• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Ammunition!

Come on... am I the only one who finds collecting and comparing cartridges interesting?

For instance, notice to trend with regards to rifle ammo. The old WW2 rifle cartridges are big while modern assault rifle cartridges are much smaller in comparison. You might ask, is that because the new cartridges kill just as well, weigh less, and have less recoil (which makes automatic fire more practical)? Or is it because armies want the ability to enlist smaller soldiers and even women who cannot handle the recoil of a WW2 battle rifle?

One thing that the larger rifle cartridges have over the assault rifle cartridges is range. I heard that in Afghanistan, the Taliban engaged US forces with Mosins from long range on mountainsides and hillsides and they outranged the M-16's 5.56. The Marines had to dust off their M-14's to engage at those distances.
 
Upvote 0
The shift down to 5.56 was, as far as I understand it, prompted by three main factors:

1 - cheaper to make smaller stuff
2 - lighter to haul guns that fire it around (for whatever reason - certainly less people will be disadvantaged by their size)
3 - and this is the kicker - the desire to make weapons which are more likely to wound than to kill. Not for any altruistic reasons, just cos a wounded guy is off the battlefield usually as surely as a dead guy but he also has his mates leaving with him as they help him to safety.

Certainly a lot of military doctrine is based around the fact that people help their wounded mates. Case in point, mate of mine was Red Beret and got messed up outside of Goose Green in the Falklands. His mate got (non-lethally) hit by a sniper and crawled into a foxhole. My mate, as the medic had to go out to that foxhole and patch him up/get him ready for some kind of evac.

Trouble is, the Argies already had a mortar locked onto the foxhole and just dropped a shell in there as soon as they had 2 targets to fire at rather than one. The original casualty was a goner, unfortunately, and my mate woke up on the SS Uganda, minus a leg.

From an Argentinian tactical point of view that was a pretty successful operation.
 
Upvote 0
We should've stayed with 7.62 Nato. Just like how we should've stayed with .45 ACP rather than switch to 9mm. (Come on, why did we switch to a pistol whose recoil slide backfired and injured people during testing and the tests were rigged, brand new Beretta 92SFs vs. 1911A1s that saw WW2, Korea, AND Vietnam and were still funcitonal). In a situation where we engage conventional enemys, I GUESS 5.56 would be okay, even better if the Hague Convention didn't ban HP rounds. However, in the war we're in right now, I think it'd be much more preferable to use M14s. We also need to go back to the 1911A1 or to some military version of the XD45, you don't have to put as many rounds and the capacity gap has basically been filled by the XD-45 (13+1 vs. M9's 15+1) Its not good to use ammunition when the enemy CAN keep moving.
 
Upvote 0
The Soup Nazi said:
We should've stayed with 7.62 Nato.
Fair enough. It's a good round.

Just like how we should've stayed with .45 ACP rather than switch to 9mm.
I disagree with you here. There's a ton of evidence that 9mm wounds just as much as .45ACP. 9mm also has greater penetration than .45ACP. Plus you can have twice the capacity with less recoil. With that said, all pistol calibers are weak stoppers when compared to rifles. .45ACP is good, but 9mm is better. The Germans got it right on this one. Now all of Europe is using 9mm and even Russia and China are planning on dropping the 9x18 Makarov and go to 9mm NATO. 9mm has become the WORLD standard. It's the best balance of stopping power, recoil, and capacity.

I disagree (Come on, why did we switch to a pistol whose recoil slide backfired and injured people during testing and the tests were rigged, brand new Beretta 92SFs vs. 1911A1s that saw WW2, Korea, AND Vietnam and were still funcitonal).
I know the Beretta has its faults. I think the military made the decision based upon many factors, politics and logistics included. I personally prefer the Glock 17. If the military went with Glock or Sig, I don't think we'd be hearing as much complaints. I think the SEALS use Sigs btw.

In a situation where we engage conventional enemys, I GUESS 5.56 would be okay, even better if the Hague Convention didn't ban HP rounds. However, in the war we're in right now, I think it'd be much more preferable to use M14s.
In my opinion, the M-16 should be dropped altogether and replaced with the M-14. Then use the M-4 for CQB. So the long-medium (desert and rural) stuff gets handled by the M-14 and the short (urban) stuff gets handled by the M-4. The M-14 is a reliable weapon so I don't think anyone will complain. Afterwards, work on fixing or replacing the M-4's direct-gas system. That has always been a major cleaning issue and a serious concern with regards to reliability. I think HK came up with a gas-piston upper for the M-4 and M-16 platform. That'll probably solve 90% of the problems. Or maybe just dump the M-4 completely and go with the SCAR.

We also need to go back to the 1911A1 or to some military version of the XD45, you don't have to put as many rounds and the capacity gap has basically been filled by the XD-45 (13+1 vs. M9's 15+1) Its not good to use ammunition when the enemy CAN keep moving.
I can tell you really love the .45ACP. Btw, the Glock 17 has a capacity of 17+1. Anyway, I don't think the pistol issue is that big of a deal. I'd say let the soldiers carry whatever the heck they want if it wasn't that it would end up being a logistical PITA. "Does anyone have .357 SIG? Uh, ok, how about 10mm? Find the 10mm fast, we're taking heavy fire!"

I think you're still under the impression that the .45ACP is a significantly better stopper than the 9mm. It isn't. Tons of evidence has come out of police departmental studies and FBI studies and ballistics gelletin studies and a whole bunch of books and gun "rag" magazines. 90% of the information is BS. But at the end of the day, there's no conclusive evidence that .45ACP>9mm. I read a study comparing actual 1 shot stop rates in shootings. 9mm FMJ came out at 69%, .45ACP FMJ came out at 67%. What the hell does that tell us? Nothing, really. These kinds of whacky statistics are flawed from the beginning. Most people will want to shoot their adversary multiple times. The location of the hits plays a HUGE factor of course (headshot vs toeshot, for example). Then there's the range, the bullet type, the type of clothing that may or may not have prevented expansion, whether or not the bullet impacted bone, if the guy being shot was pumped up on drugs, blah blah blah blah.

These statistics tell me that the difference, if there is any at all, is so small that it can't be measured in a practical manner.

and this is the kicker - the desire to make weapons which are more likely to wound than to kill. Not for any altruistic reasons, just cos a wounded guy is off the battlefield usually as surely as a dead guy but he also has his mates leaving with him as they help him to safety.
That's a myth. Bullets are designed to kill. That's the whole point of shooting someone in the chest or in the head rather than in the gut or in the leg.

If you wound someone on the battlefield, there's no guaruntee that he will stop fighting. If you shoot him and he's mortally wounded but still has the ability to pull the pin out of his grenade or pull the trigger of his weapon, you'll still die.

If bullets were really designed to wound rather than kill, we'd be shooting .22LR's, .22 magnums, and .17HMR's at each other (and if you get shot in the eye you'll still die).
 
Upvote 0
The .45 acp was developed to take down a horse at full gallop. The 9mm is junk in my opinion. Go ahead and shoot some pumkins with 9mm, then .45acp...then you will see what the difference is in RL. The HK USP.45 can carry 12 + 1 in the hole. The USP 9mm can carry 15 + 1 in the hole. A difference of three little rounds. I'll take .45 any day. I purchased the better choice USP.40

The 9mm does not have twice the capacity of the .45 unless the .45 does not have side by side magazine. Like the 1911A1.

FYI you don't want a pistol round to penetrate through the target, when that happens some of the energy is lost. A good round transfers all of the impact force to the target, that is why .40 was developed from the FBI 10mm.(the .40 is a shortend 10mm)

Oh my cousin has a Glock 17, I fired hundreds of rounds out of it. It is junk, the trigger pull is awfull and the thing just feels like crap in my hands. Gangster rappers way over-hyped that POS. Single/double actions are the way to go.

I don't like .223. .308 Winchester all the way. I <3 my Springfield M1A.

The 9mm was employed so that girls and cityslickers could handle the recoil. The adoption of 9mm and .223 are examples of corruption and some General getting bribed by big buisnesses.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Here's my collection:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/make85/cartridges.jpg

Anyhow, you are aware of that US is going back to .45 and stashing (well, not quite yet..) the 9mm's? Any idea of the new gun? Doubt it's going to be the 1911 afterall, that would be silly. As the instructor at the range put it: Italians should be banned from manufacturing handguns.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Stealing. It'll be useful for when I tell ignorant morons to STFU about how 5.56x45 is the most awesome round in the world.

7.62x51 is a bit much given modern infantry roles—it's simply NOT controllable for full-auto out of a weapon which doesn't weigh a ton.

5.56x45 is too little, too light. It's accurate enough, and you can carry lots of ammo, but the terminal effects aren't there.

I propose 6.5 Grendel. :D
 
Upvote 0
BuddyLee said:
The .45 acp was developed to take down a horse at full gallop. The 9mm is junk in my opinion. Go ahead and shoot some pumkins with 9mm, then .45acp...then you will see what the difference is in RL. The HK USP.45 can carry 12 + 1 in the hole. The USP 9mm can carry 15 + 1 in the hole. A difference of three little rounds. I'll take .45 any day. I purchased the better choice USP.40

The 9mm does not have twice the capacity of the .45 unless the .45 does not have side by side magazine. Like the 1911A1.

If you try to fit .45ACP into a gun with the same dimensions of a 9mm, you will have to go single-stack. Otherwise you'll have a brick-thick grip which is a PITA for people with small-medium sized hands. If dimensions weren't a problem, then the 9mm Glock guys would go for the 32+1 extended magazines. :D

FYI you don't want a pistol round to penetrate through the target,

Wrong. I'll explain why in a second.

when that happens some of the energy is lost. A good round transfers all of the impact force to the target, that is why .40 was developed from the FBI 10mm.(the .40 is a shortend 10mm)

Energy transfer is overhyped. Ideally, you want a round to transfer as much energy as possible. BUT this doesn't necessarily have to require the round to come to a complete stop, and in fact, this can be a bad thing. You can shoot a .22LR into a person's chest. It'll come to a complete stop. Very good energy transfer, although its energy is quite low. But TERRIBLE penetration.

Penetration is actually the most important aspect of a bullet. If you shoot a person a hundred times with a .22LR in the chest and it never penetrates any vital organs, you aren't doing much good at all. That's why hollow points have a requirement to penetrate at least 12 inches minimum. Energy transfer is nice but penetration is MANDATORY. You need to be sure that the bullet you shoot at the guy's chest will penetrate his heart, lungs, and anything else in between. If it stops two inches short of his heart, you failed. I'd rather put a 9mm hole through the guy's heart than a .45 inch hole in his flesh that never reaches his heart.

Rifle bullets punch right through people. They are still a lot more lethal than pistol bullets. Despite the high penetration, there is still high energy transfer. Penetration and energy transfer are not necessarily inversely proportional to each other like you say.

So my point is that 9mm's penetration is a very good thing. If you can shoot through a door and a person and then another person, that's a POSITIVE aspect in a military situation. It's a NEGATIVE aspect in a police situation (because they don't want to hit civilian bystanders or hostages). That's why cops are all concerned with the hollow point energy transfer stuff. They have entirely different objectives. If it comes down to a firefight between cops and drug dealers, with both sides using cars for cover, the FMJ of the drug dealers will have a penetration advantage compared to the HP of the cops.

Finally, energy transfer does not necessarily mean a catostrophic wound. It's the hole in the person's vital organs and arteries that kills him. Medically, the shock wave that the bullet has when it passes through flesh has very little effect on the person. It may stun him. It may hurt like hell. But what kills him is the fact that both his lungs are filling up with blood and he's got several severed arteries.

So ignore the energy transfer myth. It's a nice theory. But if you whack a person in the chest with a baseball bat, you transfer more energy to that person than a .45ACP. You can prove it with simple physics (equal and opposite reactions). The baseball bat hurts like hell, the guy will be coughing blood and maybe has a couple broken ribs. But the.45ACP to the chest kills the guy.

If you think killing is all about energy transfer you are very mistaken.

