Cartridge your MMW is chambered in

[Immoren]

7.62x39 Lapua.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

1) .30 Carbine is legit PDW round. 7.92x24mm is based on it. You can't beat the best pistol cart. ever made.

2) .30-06 is overpowered. Use .276 Pedersen.

3) 9mm Short is silly. Use 9mm Winchester, the modern replacement for .38 Super.

1. .30 carbine is neither a pistol round or the best of any kind. FN 5.7x28mm is a better choice for PDW and 9mm Parabellum is the benchmark for pistols.

2. Madness. I'll just leave it at that.

3. The obsolesent (non)replacement for the .38 super, you mean. I had to reach for my reference books for that one.

1) 5.56mm FN is pathetically small bullet with no mass behind it. Automag III disagrees with your assessment than the .30 Carbine is a pistol round, as does the actual joules rated for it. It is merely an over sized and under powered pistol round.

Besides, you can cut down .30 Carbine and rebarrel an M2 Carbine to a fucking 7.92x24mm VBR-Belgium, the best of the PDW rounds. Superior penetration than the 5.56mm FN and 4.6 H&K, and terminal ballistics equivalent to a .45 JHP.

fuckin dwi

1a) 9mm Parabellum is weak. Like .40 S&W it is the inferior form of the 9mm Largo.

10mm Auto is the benchmark for a handgun, or a submachine gun.

2) Rofl.

3) 9x23mm is not obsolete. It is equivalent to a .357 SIG, with a higher magazine capacity due to lack of excessive tapering.

dwi

It is superior to your obsolete and ancient semi-rimmed round with fail magazine feeding.

[Vingtor]

1) 5.56mm FN is pathetically small bullet with no mass behind it. Automag III disagrees with your assessment than the .30 Carbine is a pistol round, as does the actual joules rated for it. It is merely an over sized and under powered pistol round.

Besides, you can cut down .30 Carbine and rebarrel an M2 Carbine to a fucking 7.92x24mm VBR-Belgium, the best of the PDW rounds. Superior penetration than the 5.56mm FN and 4.6 H&K, and terminal ballistics equivalent to a .45 JHP.

fuckin dwi

1a) 9mm Parabellum is weak. Like .40 S&W it is the inferior form of the 9mm Largo.

10mm Auto is the benchmark for a handgun, or a submachine gun.

2) Rofl.

3) 9x23mm is not obsolete. It is equivalent to a .357 SIG, with a higher magazine capacity due to lack of excessive tapering.

dwi

It is superior to your obsolete and ancient semi-rimmed round with fail magazine feeding.

1) But he is not. He is keeping it the chubby underachevier instead of pushing to it's limit. You might as well issue Winchester .30-30s at that point. Get the cowboy factor.

1a) Again madness. 10mm bucks too hard for anything smaller then the .45 ACP (except for God's round, the .357).

2) Hey you are the one who suggested the Pedersen. That is not a round, it is a bit of gun shtick.

3).Then how come the only gun to chamber it is no longer being made? Can't be replacement if it is not being used.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

1) 5.56mm FN is pathetically small bullet with no mass behind it. Automag III disagrees with your assessment than the .30 Carbine is a pistol round, as does the actual joules rated for it. It is merely an over sized and under powered pistol round.

Besides, you can cut down .30 Carbine and rebarrel an M2 Carbine to a fucking 7.92x24mm VBR-Belgium, the best of the PDW rounds. Superior penetration than the 5.56mm FN and 4.6 H&K, and terminal ballistics equivalent to a .45 JHP.

fuckin dwi

1a) 9mm Parabellum is weak. Like .40 S&W it is the inferior form of the 9mm Largo.

10mm Auto is the benchmark for a handgun, or a submachine gun.

2) Rofl.

3) 9x23mm is not obsolete. It is equivalent to a .357 SIG, with a higher magazine capacity due to lack of excessive tapering.

dwi

It is superior to your obsolete and ancient semi-rimmed round with fail magazine feeding.

1) But he is not. He is keeping it the chubby underachevier instead of pushing to it's limit. You might as well issue Winchester .30-30s at that point. Get the cowboy factor.

1a) Again madness. 10mm bucks too hard for anything smaller then the .45 ACP (except for God's round, the .357).

