Guns!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Guns!
(10-04-2013 01:12 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  That's true to an extant, and that's why I think it's overrated. The AK-47 makes sense in a battlefield situation when maximum volume of fire for suppression is needed, or if you want to spray-and-pray at point blank range. But that advantage disappears when you remove the select fire capability and just make a semi-auto. Then it's just a less accurate gun than the AR-15 that you can go without cleaning for longer, which for a civilian isn't that great a deal.

On the other hand, for a reliable gun the AK is better for the price than the AR-15. Most ARs under $800 (pre-panic prices) are shit; some even use airsoft parts for the accessories! Plus there's companies that don't properly stake the gas key, which I think should be prosecutable since it could conceivably cause the receiver to blow up. Not a concern on most ARs north of $800 though. But then you could get fairly decent AKs for around $500. So I guess it has that going for it.

I'm a Garand action man myself though.

I said "carnage" not killing. Wounding someone is way more effective in combat than killing anyone.

Shoot a soldier and he dies = one less soldier on the battlefield

Shoot a soldier and wound him = at least 2 soldiers out of the fight since one will have to tend to him/carry him off.

(keep in mind that while I do not think our current gun laws are sufficient, I have never said I don't know anything about them and that I don't enjoy learning about them)

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Guns!
I didn't say anything about your carnage statement? Huh

But I think you've misheard. The 7.62x39mm Soviet round is fairly effective at inflicting lethal injuries out to 300 yards, and few people dispute this. The "wounding" myth is normally applied to the 5.56x45mm NATO, which uses a smaller diameter bullet, which most people associate with lower lethality.

The problem is that the 5.56 was developed with the intent of causing injury via different mechanism than 7.62. 7.62 is designed to just make a big hole with a lot of energy. 5.56 is designed to fragment or yaw inside the wound cavity, hopefully achieving an effect similar to a hollowpoint round, without actually being one (since hollowpoints are banned).

Problem is that 5.56 doesn't always reliably fragment or yaw, thus it doesn't always achieve its maximum potential damage when a target is shot. Thus it is perceived as a weaker cartridge, thus people believe it was designed to wound and not kill.

But it's a myth. Drinking Beverage The main reason for developing weaker rounds like 5.56 and 7.62x39 was so that soldiers could carry more ammunition, and because individual soldiers didn't need the 1000 yard capabilities of .30-06, 7.62x51, or 7.62x54R.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Guns!
(10-04-2013 01:22 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I didn't say anything about your carnage statement? Huh

But I think you've misheard. The 7.62x39mm Soviet round is fairly effective at inflicting lethal injuries out to 300 yards, and few people dispute this. The "wounding" myth is normally applied to the 5.56x45mm NATO, which uses a smaller diameter bullet, which most people associate with lower lethality.

The problem is that the 5.56 was developed with the intent of causing injury via different mechanism than 7.62. 7.62 is designed to just make a big hole with a lot of energy. 5.56 is designed to fragment or yaw inside the wound cavity, hopefully achieving an effect similar to a hollowpoint round, without actually being one (since hollowpoints are banned).

Problem is that 5.56 doesn't always reliably fragment or yaw, thus it doesn't always achieve its maximum potential damage when a target is shot. Thus it is perceived as a weaker cartridge, thus people believe it was designed to wound and not kill.

But it's a myth. Drinking Beverage The main reason for developing weaker rounds like 5.56 and 7.62x39 was so that soldiers could carry more ammunition, and because individual soldiers didn't need the 1000 yard capabilities of .30-06, 7.62x51, or 7.62x54R.

Of course it can still deliver a lethal round, I wasn't saying it is only designed to wound but that all weapons used in warfare by individual troops are the most effective at either end of the spectrum. Either they kill multiple people at once, or they wound multiple people at once.

Wars are not fought by snipers because it would not be practical.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: Guns!
I stand corrected based on the notion that the AK is designed to wound. I'll give you that. But I would say that any weapon put into the hands of a soldier that is anything other than a single-shot rifle, is designed primarily to deliver multiple rounds in quick succession so as to kill and wound and not just kill.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Guns!
Nowadays wars are fought by bombs, so it's moot. Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Guns!
(10-04-2013 01:28 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Nowadays wars are fought by bombs, so it's moot. Drinking Beverage

Nowadays wars are fought electronically and politically.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 03:08 PM
RE: Guns!
(10-04-2013 01:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(10-04-2013 01:28 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Nowadays wars are fought by bombs, so it's moot. Drinking Beverage

Nowadays wars are fought electronically and politically.


You still typically need boots on the ground to 'win'. Those grunts need effective, reliable weapons. Both the M-16 and AK-47 fit the task.

But I prefer the M-14. I think I'm a sniper at heart. They're terse and deadly.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-04-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: Guns!
Everyone's a sniper at heart, Chas. It's up to your targets to speak for whether or not you are one in fact. Wink

(mine do not Tongue)

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
10-04-2013, 03:17 PM
RE: Guns!
(10-04-2013 12:42 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm not allowed in your thread? Derailment is now an offense? If so, there are a lot of threads were a lot of regular members have to go and a lot of "cleaning" to be done. Existing in "your" thread is enough to warrant being told to "fuck on out..."?

This thread has a stated purpose. I agreed with cleaning it, including my own posts.

Those posts were split to a new thread. There was no intent to censor.

Unfortunately, I made a mistake and lost all but the initial derailing thread.


Don't agree? Take it up with the admins. Until I'm told to stop, I will continue to clean this thread.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-04-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: Guns!
(10-04-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-04-2013 01:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nowadays wars are fought electronically and politically.


You still typically need boots on the ground to 'win'. Those grunts need effective, reliable weapons. Both the M-16 and AK-47 fit the task.

But I prefer the M-14. I think I'm a sniper at heart. They're terse and deadly.Drinking Beverage


As for the grunts, a 10kg load of full magazines for those three weapons is:
M14 14 mags / 280 rds
M16 33 mags / 660 rds
AK-47 8 mags / 240 rds

And the ballistics for the AK are pretty anemic compared to an M14.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: