<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> hmm... this reminds me on the qbz-95
or the tkb-022.. its like a mixture of both of them <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually, whats funny, is that there are several bullpup designs made by The actual Norinco corporation that are basically exactly what you posted.. an AK with the handle placed on the front grip.. , kinda a cheap way of doing it, But It works, apparently.
so are you going to model that <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--sheena yanai+Oct 4 2003, 11:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (sheena yanai @ Oct 4 2003, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> thats typical for a man... he equates the lenght of a device with its strength.. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> imnot doing my guns as phallic symbols.. long barells on compact systems dont making sense.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> that is the funniest thing i have ever heard in my entire life. so true too! you, shenna, win.
you make me proud of my three inch monster! er...my pathfinder .22LR...
How the hell do the bullets get fired out of the TKB-022?! I don't see room for a firing bolt and such behind the magazine... Is it pulled to some forward position before getting fired? Seems like a waste of mechanical energy. O_o
Or is the pin right there and the casing just gets mashed back against it, instead of the other way around?
<!--QuoteBegin--rabbity+Oct 5 2003, 09:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rabbity @ Oct 5 2003, 09:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> P90 a small sized assault rifle? well......not really, its just an SMG firing low caliber, slighty high velocity pistol rounds. Its max effective range is 200 metres. An aug's max effective range is way further than that
M16a2 with a 20in barrel damages the target better than a G36c. This is because for a 5.56mm round to fragment, it has to reach an optimum velocity, and thus, thats why a longer barrel is better. But then again, too long a barrel will, instead, decrease the velocity of the round.
anyway with a barrel like that in your gun, it fits more as a Carbine rather than a full sized assault rifle. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
*im a gurl k <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're in luck....while Sheena might not want to argue concept weapon cabilities with you, i'm more than willing to argue real-world weapon capabilities with you... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I happen to like not only tha P90, but tha G36C as well.....and since you seem to have misconceptions about both, i figured i'd correct you....
You said that tha P90 fires pistol rounds...that's just not correct...by ANY stretch of tha imagination...
Let's start with a little history lesson.....Tha FN P90 submachine gun (SMG) was developed in the late 1980s as a defensive weapon for the troops whose primary activities didn't not include small arms (vehicle and tank crew members, artillery crews etc.) Issued pistols and SMGs chambered for pistol rounds were ineffective against enemy soldiers wearing armor, so FN Herstal developed a new round with enhanced penetration - the SS190. This round looks like scaled down 5.56mm NATO round and forces the pointed, steel core bullet to 600-700 meters per second at the muzzle, making it able to penetrate standard CRISAT helmets and armor vests at reasonable distances (50-100 meters).
Anyways, tha point being that tha SS190 round IS a 5.7x28mm round...pretty much tha same as would be fired by most assault rifles.....so it's not a pistol round....
Now then...Maximum effective range on a P90 is 200 meters...you were corrcet about that...you stated tha Aug's maximum effective range as being "way further than that"...Tha Steyr AUG's max effective range is only between 450 and 500 meters.....about double tha range...but then again, it's using tha standard 5.56mm NATO (.223rem) round...not the slightly scaled down SS190 round....and it's an assault rifle, not an SMG...so of course it's going to have a longer effective range...
Now, with that out of tha way, we'll move on to tha M16A2 -vs- H&K G36C dispute...
You contend that an M-16/A2 is more powerful than an H&K G36C...They're both assault rifles, and they both fire a 5.56x45mm NATO round.....The M-16 has a 20 inch barrel, versus the 8.9 inch barrel of the G36C....this only seems to give tha M16 a 100-125m/s boost over the G36C in terms of muzzle velocoty, given that tha muzzle velocity is anywhere between 975m/s, and 1100m/s (depending on who you listen to....since i've seen it stated in more places as 975, that's what we're going with), and tha G36C's muzzle velocity is something like 850m/s
The 5.56mm bullet does have a characteristic that is not that well known ?its main mechanism for causing tissue damage is not tumbling but by fragmentation. When the bullet tumbles it begins to fragment, and the channels that these fragments cut weakens the surrounding tissue and makes it more susceptible to damage from stretching. The result is a large volume wound cavity that may be 7cm across at its widest. The important consideration here is that both M193 and M855 bullets are less likely to fragment at below 2700fps and do not fragment if they strike at a velocity of less than 2500fps. For a 20" barreled weapon rounds will fragment out to 200m range and for a 16" barreled weapon out to 150m range. At ranges under 200m the lighter M193 round generally has a 200fps velocity over the M855 at the same range, so has a greater likelyhood of fragmenting.
Shorter barreled assault rifles have a muzzle velocity below the critical level so rounds fired from these will not fragment and will produce reduced wounding and incapacitation. There is some evidence that these bullets will not tumble either, and behave like small calibre FMJ pistol rounds. Mimimum barrel length for use with FMJ rounds seems to be 14.5". Shorter barreled versions of assault rifles are marketed as CQB weapons so it is worth realizing that such guns will have reduced stopping power in the very role that they need it most. This is why I propose the adoption of the 9x39mm round for CQB even though it means supplying an extra cartridge.
Note that these findings about the effectiveness of short barreled 5.56mm weapons only apply to when FMJ ammunition is used. Short barreled weapons seem to work fairly well with rounds that do not rely on fragmentation such as the Federal 55gr Tactical JSP round.
Now despite the data to the contrary, it would appear that the muzzle velocity of the G36C is suffucient for fragmentation on impact with a 100-125 meter handicap versus the M-16/A2...but seeing as how the G36C is a CQB assault rifle, this is acceptable....so it would seem that your statement about the M-16 being more damaging than the G36C is not entirely accurate either.....
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Acid-Snake+Jan 11 2004, 07:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Acid-Snake @ Jan 11 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You said that tha P90 fires pistol rounds...that's just not correct...by ANY stretch of tha imagination...
Anyways, tha point being that tha SS190 round IS a 5.7x28mm round...pretty much tha same as would be fired by most assault rifles.....so it's not a pistol round.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> wrong. the 5.56 and 7.62 nato standard rounds aren't commonly used in any pistols, obviously because they're rifle rounds.
the 5.7 AP round was manufactured for use in the Five-seveN pistol also. a police officer friend of mine let me hold the one he was testing, and then fire it later at a public range. as advertised, it fits perfectly in the hand despite the slightly longer length of the round. also, as advertised.. it has very comfortable recoil, somewhere around that of a 9mm glock 17 or similary pistol.
basically, it's not "pretty much the same" as a rifle round. it's much shorter and the Five-seveN pistol is a comfortable gun to hold (moreso than, say, the desert eagle, notorious for its large grip circumference due to overly-long cartridges)
<!--QuoteBegin--Zig+Jan 11 2004, 04:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Jan 11 2004, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Acid-Snake+Jan 11 2004, 07:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Acid-Snake @ Jan 11 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You said that tha P90 fires pistol rounds...that's just not correct...by ANY stretch of tha imagination...
Anyways, tha point being that tha SS190 round IS a 5.7x28mm round...pretty much tha same as would be fired by most assault rifles.....so it's not a pistol round.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wrong. the 5.56 and 7.62 nato standard rounds aren't commonly used in any pistols, obviously because they're rifle rounds.
the 5.7 AP round was manufactured for use in the Five-seveN pistol also. a police officer friend of mine let me hold the one he was testing, and then fire it later at a public range. as advertised, it fits perfectly in the hand despite the slightly longer length of the round. also, as advertised.. it has very comfortable recoil, somewhere around that of a 9mm glock 17 or similary pistol.
basically, it's not "pretty much the same" as a rifle round. it's much shorter and the Five-seveN pistol is a comfortable gun to hold (moreso than, say, the desert eagle, notorious for its large grip circumference due to overly-long cartridges)
and as for the "g36C vs. m16 debate"
ffs, use a g36 instead of carping about the C. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> FFS....Tha Five-seveN was designed as a complementary weapon to tha P90...but i'm sure you already knew that.....but tha P90 was developed first, Tha SS190 round was designed for it....it was propriatery SMG ammo first.....tha pistol idea was kind of an after thought.....anyways, tha SS190 is not what you would commonly refer to as "Pistol Ammunition"
And why use a G36 in CQB?....that'd be kinda retarded....if you were gonna do that, i'd say why not take tha freaking M-16?.....
unless i'm misunderstanding what you're on about...
<!--QuoteBegin--=DD=Wolf Kahler+Jan 11 2004, 03:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (=DD=Wolf Kahler @ Jan 11 2004, 03:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not sure if rabbity is still posting around here...
It's good you posted a link to your source, Snake. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'>that's not nice to say</span>
anyways, about that link....only a small amount of information spilled there came from that link....basicly tha whole bit about tha 5.56mm NATO round was from there....everything else was from me...
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited January 2004
<!--QuoteBegin--me+ above--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (me @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->basically, it's not "pretty much the same" as a rifle round. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as for the g36c issue, why compare the C to the m16 at all? why not compare it to the m4a1? i don't understand what you're doing besides agreeing with rabbity. the word "powerful" has no precise definition in the argument and, as such, you can bend the argument to anyone's favor. it's pointless.
edit: discussing "damage", you're limiting your argument to FMJ rounds. what about AP-limited penetration? the gun itself doesn't always determine the damage caused, as your post implies.
and by the way, don't flame. rabbity wasn't "stupid", her post wasn't "retarded"
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--Zig+Jan 11 2004, 04:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zig @ Jan 11 2004, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--me+ above--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (me @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->basically, it's not "pretty much the same" as a rifle round. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as for the g36c issue, why compare the C to the m16 at all? why not compare it to the m4a1? i don't understand what you're doing besides agreeing with rabbity. the word "powerful" has no precise definition in the argument and, as such, you can bend the argument to anyone's favor. it's pointless.
edit: discussing "damage", you're limiting your argument to FMJ rounds. what about AP-limited penetration? the gun itself doesn't always determine the damage caused, as your post implies.
and by the way, don't flame. rabbity wasn't "stupid", her post wasn't "retarded" <span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was comparing tha G36C to tha M-16/A1, because she did....i was remaining within tha parameters of tha source material, that my rebuttal was based on....i'm not seeing tha problem...
i didn't compare it to tha M-4/A1, because she didn't....it's just that simple, and no i wasn't agreeing with her...read man...
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
I limited tha arguement to FMJ rounds, because that's tha standard, and since standard was what was referenced, that's what my arguement was based on...did you even read tha bloody post you're trying to tear apart?
I never said her post was "Retarded"....but tha inaccuracies were not easily dismissable...
"Inaccuracy may have been a better word than "Stupidity". i'll give ya' that...
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited January 2004
i'm trying to show you the APPROPRIATE way to behave at this forum, and obviously this is still just a gun argument to you.
clarification of narrowing the argument <!--QuoteBegin--rabbity+ above--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rabbity @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->M16a2 with a 20in barrel damages the target better than a G36c. This is because for a 5.56mm round to fragment, it has to reach an optimum velocity, and thus, thats why a longer barrel is better. But then again, too long a barrel will, instead, decrease the velocity of the round.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> there was no mention of FMJ.
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
1. FMJ fragments, yes, but it's not the ONLY bullet to do so.
2. yes, i read them. you ramble on and on about FMJ when nobody's talking about FMJ specifically.
3. it sounded less like a joke than like a conceited snipe at someone who most likely won't be here to read it.
4. i said "why not compare it to the m4a1" because it's a more suitable comparison, without taking anything out of context. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, Pay attention.
1. I know it's not tha only bullet that fragments. But FMJ is tha standard....
2. While FMJ is not referenced specifically, it doens't hafta be, because it's tha bloody standard...and it can be inferred from all available data that standard was what was being referenced....
3. Actually, i wasn't joking...i used tha quote as an example...i tend not to take it too hard when children think i suck...i'm used to that song and dance...
4. "'why not compare it to the m4a1' because it's a more suitable comparison, without taking anything out of context." has got to be one of tha dumbest things you've ever said...do you pay attention to what you're saying while you're saying it?....or do you just kinda type, and then hope it makes sense?
It's completely out of context, because tha M-4, and M-16, while alike in many ways are different guns....so at that point, i'd be modifying tha comparison, so as to make myself appear right....it's kinda like when someone asks you how to fix bent guide rod on a Beretta M9, and you start rattling off some idiocy about a Glock...it's nice to know that you can compare them, but tha information is irrelivant, because it has nothing to do with tha question...
it was a direct comparison of tha M-16/A2 Versus tha H&K G36C....that's what tha comparison was, and that's what i corrected...i've said this how many times?......is it sinking in yet?
take the anal gun arguments elsewhere. i don't want to see any flames, or i will stop editing them, and start building a case file for you... and we all know that having a case file results in a 3 letter word that starts with b and ends with an
good god.. and people say i argue a lot. This is just sad. Hey Del, wanna go bowling while these two duke it out? You can clean up the mess when we get back. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is how we start the new year... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> chill out guys.
Comments
imnot doing my guns as phallic symbols.. long barells on compact systems dont making sense.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is the funniest thing i have ever heard in my entire life. so true too! you, shenna, win.
you make me proud of my three inch monster! er...my pathfinder .22LR...
Or is the pin right there and the casing just gets mashed back against it, instead of the other way around?
M16a2 with a 20in barrel damages the target better than a G36c. This is because for a 5.56mm round to fragment, it has to reach an optimum velocity, and thus, thats why a longer barrel is better. But then again, too long a barrel will, instead, decrease the velocity of the round.
anyway with a barrel like that in your gun, it fits more as a Carbine rather than a full sized assault rifle.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
*im a gurl k <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're in luck....while Sheena might not want to argue concept weapon cabilities with you, i'm more than willing to argue real-world weapon capabilities with you... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I happen to like not only tha P90, but tha G36C as well.....and since you seem to have misconceptions about both, i figured i'd correct you....
You said that tha P90 fires pistol rounds...that's just not correct...by ANY stretch of tha imagination...
Let's start with a little history lesson.....Tha FN P90 submachine gun (SMG) was developed in the late 1980s as a defensive weapon for the troops whose primary activities didn't not include small arms (vehicle and tank crew members, artillery crews etc.) Issued pistols and SMGs chambered for pistol rounds were ineffective against enemy soldiers wearing armor, so FN Herstal developed a new round with enhanced penetration - the SS190. This round looks like scaled down 5.56mm NATO round and forces the pointed, steel core bullet to 600-700 meters per second at the muzzle, making it able to penetrate standard CRISAT helmets and armor vests at reasonable distances (50-100 meters).
Anyways, tha point being that tha SS190 round IS a 5.7x28mm round...pretty much tha same as would be fired by most assault rifles.....so it's not a pistol round....
Now then...Maximum effective range on a P90 is 200 meters...you were corrcet about that...you stated tha Aug's maximum effective range as being "way further than that"...Tha Steyr AUG's max effective range is only between 450 and 500 meters.....about double tha range...but then again, it's using tha standard 5.56mm NATO (.223rem) round...not the slightly scaled down SS190 round....and it's an assault rifle, not an SMG...so of course it's going to have a longer effective range...
Now, with that out of tha way, we'll move on to tha M16A2 -vs- H&K G36C dispute...
You contend that an M-16/A2 is more powerful than an H&K G36C...They're both assault rifles, and they both fire a 5.56x45mm NATO round.....The M-16 has a 20 inch barrel, versus the 8.9 inch barrel of the G36C....this only seems to give tha M16 a 100-125m/s boost over the G36C in terms of muzzle velocoty, given that tha muzzle velocity is anywhere between 975m/s, and 1100m/s (depending on who you listen to....since i've seen it stated in more places as 975, that's what we're going with), and tha G36C's muzzle velocity is something like 850m/s
The 5.56mm bullet does have a characteristic that is not that well known ?its main mechanism for causing tissue damage is not tumbling but by fragmentation. When the bullet tumbles it begins to fragment, and the channels that these fragments cut weakens the surrounding tissue and makes it more susceptible to damage from stretching. The result is a large volume wound cavity that may be 7cm across at its widest. The important consideration here is that both M193 and M855 bullets are less likely to fragment at below 2700fps and do not fragment if they strike at a velocity of less than 2500fps. For a 20" barreled weapon rounds will fragment out to 200m range and for a 16" barreled weapon out to 150m range. At ranges under 200m the lighter M193 round generally has a 200fps velocity over the M855 at the same range, so has a greater likelyhood of fragmenting.