2) Hey you are the one who suggested the Pedersen. That is not a round, it is a bit of gun shtick.

3).Then how come the only gun to chamber it is no longer being made? Can't be replacement if it is not being used.

1) He could be converting. It takes a barrel change, and he could be waiting to exhaust stocks of current .30 Carb until his VBR stocks come up. Otherwise, I could have given him an extremely good idea.

1a) 10mm doesn't kick too hard, your wrists are just thin and girlish.

2) You're going to have to explain this one. I seriously took it to mean you thought the .276 was a poor performer.

3) Cuz ppl is traditions. Traditions are often wrong and misguided, being based on nostalgia instead of fact. Given that a majority of gun owners grow up in environment predisposed to be biased towards older ammunition and things, it is no surprise the .38 Super is still used.

It is still inferior to the 9mm Winchester.

Just because something isn't used doesn't mean it is bad. .280 British, .276 Pedersen, FN FAL, AKM.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good. 5.56mm NATO, 9mm NATO, 5.45mm Warsaw Pact, AR-15, M-14.

[Helghast empire]

7.5 x 50mm round

[Vingtor]

1) He could be converting. It takes a barrel change, and he could be waiting to exhaust stocks of current .30 Carb until his VBR stocks come up. Otherwise, I could have given him an extremely good idea.

1a) 10mm doesn't kick too hard, your wrists are just thin and girlish.

2) You're going to have to explain this one. I seriously took it to mean you thought the .276 was a poor performer.

3) Cuz ppl is traditions. Traditions are often wrong and misguided, being based on nostalgia instead of fact. Given that a majority of gun owners grow up in environment predisposed to be biased towards older ammunition and things, it is no surprise the .38 Super is still used.

It is still inferior to the 9mm Winchester.

Just because something isn't used doesn't mean it is bad. .280 British, .276 Pedersen, FN FAL, AKM.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good. 5.56mm NATO, 9mm NATO, 5.45mm Warsaw Pact, AR-15, M-14.

1) Couda wouda shoulda. Just fancy ways of saying "I'm using a bad round"

1a) Correction, I shoot .44s and .50s if and when I can afford to. But the 10mm just seems so pointless, like the 45 GAP. Too weak to be a .45, too hard bucking for a 9mm Luger P+.

2) It is. Douglas MacArthur, Chief of Staff of The United States Army, put the smackdown on it. And his disaproval is all I really need to condem it.

3) Those are fighting words. The .38 super was America's self defense round for decades and the AR-15 and it's cailber is the hallmark of current NATO weapons. The hate has seriously got to stop.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

1) He could be converting. It takes a barrel change, and he could be waiting to exhaust stocks of current .30 Carb until his VBR stocks come up. Otherwise, I could have given him an extremely good idea.

1a) 10mm doesn't kick too hard, your wrists are just thin and girlish.

2) You're going to have to explain this one. I seriously took it to mean you thought the .276 was a poor performer.

3) Cuz ppl is traditions. Traditions are often wrong and misguided, being based on nostalgia instead of fact. Given that a majority of gun owners grow up in environment predisposed to be biased towards older ammunition and things, it is no surprise the .38 Super is still used.

It is still inferior to the 9mm Winchester.

Just because something isn't used doesn't mean it is bad. .280 British, .276 Pedersen, FN FAL, AKM.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good. 5.56mm NATO, 9mm NATO, 5.45mm Warsaw Pact, AR-15, M-14.

1) Couda wouda shoulda. Just fancy ways of saying "I'm using a bad round"

1a) Correction, I shoot .44s and .50s if and when I can afford to. But the 10mm just seems so pointless, like the 45 GAP. Too weak to be a .45, too hard bucking for a 9mm Luger P+.

2) It is. Douglas MacArthur, Chief of Staff of The United States Army, put the smackdown on it. And his disaproval is all I really need to condem it.

3) Those are fighting words. The .38 super was America's self defense round for decades and the AR-15 and it's cailber is the hallmark of current NATO weapons. The hate has seriously got to stop.

