|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:32 pm
I was wondering, what do you think the primary weapon and caliber should be, and what do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of various types of ammunition and weaponry?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:24 pm
HK417- 7.62x51mm NATO
This rifle is the big brother to the HK416. In firing the 7.62 cartridge it trades ten extra rounds for increased penetration and killing power. It is adaptable to sniper and assault operations and features the same reliability displayed by the HK416. It features the adjustable shoulder stock and lightweight aluminum frame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:48 pm
Yeah, that and the FN SCAR seem like pretty good candidates. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:49 am
My primary of choice would likely be the AK47 7.62x45 round. Only because the gun is durable, reliable in a combat situation and packs a hell of a punch. I also like the look of the gun. The uglier the better. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:32 pm
It would be good for extreme weather combat, though most militaries in developed and developing countries that are moving toward precision firearms. Also the AK47 fires 7.62x31mm Soviet ammunition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:16 pm
Actually it's 7.62mm x 39mm ammunition, but, the Ak-47 is a pretty good weapon.
As we all know, or should know, the the flaws with the Ak-47 can be compensated for.
The potential for the 7.62mm x 39mm to be used as a long range sniper round is relativley high. It's a large, heavy bullet, with a streamlined shape and that is relativley stable in flight.
If you take a look at the 6.5mm grendel, it basically uses the 7.62mm case, but has a lot of it's own changes, and the 6.5mm grendel is arguably one of the most, if the most, accurate factory/mass production bullet on the market.
Then, the long stroke piston of the Ak-47, while amazing, has a lot of recoil. If you use the short stroke piston, it has less recoil, but is almost as reliable.
The sights on the Ak-47 are crap and it's ergonomics are fine, but not amazing; take the ergonomic lessons learned from the M16 and m4 carbine, and a lot of the problems such as a crappy sight and muzzle rise can be eliminated.
The only thing is, the Ak-47 will always be more reliable than most weapons. It's bullet was literally designed to fit with Ak-47, and not the other way around (like with most weapons), and the bullet's very shape and it's case are designed to increase reliability by making feed easier.
This, combined with an extremely heavy bolt and firing mechanism, while inherently reducing ballistic performance somewhat, increases the reliability, and makes the weapon capable of firing in nearly any situation.
It's the one thing a lightweight super accurate weapon can't match. But a machine gun, such as the M240, could easily match the reliability of an Ak-47, under certain situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:47 pm
In reality there is little difference between the x51 NATO and the x39 Soviet cartridge except their powers. The 7.62x51mm when loaded with a standard 150 grain bullet has a velocity of 2800 ft/s. The 7.62x39mm fires a 123 grain bullet at 2400 ft/s. To be truthful there isn't enough difference between the two to call one cartridge superior over the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:53 pm
I can honestly say I learned something about the gun I thought I knew a lot about. Thank you for clearing that up. Haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:07 pm
samuel weston In reality there is little difference between the x51 NATO and the x39 Soviet cartridge except their powers. The 7.62x51mm when loaded with a standard 150 grain bullet has a velocity of 2800 ft/s. The 7.62x39mm fires a 123 grain bullet at 2400 ft/s. To be truthful there isn't enough difference between the two to call one cartridge superior over the other. That's not necessarily true... The x 51, as you say has vastly different speeds (nearly 140 m/s faster), and while the Ak-47 uses a 8 gram round, the x 51 uses a 9.7 gram+ round, sometimes using 11.3 gram rounds, but that's in sniper rounds. The power difference is HUGE, and the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO round has a somewhat farther effective range than the 7.62mm x 39mm round. But, as to which one is "better", it's all a matter of the situation, and both be can used in a lot of situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:25 pm
That is pretty much what I am getting at. They have the same projectile diameter, similar metallurgies, and vastly different battlefield uses. They both perform well in all battlefields and situations. Though you were mistaken about the round being designed for the weapon. One of the things that got the AK accepted was that it was able to chamber the round when it was developed alongside the SKS carbine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:11 pm
samuel weston That is pretty much what I am getting at. They have the same projectile diameter, similar metallurgies, and vastly different battlefield uses. They both perform well in all battlefields and situations. Though you were mistaken about the round being designed for the weapon. One of the things that got the AK accepted was that it was able to chamber the round when it was developed alongside the SKS carbine. Well, yeah, lots of weapons use the 7.62mm x 39mm round. xp But the point is, the round was literally designed to have a large base, among other things, so it would feed and be extracted easier. Which is they the Ak-47 has a "banna" clip appearance. The bullet was actually designed that way to make it more reliable. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
