/k/ - Weapons

>>666709

>And this is not CZ, nor does it have to do anything with it but remotely resemble it.

Brno is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CZ. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>667154

Right on the money. Bullet shape eventually becomes more important, and how the bullet expands and changes the dynamics of resistance is extremely important, than the velocity by itself. The complicated dynamics when bullets expand in tissue makes the entire understanding extremely difficult as so many different dynamics are occurring at the same time, with the tissue and the bullet changing in state constantly. It makes a simple understanding, or any true attempt at a formula, virtually useless or impossible. Change the bullet's shape and damage will decrease, change the bullets' composition it will radically change damage and cavitation both permanent and temproary and penetration in many cases with expanding bullets. Drag, resistance, plastic deformation of the bullet, the changing frontal area of the bullet as it deforms, the constant shift of tissue/gel and the constant change of state of the bullet in velocity/energy/momentum makes it a very complex study.

A great example of the role of weight and momentum in cavitation, as well as bullet shape and build, is the 30 caliber rifles, such as 30-30 and 30-06. Many people who misunderstand terminal ballistics often assume that if one trades bullet weight for added velocity that there is some magic basic idea that cavitation will automatically increase while penetration decreases, as if its a simple straight equation (bullet shape and build remains the same). One need only look at data on the effects of light weight bullets in 30-06 or 308 to see that not only does one end up with less penetration with 125 grain bullets vs. lets say 150 grain soft points of similar build and shape, IT ACTUALLY CAUSES LESS CAVITATION. As you say, momentum is incredibly important in terminal ballistics, because without it the bullet will not keep pushing forward and keep the force stretching and tearing tissue up. The faster lighter bullet eventually "loses" much earlier in this violent impact and shifting and resistance of forces, it loses its energy/velocity incredibly rapidly, the force and potential is LOST, it is NOT TRANSFERRED to the target in many cases. Or in the case of handgun bullets, even if the lighter faster bullet causes more temporary stretch that accomplishes nothing, its essentially wasting energy to no extra effect. In hydrostatic shock situations, the lack of momentum means it can't keep pushing the tissue till it breaks. One loses everything and gains nothing from lighter weight bullets in 30 caliber, as one can see in gel tests, the velocity cult's theory that it will have a tradeoff is a fallacy. Keep firing lighter bullets of the same energy and you will see diminishing returns constantly, the force is lost quickly to no benefit.

The 30-30 has far less power than a 30-06, yet at close range it can do incredible damage simply because of the flatter nose, or better yet flat nose, soft points of light construct. They require very little engineering, the meplat allows for high initial resistance and drag, which helps to expand the face of the bullet rapidly as well as causing high initial resistance and thus stretch of tissue. The lightly constructed bullets require little energy on their own part to expand, force is quickly and effectively being used. Initial drag coupled with rapidly increasing drag, it is stupid simple effective. Same can be applied to flat nose soft points in 357 Magnum out of a rifle or 44 magnum out of a rifle. Change the shape of those bullets for the pistol caliber carbines and watch their terminal performance plummet.

If we change from a flat nose 170 grain light construct bullet in our 30-30 we can get very impressive performance from a 170 grain soft point spitzer in our 30-05. But we must keep in mind, the shape of the bullet makes it less efficient in drag and resistance in tissue, it will require more force to open up, hopefully rapidly, to cause the drag and resistance desired. What we see is a bullet shape that both requires better engineering and more force to be as effective as its more efficient counterpart. In both cartridges at full loads, mid weight to certain heavy weight bullets will far outdamge the lighter bullets in either rifle because of the momentum, sectional density and related dynamics.

Both the bad science of the 1970's and early 1980's plays a major role in the velocity myths, perhaps more than any other. We have a 220 Swift here that I've handloaded and hunted with, it too is a part of the vaunted velocity myth, the great terminal performance lauded from the rifle caliber. Yet whenever you compared it side to side with bigger calibers using heavier bullets, the bigger calibers were often far more impressive, the only times it might fail is when blowing prarie dogs into pieces, otherwise on anything bigger the hype was just hype. Between marketing and myth of such high velocity calibers we see continued ignorance into today.