2) So you blindly agree with MacArthur? Sure he was a good general, but he wasn't flawless, hell he wanted to nuke several cities in China so that we could win in Korea. He probably didn't like the Pederson because back when he was still in the military the US was using the .30-06 which has about twice as powerful as the Pederson. No wonder he didn't support it, it would be like a modern US general evaluating the 9mm PB for the newest military rifle.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

1) He could be converting. It takes a barrel change, and he could be waiting to exhaust stocks of current .30 Carb until his VBR stocks come up. Otherwise, I could have given him an extremely good idea.

1a) 10mm doesn't kick too hard, your wrists are just thin and girlish.

2) You're going to have to explain this one. I seriously took it to mean you thought the .276 was a poor performer.

3) Cuz ppl is traditions. Traditions are often wrong and misguided, being based on nostalgia instead of fact. Given that a majority of gun owners grow up in environment predisposed to be biased towards older ammunition and things, it is no surprise the .38 Super is still used.

It is still inferior to the 9mm Winchester.

Just because something isn't used doesn't mean it is bad. .280 British, .276 Pedersen, FN FAL, AKM.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good. 5.56mm NATO, 9mm NATO, 5.45mm Warsaw Pact, AR-15, M-14.

1) Couda wouda shoulda. Just fancy ways of saying "I'm using a bad round"

1a) Correction, I shoot .44s and .50s if and when I can afford to. But the 10mm just seems so pointless, like the 45 GAP. Too weak to be a .45, too hard bucking for a 9mm Luger P+.

2) It is. Douglas MacArthur, Chief of Staff of The United States Army, put the smackdown on it. And his disaproval is all I really need to condem it.

3) Those are fighting words. The .38 super was America's self defense round for decades and the AR-15 and it's cailber is the hallmark of current NATO weapons. The hate has seriously got to stop.

1) It is easier to transition between the two. Cheaper than buying whole new guns chambered in 9mm NATO or 5.7 NATO.

1a) 10mm Auto hits with almost twice the joules of a .45. 200 gr .45 Federal Hydrashok = 600 J roughly. 180 gr 10mm Hornady XTP = 1,000 J roughly. It hits harder and meaner than the .45 +P, too, and we're not even talking overpressure loads for a 10mm.

The 10mm Auto was designed to be the ultimate defensive handgun round. Beats the .45 ACP and 9mm NATO. Hands down.

It kicks harder than a .45 ACP.

I've fired both. The 10mm had significantly higher climb and sharper recoil.

2) Douglas MacArthur was a goddamn moron. The only good thing he ever did was Incheon and he ruined that with the week long march afterward. .276 Pedersen was superior to the .30-06, but MacArthur masturbated to the pre-WWI idea of infantry squares and volley fire, much like contemporaries. He had no forward vision, and refused to face change.

3) The .38 Super was America's self-defence handgun cartridge. Now, better cartridges have come along. 9x23mm Winchester, 10mm Auto, and even .357 SIG. Stop reveling in your nostalgia and get with the modern times. 1938 is gone and dead. It's 2011 now.

5.56mm NATO is good...in Europe.

Pretty much anywhere else and you're looking at a poor performer.

A very poor performer. I daresay the 5.56mm NATO is the very reason the United States failed to achieve its objectives in Vietnam.

Compared to the Aussies and their glorious FALs.

The hate of the .22 microcalibre is fully legitimate.

[Veceria]

6.5x39mm Grendel.

[Sacra Terra (Ancient)]

40. Cal, aka 10,16mm.

[Fischermann]

We use the 7.62x45 Czech in all our rifles except our sniper rifles, which use 7.62x54R.

We mainly face close quarters combat, so range isn't a problem.

[Castleclose]

7.5mm swiss for me.

[Purpelia]

7.5mm swiss for me.

Finally a fellow sane person.

[Imeriata]

Well you are the ones using silly round cartridges instead of manly square cartridges.

Bahh and humbug, round bullets are the past, present and the future.

[Purpelia]

Normal munitions have the great advantage that they and the weapons that fire them can be made relatively easily in a garden shed. I imagine CTA would require rather expensive production equipment for both. And that is not counting the costs of developing them both in the first place. Once it all comes together is the gain really that high compared to just taking an existing round and bolting together a gun for it?

[Amanomiya]

.375 H&H

[Thurask]

5.45x39 for the most part. Larger weapons tend to use 7.62x54.

