Why are modern guns so much more powerful than old guns?

people are stronger too

innovation, it's a real thing

>>32395269
high test

>>32395258
We have better nutrition than what they had back in the day.

>>32395292
This. Also we feel more empowered due to universal sufferage.

>>32395258
Aerodynamics . Design and propulsion and years of thinking how to kill the other guy at the end of the barrel

File: IMG_0380.jpg (17KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x270px

Gee anon, it's almost like technology advanced.

what do you mean "powerful"

the gun itself is only for ballistics, making the hit more precise

its the ammunition that deals the damage

>>32395335
What OP means is lethality

>>32395348
What OP means is bait.

File: latest[1].jpg (25KB, 799x257px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 799x257px

>>32395258
>more powerful

What?

A 30-06 bullet is pretty much the same now as it was one hundred years ago. People even tend to use LESS powerful intermediate bullets in the modern era.

File: 481035_original.jpg (778KB, 1771x1771px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1771x1771px

>>32395381
this
service caliber is getting smaller

>>32395258
Efficiency, ballistic science, better materials?

>>32395258
Because they are not.
Look at the energy and energy retention retention of .30-06 compared to 5.56 NATO.
The guns got weaker, they are just firing faster.
It also helps that modern countries like the US or Russia are fighting sand people who can not shoot back half the time.

>>32395381

WW2 Garand training films taught troops that their rifle could punch through a Kraut's helmet even if he was hiding behind a 12 inch thick tree.

Can't do that with modern battle rifles.

Shooting through trees is hardcore

>>32395258
They aren't.
.308 loads are the same today as they were fifty years ago.
The guns are getting more and more accurate though due to better barrel harmonics and superior materials.

In short, a 7.92x57mm round is gonna kill shit dead just as well as a 7.62x51 round.

>>32395438
>>32395454
this
after the french invented spitzer bullet
not thing have change about ballistic

>>32395258
>>32395429
>>32395325
>>32395323
>>32395275

What the hell are you talking about? Firearms are not more powerful in the modern age.

>>32395258
>Why are modern guns so much more powerful than old guns?
>posts gun that's often found in old calibers like .308

Is this for real?

>>32395447
ball ammo couldn't do it but dem black tip ap rounds could.

>>32395472
are you talking about the bullet change from that guy in the french legion?
that got invented before smokeless powder. ballistics changed a lot since then

>>32395447
>>32395799
Yeah, the standard combat ammo for WW2 was supposed to be black tip. They got smart and figured out that if you can't have a bullet that expands, it should at least punch through damn near anything.

>>32395258
in what world do you imagine that a mousegun is "more powerful" than a 303 british, 8mm mauser or 30-06?

packing a bunch of tiny rounds in the mag doesnt make a rifle "more powerful"

it makes the rifle WEAKER, just higher volume

>>32395845
Or yaws, as the brits and eventually the Russians did.

Because things have gotten THICC.

Because the United States remains conitted to leveraging every possible technology advancement to ensure our military remains the best equipped snd the most GLOBAL force for GOOD. There is a reason that the bad guys such as Assad in the world fear the US Military and our allies above all.

File: 1438032461753.jpg (31KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 349x642px

>>32395258

File: giga nigga.jpg (28KB, 392x429px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 392x429px

giga nigga has gotten stronger

File: grapes.gif (10KB, 640x918px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 640x918px

>>32395486
Yes anon, your old mosin is just as powerful as a Scar

>>32395258

I suspect this is a troll, or some stupid COD reference. What do you mean by powerful? If you're talking about the calibers being used, they aren't. A lot of the calibers used around WWI and WWII were more potent than todays offerings (in terms of sheer kinetic energy). However, if you're talking about in overall capability you're right. We have lighter and durable materials to make weapons. Technology to help aim quicker, see farther, and see into darkness itself to find targets.

Really I would argue the technology in the rifle itself has almost become secondary to the accessory technology.

>>32395258
Getting shot with the very first 1911 will hurt just as much as getting shot with the newest full polymer double stack tritium night sighted carbon fiber gripped pistol

>>32395258
> so much more powerful

Uhm, a musket firing a .75 caliber ball will fuck you up a hell of a lot more than a 5.56. What has improved massively is ergonomics, i.e much greater range, accuracy, less weight and more capacity. Also more reliable and consistent burn rates for powders and standardised manufacturing procedures.