Oh my cousin has a Glock 17, I fired hundreds of rounds out of it. It is junk, the trigger pull is awfull and the thing just feels like crap in my hands.

Well that's your opinion. I won't argue with it. I will say that there was a famous competition on one of the major gun forums between 5 shooters with 1911's and 5 shooters with Glocks. The test was reliability. Basically, everyone had to fire 1000 rounds through their gun and record how many failures there were (jams, stovepipes, failure to extract, broken parts, etc). Refs made sure nobody was cheating. The Glocks absolutely dominated the 1911's.

Gangster rappers way over-hyped that POS.

Medal of Honor over-hyped the 1911.

Single/double actions are the way to go.

Striker-fired pistols are so much more reliable and mechanically simple. Also, the trigger pull is consistent for each shot instead of a heavy first shot followed by light follow up shots. There's a reason why all of the new pistols from every major manufacturer are striker-fired polymer-framed pistols. They are lighter and more reliable. The 1911 is an antique. Get over it. I like my Mosin-Nagant too but if I had to go to war I'd rather have a modern assault rifle.

I don't like .223. .308 Winchester all the way. I <3 my Springfield M1A.

5.56x45 NATO is good for what it's designed for (close range). It's also better for automatic fire. But 7.62x51 NATO is a good round too. Soldiers will have to get used to semi-auto only though. They'll also have less rounds to waste. But at least they can bring someone down at 500 yards if they need to.

The 9mm was employed so that girls and cityslickers could handle the recoil. The adoption of 9mm and .223 are examples of corruption and some General getting bribed by big buisnesses.

If you really want to prove how big you are in the pants, how about you carry a .50AE Desert Eagle? Or a .44 magnum? Or how about a 12 gauge shotgun derringer? What's the matter? You can't handle the recoil? Girly man?

Do you realize how retarded that argument is? It may convince people overly sensative to their small peckers but it won't convince people with half a brain. Power isn't the only factor to consider when it comes to a pistol. I bet someone could make a two-shot 12 gauge derringer the size of your .45ACP. You'll have tremendous power. But it's not the most effective combat choice. You've got very little capacity and tremendous recoil. A quick follow up shot will be out of the question.

So you see, a modern pistol should balance all of those factors. Power. Recoil and the ability for quick follow-up shots. Capacity.

It's not all about power. But if you are convinced it is, then seriously, get yourself a .50AE Desert Eagle. It won't make your pecker any bigger though.
 
Upvote 0
I guarantee you a .45 will go right through a mans heart, and if he is wearing body armor, two or three shots to the chest will do plenty of damage. The round still penetrates into the chest cavity, the kevelar just keeps it from going through the fabric... there will still be a stabbing effect on the target. High energy transfer is what knocks a person off their feet.

You are wrong about rifle rounds doing more damage than pistol round... a large diameter slow moving .45acp will do more bodily damage than a .223 or .308 again try shooting coconuts, pumkins or any other melon with the three calibers. Rifles are about range, fast moving small caliber high penetrating. Pistols are desighned to provide a high amout of damage to the human body at close range, with lots of stoping power.

My USP .40 is a double/single action, I can carry 'cocked and locked' for single action only(way freaking better trigger pull than the finest Glock) or I can carry 'half-cocked' without the safety on for a double action.Or a combination of both for safety.(half cocked with safety on)(or no round in the chamber at all).

I chose the USP.40 as a comprimise between .45 and 9mm. Don't let me catch you thinking about my 'pecker' again plz I don't swing that way. :p
 
Upvote 0
I remember pulling a round of WWII-issued .45 ball out of the back of the tree we used to shoot. It had a big dent in the nose where it hit another bullet (probably .357 mag) on the way through... .45'll penetrate.

Are you referring to the FBI tests they did BEFORE adopting 9mm? 'Cause those were published and placed in the fiction section of the library.

I'll admit that one reason it's Americans that mainly dislike 9mm is that for years, 9mm was downloaded by SAAMI. WWII 9mm ammo was loaded to modern +P (possibly more?) spec.. With +P+, 9mm is better.. than before. But I'd be more willing to trust .45. A lot of anecdotes are coming back from the sandbox saying 9mm is still crap, and that .45 will put insurgents down in 1 or 2 shots.

Re-issue the M14? Are you nuts? Yeah, they're great battle rifles, but they're heavy and awkward.

My friend sent me this as I was writing. This report says that troops who were involved in CQB encounters report NO problems with 5.56 stopping.

http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired
 
Upvote 0
No, I'm talking about the FBI studies after the Miami shooting incident. Btw, the reason the 9mm failed the FBI in the Miami incident was because their HP's didn't penetrate enough and stopped short of one of the suspects' hearts. Despite delivering a mortal blow, the guy kept fighting... and was eventually put down by a .38 special (which is even weaker than a 9mm).

A lot of people take the wrong lesson from the Miami shooting incident. Basically, it showed the FBI that penetration and shot placement are more important than HP expansion and caliber size.

As for the 5.56, I hear different stories all the time. For example, soldiers complained about how the 5.56 performed in the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia.

But that's pretty much the pattern with every caliber. Some people say it's great while others whine and moan about it.

I'll admit that one reason it's Americans that mainly dislike 9mm is that for years, 9mm was downloaded by SAAMI. WWII 9mm ammo was loaded to modern +P (possibly more?) spec.. With +P+, 9mm is better.. than before.
+P 9mm has been around for a while. I don't think this was ever an issue. Why would the military whine about it if their ammo was +P+? It's not the power that they're whining about. In my opinion, the reason is that many soldiers have nostalgia for the .45ACP. They watch too many movies and they believe the BS.

But I'd be more willing to trust .45. A lot of anecdotes are coming back from the sandbox saying 9mm is still crap, and that .45 will put insurgents down in 1 or 2 shots.
There was a shooting incident last year where a cop shot and hit a suspect 5 times with his .45ACP. The suspect ran off and admitted himself to a hospital.

My point is that you can never say for sure how many shots it will take to put a guy down. I don't care if it's 9mm or .45ACP. Heck, I bet there's quite a few stories out there of a guy getting shot through the eye with a .22LR and dying on the spot. There's another true incident where a guy took a large-caliber rifle round through the brain (in one side of the head and out the other) and he walked out of the hospital on his own strength a few days later.

Btw, do you remember the BS stories coming out of the Korean War where GI's said that the thick winter clothing of the North Koreans were stopping the .30 carbine rounds from their M1 Carbines? So many people have done tests and it's a load of baloney. The rounds go through multiple layers of clothing like it isn't even there. But GI's actually believed this myth. Let's face it: soldiers are not always gun experts, and in some cases, they don't know what they are talking about. Just because a soldier is trained to shoot an M-16 doesn't mean he knows about bullet science.

Enjoy: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm

"If the North Koreans seemed uneffected by the .30 Carbine rounds, they were probably not being hit. Because clothing won't stop a 30 Carbine."
 
Upvote 0
I don't care what you say. As long as the army is stuck with full metal jacket ammunition. Punching a hole into someone with a .45 inch, 230gr chunk of lead is going to do more damage than a .357 inch, 124gr chunk of lead.

5.56 is too small as well. However, I think that 7.62x51mm is too much for the modern battlefield. We need something in between for our MBR.
 
Upvote 0
User Name said:
I don't care what you say. As long as the army is stuck with full metal jacket ammunition. Punching a hole into someone with a .45 inch, 230gr chunk of lead is going to do more damage than a .357 inch, 124gr chunk of lead.

5.56 is too small as well. However, I think that 7.62x51mm is too much for the modern battlefield. We need something in between for our MBR.

7.62x39? :)
 
Upvote 0
*7GA* Nestor Makhno said:
Quick bit of mathematics here:

1 inch = 25mm (or so)
.22 of an inch = 5.6 mm (more or less)
Yes but 5.55 NATO has a hell of a lot more velocity than .22LR. That gives it significantly more penetration.