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

9x900 Pine, with a 200 lbs. draw weight.

[Bafuria]

The 5.56 has several different bullets which behave differently so it's unfair to put all cartridge variants under the same hat.

The M193 used in the Vietnam war had a light, lead core bullet which caused "Inhumane" wounds because of it's high velocity, instability and soft core. But a light lead bullet can't penetrate thick cover like the trees the Vietcong were hiding behind.
The M855 used since the Gulf war had a heavier bullet with a steel penetrator and a lead plug. This made it more accurate and gave it more penetration, but unreliable stopping power beyond 150 meters.
The M995 uses a tungsten core bullet that can penetrate 12 mm of steel (and therefore most heavy body armors) , but sacrifices stopping power at the same time.
And finally, the Mk262 uses a long, heavy lead core bullet which has excellent range, accuracy and stopping power, but I doubt it can penetrate heavy body armor.

Personally, I would not choose any 5.56 if I was faced with heavily armored opponents, but penetration is pretty much their only weakness. For everything else they are excellent cartridges, especially the Mk262.

Also, you should keep in mind that you can carry a shitload of 5.56 for the same weight in BR cartridges. 700, 5.56 cartridges weigh as much as 300, 7.62 NATO cartridges.

[Novograd IV]

I'm looking for serious suggestions (that means no NATO, plzthx) to use in pretty much all my weapons, it's been a while since I tried to get into bullet design and comparison, but not actually being allowed a gun (damn you UK!) I don't exactly have the practical knowledge for it in its entirety.

An SMG round that's got respectable range (shooter should also be able to use a few shots one handed without breaking their wrist )

A slightly heavy (as long as it performs) AR round

A decent GPMG and SAW round (I never looked into support weapons, help? )

A DMR round and/or anti-personnel SR round

inb4 Imeratia and Oterro on the suggestions (I love you both equally, in a manly way, but even a master-race can't expect to fire .9001 calibre rounds without assistance )

[Imeriata]

inb4 Imeratia and Oterro on the suggestions (I love you both equally, in a manly way, but even a master-race can't expect to fire .9001 calibre rounds without assistance )

Then fire .9000 calibre damn your eyes!

[Novograd IV]

inb4 Imeratia and Oterro on the suggestions (I love you both equally, in a manly way, but even a master-race can't expect to fire .9001 calibre rounds without assistance )

Then fire .9000 calibre damn your eyes!

: poker face :

[Purpelia]

I'm looking for serious suggestions (that means no NATO, plzthx) to use in pretty much all my weapons, it's been a while since I tried to get into bullet design and comparison, but not actually being allowed a gun (damn you UK!) I don't exactly have the practical knowledge for it in its entirety.

For your rifles, light machine guns and similar weapons I would suggest 7.5 Swiss. It is a nice alternative to 7.62x51 NATO that I use since I want to be neither NATO nor Soviet in my designs.

Hover, judging from that post you don't seem to know a lot about weapons. Hence I would advise that you purchase an existing one and not design your own at least for now.

[Novograd IV]

I'm looking for serious suggestions (that means no NATO, plzthx) to use in pretty much all my weapons, it's been a while since I tried to get into bullet design and comparison, but not actually being allowed a gun (damn you UK!) I don't exactly have the practical knowledge for it in its entirety.

For your rifles, light machine guns and similar weapons I would suggest 7.5 Swiss. It is a nice alternative to 7.62x51 NATO that I use since I want to be neither NATO nor Soviet in my designs.

Hover, judging from that post you don't seem to know a lot about weapons. Hence I would advise that you purchase an existing one and not design your own at least for now.

I know a fair bit about them actually...

it's the cartridges that bug me in design, and as people have said before, the 7.62 isn't a particularly suitable round for much, meaning similar performers are also on the back end of my list.

Do note that I haven't exactly just started.

Also, NATO 5.56 is a poor performing round, the main reason it was NATOs choice was because the US were already geared up to make them, I think.

[Vassenor]

Also, NATO 5.56 is a poor performing round, the main reason it was NATOs choice was because the US were already geared up to make them, I think.

Most NATO standard stuff is such because "it's what Amurika is using". That's why the SS109 round beat the 4.85mm round used by the L64 in tests; the overall performance was the same.