Shorter barreled assault rifles have a muzzle velocity below the critical level so rounds fired from these will not fragment and will produce reduced wounding and incapacitation. There is some evidence that these bullets will not tumble either, and behave like small calibre FMJ pistol rounds. Mimimum barrel length for use with FMJ rounds seems to be 14.5". Shorter barreled versions of assault rifles are marketed as CQB weapons so it is worth realizing that such guns will have reduced stopping power in the very role that they need it most. This is why I propose the adoption of the 9x39mm round for CQB even though it means supplying an extra cartridge.
Note that these findings about the effectiveness of short barreled 5.56mm weapons only apply to when FMJ ammunition is used. Short barreled weapons seem to work fairly well with rounds that do not rely on fragmentation such as the Federal 55gr Tactical JSP round.
<a href='http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html#556' target='_blank'>http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/ter...rminal.html#556</a>
MUZZLE VELOCITIES
3198.82FPS - M16/A2
2788.71FPS - G36C
Now despite the data to the contrary, it would appear that the muzzle velocity of the G36C is suffucient for fragmentation on impact with a 100-125 meter handicap versus the M-16/A2...but seeing as how the G36C is a CQB assault rifle, this is acceptable....so it would seem that your statement about the M-16 being more damaging than the G36C is not entirely accurate either.....
It's good you posted a link to your source, Snake.
Anyways, tha point being that tha SS190 round IS a 5.7x28mm round...pretty much tha same as would be fired by most assault rifles.....so it's not a pistol round....
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong. the 5.56 and 7.62 nato standard rounds aren't commonly used in any pistols, obviously because they're rifle rounds.
the 5.7 AP round was manufactured for use in the Five-seveN pistol also. a police officer friend of mine let me hold the one he was testing, and then fire it later at a public range. as advertised, it fits perfectly in the hand despite the slightly longer length of the round. also, as advertised.. it has very comfortable recoil, somewhere around that of a 9mm glock 17 or similary pistol.
basically, it's not "pretty much the same" as a rifle round. it's much shorter and the Five-seveN pistol is a comfortable gun to hold (moreso than, say, the desert eagle, notorious for its large grip circumference due to overly-long cartridges)
and as for the "g36C vs. m16 debate"
ffs, use a g36 instead of carping about the C.
Anyways, tha point being that tha SS190 round IS a 5.7x28mm round...pretty much tha same as would be fired by most assault rifles.....so it's not a pistol round....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong. the 5.56 and 7.62 nato standard rounds aren't commonly used in any pistols, obviously because they're rifle rounds.
the 5.7 AP round was manufactured for use in the Five-seveN pistol also. a police officer friend of mine let me hold the one he was testing, and then fire it later at a public range. as advertised, it fits perfectly in the hand despite the slightly longer length of the round. also, as advertised.. it has very comfortable recoil, somewhere around that of a 9mm glock 17 or similary pistol.
basically, it's not "pretty much the same" as a rifle round. it's much shorter and the Five-seveN pistol is a comfortable gun to hold (moreso than, say, the desert eagle, notorious for its large grip circumference due to overly-long cartridges)
and as for the "g36C vs. m16 debate"
ffs, use a g36 instead of carping about the C. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
FFS....Tha Five-seveN was designed as a complementary weapon to tha P90...but i'm sure you already knew that.....but tha P90 was developed first, Tha SS190 round was designed for it....it was propriatery SMG ammo first.....tha pistol idea was kind of an after thought.....anyways, tha SS190 is not what you would commonly refer to as "Pistol Ammunition"
And why use a G36 in CQB?....that'd be kinda retarded....if you were gonna do that, i'd say why not take tha freaking M-16?.....
unless i'm misunderstanding what you're on about...
