Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hey sKipper, posted some stuff about submarines. Anything you'd like me to add just let me know.

Btw, the M-4 and M16's are sucky weapons imo.

The 5.56mm x 45mm round is weak, actually too weak. There are videos with insurgents taking roughly 10 rounds, to the gut and chest, and getting back up and still fighting. It's great for hitting vital organs; but when it doesn't it doesn't quite provide a catastrophic wound cavity.

It actually is so small, and travels so fast, that in cases it's been known to instantly cartarize wounds, and cause no bleeding.

Being so small, it loses it's power over long distances easily; making it accurate, but not strong.

The advantage of the 5.56mm is that it's light weight, armor piercing at close range, and accurate.

The 7.62mm x 39mm is like a hammer; strong and versatile, but cumbersome, inaccurate, slow and blunt. The 5.56mm x 45mm is like a dagger; sharp, controllable, and fast, but weak.

A 7.62mm x 51mm is like an axe- it combines the power of a hammer and the sharpness of the sword into one, final, strong weapon. A 6.8mm x 43mm is just a smaller axe; less power, but quicker and more controllable.

I like power; instead of one shot to the head, a 6 by 10 inch area with a total of 60 square inches, one shot to the body, with a reasonable 23 inches by 68 inch target for a total of 1564 square inches of area to hit.

The 5.56mm can still kill things with body shots, but you have to hit vital areas, and even then it won't take the guy out; it's called overpenatration; you lose most of your energy in the target behind the target you shot.

Basically, while I support the choice for anybody's weapon of choice, I personally prefer stronger weapons.

lol whee

The general philosophy of Nato is that every bullet kills; therefore, a higher amount lower powered weapon is just as good.

My philosophy is that not every bullet kills fast enough; it takes a long time to die, and a guy who's high on methamphetamines needs his heart blown out the backside of his body before he'll stop attacking you.

I understand what you're saying. I am only have a high knwoledge of engaging the enemy in hand to hand combat and explosives. I like explosives. My knowledge of guns is only 79%. By the which guns would you say is best suited to use in ground infantries?

Nice dude real nice.

Thank you sir!

5.56mm, 7.62mm.

Also, the 7.62mm is actually better at piercing armor; and it's armor piercing round is much better.

I only like M-4's becuase their a s**t ton better than M-16's- The marines recognized the problems with the M-16, got their designs and upgrades implemented, called it the M-4, and the army soon followed after it realized it's field tests sucked with the M-16.

The 5.56mm round itself is pretty much a high powered submachine gun round.

5.7mm x 28mm

7.62mm x 51mm NATO
6.8mm x 43mm SPC
5.56mm x 45mm

As well, the .45 supports my idea of more powerful rounds. It puts out around the same amount of energy as a 9mm does; so why is it more 'powerful'? It's becuase it's slower and heavier, and creates a large wound channel which causes the bullet to fragment. .45 are designed to kill, and 9mm are designed to make holes, two totally different things.

9 x 19 Parabellum
.45 ACP