NATION

PASSWORD

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9860
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Anarchy

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:07 am

Gallia- wrote:Greenland has a bigger army than Iceland lol.

So does Luxembourg.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Spearos
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 51
Founded: Sep 05, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Spearos » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:13 pm

Does anyone know how to write a military white paper? I'm interested in doing one for my fact book.

User avatar
Great Nortend
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1438
Founded: Jul 08, 2017
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Great Nortend » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:53 am

I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.
News from Great Nortend: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=417866
Tourism and Q&A thread: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=458726
Diplomacy, Embassies &c.: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=417865
If you have any questions about Great Nortend, please ask in the diplomacy thread above.

This nation generally represents my personal views in most areas, though slightly exaggerated perhaps.

User avatar
Crookfur
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10737
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Crookfur » Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:28 am

Great Nortend wrote:I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

Why make it longer? You would be adding roughly 8" which if it all went on the barrel would give you a 24" barrel which seems a bit unnecessary.

Rechambering is theoretically possible. Not knowing the dimensions of your round I have no idea how much work would be involved though.
The Kingdom of Crookfur
Your ordinary everyday scotiodanavian freedom loving utopia!

And yes I do like big old guns, why do you ask?

User avatar
United Earthlings
Ambassador
 
Posts: 2000
Founded: Aug 17, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby United Earthlings » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:59 pm

The Manticoran Empire wrote:
Gallia- wrote:Greenland has a bigger army than Iceland lol.

So does Luxembourg.


Hence, one of the reasons I picked Greenland, another being I was hedging my bets in that most people actually know where Greenland is. Wasn't sure how many people who read this thread have as an extensive knowledge of Geography as I do, one would hope for all, but one can never be certain beforehand.

Location wise, Athelland's nation is basically where the Faroe Islands are and the military forces stationed on them is well....Island Command Faroes

Spearos wrote:Does anyone know how to write a military white paper? I'm interested in doing one for my fact book.


Step 1: Find a Defense White Paper on a similar subject you intend to write about.
Step 2: Copy its tone and format
Step 3: Edit or modify the thesis and subject material as you deem necessary.
Step 4: Post it here so we the denizens of NSMRCT can critique it mercilessly :p
Step 5: A Reference Guide
Commonwealth Defence Export|OC Thread for Storefront|Write-Ups
Embassy Page|Categories Types

You may delay, but time will not, therefore make sure to enjoy the time you've wasted.

Welcome to the NSverse, where funding priorities and spending levels may seem very odd, to say the least.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23127
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:31 pm

No, the reason you picked Greenland is because you don't understand that Iceland and Greenland are the same thing in regards to their defense: it's provided entirely by a bigger country that colonizes them. Lol.

User avatar
Athelland
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Mar 14, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Athelland » Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:33 pm

United Earthlings wrote:
Athelland wrote:Hello,

I’d like to request some suggestions on what structure Athelland’s military should use (branches, etc), and what area of warfare or defence the state should focus on. Athelland is an island nation in the North Atlantic, southeast of Iceland and northwest of the UK, roughly four fifths the size of the Republic of Ireland.

Thanks.


You might as well have said your nation is Iceland or an AU version because that's basically what it is, only smaller roughly by half in size land area wise.

Now the question becomes, politically, are you exactly like Iceland I.E. an independent nation or more like Greenland, an autonomous territory of some European nation?

If its the latter which is probably more than likely, then the answer is easy, you have no military.


Athelland is a completely independent sovereign state.

Triplebaconation wrote:Unless the world is radically different there's no realistic military threat to such a country, so there's no need for a strong navy or bombers(!).

The navy and any air force would probably focus on things like patrolling territorial waters and search and rescue. If you bother with an army it would probably support peacekeeping operations abroad.


Athelland’s society (education, civil life, etc) is somewhat militarised and military service is lauded by the general population. It does have an army, but it primarily focuses on its own protection and is really there to deter any invasion (the state is rather paranoid to say the least).
⠀♔⠀KINGDOM OF ATHELLAND⠀♔⠀
Hāl Cyning Alfar and þis rīċe mǣst fæġer.

