Truth be told, I have no idea, but best guess would be, Glock ejector dents cartridges, similar to Galil.
Unofficial technical weapon question forum.
- Thread starter Scythe
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
BTW Weren't most guns smoothbore ever since... the invention of the firearm (quite simply because they didn't have the technology to rifle the barrels yet)?
Muskets for instance are smoothbore weapons as are most of the "golden age" (17th century) cannons.
Muskets for instance are smoothbore weapons as are most of the "golden age" (17th century) cannons.
AFAIK the reason modern tank cannons are smoothbore is the "Sabot" rounds (APFSDS) would destroy the rifling of the cannon after a few shots if the cannon were rifled.
The Russian heavy MG round (actually 12.7*108) was developed in the early 30's for an anti-tank gun, then however was used for the heavy DShK machine gun.
Also, the main advantage of the 5.56*45 NATO bullet is NOT that it tumbles when it hits flesh, every military rifle bullet does that. Rather, when it starts tumbling, the stresses on the bullet are too great for the material, so that it breaks up (fragments) into smaller pieces, which of course cause much greater damage than a non-fragmentating bullet.
Check out this site for more info: http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
The Russian heavy MG round (actually 12.7*108) was developed in the early 30's for an anti-tank gun, then however was used for the heavy DShK machine gun.
Also, the main advantage of the 5.56*45 NATO bullet is NOT that it tumbles when it hits flesh, every military rifle bullet does that. Rather, when it starts tumbling, the stresses on the bullet are too great for the material, so that it breaks up (fragments) into smaller pieces, which of course cause much greater damage than a non-fragmentating bullet.
Check out this site for more info: http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Fur, I'm talking breechloaders, not muskets/bombards/other ancient crap 
(and yes I'm aware that some of the earliest cannons were breechloading)
Puncher, yes, all sharp-nosed bullets tumble when they hit flesh, but the difference is when do they start to tumble. AFAIK, 5.56x45mm is very unstable compared to other rounds, 7.62x51mm for example, and starts to yaw much earlier.
Also, I've seen Russian 12.7mm round defined both as 12.7x108mm and 12.7x109mm, not sure which one is correct... perhaps the actual dimensions of the round are something like 12.7x108.5mm and army designation changed at some point.
(and yes I'm aware that some of the earliest cannons were breechloading)Puncher, yes, all sharp-nosed bullets tumble when they hit flesh, but the difference is when do they start to tumble. AFAIK, 5.56x45mm is very unstable compared to other rounds, 7.62x51mm for example, and starts to yaw much earlier.
Also, I've seen Russian 12.7mm round defined both as 12.7x108mm and 12.7x109mm, not sure which one is correct... perhaps the actual dimensions of the round are something like 12.7x108.5mm and army designation changed at some point.
There have been a fair number of reported Glock catastrophic failures, aka "Kaboom" or just "KB". Most of those were reported to have used reloads or out of spec brass. Glockophiles will say that many reports are false.
The 5.56x45 tumbling effect has a lot to do with rifling twist rate and bullet weight. 55 grain bullets in a 1/14 twist tumble the most and particularly within 100meters or so. The newer 62 grain bullets through 1/9 or 1/7 don't tumble much at any range.
The 5.45x39 is an interesting bullet design, though.
The 5.56x45 tumbling effect has a lot to do with rifling twist rate and bullet weight. 55 grain bullets in a 1/14 twist tumble the most and particularly within 100meters or so. The newer 62 grain bullets through 1/9 or 1/7 don't tumble much at any range.
The 5.45x39 is an interesting bullet design, though.
5.45x39mm is an interesting bullet design that has proven itself to be completely ineffective - stopping power and penetration are MUCH lower than those of 7.62x39mm, at least according to Soviet troops who used both in Afghanistan. I've read testimonies of 5.45mm taking minutes to kill someone, with multiple chest hits, while 1-2 chest hits with 7.62mm was usually enough to drop the target instantly. The *new* 5.45x39mm cartridges, with redesigned bullet, are supposed to have the same combat effectiveness as the old 7.62x39mm ones, while maintaining the benefit of faster bullet and lesser recoil.
Another good reason not to use special ammo in youre Glock (and i mean hot loads especially) is that i can reak havoc to youre barrels rifling, but it can on most pistols i know of (1911's aswell), hence you can get special barrels for allot of them, and in either case, you should probably be looking for a race gun if you want to use very hot loads.
the renewed 5,45x39 supposedly remedied that problem and is supposed to be military worthy by now, in fact it's become a VERY lethal round. It has a soft core nose which causes it both to expand and jaw on impact sening it tumbling trough the victim, it can actually come out at a completely different angle then it went in making mush of everything in between.