>>32396253
most people think hunting and old military weapons = less dangerous and effective than current military weapons
Cause you know, old guys were easier to kill when they were young and dropping an animal bigger than a human is trivial you just point the gun at it.

File: This is why k sucks.png (284KB, 1910x886px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1910x886px

>>32396253
Every caliber that the SCAR comes in is weaker than 7.62x54r.

/v/ really needs to stay the hell on /v/.

>>32395258
They are not.

The muskets used in the revolutionary war were way waaaay more powerful than today's standard military issue rifles.

They were .75 caliber rifles shooting 550gr projectiles at around 1000fps.

>>32396629
>>32396511
I'd much rather be shot by a musket than a modern high velocity rifle, especially an old full power rifle caliber.

Muskets had no hydrostatic shock and didn't penetrate that deep because the balls slow down very fast in tissue. Most musket balls stopped inside of a person, and they generally killed by infection or later blood loss due to bad medical techniques.

>>32396731
>Most musket balls stopped inside of a person

the projectile stopping inside the person is good, its why hollowpoints exist. If it stops inside that means 100% of its energy is dumped into the body.

A 5.56 shooting straight through and continuing on means a lot of wasted energy

>>32395258
Guns are weaker, they just shoot faster and arguably more accurate

1. Old muskets fired giant shot
2. Before assault weapons, battle rifles and military rifles of usually 30+ cal usually used more powerful cartridges like 30-06

WW2 was when 9mm was normalized, started the intermediate cartridge for assault rifles, and we don't put a 30-06 in the hands of every soldier any more. The old rounds had a lot more punch.

Nowadays we have better optics, triggers, muzzle breaks for easier shooting. We have light weight guns, ammo and accessories to make them easier to carry. We sacrificed firepower to the lowest effective level, for cost and weight savings (and other reasons)

>>32396797
Hollow points exist to make a bigger hole and damage a wider swath of tissue.

Can you explain to me the wounding mechanic of "energy dump" other than tissue cutting/smashing (which more of happens when the bullet passes through) and hydrostatic shock (which is almost entirely velocity dependent, so good luck getting substantial hydro shock and no pass through)?

File: 1474532308556.png (120KB, 500x438px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x438px

>>32395258
something something standing on the shoulders of giants.

The scar for example has much less recoil than a cold war battle rifle, with less weight and shooting more powerful loads

>>32395258
>.30 Newton (invented 1913): 3500 ft-lbs at the muzzle, 1300 ft-lbs at 600 yards
>5.56 NATO (current service cartridge): 1300 ft-lbs at the muzzle

>>32397216
Why pretend to know what you're talking about?

>>32397279
>Weighs less than a G3, FAL, M14
>Less recoil than a G3, FAL, M14
>Capable of shooting modern overpressure loads
I get the feeling you just have a desire to argue

What a great bait thread I love it.

File: 1465537975375.jpg (619KB, 1547x2296px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1547x2296px

>>32396614
>7.62 is weaker than 7.62

>>32395258
Because they are much faster and the terminal effects of bullets are far better understood.

>>32397237
>lists shitty niche round they probably heard about from family
>Doesn't list something much more common like .50 bmg
Fag

>>32397297
Any G3, M1A, or FAL pattern rifles are capable of shooting higher pressure loads.

>>32397304
Which is why we use 7.62 TOK in all of our firearms. 7.62 is a 7.62 is a 7.62.

>>32397304
>>32397392

Is this bait?

>>32396731
>hydrostatic shock
Nice meme

>>32397297
>Weighs less than a G3, FAL, M14
>Less recoil than a G3, FAL, M14

You realize this doesn't make much sense right?

File: image.png (28KB, 674x432px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 674x432px

>>32397304

>>32397297
>>32397216
Felt recoil has nothing to do with power and battle rifles from the Cold War could shoot overpressured ammunition. Modern rifles are in fact not more powerful.

>>32396903
Not him, but:
"energy dump": if the round passes through you, it had enough energy to punch through and keep on going - which means that it didn't deposit all its kinetic energy in your body. The older rounds stopping in your body CAN mean that they have less energy, but it can also mean that the tissue is strong enough to not let it through. it really depends on the actual kinetic energy of the projectile + shape.

Hydrostatic shock: look up Pascal's Law. It's a real thing and has real consequences. Your blood is incompressible for the most part, which means that SOMETHING has to give - generally, weaker tissues, which can be the more important ones.

Re-reading your post I think I misinterpreted your question but I hope this is useful for someone else.

>>32396614
>Stopping power is the only measure of weapon effectiveness

File: party-hard.gif (2MB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 220x165px

>>32397568
Good thing this thread has nothing to do with effectiveness then, huh?

>>32397568
OP didn't ask why modern guns are more effective.

>>32397532
>t-they shoot o-overpressured amminutuns! I read it in a book!
Not safely. Modern metallurgy makes it so it's much safer to shoot overpressured rounds in a modern rifle vs. world war surplus.

>>32397500
Try reading a book sometime, you fucking retard.

>>32395258
Only handguns have really gotten more powerful in the last 100 years, and that's mostly because improvements of metallurgy and design that allow more powerful rounds to be put into lighter weight frames.

Service calibers favor smaller, faster rounds over time. This trend has held true since .72 caliber muskets gave way to .58 caliber rifled muskets, which in turn went to .45 caliber breach loaders then .30 caliber bolt actions and finally our modern .223 caliber ARs.

Actual muzzle energy has gone up and down a little, but our current service caliber has less energy than any of its predecessors.

If you want to talk about the most powerful rounds, well, of course new record is higher than the old. That's how fucking records work, but in terms of the most popular cartridges, muzzle energy is going down and has been for a while.

>>32397497
No, retard. Your .75 literal ball isn't any better at killing than a modern bullet.

File: 1482090436518.jpg (50KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x500px

I can't tell who is legitimately retarded and merely pretending in this thread.

>>32397510
You realize there are other ways to dampen recoil than to make the gun heavier, right?

>>32395486
>a scar
>not more killy than a musket
OP didn't define 'old guns' so I'll just assume he's a retard/baiting

>>32397611
>you're wrong! I don't have any sources at all!

Yeah that's not correct. An FAL, M14, and G3 are all heavy rifles capable of feeding any and all commercial loads. Regardless, none of this makes modern rifles "more powerful". Overpressure ammunition in a cartridge like 7.62x51 is uncommon at most.

>>32397544
What I was getting at in that post is that "depositing kinetic energy" is not a wounding mechanic. You get wounded through blood loss/tissue damage which are caused by the bullet making a hole or other forces like hydro shock. These people that talk about energy deposit never have a clear answer for what the wounding mechanic of "dumping kinetic energy into the target" is.

>>32397491
>>32397497
>>32397522
>We are all fucking retarded!
Just spell it out for us, seriously.

You can find people shooting 175gr 308s out of SCAR17s at 2700fps. That's more "stoppan powurf" than your soviet loads. 7.62x51 cases/chambers are made to withstand 70K PSI. 7.62x54r cases can't go above 56.5K PSI.

>>32397497
No,

/v/irgins are really that dumb

>>32397627
Are you implying cartridge firing rifles from the 19th century are modern?

>>32397653
Can one man be this illiterate?

File: uL8iQPu[1].jpg (110KB, 960x777px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 960x777px

>>32395258
They aren't. "Old guns" were devastatingly powerful when their designers wanted them to be.

>>32397690
They are.

Compare the gun in your pic to today's "Anti-Tank" guns... such as the GAU-8

>>32397743
>GAU-8
>anti tank
lol

>>32397690
>795 grains at 2,580 meters per second
Hoooly God.

>>32395258
Anyways modern military and combat rifles typically are less powerful than the ones from the early 20th century. Battle rifles and sniper rifles are about the same.

>>32397743

>GAU-8
>anti-tank

Pick one and only one.

Also, the thread is obviously about small arms, so if you compared gun in pic to the modern equivalent, which would be a .50 BMG rifle, they would perform similarly.

File: gun rail.jpg (33KB, 660x386px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 660x386px

>>32395258

They hadn't concieved of the awesome power of the pickaninny RAILS.

Thanks to that one simple invention that all the gunsmiths hate, modern rail-guns can have ultimate power, like an assault rifle with both an tumblr clip and an underslung grenade launcher that can launch the rifle very quickly at the enemy with a simple tug of a pew-pew switch.

>>32397743
Wow, quit being a fucking retarded faggot.

