One thing's for sure, the MP7 is a big step up from the MAC-10 or the Tec-9.
And about 10 steps up on the expnese ladder.
hell, it's not even on the same ladder.
as for the "why the need for submachine guns?"
because the mp5 is an amazing weapon.
someone i used to know in stl told me once "the dioptic sights on that thing is magic. you're in the circle, you die." as great as a weapon the m4 and other assault rifles are, reliablity when it comes to certain situations, like almost no risk of overpenetration you have with rifle rounds when there is a hostage situations and such, added mobility that you can't get from even a carbine, makes the mp5 and other SMGs choice carries.
"What is it with creating another retarded caliber? Its armor piercing but I believe 4.6mm round is even smaller than the 9mm, like half the size. What kind of stopping power is that?"
caliber isn't always related to stopping power.
best example= the swtich from 7.62 to 5.56. people thought it wouldn't be able to have the same stopping power as the 7.62, but in fact, the 5.56 casualty rate was higher, because the thin profile of the round basically makes the round have the tendency to break apart in the target, FUBARing a lot of viet cong. and as a added bonus, it didn't have the harsh recoil tendencies of the 7.62, so it was more accurate.
i take it you dont have much experience with firearms, and maybe you're sourcing all of your information off of counter-strike, but there are a lot more factors in terms of choosing firearms than you may think.
Last edited by ysc87; 6/06/2007 2:29pm at .
Hey! We all did! Let's form the Happy Joy Fast Sperm Club! Quick, someone design our club symbol! Any live human on earth can join! This could unite the world!
Originally Posted by SUSHI SASHIMI
I think the MP7 looks cool, that is all that matters.
I would really like an automatic shotgun though.
Ummm... 5.56mm having a higher stop rate than 7.62mm? I'm assuming you're talking about 7.62 NATO/7.62x51/.308 or are you talking about the russian 7.62x39? If you're talking about 7.62x51, that might be true with frangible or JHP ammo, but I doubt it since 5.56x45 and 7.62x52 have nearly the same muzzle velocity. When you look at military ammunition you find that they have one thing in common in most cases: Full metal jackets with a nice heavy penetrator. They're designed to deal with body armor, not unarmored combatants. 5.56mm has a higher muzzle velocity and is similar to an ice pick in terms of permanant wounds. 5.56mm is great for a conventional war. You hit a guy and he lives. That means a couple other people have to use their time in order to evac him to the rear to get medical treatment. It's designed to wound a human, not kill.
Originally Posted by ysc87
The biggest reason the military replaced the M14 with the M16 in Vietnam was the increased ammo capacity. A soldier could carry more ammo, thus putting them on more equal footing with the NVA and the 30 round magazines for the AK-47.
In terms of accuracy, the 5.56 is going to be more inclined to inaccuracy due to wind. There's a reason that 7.62x51 is still a preferred sniper round. You're talking about follow up shots here, I think. But the reason the military is planning on removing 3 round burst for 2 round burst is that the third round is almost always a flier anyhow with the 'controllable' M16.
So if you have to trust your life to a rifle round, which would you rather have? The one where you end up having to shoot the guy multiple times? Or the one that makes a bigger hole?
(I'm behind a proxy server with content monitoring at the moment, so finding ballistics charts to back all this up is tough. If there's a lot of screaming and yelling, I'll do it when I get home. Or someone else could look it up for me.)
Like we mentioned before, there's been a lot of talk on how the whole brand new amazing caliber was held in such high regard due to a great marketing effort. (Same way apple did the whole Ipod mp3 player market. )
Not that I am an expert on firearms or anything but the whole idea of pdfs seems stupid. It seems like a good idea having armor piercing bullets in a more compact package but why can't people just be issued carbines? Is an M4 really too much for a truck driver or other logistical personnel?
One of the biggest issues with the M16/M4 family is that it lacks stopping power because when you shoot someone the bullet punches through them with less stopping power and less tissue damage than say a 7.62.
Now your talking about shooting (unarmored) targets with a smaller faster bullet?
Hero pictures aside I wouldn't wanna carry one.
I think the idea of it being designed for support trades is a dumb one too.
a. Support trades don't gear near the amount of training, shooting and confidence on the service rifle as they shoot (read: jessica lynch). Taking training and range time into consideration, you want to give non-weapon orientate trades a NEW weapon to learn and become proficient in?
IT sounds highspeed low drag on paper, clerks cooks and those types walking around with a cute little PDW but from an NCO point of view its a fucking nightmare.
b. Theres no more frontlines. Support trades are now in the middle of chance combat. Convoys, FOBs being attacked etc.. If anything we should be giving these guys MORE firepower (and trainng). Instead of a 30 round cute PDW that you see on stargate give them an M4 with grenadelauncher and those M249 carbines.
Need more, heavier firepower with the training to use it, not something more convienient (which was one of the major selling points for the PDW)
Last edited by vigilus; 6/06/2007 5:04pm at .
of course the 7.62 is the preferred sniper round. for one shot, you're right, the 5.56 is more affected by wind. however, yes, follow up shots are what i'm talking about.
when you're in range to use an assault rifle or an smg, having cleaner follow up shots are much more important. also, the increased magazine capacity is a huge thing. so yes, i would trust the round where "you end up shooting the guy multiple times." when you're in the middle of a firefight, being able to fire accurately faster with more rounds is better. imho, i'd rather quickly incapacitate an opponent with a quick trigger finger than relying on killing him with one shot.
as for "meant for wounding, not to kill." it really does matter where you're aiming. i was talking about center mass shots. i mean, hell, if i was a sniper, i wouldn't bother with a 5.56/.223, but for the situations i have in mind, the 5.56 is the caliber i'd take. i'm not one to take "lethal" over mobility.
but you're missing the point of the paragraph. i was just talking about the fact that caliber #s don't determine everything;
just pointing out the foolishness of this statement "What is it with creating another retarded caliber? Its armor piercing but I believe 4.6mm round is even smaller than the 9mm, like half the size. What kind of stopping power is that?"
oh, and once more... has anyone tried out the Stag 6.8 AR?
There is nothing wrong with cute weapons.
Originally Posted by GuiltySpark
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO