Donward Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Also, the NRA tries to make a boring gun dramatic by adding cool graphics and sound effects: Also, they show an awful lot of images of the Mini-14, instead of the AC-556, and that one guy who looks like a senator was all HAD BILL RUGER BEEN A YEAR OR TWO EARLIER THE US ARMY WOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE MINI-14 FOR VIET-NAM. There's so much wrong with this: A.) The Mini-14 wasn't "a couple of years" behind the AR-15, it was a full decade behind. B.) The Mini-14 was designed for 5.56mm... A round invented for the AR-15. No AR-15, no 5.56mm, no Mini-14. C.) The Mini-14 was designed by Jim Sullivan and Bill Ruger. Sullivan's name should sound familiar, since he's the guy who designed the AR-15. The NRA fucking sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Oh god, I was just reading the movie thread, people talking about Jurassic World. Now I'm imagining a Hollywood movie where there's an amusement park full of lab-grown people named "Nathan". Dear God. He's reposting something he saw on Facebook. Runnnn!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 No, no, super-cool operators use the Iraqi AK reload: Why is that the "Iraqi" method? Exactly when did the Iraqis innovate any small arms manip techniques? That is just the proper way to do that "tactical" reload. Why that one idiot in the video decided he needed to eject the empty mag using the goddamn round stack, I do not know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Tony's forum seriously believes that a soldier cannot hit a target at 500 meters with a weapon equipped with the most advanced individual weapon sight in the world. http://m.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/6417 I wonder if I should tell them I hit a target at 480 yards with an AK-74M and a PK-01VS red dot just yesterday .. Video of Sturgeon posting at Tony's forum. I don't know how you do it man. Or why. But we love you anyway. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Why is that the "Iraqi" method? Exactly when did the Iraqis innovate any small arms manip techniques? That is just the proper way to do that "tactical" reload. Why that one idiot in the video decided he needed to eject the empty mag using the goddamn round stack, I do not know. Look again; he's holding the rifle with his strong hand by the charging handle during the reload. Supposedly this, erm, development in small arms manipulation comes from a video of the Iraqi Army doing drills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Tony's forum seriously believes that a soldier cannot hit a target at 500 meters with a weapon equipped with the most advanced individual weapon sight in the world. http://m.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/6417 I wonder if I should tell them I hit a target at 480 yards with an AK-74M and a PK-01VS red dot just yesterday .. Yes, yes you should. Then link the resulting comedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Look again; he's holding the rifle with his strong hand by the charging handle during the reload. Supposedly this, erm, development in small arms manipulation comes from a video of the Iraqi Army doing drills. Oh, yeah, you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Fight Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 The NRA fucking sucks. The NRA is doing more to ensure crazy anti-gun laws than anybody, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Their firearms education efforts are decent, but their political arm leaves something to be desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Far be it from me to defend the NRA, but today on Doesn't Fit The Narrative: Contributions came from nearly 30,000 donors, with around 90% of donations made by people who gave less than $200 in a single year. According to the NRA, the average donation is around $35. The NRA's ability to raise so much money from small donations is highly unusual for a special interest group, demonstrating its wide reaching support, said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics. Only one person has donated even close to the maximum amount allowed by federal law, which is $5,000 per year: a computer programmer from Houston. Since 2005, he has donated $50,050 -- just shy of the $55,000 allowed for the 11-year period (including this year). The NRA is doing more to ensure crazy anti-gun laws than anybody, really. I don't really agree with this at all. I'm not sure, politically-speaking, what else people expect them to do. Cooperate with anti-gun politicians? They tried that, and got burned bad for it. What you said is one of those things that sounds good but isn't true at all on further inspection. Now, the NRA's efforts aren't by any means perfect, and I don't support them as a rule, but "doing more" to ensure crazy anti-gun laws than anybody? Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Here's the Type 99 article. Writing this was like going from zero to sixty, I knew very little about it going in. Donward and Meplat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I gave it a brief read and yeah, it is a damn fine article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Fight Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Far be it from me to defend the NRA, but today on Doesn't Fit The Narrative: I don't really agree with this at all. I'm not sure, politically-speaking, what else people expect them to do. Cooperate with anti-gun politicians? They tried that, and got burned bad for it. What you said is one of those things that sounds good but isn't true at all on further inspection. Now, the NRA's efforts aren't by any means perfect, and I don't support them as a rule, but "doing more" to ensure crazy anti-gun laws than anybody? Please. I wrote out a bigger post that was more vitriolic (towards the NRA, not anyone here) and whiny, but dumped it. My problems with the NRA aren't lobbying. They're public relations. Nobody without a gun knows about the NRA's information or safety programs. All they see are news stories of NRA figures blaming victims, appealing to nutsos, or organizing pro-gun rallies down the street from a major shooting within the month of the tragedy. Their public relations arm is losing the non-owner voter, and it's going to seriously hurt them (and us) down the line. People to whom pro-gun and anti-gun ownership is a very important issue are both in the minority. The rest are fence-sitters that you have to keep on your side. Otherwise, opinion shifts away from you, resulting in a legislature that you can no longer lobby. Belesarius and Sturgeon 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I wrote out a bigger post that was more vitriolic (towards the NRA, not anyone here) and whiny, but dumped it. My problems with the NRA aren't lobbying. They're public relations. Nobody without a gun knows about the NRA's information or safety programs. All they see are news stories of NRA figures blaming victims, appealing to nutsos, or organizing pro-gun rallies down the street from a major shooting within the month of the tragedy. Their public relations arm is losing the non-owner voter, and it's going to seriously hurt them (and us) down the line. People to whom pro-gun and anti-gun ownership is a very important issue are both in the minority. The rest are fence-sitters that you have to keep on your side. Otherwise, opinion shifts away from you, resulting in a legislature that you can no longer lobby. Oh, OK, I get your point, and yeah I think that's a valid criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I wrote out a bigger post that was more vitriolic (towards the NRA, not anyone here) and whiny, but dumped it. My problems with the NRA aren't lobbying. They're public relations. Nobody without a gun knows about the NRA's information or safety programs. All they see are news stories of NRA figures blaming victims, appealing to nutsos, or organizing pro-gun rallies down the street from a major shooting within the month of the tragedy. Their public relations arm is losing the non-owner voter, and it's going to seriously hurt them (and us) down the line. People to whom pro-gun and anti-gun ownership is a very important issue are both in the minority. The rest are fence-sitters that you have to keep on your side. Otherwise, opinion shifts away from you, resulting in a legislature that you can no longer lobby. As an outsider, I can definitely see this, at least media wise. The NRA presence that I get to see in the media doesn't exactly present a favorable image. "My cold dead hands" kinda thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.E. Watters Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Also, the NRA tries to make a boring gun dramatic by adding cool graphics and sound effects: Also, they show an awful lot of images of the Mini-14, instead of the AC-556, and that one guy who looks like a senator was all HAD BILL RUGER BEEN A YEAR OR TWO EARLIER THE US ARMY WOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE MINI-14 FOR VIET-NAM. There's so much wrong with this: A.) The Mini-14 wasn't "a couple of years" behind the AR-15, it was a full decade behind. B.) The Mini-14 was designed for 5.56mm... A round invented for the AR-15. No AR-15, no 5.56mm, no Mini-14. C.) The Mini-14 was designed by Jim Sullivan and Bill Ruger. Sullivan's name should sound familiar, since he's the guy who designed the AR-15. Actually, that claim originated from a story that Bill Ruger told R.L. Wilson. According to Ruger, he had run into Rene Studler (long retired by this point) at a trade show. Studler was supposedly enamored with the Mini-14 prototype and encouraged Ruger to submit it to the Army. Of course, it would have been far too late to unseat the M16A1, but it made for a cute story. Donward 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted October 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Doesn't the NRA ironically hate the shit out of Ruger aswell memory serve me? (or perhaps they did in the past.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 In the past, yeah.Here's an example of how you get fractional improvements even within fairly minute bore diameter increments. My process was based on a few assumptions (which I set purely to help refine methodology; these may not be good assumptions):1. The projectiles are all homologues of a 62gr .224" bullet with a .92 form factor and construction like M855A1 2. The projectile cores each need to produce 80 J to make a lethal wound, for a combined required energy of 160 J 3. M855A1 needs 190J of energy to penetrate a 3.5mm NATO plate.4. A .224 caliber bullet of similar construction but better form factor also needs 190 J to penetrate the same plate.5. An infantry rifle cartridge needs to penetrate this plate at 600 meters.6. Caliber reductions reduce the value for (4) by a square function; e.g. .204" caliber needs 190 J * (.204/.224)^2 to penetrate the plate; restated, specific energy is the relevant quantity for plate penetration. 