>>32397782
>>32397766
GAU 8 is anti tank you fucking newfags

>>32397782
>>32397766
>GAU-8s aren't used as anti-tank guns
What the fuck do you think they're used for, you inbred idiots? Jackrabbits? Shooting down ISIS jetfighters?

>>32397743
What? So now you're comparing man portable rifles from WW1 to vehicle mounted ones in GWOT?

>>32397794
>>32397803
The GAU-8 was marginally effective against the T-62s it was designed for. It's wholly ineffective against modern armor.

>>32397794
>>32397803

Kek, when the GAU-8 was introduced it was unable to do its job, which was penning top armor of Soviet tanks.

The GAU-8 is unable to do jack against armor from the 70s, much less armor today.

These are reasons why the A-10 is shit.

>>32397810
He said "Guns" not "Rifles", bro.

File: 132143243242.jpg (14KB, 261x199px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 261x199px

>>32397743

Tighter tolerances, better technology? The 338 Lapua is a great example of more modern engineering to create a high powered round with deadly accuracy. One of the best purpose designed, high pressure rounds.

>>32397817
>when congress killed the A-16 to keep the fucking A-10 alive
Why live?

File: image.gif (1MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x400px

>>32397743
you have demonstrated your idiocy

File: NavyNaval_Guns[1].jpg (22KB, 300x219px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x219px

>>32397743
>Compare the gun in your pic to today's "Anti-Tank" guns... such as the GAU-8
Compare the SCAR 17 in OP's pic to pic related. Checkmate, atheist.

>>32397743
How stupid can you be?

>>32397859
SCARs aren't anti-tank. They're anti-personnel. There's a difference.

File: 1280px-GeschützDora2.JPG.jpg (99KB, 1280x474px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1280x474px

>>32397886
so is this

File: gallery-1464989154-railgun-usnavy-2008.jpg (71KB, 768x554px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 768x554px

>>32397859
Here's the modern comparison to your pic, dumbass.

>>32397794
>>32397803
>GAU-8
>effective at killing tanks designed after the 1950s
WEEE WOOO WEEE WOOO
RETARD ALERT

>>32397911
So... you're saying
>IT'S NOT A ANTI-TANK GUN!!!!
>IT WAS ONLY DESIGNED AS AN ANTI TANK GUN AND USED AS AN ANTI TANK GUN
>BUT IT'S NOT EFFECTIVE THEREFORE IT DOESN'T EXIST N SHIT!!!!
Retard alert indeed.

>>32397902
see
>>32397906
and proceed eating shit.

>>32397743
>>32397886

This whole line of reasoning is retarded by simple virtue of the fact that a Tankgewehr wouldn't even be capable of damaging a modern tank, thus ruling its use in combat irrelevant. Even still, the weapon is not less powerful than modern rifles.

>>32397940
>railguns level buildings
>railway guns level cities
>Im the retarded one

File: 1476322866674.jpg (10KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x238px

>>32397743

>>32397969
You are if you think a railway gun is more powerful than a fucking railgun.

File: 1459648454679.jpg (26KB, 544x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 544x400px

>>32397766
>GAU-8
>Not anti tank
Dude

>>32397743
dumbest thig ive read all day

>>32398008
>he gets all his information about railguns from video games and movies

>>32398034
Are you fucking retarded? Could the railway gun launch a DU projectile at Mach 7.5?

COULD IT?

No, you fucking shitbasket. It couldn't. It couldn't come CLOSE to that. Stupid fucking retard and your stupid fucking retard handlers that let you go around thinking you're smart enough to function on the internet.

>>32398026
>GAU-8
>anti tank
Dude>>32397813
>>32397817
>>32397911

>>32398059
but can your railgun launch a 4800 kg projectile 29 miles

>>32398062
What exactly would you call a gun that was designed as an anti-tank gun and used as an anti-tank gun?

How much lead do you ingest per day?

File: HSC-12.jpg (30KB, 440x288px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 440x288px

>>32397743
...well of course no...you're fucking stupid.

>>32397743
>>32397859

I kek'd

>>32398098
I'd call it a piece of shit.

It's just a fucking autocannon, dude. It's used in the Goalkeeper CIWS, does that make it an anti missile gun?

