The best pistol cartridge of the war was bottlenecked.
>Only because of the usage of soyboy pistol rounds that don't do shit
Couldn't agree with you more there, 9mm a shit and people need to get on the .357 SIG/10mm/9mm Dillon train. But are you sure those keep SMGs from being obsolete? I feel like .300 memeout and similar have largely replaced SMGs, except in those niche cases you're planning to dump your whole mag on a target at once and need the recoil control. You can get SBRs pretty compact these days; just with commercial parts you can get an AR with a 7.5" barrel down to ~19 inches OAL, I'm sure if you designed a memeout gun from the ground up to be compact, you could go even smaller.
>We've got to decide operation system of the weapon
What about lever-delayed blowback, like the FAMAS?
Nevermind, I see you mentioned lever-delayed in your post, I suck cocks.
>I've just looked at it, and in up to 12" barrels i think 10mm beats 300blk, though i'm unsure about that due to lack of info on blk and using only one 10mm load that might not be optimal for longer barrels.
Fair enough, but I get the impression that you're comparing really hot pistol loads to regular intermediate loads. If you took .300 memeout/7.62x39 and tricked it out to the same degree you're tricking out these high-caliber pistol cartridges, wouldn't you get superior performance? Granted I'm not basing that assumption on anything scientific–but I'd assume the cartridge with better case capacity and more aerodynamic bullets would have higher potential performance than a pistol cartridge if done correctly.
>It's still an AR, with its own problems
Granted, slavfriend, I think I implied as much in my original post. My point was that, even with off-the-shelf parts for a gun that was very much not designed to be a compact weapon, you can get it pretty damn short; if you designed a gun from the ground up to be a foldable SBR in some intermediate caliber you could get it even smaller. And sure, an SMG would have the potential to be even smaller than that due to the shorter magwell and action, but if the SBR is already small enough to meet all your requirements (granted, you guys have gone pretty extreme in this thread so a compact SBR might be too fat for you), wouldn't it make sense to stick with the higher-power caliber?
>If only Soviets didn't fuck it up due to political games, PR and "established industry".
Commies truly ruin everything.
>it seems like fragmentation is the only way to "lose" energy, otherwise it'll be converted in either temporary or permanent cavity.
So the implication is that you always want your bullet to stay in one piece if possible, yes? I already knew soft points were objectively better on soft targets than fragmenting rounds, but does this suggest that it's better for an FMJ round to stay in one piece and tumble rather than fragment?
>by it escaping the body.
Yeah, I thought that was implied. Never hurts to overestimate the intelligence of your audience though, especially these days.
>so FMJ without a dedicated tumbling mechanism is the absolutely the worst choice.
True. I know you just said there's a lot of variables, but looking at that pic, what you wrote, and my own limited knowledge, I think the following is accurate if you assume other things equal:
>dedicated expansion (SP)>dedicated tumbling (7n6 spoontip)>incidental fragment/tumble (FMJ)>icepick FMJ.
A shame that graph doesn't show M193 in comparison to all those.
Penetration (assuming no overpen) seems like it would be more important than permanent cavity (assuming that the total surface area of temp+perm cavitation is about the same), as penetration has a wider variety of application–going through cover, getting through thick clothes, etc.
Also, since we've drifted away from SMGs to pistol cartridges and the firearms that use them, what would the pistol companion to this sub gun be? I started making a list of things I'd want to see–(gas?) delayed blowback, a fixed barrel for accuracy and easier feeding, dual-feed magazines, both for SMG compatibility and general usefulness…when I realized there's a pistol that comes close to meeting all of those criteria already, the Steyr GB. It has a fixed barrel, and the magazines are already dual-feeding to take advantage of that. It has a reputation of being an accurate gun with its fixed barrel, and the gas piston applying force opposite the direction of recoil made it a softer shooter than comparable pistols. According to reports by LE and military users, it was a very reliable gun, and fed a wide variety of ammunition without issue. The fixed barrel also lends itself better to suppressor mounting, if one is so inclined. Why not give the GB a polymer frame to save on weight, add a picatinny rail for tacticool flashlights, and scale it up just a bit to fit .357 Auto/.327 Auto/9mm Dillon/whatever? It seems like the ideal sidearm to me.
polymer or alloy frame*.
What exactly don't you trust about gas ports in barrels? Are you an interwar US general?
One more thing to add to gas-delay is that it's self-regulating for hotter loads–the higher pressure the load, the more force is applied by the delay piston.
>top 5 SMGs from SHOT show
>4 of them are AR """SMGs"""
>1 is an MP5 remake
TFBTV never fails to disappoint.
