Hello, /k/, a crossposter from /v/ here. As it makes sense,

>>33081455
>thinks velocity is irrelevant

File: zzzzmisc~08.gif (1MB, 256x256px)

1MB, 256x256px

>>33081455
This has to be bait. If it's not, sincerely kill yourself.

>>33081455
Barrel length is a factor in accuracy and muzzle velocity. Overall length and absence or presence of a stock are each a factor in handling. Additionally, accuracy is composed of three components- the mechanical accuracy of the firearm, the quality and design of the ammunition, and the skill of its operator. That second thing is why you hear talk of things like "match-grade" ammo. And modifications can increase the mechanical accuracy of a weapon, incrase its magazine capacity, change its handling, or, in cases like flared magazine wells, even facilitate faster reloads. Additionally, due to longer barrels and stocks facilitating greater stability and better sight pictures as well as allowing the powder to burn fully, rifles generally have greater effective ranges.

>>33081455
The same bullet at the same speed has the same terminal ballistics no matter what weapon you shot it from, yes. However different weapons impart different properties on the bullet. A .223/5.56 bullet will have different velocities based on the barrel length and different accuracy based on rifling twist rate, gas system, recoil management of the rifle, etc. Also all rounds of the same caliber aren't created equal. Bullet weight/shape, powder charge/composition will also effect terminal ballistics (most notorious example being the initial failure of 5.56 and the M16 in the field because the Army decided to switch to a surplus, non-spec powder at the last minute).

>>33081609
rude

>>33081614
Well, when I mentioned "same caliber" I should have said "same ammunition". I'm aware about different quality/types of the same ammo.

So even if you load a weapon with ammo stuffed with more powder than the "standard", it won't matter much if the barrel isn't long enough to burn it all before the projectile leaves the gun?

>>33081695
what I'm getting from these two posts is that, generally, longer barrels might have an impact on how much effective damage a weapon deals, but the most important factor is the specific composition of the ammo itself.
Aside from that, different specs on the weapon would mostly affect accuracy and general handling.

Does different types of ammunition(higher or lower quality) affect the chance for a weapon to jam or fail in some way?

>>33081455
Is English your primary language or are you just retarded?

>>33081762
it isn't, actually.

>>33081748
Definitely. Low-quality powder may not burn fully or at a good rate, or may be impure. These things lead to decreased performance in the munitions themselves as well as dirtying a weapon more and creating greater wear and tear. For example, early failures of the M16 service rifle and its 5.56×45mm ammunition can be attributed to bad powder gumming up the weapon and providing insufficient force to cycle the weapon, leading to failures to eject or to feed. Low-quality casings may fail to contain the force properly, leading to... Well, the weapon going boom in a bad way. Low-quality primers may result in failure to fire or even accidental firing.

>>33081854
thanks for all this info. I'm taking notes.

>>33081865
Also, black and smokeless powder are different. BP is significantly less powerful, which is why loading BP weapons with smokeless is dangerous- it could break your gun. Doesn't help that cases for BP ammo were made with a different technique and may not be as hardy as casings for smokeless powder ammo, while weapons intended for smokeless powder may find BP insufficient for their needs. This is also why .60cal musket balls were replaced by .308, .30-30 and other smaller rounds- smokeless powder and new bullet designs made them sufficient, while .57 and similar rounds came to be used in AT or AM rifles. I'm glad you're learning. Stick around, learn all you want. Just take everything with a grain of salt- we can be biased, paid shills or flat retarded like anyone else.

>>33081954
don't worry about it, I'm new to /k/ but definitely not to 4chan

>>33081771
Fair enough.

Better handling will allow better control, which means faster acquisition and follow-up shots. A red dot will also help, but a magnification would hinder you while allowing accuracy at greater distances.

Better accuracy comes from more consistently loaded ammo (same powder, bullet weight, etc.), bullet stabilization (barrel is not shorter than originally designed), quality of the trigger, semi-auto or bolt action, bolt lock-up, etc., and shooting position.

Better damage comes from pistol vs. rifle (pistols calibers are more or less equal), velocity (more powder plus longer barrel), type of bullet (military is always FMJ, which are less lethal than hollow points), and proximity (rounds are less effective at longer distances).

>>33081455
>As it makes sense, two weapons shooting the same caliber will deal pretty much the same damage at the same range.
... Barrel length. Powder charge. Bullet grain. Bullet material/design.

>what are statistics that would be relevant, and realistic, to add to each weapon?
Barrel length. Powder charge. Bullet grain. Bullet material/design. Only meaningful attributes.
The only things that are gun specific are fire rate and the associated biomechanics of recoil.

>How do you classify if some weapon x is better than weapon y, if they're firing the same caliber?
What you're shooting at, and:
Barrel length. Powder charge. Bullet grain. Bullet material/design.

>Same for weapon modifications.
No, you're a fool.

>Can you do much more than just increase accuracy with weapon mods?
You can't even do that.


Next time graduate high school.