>>32398136
Screaming autistically that the GAU-8 is not a anti-tank gun because YOU don't like it doesn't make it true. Fucking faggots.

>>32398163
It's not an anti tank gun because it's not a gun for killing tanks. It never was and it's barely capable to begin with since you had to carefully pick the aspect to attack from on a 60s tank.

Is the M61 an anti tank gun?

>>32398190
>the retards you're talking to don't even understand that the A-10's primary antitank weapon was the Mav and it was more likely to engage BMPs and BRDMs with its GAU-8 than fucking tanks

I know that feel.

>>32397634
I dont think he realizes that. I also dont think he has seen the difference between firing a full auto m14 and a full auto Scar, which has the felt recoil of a much lower caliber

>>32398315
You forgot the rockeyes

>>32398315
>more likely to engage BMPs and BRDMs with its GAU-8 than fucking tanks
Its actual intended purpose. The USAF wanted it to deal with all the light armor the Soviets had which didn't merit a large AT weapon.

>>32395258
pls go and stay go

>>32398440
They used CBUs against tanks very often?

>>32397405
Just listed something old. Could have gone with .30-40 Krag and still had an old round that outruns 5.56.

>>32396253
have you ever fired 54r you ironic dunce?

File: LeonsGettingLarger.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

>>32395418
And Leon's getting laaarger!

>>32398455
Fulda Gap never happened so I dunno. But Rockeyes are DP-ICM, not mere ICM.

Just pulling out of my ass, I suspect a mixed load would see Mavs taking out Shilkas and Geckos/Strela-1s, with Rockeyes and/or iron bombs to clean up everything else. This is assuming they are attacking a Motor Rifle Regiment on the move

>>32398510
>Mavs to nail Shilka and Strela

That's the gist of it. Stepping to a Shilka, Osa, or Strela-1/-10 with GAU-8 is essentially begging for a cornholing.

>>32395258
that shit looks like it would break if you dropped it. sorry but a hollow plastic rifle stock is not "more powerful"

fucking chinese garbage, i dont understand your fascination with that cheap crap

>>32398536
Would an A-10 even be sent to a place where they knew SA-8s might be? Seems a bit silly considering it can't employ anti radiation missiles.

>>32398552
>>>/retirementhome/

>>32398580

Welcome to exactly why the A-10s didn't have very long life expectancies during the Cold War, and why they had to be pulled off front line duty in the Gulf in favor of F-16s.

Also why anti–F-35 shitposters have no idea what the fuck they're on about.

>>32398841
Holy shit flying the A-10 was supposed to be a suicide mission?

>>32398443

This is SO FUCKING WRONG.

It was PURPOSE BUILT to destroy as many Soviet tanks as possible in a single sortie in a Fulda Gap scenario. Attrition rates were expected to be through the roof, but they didn't care because loldeadtanks.

When it FIRST ROLLED OFF THE LINE it was obsolete, because it couldn't kill Soviet line tanks.

If I built a handgun and round specifically to kill people wearing body armor, and the very first one made was unable to kill anyone wearing body armor, would it still be an AP handgun and cartridge? Would we call it AP? Would we call it an anti-body armor handgun? No, we fucking wouldn't.

That is why the GAU-8 isn't anti-tank, it doesn't anti tanks.

yes, small arms are more powerful than they used to be, in the sense that an average soldier can carry more ammo and deliver more death than he ever could before.

>>32398860

Attrition rates for the A-10 were expected to be well over half, which is why "muh titanium bathtub" because they *hoped* that maybe they could save a few of the pilots.

This is how the A-10 was supposed to work

>A-10 full of Mavs and GAU ammo takes off
>pops tanks with its Mavs
>shreds more tanks with its GAU-8
>gets shot down by literally any SPAAG
>US maybe saves the pilot
>pilot (if it survives) goes on to fly something else and kill more Russians

They were specifically designed to kill as many tanks in a single sortie as possible. Life expectancy was about one sortie.

>>32399000
>shreds more tanks with its GAU-8
So shreds 0 tanks once 1972 rolls around?

>>32399051

Exactly. Sorry, you can't see my earlier posts.

I've been shitting on the A-10 for this exact reason all thread.

That's how it was *supposed* to work, which is why it sucks, because the gun cannot kill tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkW1Fsaxj-Y

"Ye olde barret"

>>32399000
So...the Su-25 is the superior attack aircraft, then.