During the Russian occupation, didn't the Afghanis call the, then new, 5.45x39 cartridge something like, "the poison bullet"?
I've not heard of a new version of the 5.45, but I'd think it has been tested in Chechnya.
I've never used 5.45, but the round intrigues me.
I've not heard of a new version of the 5.45, but I'd think it has been tested in Chechnya.
I've never used 5.45, but the round intrigues me.
Yes, the "new" 5.45 rounds were used in Afghanistan. I don't think they stuck with the originals for very long at all.
It isn't a soft core, or tip, it's a completely hollow air pocket inside the tip. it's still FMJ. It causes the bullet to yaw pretty rapidly once it hits, and will fragment into 2 or more fairly large pieces. Supposedly a very deadly round. The Afghanis did call it something like "poison bullet", because it's fairly small yet does alot of damage.
It's also more accurate than the 7.62 at range, yet has yes recoil for faster follow up shots and more controllable FA fire.
I don't own one yet, but I have fired a romanian AK in 5.45 a few times. It had like zero recoil, not that 7.62x39 is some heavy recoiling round, but it makes a big difference with rapid fire. Follow up shots with it were alot faster than with my standard 7.62 AK. The recoild/muzzle rise is literally like half that of the 7.62. I fully plan to get either a 5.45 or 5.56 AK to go along with my others shortly. I'm leaning toward 5.45 currently but ammo shortages could be an issue in the future with that round. But the mags are dirt cheap (even cheaper than regular 7.62 30 rnders, much cheaper than 5.56 30 rnders), and the 5.45 model isn't "rigged" to fire that round like the 5.56 model is...
It isn't a soft core, or tip, it's a completely hollow air pocket inside the tip. it's still FMJ. It causes the bullet to yaw pretty rapidly once it hits, and will fragment into 2 or more fairly large pieces. Supposedly a very deadly round. The Afghanis did call it something like "poison bullet", because it's fairly small yet does alot of damage.
It's also more accurate than the 7.62 at range, yet has yes recoil for faster follow up shots and more controllable FA fire.
I don't own one yet, but I have fired a romanian AK in 5.45 a few times. It had like zero recoil, not that 7.62x39 is some heavy recoiling round, but it makes a big difference with rapid fire. Follow up shots with it were alot faster than with my standard 7.62 AK. The recoild/muzzle rise is literally like half that of the 7.62. I fully plan to get either a 5.45 or 5.56 AK to go along with my others shortly. I'm leaning toward 5.45 currently but ammo shortages could be an issue in the future with that round. But the mags are dirt cheap (even cheaper than regular 7.62 30 rnders, much cheaper than 5.56 30 rnders), and the 5.45 model isn't "rigged" to fire that round like the 5.56 model is...
Last edited:
The semi-hollow nose is the original design, the one that proved itself to be ineffective. There are popular tales about "poison bullets" and stuff, but according to Soviet troops who fought there, the 5.45mm round was far less lethal than 7.62mm. To my knowledge, the new improved penetration and armor piercing rounds weren't used in Chechnya either, as I've read quite a few stories of people who fought in Chechnya and were extremely dissatisfied by 5.45mm AP capabilities compared to 7.62x39mm.
All the ballistic data I've seen has shown the 5.45 to be much more deadly than 7.62. WIth a much larger temp and permenant wound channel. Although actual "knockdown power" is slightly lower. I'll see if I can dig up the stuff again. The solid core 5.45 bullets supposedly give up around 300ish fps of velocity as well. I believe the air pocket rounds are still the standard stuff they use over there.
Here's some stuff, can't find what I was looking for though:
7.62x39
5.45x39 air pocket
Here's a little tidbit about extremity hits too: "This bullet yaws after only about 7cm of tissue penetration, assuring an increased temporary cavity stretch disruption in a higher percentage of extremity hits; other bullets need more tissue depth to yaw and in many cases cause only minimal disruption on extremity hits."
I'm sure you could make alot of arguments for the 7.62x39 having better penetration through cover and brush vs the 5.45 though. Just like they used to say about the 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39. That almost immediate yawing apon impact will certainly make it less effective through brush.
The flatter trajectory/better accuracy, less recoil and way faster follow up shots and such are worth something to me, even if it doesn't quite have the "knockdown power" of the 7.62x39. It's still plenty lethal...
Here's some stuff, can't find what I was looking for though:
7.62x39
5.45x39 air pocket
Here's a little tidbit about extremity hits too: "This bullet yaws after only about 7cm of tissue penetration, assuring an increased temporary cavity stretch disruption in a higher percentage of extremity hits; other bullets need more tissue depth to yaw and in many cases cause only minimal disruption on extremity hits."