5.56 is too small as well. However, I think that 7.62x51mm is too much for the modern battlefield. We need something in between for our MBR.
There's a solution, though NATO's pride won't let them accept it. It's called 7.62x39 mm. The original and best. Hits hard, offers incredible penetration, light weight, and low recoil. And before you even try to say that it isn't an accurate round... that's because you're judging it in the relatively inaccurate AK-47 platform using mediocre quality Russian ammo. Ballistically, the 7.62x39 will do just fine up to 200 yards. So if you want a close-medium range round, 7.62x39 is ideal. It is literally right in between 7.62x54 NATO and 5.56x45 NATO.

I guarantee you a .45 will go right through a mans heart, and if he is wearing body armor, two or three shots to the chest will do plenty of damage. The round still penetrates into the chest cavity, the kevelar just keeps it from going through the fabric... there will still be a stabbing effect on the target. High energy transfer is what knocks a person off their feet.
FMJ .45ACP will go right through a person. I never said that .45ACP was a poor penetrator, I merely said that 9mm was an even better penetrator.

As for the body armor... it won't "stab" the guy. The bullet doesn't go through the vest or penetrate the flesh. It's more of a "punch." They've tested this on clay. It's like someone punched the clay and there's an indentation... but certainly not a "stab."

And .45ACP will NOT knock a person off their feet. If they get surprised or if they die then they may fall over. But the force of the .45ACP has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, basic physics (equal and opposite reaction) would mean that when you shoot your .45ACP you'd also get knocked off your feet.

I chose the USP.40 as a comprimise between .45 and 9mm. Don't let me catch you thinking about my 'pecker' again plz I don't swing that way.

Neither do I. And I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. Caliber arguments always tend to get a little heated, but in the end, it's just our personal opinions. As civilians, we have the luxury of shooting whatever caliber we want. .32ACP, .380ACP, 9x18 Makarov, 9x19 NATO/Luger, 40 S&W, .357 SIG, .45ACP, .45GAP, 10mm...

It's your choice. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
skypirate said:
There's a solution, though NATO's pride won't let them accept it. It's called 7.62x39 mm. The original and best. Hits hard, offers incredible penetration, light weight, and low recoil. And before you even try to say that it isn't an accurate round... that's because you're judging it in the relatively inaccurate AK-47 platform using mediocre quality Russian ammo. Ballistically, the 7.62x39 will do just fine up to 200 yards. So if you want a close-medium range round, 7.62x39 is ideal. It is literally right in between 7.62x54 NATO and 5.56x45 NATO.

As for the accuracy, during the recruit-period in the army we had one amazing shooter in our battery. From 150 meters against a standard rifle target, he once scored of 99 with ten shots. Also it was no coincidence, as he was constantly hitting scores of above 90. The rifle used was a RK-62 with normal ironsights - possibly the best assault rifle ever made.
 
Upvote 0
*7GA* Nestor Makhno said:
The shift down to 5.56 was, as far as I understand it, prompted by three main factors:

1 - cheaper to make smaller stuff
2 - lighter to haul guns that fire it around (for whatever reason - certainly less people will be disadvantaged by their size)
3 - and this is the kicker - the desire to make weapons which are more likely to wound than to kill. Not for any altruistic reasons, just cos a wounded guy is off the battlefield usually as surely as a dead guy but he also has his mates leaving with him as they help him to safety.

Well Im no expert but...
Acording to my officers when I was enlisted in the swedish army there also another reason.
When using the lighter 5,56 more instable round with a high powered rifle it tend to spinn after impact.
This suposedly makes the wounds larger and more messy in general and are therefore harder to treat.
Hunting rifles have heavier bullits, wich produces clean wounds
But the general reason for the swedish army is that it became nato standard, Earlier they used G3s with 7,62 rounds
 
Upvote 0
MkH^ said:

What they should do is swallow their pride and start ordering uppers for the M16 with a short throw piston. That is chambered in 7.62x39MM. It would be cheaper and quicker than designing a whole new rifle.

I think it's a great round. In the right rifle it can be very accurate. I have two rifles that will chamber it. However, the U.S. army would never adopt it. Which in turn means NATO won't adopt it.

I think if the military ever does upgrade. It will be to either a 6mm or 6.5mm round.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0