>>32399099

Yes, because the A-10 was a shitter literally designed to fuck over Army Aviators and the vastly superior AH-56.

>>32399108
>A-10 was a shitter literally designed to fuck over Army Aviators and the vastly superior AH-56.
Now this is interesting. I have not really heard of this, would you kindly elaborate?

>>32398841
>and why they had to be pulled off front line duty in the Gulf in favor of F-16s.
Oh shit, anti--A-16 shitters BTFO.

>>32396173
>bad guys
>Assad
Were it not for this i would have even agreed with this b8

>>32399097

>barret

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>32395258
>faster to Shoot
>Faster to reload
>accurate
>lighter
>reliable
>easier to manufacture / maintain
Yes

But more powerful as in lethality of ammo? No, TFW bullets designed in the 19th century are far more deadlier than the ammo used by modern infantry

>>32395292
yes because I feed my modern gun a high carb diet....idiot

>>32399218
>No, TFW bullets designed in the 19th century are far more deadlier than the ammo used by modern infantry
That's because modern infantry are bound by the Hague convention. The terminal effects of modern ammunition are far superior.

>>32399178

The AH-56 was a helicopter developed by the US Army, it had stub wings and could carry large diameter rockets as well as many TOW missiles (and presumably Hellfires, as they became available) it also was equipped with an nose cannon capable of engaging and destroying soft armor such as BMPs.

It would've filled a capability gap, being able to be stationed and refitted/refueled close to the front, while hopping from position to position popping tanks with missiles and engaging soft targets simultaneously. Literally perfect for the Fulda Gap.

The USAF got extremely assmad that the Army was developing an independent airborne platform to fill a gap the USAF had ignored, and struck a deal with Congress that if they came up with a dedicated fix winged CAS anti-tank platform that they would cancel funding for the AH-56 program.

What we got was significantly more vulnerable than the AH-56 and less capable once top armor could not be penned by the 30mm cannon.

Think AH-64 but with way more missiles.

>>32399304
I really don't know why we don't leave CAS to rotor wing.

>>32399502

Now multiroles are really, really good at CAS, but at the time the AH-56 would've been infinitely better, and we wouldn't have an A-10 to argue over.

The grand irony of course is that they built the A-10 to fuck the army and now they can't get rid of it.

File: anti tank.jpg (47KB, 571x166px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 571x166px

>>32397766
>>32397782

>>32396731
>Muskets had no hydrostatic shock and didn't penetrate that deep because the balls slow down very fast in tissue. Most musket balls stopped inside of a person, and they generally killed by infection or later blood loss due to bad medical techniques.

That's not true at all, I been trying to find sources about what sort of speeds those rifles got up to because some muskets they'd talk about being able to shoot through a line of 15 guys in a row. Which sounds insanely exaggerated but I've heard about musket balls going through more than one guy.

>>32399304
For anyone who's interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csGWV541yjw

>>32396731
>>32400010

Might be relavent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUrOtYHlYcY

>>32399898

>designed to be an AT gun
>can't A Ts

Doesn't sound very AT to me, retard.

>>32395258
Ummm. The M1 Garand, BAR, and Mosin Nagant all shot rounds that are bigger than 7.62 and the M1911 shoots 45acp. Are you smoking crack OP?

>>32400216
The PTRD became ineffective against tanks only a couple years after its adoption, but that still doesn't change that fact that it was designed as an AT weapon.

>>32399898
>wikipedia
Ok buddy
>>32400342
But it was at some point effective against tanks. The GAU-8 was ineffective from its inception. The A-10 was introduced in the late 70s. The T-72 was already in service for 4 years.

>>32400082
>SIX 19-shot rocket pods
>nearly quarter-minute first-shot accuracy with gun

What the actual fuck

>>32400082
Fuck, what a monster.

>>32400482
>The contracted specifications directed the gun be capable of destroying a wide variety of targets expected to be encountered during a close air support mission: light, medium and heavy tanks, armored personnel carriers, and fixed or mobile artillery.
>light, medium and heavy tanks

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/196738/gau-8a-avenger.aspx

How about the Air Force Museum then.

>>32395258
Is that cornershot?

>>32400708
The contracted specifications weren't met. If you contract me for an anti tank weapon and I hand you a Glock 19, does that mean it's an anti tank weapon?

