Contrarily, the entire reason the M-16 uses a smaller round is because it was thought that wounding an enemy and capturing him, rather than outright killing him, would be more tactically intelligent. A .223 has trouble penetrating sandbags, and even hiding behind light brush can slow the bullet enough to make it survivable unarmoured. In Somalia, there were reports of enemies taking more than five direct hits before going down for good from the 5.56 millimeter round. Also, the bullet fired from an M-16 is a lot less viable at ranges below fifty yards, as it’s still superheated from the explosion of propellant–someone hit with an M-16’s bullet at those ranges is much more likely to survive, as the bullet is prone to tumble or shatter.
Handguns are designed for close-quarters combat, where you don’t NEED to brace it, you just need to loose a lot of munitions in someone’s general direction. Rifles aren’t good for that because at such close ranges, it’s difficult to bring the weapon to bear on multiple opponents, it’s bulky, and as previously stated, can be less powerful at close ranges, while a high-powered handgun can deliver crippling or fatal injuries rather quickly, is eaily snapped-to a new target, and doesn’t impede the user’s mobility.
Even though I’m finding this discusison extremely interesting, we are off topic. But hell, keep going if you want to Maybe we should start one just for this
MS17, taking into account what you said about the SC Gauss Rifle, would it be able to pierce say, a foot of a metal maybe 50% stronger than our titanium or steel today? (I’m attempting to rationalize this weapon’s efectiveness against the foes in SC, in this case a tank. Sorry if that’s too many variables up there.)
handguns can be more accurate if you simply steady them, for instance against a wall, or your other hand which could be against your hip or something, but other than that, handguns totally aren’t that good, and are a last resort…just a question, who here actually has shot a firearm of any type…(not counting bb gun and paintball gun…and any other that is not really a firearm, you get the point).
i really hope that if you want to make a gun, you have shot one, because a video game is far different, if you think people will fly back from a shotgun blast like in re4, than you are in for a great surprise!
I’ve never fired one… yet… Going to a shooting gallery sometime this year >_>
Well, I’ve seen the kind of recoil from a Beretta which doesn’t seem that bad. It only takes a second to re-allign yourself with a target not more than 20 meters from your standpoint, but what smartdude said is true. Handguns are last resort, nothing more. Of course, at extremely close range (-58-: … at five feet…) a handgun would be preferable, but by the time an enemy is that close, you’re probably dead unless your surprising him. In this futuristic case dealing with a highly advanced enemy which is practically wiping out human armies, I don’t think it would even be economical for the millitary to arm soldiers with almost useless weapons such as handguns. Give them compact, HE grenades. They wouldn’t be that expensive and could still blow through a wall or light vehicle unlike a handgun. Sure, they don’t have alot of range, but they pack more punch at roughly the same distance…
lol, shooting recoil is little to none, unless you deal with the much larger weapons, but those are not held in your hand(s)
gold leader, you have never fired a gun, and yet, you are absolutely right! even a high velocity weapon is pretty weak compared to a high-powered explosive, though soon enough this will not be considered a topic, lol, if there were aliens, everything would be done pretty much with nuclear and biological weapons, though bio-weapons would most likely be harmless to us, if realistic, and if a simple scifi, bio wouldn’t really do anything much at all, so nuclear arms would be of choice since they can be carried in a suitcase.
HE stands for High Explosive. Yes, there is in fact lighter explosives used for different reasons. HE is used the most in millitary engagements because their aim is to kill, not maim, not injure, just to incinerate. An HE grenade would blow a human apart whereas a handgun round would just cut through one.
Whoa, hold on a second. I forgot to mention HE Rounds… They wouldn’t pack a grenade’s punch, but could they work better than a pistol’s AP round?
personally i think nuclear weapons would be used in the far future, of course there is still magnetic rail cannons to talk about…
geeze this is an interesting topic, im kinda a fan of weapons, so this is extremely interesting to me, maybe we could start a seperate topic inside general just to talk about cool weapons!
Close-quarters combat is fairly common in urban combat zones, which is why sidearms are useful.
This isn’t Halo–the Human military isn’t being completely whiped out, it isn’t overmatched, and it isn’t deficient in technology.
This may be the far-future(circa 3030), but technology isn’t a massive amount more advanced. Several centuries of minor warfare over frontier planets caused military advancement to mostly stop, as most of the people fighting those wars hadn’t the funds to pay for advanced research. By the time this particular war rolls around, firearms tech has just topped what we have now, though the space machinery is a good deal more advanced.
Sidearms would be useful against lightly armored targets. I doubt you could get that much power out of a handgun unless you were right next to the target, hence, you’re probably already dead.
On the contrary, your description of this universe states that there are only a dozen colonies left. At the rate of loss, conventional warfare would seem pointless as it hasn’t been working all this time. It is overmeatched because everyone is against it, and it is deficient in technology because the humans lack huge armored combat suits (which are widespread) like their main foe.
The bottom line is: the way you set it up, there is practically no hope for survival. This is of course a basic dramatic problem set in the plot, but you seem to think that the millitary could turn it around and push the enemy back. Even in a story like this (sci-fi) that is extremely unrealistic (unless you pull a “Bugger War” and make one target like a “Queen” which can disable the rest of the enemy army when destroyed).
…But that’s besides the point and way off topic, SD.
Any rebuttals you have about my last post -58-, please, don’t take them harshly, they’re just suggestions. It’s your story so you don’t have to listen to any of us.
A dozen colonies left because the war began suddenly–as Humanity got its bearings, the war evened out.
You’re forgetting that this sidearm is a Magnum weapon; Magnums are reknowned for their massive kinetic impact and force.