7. Muzzle velocity must be 900 m/s (2,950 ft/s). I established this value as close to ideal for longer-range energy retention in an earlier study; above it and you're not adding enough energy to be worth the additional case size. Now, I optimized for smallest caliber (and thus lightest bullet, and lowest round weight). I did this by calculating the results for .224" and .197" (5mm) and working in from there to find the optimum. .224 - 441.9 J given, 350 J required .214 - 356.4 J given, 333 J required .211 - 335.7 J given, 329 J required .210 - 328.0 J given, 327 J required .209 - 320.5 J given, 325 J required .204 - 283.1 J given, 318 J required .197 - 241.0 J given, 307 J required As we can see, the optimum caliber was .210". This is the smallest caliber that satisfies the parameters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Here's another set, slightly different methodology. Again, I'm just playing around with things to see how parameters like this affect your optimums. 1. The projectiles are all homologues of a .264" 108gr bullet with a .889 form factor and construction like M855A1 2. The projectile cores each need to produce 80 J to make a lethal wound, for a combined required energy of 160 J 3. M855A1 needs 190J of energy to penetrate a 3.5mm NATO plate.4. A .224 caliber bullet of similar construction but better form factor also needs 190 J to penetrate the same plate.5. An infantry rifle cartridge needs to penetrate this plate at 600 meters.6. Caliber reductions reduce the value for (4) by a square function; e.g. .204" caliber needs 190 J * (.204/.224)^2 to penetrate the plate; restated, specific energy is the relevant quantity for plate penetration. 7. Muzzle velocity must be 900 m/s (2,950 ft/s). I established this value as close to ideal for longer-range energy retention in an earlier study; above it and you're not adding enough energy to be worth the additional case size. Now, I optimized for smallest caliber (and thus lightest bullet, and lowest round weight). I did this by calculating the results in .003" increments. Compare this set with the last to see how changing one parameter changes the "optimum" caliber (from .210 to .197) and bullet weight (previous weight was 51.1 gr) Cal. - Wgt. - BC - pE600 - tE600 - aE600 .224 - 66.0 - .211 - 190 - 350 - 539.1 .221 - 63.4 - .209 - 185 - 345 - 511.2 .218 - 60.8 - .206 - 180 - 340 - 480.5 .215 - 58.3 - .203 - 175 - 335 - 451.3 .212 - 55.9 - .200 - 170 - 330 - 423.6 .209 - 53.6 - .197 - 165 - 325 - 399.4 .206 - 51.3 - .194 - 161 - 321 - 371.5 .203 - 49.1 - .191 - 156 - 316 - 347.1 .200 - 47.0 - .189 - 151 - 311 - 326.8 .197 - 44.9 - .186 - 147 - 307 - 304.3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 One of the things that occurred to me while doing these studies was that the assumption of a 3.5mm plate is kind of spurious. It made sense in the 1980s, as that plate was simulating Russian body armor of the time, but now the body armor of enemy forces is very difficult to define, and the best body armor available renders even .30 cal dedicated armor penetrators (e.g. 7.62x54mmR B-32 API) ineffective even at very close ranges. This means there is essentially no hope of an intermediate carbine round penetrating these advanced body armors at 600m.Beyond this, some have claimed the NATO 3.5mm plate is a viable and convenient substitute for random barriers... But in exactly what circumstance is an infantryman with nothing but a carbine engaging a target that is obscured by cover that would reasonably be approximated by 3.5mm plate (at a standoff distance, not like body armor!) at 600m? It is difficult to spot a person unobscured by cover at 600m (heck, even bright orange silhouettes wash out to my hawk eyes at that distance), much less one behind cover, and it's even more difficult to actually hit someone behind cover at that distance. It's so much of a bother, I think, that the well-equipped infantry squad would quickly throw out the idea of engaging the target with rifles or automatic support weapons, and instead grab their mortars or recoilless rifles, instead.These assumptions do, however, let me play around with various different methods for optimizing within certain models. These exercises also neatly illustrate the degree to which the GPC concept is overbuilt, at the expense of weight, given those parameters (which I took off the dead body of a GPC advocate I had defeated in single combat). LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 GPC seems to me don't take into account HMGs, RPGs/small sized missile launchers like mini-Spike, automatic grenade launchers, light mortars (~82mm) etc. AFAIK, they become main infantry weapon, when fighting with competent forces. Don't forget level of mechanisation of modern forces. Sturgeon and Tied 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Yes, the GPC advocates appear to be under the impression that it's 1913 and infantry mortars and other man portable explosive projectors have not been invented yet, except select-fire rifles have been. Explaining this to them is essentially a losing battle, but I try anyway because it helps sharpen the ol' wit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Looking at combat in Ukraine, grenade launchers, HMGs, AFVs like BMPs and tanks, artillery and MLRS are main weapons of killing and destruction, while rifles and carabines are used more for suppresion, ~close combat and urban combat during "sweep and clear" stage of combat. Tied 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted October 17, 2015 Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Yeah, some advice: Don't get GPC people talking about suppression if you value the structural integrity of your forehead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted October 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2015 Also don't volunteer to do fx work if your name is Tom Savini if you value the structural integrity of your forehead and forehead accessories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.