>>32395269

nah

https://www.outsideonline.com/1923776/how-far-fitness-has-fallen

>>32400744
It is if we deemed it to be by accepting said glock.

Centerfire > rim fire, in most cases. Rim fire does not combust as quickly so it won't get better velocity compared to center.

They also didn't have hollow point and r.i.p. ammo back then

>>32400772

Well if you're entire argument for accepting the Glock as an AT gun is so that your wife can't own a Javelin missile system it seems pretty silly, right?

>>32400772
Well ok then

>>32395258
How much cocaine have you snorted OP?

>>32399225
its a joke you mong

>>32397784
Imagine having a G18 with a 200 round drum on it and a select fire AR with a 200 round drum and then mag dumping both at the same time. Its giving me a chub just thinking about it.

>>32400801
>RIP ammo
kek

File: 1482205909794.gif (3MB, 286x258px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 286x258px

>>32397784
>tumblr clip

>>32398059
Railgun muzzle energy
3.2kg projictile moving at 2.4km/s
(1/2)3.2(2400)^2 = 9216000 J
Or ~9.2 MegaJoule's


Schwere Gustaf
4,800 kg projectile moving at 820m/s
(1/2)(4800)(820^2) = 1613760000 J
Or ~1614 MegaJoule's.

That's not even counting the 700Kg of Chemical explosive energy in the shell, which would also far exceed any conventionally launched weapon ever built to date barring plane dropped gravity bombs.

Fucking mongo.

>>32402629
Where Ek is given by the integral of kinetic force, as 1/2mv^2

>>32396614
7.62 nato is betr than 7.62 long ruski tho

>>32399225
/k/ really is one of the most autistic boards.

Please, please consider suicide.

File: Untitled.png (160KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1600x900px

>>32402929
They're real close, but with similar bullets the rimmed round wins downrange.

>>32400148
God,damn that guy is a badass.

M16 literally BTFO, how will it ever recover?

>>32402929
For funsies, here's
7.62 NATO
7.62 rimmed
5.56
.30 cal US
.303 Brit

All in a row. Their trajectories are really close when set at a long zero and limited to reasonable (for most people) shooting distances. Every cartridge there is in 180 grain, except for the .223, which is 64 grain.

File: Untitled.png (178KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1600x900px

>>32403244
And here's the file I forgot to attach because I'm a dumbass.

>>32398939
Yes we would because the ATF would, just like they call a shoelace a machine gun therefore it is one.

>>32397237
>.30 Newton
>foot-pounds
>not newton-metres
Son, I...

>>32395258
Metallurgy.

>>32403318
Is US-based board, I used imperial measurements. I used yards, too.

>>32396797
.556 will not go straight through you. It will fragment if you're hit at the same range that a musket would be effective at and cause some pretty fucked up wounds.

File: 1450587424947.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>32397635
>scar
>more killy than a musket

Well, unless your target is wearing sufficient body armor, shot for shot a .60 caliber ball of soft, easily deformable lead is going to kill someone a lot deader than a 7.62 FMJ will.

Any modern gun has the advantage of rapidly repeating fire and far greater accuracy, of course.

>>32395486
powder is better, modern .30-06 loads will destroy an M1 Garand

>>32403498
They won't hurt the Garand's predecessor, though. And they won't hurt a properly adjusted Garand (for the most part).

>>32395258
>so much more powerful

They aren't.


They are potentially capable of a marginal amount more power with modern overpressure loads. That's a lot different.

>>32403498
This is an immense exaggeration.

>>32397743
Wow...just wow.

>>32395258
Better metallurgy = can take higher pressures

Same thing as with cars really

File: Baid.png (34KB, 957x558px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 957x558px

>>32395258

>>32395258
they aren't you idiot

File: image.jpg (110KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 400x400px

>>32403575
took me a minute to realize this was a joke

>>32398508
Critically underrated comment

Holy fuck, give this man a (You)

>>32403742
no

File: image.jpg (52KB, 763x757px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 763x757px

>>32403785
Just do it, ok?

>>32403742
If you explain the joke and why it was humerus, I'll consider it.

>>32397645
citations needed

>>32398508
kek, instantly read it in his voice without even looking at the gif

>>32404200
>>32403742
Theres a lot of try hard in these posts buddy.