Russ-anon, do you have any charts comparing the bullet drop/range of different calibers? I was curious as to how flat-shooting 7.62x25, 9x25, .357 SIG, and .327 Mag are compared to one another.
I meant Dillon in this case.
>So, tissue is not water, and we should forget this bullshit about ripples and whatnot.
Not quite true. Tissue is not water, but it is 80% water, and in certain ways it behaves similarly to water. "Ripples and what not" is one of those ways–smack yourself or one of your retard friends in the stomach a few times, and you'll see the flesh ripple out from the impact, much in the same way it would through a bag filled with water.
>You stretch it a lot more, and it "snaps". The temporary cavity is caused by this strechting, and it hardly matters if it's not enough to "snap" the tissue. If it's enough to "snap" the tissue, then nasty things happen. Rifle rounds have enough something to be "snappy", but pistol rounds lack it.
That's mostly true, but not quite. If you assume tissue is of uniform density the way ballistics gel is, then yes, you would see a very clear delineation in velocity, where below it temporary cavity barely matters at all, and above it temporary cavity causes vast amounts of tissue damage, because it's only past that point that the "shockwave" of the temporary cavity is energetic enough to tear flesh instead of rippling through it. However, tissue is not of a uniform density–some parts are more and less resilient than others, and even if you're below that magic number of 2200 ft/s, you'll still see the temporary cavity affect weaker parts of tissue, e.g. capillaries and very thin blood vessels. The effect becomes far more significant above that velocity, but even below it will still affect some parts of your tissue. This is why if you get hit with blunt force, the resulting bruise is often larger than the thing that hit you. Even though the impacting object is travelling at an incredibly low velocity, and your flesh isn't torn by it, there are some very thin capillaries right under the skin that are weak enough to be torn by the shockwave. That same principle applies with pistol bullets that impact with a velocity below 2200 ft/s–you might not leave a hole with a diameter larger than the bullet, but you'll still see internal bleeding and bruising radial to the path of the bullet.
>Let's not lie to people coming here for education. They're adults, not children.
Not my intention, anon. I'm aware that mass, size, momentum, and so on will affect how quickly a bullet sheds its energy, and thus there is more than just velocity which comes into play when determining whether the temporary cavity will cause permanent tearing. I just prefer to allow the opposing view as many concessions as is reasonable even when showing they are incorrect–if you can prove them wrong even while being generous to their points, it helps show the depth of the error being made.
CZ's Brno rifle brand is completely distinct from, and has nothing to do with, the independent company FK BRNO. Kindly stop talking out of your ass and go back to reddit.
To add to this, you can understand why people make gross simplifications like "only velocity matters" by looking at picrelated, the drag equation.Temporary cavity is caused by a bullet shedding its energy as it moves through a body, which is caused by the force of drag. As you can see, drag increases with the square of velocity (u), but only linearly with the drag coefficient Cd–which is formed from the cross-section area of the bullet, its overall shape, its length, and some other similar factors. Because of this, an increase in velocity will have a greater effect on the force of drag (and with it the speed of energy shedding from the bullet into the surrounding flesh) than changing the drag coefficient by the same amount. Because of this, it can be said that velocity matters a bit more than other factors for determining the magnitude of temporary cavity. Retards who don't understand the factoids they're repeating heard this, decided it meant "only velocity dictates temporary cavity lel", and kept repeating it to each other until this oversimplification became gospel truth to the smoothbrains. Now they keep reminding each other of this non-information and jerking each other off over how smart they are. Keep in mind that this explanation from the drag equation is itself an oversimplification and doesn't tell nearly the whole story. For instance, even if it's true that increasing velocity increases drag more, if it is discovered that it's much easier to change the boolit shape or diameter within your dimensional constraints (cartridge must be no more than this long or this wide) than it is to increase velocity through adding more powder, to the point that it overcomes the "advantage" velocity has from the squared term, then focusing on boolit shape/size over velocity might make sense. And it should go without saying that, if an extremely high force of drag is not met with a projectile that has lots of momentum, that same drag will simply stop the boolit before it can do any substantial damage to tissue.
It has a little more oomph than 9mm +p+–it has a longer casing (21.6mm if I'm reading the doc right), so it's able to take a greater powder charge. I did end up finding some velocity claims from manufacturers of the round, advertising 1450 f/s with 124 gr bullets. IF those numbers are accurate, it's on par with .357 SIG, but with the advantage of greater capacity, and the slight disadvantage of not being bottleneck. I don't have access to Quickload at the moment, but I was wondering if it's possible to use it to confirm these claims.
>40 short and weak is shit and deserves to die right after 9mm does.
It's suboptimal compared to .357 SIG and 9mm Dillon, yes, but it's far and away better than 9mm.