Primetime History Channel Tonight
Sirus
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Look at the line-up</div> I'm not sure if you guys are big fans of the History Channel like I am.
It is by far the best channel ever.
Check this line up.
8-9pm
Modern Marvels
The M-16
The most powerful assault rifle ever used in combat, the M-16 became the symbol of our lost war--Vietnam--and can easily be called America's most unloved gun. Yet, 30 years after its introduction, it stands as a potent icon of U.S. military strength worldwide. We'll explain how it almost ended up on the scrap heap!
9-10pm
Modern Marvels
Bulletproof
How do you stop a speeding bullet? From body armor to armored cars and trucks, we review the history of the race between the bullet and a successful way to stop it. It's not exactly easy to design material that can catch gunfire traveling up to 3,000 feet per second. We'll look at little-known advances like bulletproof layering hidden in walls, futuristic smart materials that "remember" how to stop a bullet, and a system that deploys a shield within milliseconds when it detects an oncoming round.
10-11pm
Modern Marvels
Bullets
From "safe" bullets that stop hijackers but leave aircraft unscathed to bullets that chain-saw through steel and "smart" bullets computer-programmed to hit a target, this explosive hour examines the evolution of bullets from origin in the 1300s--stones and round lead balls shot from iron and bamboo tubes. Lead balls ruled until 1841 when a conical-shaped bullet changed ammo forever. We learn how to construct a modern cartridge, and at pistol and rifle ranges view demonstrations of modern firepower.
It is by far the best channel ever.
Check this line up.
8-9pm
Modern Marvels
The M-16
The most powerful assault rifle ever used in combat, the M-16 became the symbol of our lost war--Vietnam--and can easily be called America's most unloved gun. Yet, 30 years after its introduction, it stands as a potent icon of U.S. military strength worldwide. We'll explain how it almost ended up on the scrap heap!
9-10pm
Modern Marvels
Bulletproof
How do you stop a speeding bullet? From body armor to armored cars and trucks, we review the history of the race between the bullet and a successful way to stop it. It's not exactly easy to design material that can catch gunfire traveling up to 3,000 feet per second. We'll look at little-known advances like bulletproof layering hidden in walls, futuristic smart materials that "remember" how to stop a bullet, and a system that deploys a shield within milliseconds when it detects an oncoming round.
10-11pm
Modern Marvels
Bullets
From "safe" bullets that stop hijackers but leave aircraft unscathed to bullets that chain-saw through steel and "smart" bullets computer-programmed to hit a target, this explosive hour examines the evolution of bullets from origin in the 1300s--stones and round lead balls shot from iron and bamboo tubes. Lead balls ruled until 1841 when a conical-shaped bullet changed ammo forever. We learn how to construct a modern cartridge, and at pistol and rifle ranges view demonstrations of modern firepower.
Comments
blah blah blah... i dont want to hijack thread
I hated how they complained about the old AR and how much it jammed in the M-16 special. Otherwise it was a great show.
and the self guiding anti-tank round in the last show is the only thing worth watching. (altho the video bit with the guy who gets shot IN THE GUN with a bullet that shatters from 300 yards is awesome!)
I hated how they complained about the old AR and how much it jammed in the M-16 special. Otherwise it was a great show.
and the self guiding anti-tank round in the last show is the only thing worth watching. (altho the video bit with the guy who gets shot IN THE GUN with a bullet that shatters from 300 yards is awesome!) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are developing new kevlar that doesn't bunch up... i think it was on that show...
Isn't there a .308 version of the m-16 anyway? I think .308 is more powerful then the 7.62xXX that the AK uses (can't remember, but it's relatively short)
edit:
ohh yeah the kevlar that doesnt bunch was very riged (sp) and didnt allow for much mobility.
blah blah blah... i dont want to hijack thread <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welcome to the wonderful world of people not understanding how weapons work.
When they refer to power, it has little to do with calibre. An M16's 5.56 round has a much higher velocity (3200 Feet Per Second versus the AK's roughly 1900 Feet per second). This is the primary component of weapons 'power' (a misused term at best). Stop making things up and do a little research next time - or spend 8 years in the USMC infantry like myself.
No doubt it's better long range and for almost all instances, but an AK-47's bullet does deliver more force than a .223
blah blah blah... i dont want to hijack thread <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welcome to the wonderful world of people not understanding how weapons work.