MT Anglophone Christian monarchy founded by Anglo-Saxon revivalists and sneering anti-modernists. Now just xenophobic and anti-consumerist.

User avatar
Taihei Tengoku
Senator
 
Posts: 4851
Founded: Dec 15, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Taihei Tengoku » Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:04 am

The DPRK is a good example of a country that doesn't fight any wars (ok it sends people to coach Africans/Syrians/Iranians) but still remains militarized.
REST IN POWER
Franberry - HMS Barham - North Point - Questers - Tyrandis - Rosbaningrad - Sharfghotten
UNJUSTLY DELETED
OUR DAY WILL COME

User avatar
Iltica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 775
Founded: Apr 17, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Iltica » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:57 pm

Does anyone know if the X-32's weapon bay layout had any significant drawbacks compared to the one on the F-35?
Having a ventral intake doesn't leave much room for the latter.
Chaotic-stupid

Isms trading card collection:
Cosmicism
Malthusianism
Georgism
Antinatalism

User avatar
New Vihenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3781
Founded: Apr 03, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Vihenia » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:12 pm

Iltica wrote:Does anyone know if the X-32's weapon bay layout had any significant drawbacks compared to the one on the F-35?
Having a ventral intake doesn't leave much room for the latter.


The layout probably force you to put the engine forward. Thus the bulkiest part namely the engine accessories gearbox wont get in the way. Thus you can get the volume you need for the weapon bay. This could complicate maintenance in the manner of Harrier where any large maintenance may force opening of wing box which requires heavy cranes.

Other than that however i see no real weaknesses. Internal weapon bay will always put severe constraint of what can be carried regardless of layout. The solution is thus to actually make the weapon smaller. Thus can fit or just put it outside and make it long ranged.
We make planes,ships,missiles,helicopters, radars and mecha musume
Deviantart|M.A.R.S|My-Ebooks

I play Blade and Soul

User avatar
Iltica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 775
Founded: Apr 17, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Iltica » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:51 pm

Not sure I follow, if the gearbox and weapons bays have to be kept apart, wouldn't that move the engine rearwards, or perhaps upwards?
Chaotic-stupid

Isms trading card collection:
Cosmicism
Malthusianism
Georgism
Antinatalism

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:56 pm

Great Nortend wrote:I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

It's possible but I think a 16 inch barrel would be fine, especially if you used the same propellant. The 7.62mm x 39mm has a 16 inch barrel and generates 2200 joules of energy so, if going by that case, it's possible to make it have the same barrel length and yet still have quite a bit of power. This is the better bet, as it has more power from a shorter barrel and is easier to go down than up. The difference in size between the 5.45mm and 7.62mm case is also quite small, but enough to make the powder difference substantial. Imo that's the way to go. Neck down a 7.62mm case.

Some good examples of this are the .220 russian, 6mm PPC, and 6.5mm Grendel, although the grendel case is slightly malformed so it will fit in an AR-15 magazine better. Nonetheless it uses the same parent case, which is roughly the same as the 7.62mm case, and you can see how in comparison it can generate similiar levels of energy. Going down is usually easier than going up. At least with retaining the same level of power. The 7.62mm case is actually a good base case, given it's low weight for powder capacity, higher reliability given the broader casehead and curved shape, and also the fact the powder seems to burn pretty quickly in the barrel. A 10 inch barrel Ak still generates like 1600 joules, which is quite a lot. Granted the ballistics will change a bit switching to 6mm, but not by much. Given that the 6mm PPC is already a thing and has been chambered in a number of Ak's, and it's always easier to work off of real life figures, this may be the way to go, or some rendition of it.

My advice if you want a REALLY long barreled gun is to make it bullpup. This is where bullpups really shine. The Tavor is essentially a bullpup ak and generally a very good gun, but the OTS-14 Groza is the best example of a direct bullpup ak, and it's quite small despite the barrel length, or 25 inches with a 16 inch barrel, the same length or slightly shorter than an MP5 or 10.5 inch barrel HK416. With a 24 inch barrel, it would thus only be 33 inches long, or still the length of an M4 carbine or Ak. There are versions with longer barrels/suppressor added, to give a rough idea of what it would look like. It's better to keep the barrel length short though in my opinion.

Image
Image
Last edited by Manokan Republic on Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15074
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:59 pm

Manokan if you were in charge we would still be in the 1914 mindset of assuming 2,000 meter combat ranges, and have some 10 by 70 mm in a bullpup by now whose ballistics are superb ballistically but utterly useless tactically.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:04 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Manokan if you were in charge we would still be in the 1914 mindset of assuming 2,000 meter combat ranges, and have some 10 by 70 mm in a bullpup by now whose ballistics are superb ballistically but utterly useless tactically.


My whole concept has always been to have those capabilities while still retaining sufficient CQB ability. The advantages of bullpups is the weapon is short so it's still maneuverable in close quarters combat, and using some slightly overpowered intermediate cartridge gives you something marginally heavier than a 5.56mm and slightly lighter than a 7.62mm x 39mm, while also having good long range capabilities. If you take the Grendel for example, it produces 2600 joules with an 8 gram bullet, which is slightly higher energy than an Ak with the same sized bullet, and it tends to have roughly similiar, if not slightly better barrier penetration and stopping power, while having as long of a range as a 7.62mm NATO, which is further than that of a 5.56mm. As a result there's not much of a drawback. The 6mm SAW round, 6mm PPC, 6.5mm PPC etc. are all good examples of moderately sized calibers with a really long range and good accuracy, that would still be smol enough for CQB.

If you want to go crazy, caseless/aluminum cases allow for even smaller bullets, and a recoil reducing system of some kind, like a stoner 63 or Ak-108, allow for even more powerful rounds. I'm not advocating for bolt actions or anything, just really good semiautomatics. These weapons should in theory function just fine in CQB, while also being viable at long range. The advantage being you don't get pinned down at 600 yards by some random person with a bolt action rifle or PKM machine gun or something, can fullfill more roles with the same gun, and generally just don't get outgunned. It does more things. They also tend to be slightly more powerful than the 5.56mm and thus compensate for those deficiencies.
Last edited by Manokan Republic on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15074
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:05 pm

Absolutely nobody but the gun enthusiasts and the bureaucrats, least of all actual infantrymen gives a fuck about how many joules their gewher produces at the muzzle.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:09 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Absolutely nobody but the gun enthusiasts and the bureaucrats, least of all actual infantrymen gives a fuck about how many joules their gewher produces at the muzzle.

That's why the M240 is not a thing, or the .50 caliber machine gun, or the 25mm chaingun and so on and so forth. xP

Of course they do, that is the entire idea. The entire idea of switching down from the 7.62mm NATO to the 5.56mm has always been about energy. And what's less important is energy generated at the muzzle, and instead energy at 300-600 yards. At long ranges it's not like getting hit by a piece of shrapnel, it does some real damage and can still penetrate armor. That's really where a key advantage is when it comes to aerodynamics and ballistics. A 6.5mm grendel at 600 yards will have more energy than the 7.62mm NATO, despite the fact the energy at the muzzle is 3500 vs. 2600 for the grendel. And a 6mm round could be even more aerodynamic and thus have an even longer range. The idea is the ability for the GPMG guy to share the same ammunition as the average soldier, carry more ammunition, and for the average soldier to benefit from it as well. One key advantage is range, and that can be compensated for in a smaller cartridge with better aerodynamics.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15074
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:12 pm

I seriously doubt the purpose of the GPMG was to produce energy at 1,000 meters.
Edit: Martini-Henry > 21st century 6.5 memes.
Edit 2:
Great Nortend wrote:I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

Нет. Rifle is fine. If you absolutely must then 5.8x42 mm.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:04 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I seriously doubt the purpose of the GPMG was to produce energy at 1,000 meters.
Edit: Martini-Henry > 21st century 6.5 memes.
Edit 2:
Great Nortend wrote:I have designated a sort of close of the AK-74 (appropriated by GN as the Devenson Royal Armoury General Use Rifled Assault Gun Mark V) as the standard service rifle for my army. Would it be feasible to increase its length to 45 inches and rechamber it to accept 6.22mm rounds do you think? I am concerned the extra length could make it too long, but I'm am a complete firearms novice.