It's good you posted a link to your source, Snake. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:red'>that's not nice to say</span>
anyways, about that link....only a small amount of information spilled there came from that link....basicly tha whole bit about tha 5.56mm NATO round was from there....everything else was from me...
as for the g36c issue, why compare the C to the m16 at all? why not compare it to the m4a1? i don't understand what you're doing besides agreeing with rabbity. the word "powerful" has no precise definition in the argument and, as such, you can bend the argument to anyone's favor. it's pointless.
edit: discussing "damage", you're limiting your argument to FMJ rounds. what about AP-limited penetration? the gun itself doesn't always determine the damage caused, as your post implies.
and by the way, don't flame. rabbity wasn't "stupid", her post wasn't "retarded"
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
as for the g36c issue, why compare the C to the m16 at all? why not compare it to the m4a1? i don't understand what you're doing besides agreeing with rabbity. the word "powerful" has no precise definition in the argument and, as such, you can bend the argument to anyone's favor. it's pointless.
edit: discussing "damage", you're limiting your argument to FMJ rounds. what about AP-limited penetration? the gun itself doesn't always determine the damage caused, as your post implies.
and by the way, don't flame. rabbity wasn't "stupid", her post wasn't "retarded"
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was comparing tha G36C to tha M-16/A1, because she did....i was remaining within tha parameters of tha source material, that my rebuttal was based on....i'm not seeing tha problem...
i didn't compare it to tha M-4/A1, because she didn't....it's just that simple, and no i wasn't agreeing with her...read man...
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
I limited tha arguement to FMJ rounds, because that's tha standard, and since standard was what was referenced, that's what my arguement was based on...did you even read tha bloody post you're trying to tear apart?
I never said her post was "Retarded"....but tha inaccuracies were not easily dismissable...
"Inaccuracy may have been a better word than "Stupidity". i'll give ya' that...
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
clarification of narrowing the argument
<!--QuoteBegin--rabbity+ above--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rabbity @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->M16a2 with a 20in barrel damages the target better than a G36c. This is because for a 5.56mm round to fragment, it has to reach an optimum velocity, and thus, thats why a longer barrel is better. But then again, too long a barrel will, instead, decrease the velocity of the round.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> there was no mention of FMJ.
<span style='color:red'>That's not nice to say</span>
as for your "correcting inaccuracies", i suggest you do so within the context of the person's post, and not alter it to fit your correction.
1. FMJ fragments, yes, but it's not the ONLY bullet to do so.
2. yes, i read them. you ramble on and on about FMJ when nobody's talking about FMJ specifically.
3. it sounded less like a joke than like a conceited snipe at someone who most likely won't be here to read it.
4. i said "why not compare it to the m4a1" because it's a more suitable comparison, without taking anything out of context.
1. FMJ fragments, yes, but it's not the ONLY bullet to do so.
2. yes, i read them. you ramble on and on about FMJ when nobody's talking about FMJ specifically.
3. it sounded less like a joke than like a conceited snipe at someone who most likely won't be here to read it.
4. i said "why not compare it to the m4a1" because it's a more suitable comparison, without taking anything out of context. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, Pay attention.
1. I know it's not tha only bullet that fragments. But FMJ is tha standard....
2. While FMJ is not referenced specifically, it doens't hafta be, because it's tha bloody standard...and it can be inferred from all available data that standard was what was being referenced....
3. Actually, i wasn't joking...i used tha quote as an example...i tend not to take it too hard when children think i suck...i'm used to that song and dance...
4. "'why not compare it to the m4a1' because it's a more suitable comparison, without taking anything out of context." has got to be one of tha dumbest things you've ever said...do you pay attention to what you're saying while you're saying it?....or do you just kinda type, and then hope it makes sense?
It's completely out of context, because tha M-4, and M-16, while alike in many ways are different guns....so at that point, i'd be modifying tha comparison, so as to make myself appear right....it's kinda like when someone asks you how to fix bent guide rod on a Beretta M9, and you start rattling off some idiocy about a Glock...it's nice to know that you can compare them, but tha information is irrelivant, because it has nothing to do with tha question...
it was a direct comparison of tha M-16/A2 Versus tha H&K G36C....that's what tha comparison was, and that's what i corrected...i've said this how many times?......is it sinking in yet?
i'm gonna take my leave of this place for a while...this is frustrating as hell
to be honest, i'm not even sure why i come here... ::rolls eyes::
chill out guys.