Bit of super glue and some stickyback plastic, should be able to affix a sharp pointy thing to most weapons, surely?

Interesting debate about the optimum calibres for military use. However, before we all get too excited about 6-7mm calibres being superior to 5.56, we should remember that bullet design as well as calibre has a huge impact on lethality. Wound ballistics isn't a particularly pleasant subject, but it is important when it comes to designing new small arms ammunition.

5.56 is generally effective because the bullets come apart when they hit at high velocity. This is down to the composite design with a tempered steel tip, lead core and a cannelure that acts as a fracture point. Compare that to 7.62x39: bigger and heavier bullet, but the stronger construction of the bullet (with a solid, mild steel core) means no fragmentation and therefore lower lethality.

Wheres hardmong with his G22?

Originally Posted by stabradop

Wheres hardmong with his G22?

Indeed! It would make an ideal military weapon.

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

Interesting debate about the optimum calibres for military use. However, before we all get too excited about 6-7mm calibres being superior to 5.56, we should remember that bullet design as well as calibre has a huge impact on lethality. Wound ballistics isn't a particularly pleasant subject, but it is important when it comes to designing new small arms ammunition.

5.56 is generally effective because the bullets come apart when they hit at high velocity. This is down to the composite design with a tempered steel tip, lead core and a cannelure that acts as a fracture point. Compare that to 7.62x39: bigger and heavier bullet, but the stronger construction of the bullet (with a solid, mild steel core) means no fragmentation and therefore lower lethality.

That's a fairly incomplete chart. Add in 7.62x54R, 7.62 Nato (L2A2), 7.62 sniper/match (L42A?) and you would have a more useful comparator.

Frankly, I'd add 303 Mk7 in too and see what that did.

What a lot of these ballistic tests fail to consider is that the enemy tend not to stand about in the open waiting to get shot so you need a projectile that will kill or seriously injure them after it has passed through some hard cover - 12 inches of earth, a brick wall etc. It needs to do this at ranges out to 500 - 600m in my opinion.

Consider what range a 7.62x54R machine gun can engage us from. We need to be able to punch through his mud brick sangar at the same range.

I seem to have a vague recollection that the yanks were developing a new "family" of weapons with interchangable parts, saw a vid on it a while back but can't for the life of me remember where or what!

just looked at the links on here, might well be the FN SCAR but can't be sure...it's an age thing you know...anyone seen my glasses??

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

Interesting debate about the optimum calibres for military use. However, before we all get too excited about 6-7mm calibres being superior to 5.56, we should remember that bullet design as well as calibre has a huge impact on lethality. Wound ballistics isn't a particularly pleasant subject, but it is important when it comes to designing new small arms ammunition.

5.56 is generally effective because the bullets come apart when they hit at high velocity. This is down to the composite design with a tempered steel tip, lead core and a cannelure that acts as a fracture point. Compare that to 7.62x39: bigger and heavier bullet, but the stronger construction of the bullet (with a solid, mild steel core) means no fragmentation and therefore lower lethality.

That's a fairly incomplete chart. Add in 7.62x54R, 7.62 Nato (L2A2), 7.62 sniper/match (L42A?) and you would have a more useful comparator.

Frankly, I'd add 303 Mk7 in too and see what that did.

What a lot of these ballistic tests fail to consider is that the enemy tend not to stand about in the open waiting to get shot so you need a projectile that will kill or seriously injure them after it has passed through some hard cover - 12 inches of earth, a brick wall etc. It needs to do this at ranges out to 500 - 600m in my opinion.

Consider what range a 7.62x54R machine gun can engage us from. We need to be able to punch through his mud brick sangar at the same range.

Or showing 5.56 mm SS109.

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

That's a fairly incomplete chart. Add in 7.62x54R, 7.62 Nato (L2A2), 7.62 sniper/match (L42A?) and you would have a more useful comparator.

Frankly, I'd add 303 Mk7 in too and see what that did.

Ask and ye shall receive!
No Brit 155grn sniper ball, but it won't be much different to ordinary M80 NATO ball shown here.

Originally Posted by Flying Felix

Or showing 5.56 mm SS109.

M855 shown is the US version of NATO spec SS109.

Am I allowed to tease an ATO for not knowing that?