Нет. Rifle is fine. If you absolutely must then 5.8x42 mm.


800 meters were the technical specifications. 1000+ meters is just icing on the cake.

6mm SAW: "During the 1970s, the U.S. Army was looking to develop a new squad automatic weapon (SAW) that was lighter than the M60 machine gun with an effective range out to 800 m. The 7.62 mm cartridge was too heavy and the 5.56 mm cartridge could not provide effective performance at that range. Research led to the development of the 6×45mm SAW cartridge. Its 105 gr (6.8 g) bullet had a muzzle velocity of 2,520 feet per second (770 m/s) and muzzle energy of 1,488 ft⋅lb (2,017 J). The relatively heavy bullet combined with a moderate velocity had optimum long-range performance. A light-alloy cased version of the round was also produced". Obviously this is just one study and one project, but, the general idea is there. One big advantage of heavier GPMG over lighter machine guns is range, and if this can be achieved with lighter weight ammunition, this means the ability to carry more bullets, which is always an advantage, and particularly useful for machine guns.
Last edited by Manokan Republic on Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23127
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:39 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Manokan


>arguing with manokan

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I seriously doubt the purpose of the GPMG was to produce energy at 1,000 meters.


yeah it was closer to 3,000 or so

Manokan Republic wrote:muzzle energy of 1,488 ft⋅lb (2,017 J)


it's ya boi big lssahlle
Last edited by Gallia- on Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 3104
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Austrasien » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:47 am

Calibre doesn't have a significant effect on the drag of a bullet. All things being equal in fact, larger calibres will always have lower drag coefficients because of the square-cube relationship.

The only reason 6.5 and 6 mm rounds tend to stand out is they generally permit longer bullets to be loaded into the case than common service cartridges. Which is in part an accident of history and part a reflection of the fact the 6mm intermediates are simply newer. Comparably low drag bullets for 7.62mm and 5.56mm and everything else already exist, they just can't be loaded in the normally permissible dimensions for the cartridge.

But a clean-slate SCHV cartridge with an appropriate low-drag bullet loaded retains its basic advantage over 6 and 6.5mm as well as larger calibres: More for a given weight. In fact, in some ways it makes even smaller calibres like 5 or 4.5 begin to look more compelling.
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.


User avatar
Hypron
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1300
Founded: May 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hypron » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:52 am

Would it be plausable, in 1950, to make a sort of early guided missile destroyer based on a guided version of the Tiny Tim rocket?

(Tiny Tim Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket))

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 3104
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Austrasien » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:55 am

Hypron wrote:Would it be plausable, in 1950, to make a sort of early guided missile destroyer based on a guided version of the Tiny Tim rocket?

(Tiny Tim Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket))


No.

Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8_Talos
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.

User avatar
Hypron
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1300
Founded: May 10, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hypron » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:57 am

Austrasien wrote:
Hypron wrote:Would it be plausable, in 1950, to make a sort of early guided missile destroyer based on a guided version of the Tiny Tim rocket?

(Tiny Tim Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket))


No.

Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-8_Talos


That'll work just fine. Thank you.

User avatar
Manokan Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2420
Founded: Dec 15, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Manokan Republic » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:14 pm

Austrasien wrote:Calibre doesn't have a significant effect on the drag of a bullet. All things being equal in fact, larger calibres will always have lower drag coefficients because of the square-cube relationship.