The standard ballistic vest issued to Royal Marines is capable of stopping all but the most powerful sidearm fire–where Magnums come in–and slowing rifle munitions to a non-lethal point, though this only covers the torso. The Uani exoskeleton is equally effective, and even if it covers more of the body, each individual Uani trooper is less well-trained, usually less veteran, and equiped with less efficient weapons. While an Uani’s wrist-mounted weapon might be able to do some viable damage against armoured vehicles, a Marine’s rifle is more useful because it’s more accurate at greater ranges and doesn’t give away his position as easily.
There’s no “queen”. The Uani is a force of individually sentient and intelligent beings.
The war has reached a stalemate, with a mostly static front-line, until the Humans discover their new allies(not sure if I posted pictures of them yet), the K’ta. While the Royal Navy may be smaller than the Uani navy, each ship is, in general, better designed. Human ships tend to be more effective at extreme long and extreme close ranges, while their Fighters and Bombers are several decades behind in developement, the power of their Capital Ships makes up for it. Uani ships are cheaply mass-produced, so each one is less heavily armoured, less maneuverable, and less heavily armed than a Human ship of equivable class.
That was one stupid explaination. Just because it’s a magnum doesn’t mean it’s “pwnage”. Plus, the power is mainly in the bullet, so even a modified derringer could dish out more punch than a magnum.
Yeah, Royal Marines. What about the rest of them, eh? From what I can tell, the marines have a role similar to “powerful but limited”. Apparently, they’re a match for the enemy, but what about the main figthing force? (even if there isnt there should be: highly trained, well-equipped soldiers are not commonplace.)
I never said there was a queen, so stop assuming that what I’m saying about your plot is “true” and not just a suggeston.
Do you mean a magnum rifle? A magnum pistol round is powerful, but only powerful for a pistol round. .357 Magnum does not mean be-all end-all power. Heck, against Humans, a .223 is better, as we have weak, thin skin, and little muscle. A handgun NEVER has a place in the soldier’s hands unless he cannot, due to circumstances, have a rifle.
Also, a handgun is terrible at “spray and pray” tactics, as it has a low volume of fairly weak, innaccurate (depending on the shooter) fire. A rifle, in .223 in above, I repeat, is 100% better 100% of the time against human targets.
In figuring the “power” in ft-lbs of a cartridge, the weight of the projectile is doubled, while the velocity is squared. Think about this. A 55 grain .223 will move about 3200 FPS out of a 20 inch barrel. A 158 grain .357 Magnum will move about 1400 FPS out of a 6 inch barrel (it is a handgun, after all.) Which do you think is more powerful?
The only reason the .357 Magnum is better at shooting deer is that the .223 lacks the mass the go through deer hide, muscle, and bone.
About the sandbags- even a .50BMG has trouble penetrating sandbags, and that round is hundreds of times more potent than a .223.
About the Somalies- I’d wager that those shots were either at ridiculous range (unlikely) or through tough cover (likely.) Now, a .223 has the power to bust foliage, it has been said that it is a very effective round for “two-legged game” at close to moderate range. If you shoot through something like a tree, yeah, a .223 would have trouble penetrating, but even a deer rifle’s bullet gets slowed down in trees (a lot.)
Any rifle round that is above .20 caliber, 40 grains, and moving at 2900 FPS or faster (or with an increase in power [whilst being {minimally} equivalent in sectional density and ft-lbs of force] for more potent rounds) will kill humans instantly if it is inside range, and they are hit in the chest, spine or head. Neck and gut shots spell certain death (except with the help of medical personnel,) but likely not an instant one.
Even with a .50BMG machine gun, only chest, head, and spine shots mean an instant death. My great-grandfather who served in the US Military in World War II knew a man who was shot three times through one knee with a .50BMG, and he retained both his life and function of his leg. Needless to say, the rounds hit flesh and not bone.
You know that when a bullet shatters, its deadliness is increased, right? Any bullet that is moving with any kind of velocity (700 or so FPS and up) will be hot, not matter what range.
EDIT- Gold leader, how long roughly (or exactly, if possible) are those rounds? And about how fast are they moving?
Another Edit- Heh, went to the range today, shot my Dad’s Browning A-Bolt in .223. Awesome rifle for varmints and such. It will shoot into 1" groups at 300 feet. I can only do about 1.5" inch groups… but my Dad is a whole different story. Suffice to say that he’s picked a crow off of a tree 375 feet away with one precise shot, with the only support being the corner of his father’s house that he leaned on.
And, more relevantly, I shot the 92F, and it kicks as much as usual (a lot.) If I had to use one to defend myself, I’d always pick the accurate, fairly powerful bolt-action A-Bolt over the semiautomatic 92F any day, no matter the range. The 92F is a fine firearm, but no pistol can take a rifle’s place.
dude, you know what a magnum is right? it goes faster than the speed of sound, its not unique in any way, lots of weapons shoot faster than the speed of sound, magnums aren’t as special as you think, i mean, if you shoot something alive without any type of armor with it (i actually do shoot guns, i would know) than yes it blows a pretty big exit wound through the target, however, as far as armor goes, i dont really see it being all-powerfull, and by this time they probably have mastered body armor, most likely using water, since it is very good at stopping bullets, which is why if you jump into a pool and someone shoots at you, the bullets pretty much shatter, and are nonlethal by the time they get to your depth, assuming you have a depth…do you research any of this stuff? i only have basic knowledge here, lol!
however…an XL frame might be somewhat useful, lol!
S&W Model 500----very powerful, can take down an elephant, yet still kinda odd for the future, , i still think we need future weapons for the future
Maybe we should start one just for this 
Going to a shooting gallery sometime this year >_>