I'm sure you could make alot of arguments for the 7.62x39 having better penetration through cover and brush vs the 5.45 though. Just like they used to say about the 5.56x45 vs 7.62x39. That almost immediate yawing apon impact will certainly make it less effective through brush.
The flatter trajectory/better accuracy, less recoil and way faster follow up shots and such are worth something to me, even if it doesn't quite have the "knockdown power" of the 7.62x39. It's still plenty lethal...
Last edited:
If you compare the wound ballistic diagram to the 5.45*39, for example, the Russian round starts tumbling even eralier. But as can be clearly seen in the diagram the NATO 5.56mm round has a much bigger permanent wound cavity, because it fragments.
I checked, the dimensions of the cartidge base are given as 108.00 mm, so the correct dimension would be 12.7*108. Perhaps the cartridge itself was changed at some time, although I doubt it. Probably some writer made a mistake, and every one who used that book as reference then copied that (incorrect) data.
Since someone was talking about 5.56 here's a ballistic chart from it: Oops, nevermind, didn't see it on the page before this one.
It should be noted that it is significantly less deadly as the velocity drops below 2600ish fps though. It doesn't fragment or deform basically at all at or below around 2100 fps.
It should be noted that it is significantly less deadly as the velocity drops below 2600ish fps though. It doesn't fragment or deform basically at all at or below around 2100 fps.
The M900 Depleted Uranium APFSDS-T is a sabot round for the 105mm rifled cannon still in use by the US Marine Corp. The concept of high kinetic energy rounds is based on the round itself and not the cannon bore that fires it. It was designed after WW2 but smoothbores didn't arrive on the tank scene until the Russians mounted them on their tanks much later.
http://history.vif2.ru/guns/defin_2.html
"Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) was developed to be the most effective method of firing a high-velocity heavy-cored round from a tank gun and was developed by the British at the end of the World War Two. Essentially, the heavy penetrator is held in a "shoe" made of some light material (aluminum, plastic, and even wood have been used), which is designed to fly off of the core, without disturbing its flight, shortly after leaving the muzzle. This type of projectile has become so powerful that it has replaced all other types of antitank projectile in some armies, and APDS projectiles have been made for older tank and antitank guns to extend their useful life.
A more modern version of such ammunition is Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS). Such projectiles have been designed to provide more stability when fired out of modern smoothbore tank and anti-tank guns. It consists of a sub-caliber, high density, fin stabilized dart and the sabot. The sabot falls away after the round exits the barrel of the weapon, leaving the long-rod penetrator to defeat the target. The most effective of the modern sabot projectiles is the Armor-Piercing Fin Stabilized Depleted Uranium Discarding Sabot (APFSDUDS), it used in the tank guns. The extreme velocity to which these projectiles are pushed can cause the penetrator to go in one side of a modern MBT and out the other."
Originally posted by peachz
Wow. Thanks, Gholam.
Does anyone know the effective range of a regular fragmentation grenade/round? I remeber reading about something saying a kill radius of 5m, casulty radius of up to 25m. Just wondering, because methinks INF fails to accurately represent the realistic ranges. (m67 headshots
Blatantly stolen from www.fas.org
M67 FRAGMENTATION HAND GRENADE
The body of the M-67 hand grenade is a 2.5-inch diameter steel sphere designed to burst into numerous fragments when detonated. It produces casualties within an effective range of 49.5 yards (15 meters) by the high velocity projection of fragments. The grenade body contains 6.5 ounces of high explosive. Each grenade is fitted with a fuse that activates the explosive charge.
(1) Body -- steel sphere.
(2) Filler -- 6.5 ounces of Composition B.
(3) Fuze -- M213.
(4) Weight -- 14 ounces.
(5) Safety clip -- yes.
(6) Capabilities -- can be thrown 40 meters by average soldier. The effective casualty-producing radius is 15 meters. ALTHOUGH THE KILLING RADIUS IS 5 METERS AND THE CASUALTY PRODUCING RADIUS OF THIS GRENADE IS 15 METERS, FRAGMENTS CAN DISPERSE AS FAR AWAY AS 230 METERS.
(7) Color/markings -- olive drab body with a single yellow band at the top. Nomenclature and or lot number markings are in yellow.
It can happen though unlikely, that is why you ALWAYS want to be behind cover when a grenade goes off. I believe so called "defensive" grenades are often even more devastating since they are meant to be thrown from defensive positions (such as trenches). The m67 is a general purpose grenade which can do both defensive and offensive jobs adequately. There are also so-called offensive grenades which have an even smaller radius but can be used with less danger to the user when assaulting a position.