The only reason 6.5 and 6 mm rounds tend to stand out is they generally permit longer bullets to be loaded into the case than common service cartridges. Which is in part an accident of history and part a reflection of the fact the 6mm intermediates are simply newer. Comparably low drag bullets for 7.62mm and 5.56mm and everything else already exist, they just can't be loaded in the normally permissible dimensions for the cartridge.

But a clean-slate SCHV cartridge with an appropriate low-drag bullet loaded retains its basic advantage over 6 and 6.5mm as well as larger calibres: More for a given weight. In fact, in some ways it makes even smaller calibres like 5 or 4.5 begin to look more compelling.

Bullets that are too long or have too low of a sectional density tend to be unstable in flight. In theory, a super heavy 5.56mm has a smaller aerodynamic profile, but given the lower sectional density and very long bullet, wouldn't really be stable enough in flight. It's just not really going to lend itself to a practical design. With something that small, when you get below a certain level you just start to lose certain features. The 5.56mm is about the same weight as a rain drop, and is notorious for bouncing off of windows and being stopped by very small amounts of sand. The reason why 6mm to 6.5mm work better is for practical reasons with barrel twist and that sort of thing. They are options that already exist and work well within existing chamberings and rifle designs, so it's the more practical choice to go with, rather than inventing a new round that doesn't exist yet. At least that's the reason why I tend to go with them, it's not about the most extreme thing possible, it's about something realistically available, or a close comparison to that.

To stabilize something that long and skinny, you basically end up with fins, like an arrow or sabot. Going absolutely crazy means creating something akin to a flechette or dart, essentially a saboted round like in a tank, as the fins are needed to stabilize the round. This may be very well 3-4mm in diameter, but it would be a bigger barrel just with a plastic sabot to fill in the gap of the barrel to absorb all the energy/not scratch up the barrel/not have the round bounce around too much. These rounds in smaller designs have always been problematic for the same reasons, as well as very expensive, but in theory they could do pretty well. The main issue is that optimization for armor penetration is not really needed for such small caliber weapons, and so you tend to get ice pick through and through injuries in people, as opposed to expansion or greater energy transfer, I.E. better stopping power, from say lead. You wouldn't hunt a moose with a .22, or a deer, so it makes a difference with people if they get hit with a .22 sized projectile or not. There's a reason why shotguns, 7.62 guns and so on are a thing, as opposed to just the 5.56mm.

My idea is just something realistic and practical like a 6mm PPC or 6.5mm grendel, that has already been out for many years and is well received. But sure you can go crazy. The .224 valkyrie is cool looking, although I'd prefer a different case over the 6.8mm remington case but, it seems to do alright. The 6mm Grendel is also pretty neat. The purpose of 6mm and 6.5mm bullets typically is that their accuracy and aerodynamics are good while not going overboard. They're a more practical choice. But I'm all for hyper aerodynamic darts, that's just uh, well it's kind of not really a thing right now. Despite the notion I'm all about super long ranges at expense of anything else, the reason for the 6mm and 6.5mm bullets is more so practicality. The 6.5mm creedmoor is being used by special forces right now, and honestly imo it's the right move. It just have superior ballistics and less recoil. You can get higher BC bullets with the 7.62mm, but it's too heavy to be practical, with a .71 BC 6.5mm round being 10 grams, vs. about 15 grams for a .8 BC 7.62mm bullet. It's just too heavy to be reasonable, you'd need the energy of a .300 wing mag or more to get a decent velocity. And you can get a decent BC with a .223 round, but then it tends to be too small, or hard to stabilize. They're really long, too long. The 6mm and 6.5mm are about the right size for most guns without making too much of an impact, being very long bullets but not too long. For the power levels you want, they tend to fill the niche pretty well.
Last edited by Manokan Republic on Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:24 pm, edited 6 times in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Greater Niagara, Indo States, LeroAdmin, Regina Victoria, Tsarstvo Alyaski, Tyrantio Land, Viennaria

Advertisement

Remove ads