullet drop is more consistent." In explaining this you mentioned paper airplanes and various types of 5.56mm ammunition. "The bullet drop is higher, but more consistent, although in the case of the 5.56mm is still longer range than a .45, where as in comparison to a 9mm, this is less of the case." You also stated heavier objects have "a more consistent, albeit it greater drop."

"None of this translates to "flatter," answered Sevvania. "It does, a more consistent trajectory is flatter and less curved," you replied.

After this point, your clearest definition of "consistent trajectory" emerged.

"Also I'm explaining what I mean by flatter trajectory, which is a more consistent drop, less loss in velocity. It's relative to itself, and not to a higher velocity round. A "flat" trajectory refers to, a consistent trajectory pattern, as opposed to one that shifts abruptly, like many high velocity rounds."

Note that in although this "consistent trajectory" is "relative to itself, and not to a higher velocity round, it's also "opposed to one that shifts abruptly, like many high velocity rounds."

Now, your "point was never about the trajectory's relative curve to another projectile, but it's curve relative to itself," and "it's not in reference to another projectile, it's in reference to itself," though in fact the entire conversation was about comparing the .45 ACP to the 9mm, and your opinion that a "more consistent trajectory" was a desirable trait that gave the .45 ACP an advantage.

"There is less change in how much the bullet drops at each range interval, and not the ballistic trajectory itself," even though "how much the bullet drops at each range interval" is literally "the ballistic trajectory itself."

Equivocation, by the way, means using ambiguous language to avoid committing yourself to a position that may be wrong. Only one person is equivocating here. You're using "consistent" in a completely ambiguous way that can mean anything.

The reader is now left to imagine a curve that's more consistent (i.e., "flatter and less-curved") in reference to itself.

Nobody is pretending not to understand you. You're Time Cube at this point, only with more self-contradiction.

It's not a self contradiction because as I have already explained what I meant, more consistent bullet drop is not the same less curved another projectile at higher velocity. I've explained this Ad Nausem and your aggressive refusal to accept what I meant with my words is again, just you being obtuse. I know the words seem similiar, as you may view them to mean the same thing, but in this context it was used to apply to two different things.

I think this quote best sums it up: ""Now, your "point was never about the trajectory's relative curve to another projectile, but it's curve relative to itself," and "it's not in reference to another projectile, it's in reference to itself," though in fact the entire conversation was about comparing the .45 ACP to the 9mm, and your opinion that a "more consistent trajectory" was a desirable trait that gave the .45 ACP an advantage."- This is entirely a result of poor reading comprehension on your fault. The conversation was originally about the .45 compared to the 9mm, but the debate over the term *flat* is about a projectile's trajectory compared to itself. There are multiple points that are often made in a conversation, not just one, and it's really easy to keep up if you can think about multiple things at the same time. This is basically indicative with all your problems, that is conflating one point I made with another point I made, which is just silly. It's not that hard to really figure out what I was trying to say.

[Manokan Republic]

we all know the best pistol is vp70 anyway rly

Yeah i'm just going to stick with my .25 cal pistol cartridge shameless early 1900s replica of the 5.7mm and go from there. My inane and utterly in explainable hatred for the number nine has not and will not go hence I will not use a cartridge with that evil number as it's center point, yuck.

The 7.62mm Tokarev is a pretty good start for such a round, as the higher pressure powder and cases needed for something like the 5.7mm didn't really exist at the time. To get the same level of energy, you would need a larger case, and the Tokarev is not a bad place to start. It was made as early as 1908, was used by both the Germans and the Russians, and given the right gunpowder can get up to .357 magnum levels of energy, out of a semiautomatic weapon, albeit with a lighter weight bullet. It's bullet is only 5.5 grams compared to 7.5 grams, which is actually not that much smaller, but it had a higher velocity and smaller bullet diameter, which gave it somewhat better armor penetration. The advantage of sharing the same bullet with different powders is that a handgun can use a downloaded version and your submachine gun can use more powerful bullets, and you can switch between the two if you need to. Before assault rifles became common, something like a PPSh-41 or PPS was your closest replacement, given the longer range and higher power than most submachine guns at the time. A high enough velocity variant, from a long enough barrel, could probably pierce a helmet at close range. It wouldn't be hard, although it was rare, to put a hardened steel penetrator tip to aid with this.

So you have a lot to work with; if you wanted to make it a .25 in a tokarev case, this would be pretty easy to pull off. So a 6.25mm Tokarev/Mauser.