When they refer to power, it has little to do with calibre. An M16's 5.56 round has a much higher velocity (3200 Feet Per Second versus the AK's roughly 1900 Feet per second). This is the primary component of weapons 'power' (a misused term at best). Stop making things up and do a little research next time - or spend 8 years in the USMC infantry like myself. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow 8 years and you didnt stop a bullet, how nice for me. I'm sorry I ragged on your favorite rifle, please excuse my ignorance!
edit: ohh and just to feel a little less bad about myself the ak-47 has a muzzle velocity of 710 <a href='http://www.sovietarmy.com/small_arms/ak-47.html' target='_blank'>clicky</a> not 1900
I just have an affinity for the ak must be my russian blood american weapons have a bad reputation
ohh and if Monse can even see me from way up ther maybe he would be kind enough to explain the differance between muzzle velocity and muzzle energy for those of us who want to know
No doubt it's better long range and for almost all instances, but an AK-47's bullet does deliver more force than a .223 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly sure how they are teaching math these days, but as I recall from many years ago in school, Force = Mass X Acceleration. A Ak-47 7.62 round <i>is</i> roughly 1.5x the weight (mass, for our purposes) in grains of a NATO 5.56 ball round. However, and M16's muzzle velocity (acceleration for our purposes) is roughly <i>two and change</i> times that of an AK. So, based on simple newtonian physics, it should be considered more 'forceful'.
I think! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit - and Grey, you are confusing meters with feet. Your measurements are suffering for it. As for ragging on my favorite rifle - it was not. As some who's job was to use an M16, I was no fan of it. I am just correcting facts - not to be confused with opinion. I would point out that for reliability and simplicity, an AK-47 is tremendously superior to an M16. In actual ability to kill people (i.e. power, effective range, and its sighting system), I would prefer a 16. It comes down to the different philosophies of usage and training, really.
No doubt it's better long range and for almost all instances, but an AK-47's bullet does deliver more force than a .223 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly sure how they are teaching math these days, but as I recall from many years ago in school, Force = Mass X Acceleration. A Ak-47 7.62 round <i>is</i> roughly 1.5x the weight (mass, for our purposes) in grains of a NATO 5.56 ball round. However, and M16's muzzle velocity (acceleration for our purposes) is roughly <i>two and change</i> times that of an AK. So, based on simple newtonian physics, it should be considered more 'forceful'.
I think! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit - and Grey, you are confusing meters with feet. Your measurements are suffering for it. As for ragging on my favorite rifle - it was not. As some who's job was to use an M16, I was no fan of it. I am just correcting facts - do not confuse that with opinion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just go by the general rule (not mathematical) that more charge = more gaseous force.
The force will decrease faster with a heavier bullet, and will increase faster if the bullet is wider, but just from a logical standpoint the amount of power in the shell should be the only determining factor to the force behind the bullet, although that force may or may not translate to the bullet due to the weight of it, barrel length (to a certain degree) and aerodynamics.
While it may not be a huge trade off, i'm pretty sure that an AK can deliver more force.. anybody have ft-lb ratings of each?
As I tried to explain earlier, it's not labratory science, as you have a lot of environmental factors when you consider projectile weapons. But if you want to say that an AK-47 is more powerful or has more force than an M16 - well, it doesn't. Size, in this case, really doesn't matter. Tell your girlfriends in the ARA! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yeah right, a handgun for hunting. This is just another tool of murder. Shame on S&W.
*/me goes watch Bowling for Columbine again*
but yes, for technical matters force = mass*velocity
so the lighter m16 round traveling much faster then the hvyr ak47 has more 'force'
I am willing to bet that if you simply measure the nrg produced from the burning of the gunpowder in the 2 shells you would find that the m16's rounds produce more. However, there is then the gun/bullet design to take into account (how much of that NRG is ACTUALY transfered into the bullet vs kickback, heat and other things. Then also how much nrg is wasted on the riffiling of the barel etc)
NOW if you wana look at how much DMG a bullet from one vs the other is gona produce, that is both personal preff (probably) and well, lets see what I can find on google. Bah nothing of what I wanted.
One Of my friends had gone to a car show and snaped a pic of an armoured car door that had been shot with various weapons (each hole labeled) What I wanted was to see what kind of holes each gun left (and I for one don't feel like looking at newsfootage of bodies)
but yah, If the AK47 realy was that much better the M16 would not be ussed (simply b/c it would be painfuly cheap to switch over to AKs due to their simple design and few parts, what is it like 12?)
the most powerful gun ever is the catapult you sons of b*tches. eat me.
and if you don't think so, tooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
bigger and bader than any catapult
not that either are GUNS!
if you wana be all stupid atleast name a gun (I count arbalest)
- HL2 'joyride' video.