>>667174

>Many people who misunderstand terminal ballistics often assume that if one trades bullet weight for added velocity that there is some magic basic idea that cavitation will automatically increase while penetration decreases, as if its a simple straight equation (bullet shape and build remains the same)

Sounds like dumb fudd myth with projecting over others. Bring the proofs here and now, faggot.

>As you say, momentum is incredibly important in terminal ballistics, because without it the bullet will not keep pushing forward and keep the force stretching and tearing tissue up

You literally pick part of his sentence and pretend that it's everything there is and it makes your case.

>he faster lighter bullet eventually "loses" much earlier in this violent impact and shifting and resistance of forces, it loses its energy/velocity incredibly rapidly, the force and potential is LOST, it is NOT TRANSFERRED to the target in many cases

How can it be not transferred, you dumb faggot? Does it magically disappear?

>ne loses everything and gains nothing from lighter weight bullets in 30 caliber, as one can see in gel tests

Post them here, you lying faggot.

>the velocity cult's theory

How much arrogant projecting can one retarded fudd fit into a single post? Now we know and it's terrifying.

>>667177

>How can it not be transferred

I'm not that guy, but energy is not conserved in any interaction between two objects. Kinetic energy (a working force) is lost as heat, sound, light, vibration, and the deformation of the bullet itself, all types of energy which are not being applied to the intended target. For example, if a bullet hits a person at 1000 ft-lbs (1350 joules) of energy, less than that 1000 ft-lbs will be applied against his body even if the bullet uses all its energy and does not create an exit wound. How much energy is lost depends on a lot of variables, but in general it's a fraction of the total kinetic energy, and by looking at the formula for energy we can see that energy is more quickly increased by an increase in velocity (since it's squared). However, that also means energy is more quickly lost by a decrease in velocity (whether it is used on the target or simply dissipated, either way), and the measure of momentum is a good way to see that. Higher momentum (mass x velocity) means the object resists slowing, so it keeps more energy over distance.

I will speak from my personal experience hunting here, and I have never fired a rifle round that was more effective than Federal .308 Winchester 180 grain Power-Shok jacketed soft points. The bullets mushroom very well, can penetrate a deer sometimes clean through if shot from the front, and the internal effect is pretty extreme. The SP expands within the first few inches of impact, and creates severe wounding for inches around the bullet's cavity, usually making mincemeat out of the lungs and heart. The organs are just shredded. I used to use the same product in 150gr, and despite being loaded to about the same energy, they were a great deal less effective and sometimes I would have to chase the wounded deer for several minutes before they'd lose their adrenaline and give out. With the 180gr ammo I have never had a deer walk away.

I know it's anecdotal, but it's my experience.

>>667255

I should have said, as I remember the 150gr Power-Shoks did expand earlier, but they did also have significantly less penetration and they were more easily slowed or deflected by impacts against bones, which obviously doesn't help with the instant kill that you hope for when shooting game. Expansion is about equal between the two from what I've seen, but the difference in effectiveness due to energy retention was enough that it was a no-brainer to switch. There is a reason Paul Harrell uses blankets as a bullet stop; the layers of fibers work in a pretty rudimentary way similar to flesh, woven and webbed together and with a lot of capacity to bend and stretch, while also applying constant force to anything going through them as it penetrates. He's had heavier bullets penetrate further in nearly every test he's done, when he was able to get ammo products that were as similar as possible.

My understanding is this: assuming that a cartridge has the right mixture of velocity and mass to start with, and assuming that two loadings have close to the same energy and all other factors are approximately equal (bullet composition, shape, design, etc), the more massive bullet is not guaranteed to be the more effective, but it has good likelihood and opportunity to be more effective. I've also had good results with .357 Magnum 158gr JHP, and .45 ACP 230gr JHP. However, when trying out JHP ammo for 9mm Parabellum, I found that the 115gr and 124gr loads were more effective than the heavier loads (which are overweight for the cartridge's velocity/mass ratio), and I exclusively use Prvi Partizan 115gr JHP now because they were the best and most economical out of the ones I experimented with.

>>667255

Slowing in dense medium is a factor of square of speed. Having twice the weight doesn't produce nearly as much stopping distance as having twice the speed.

>inb4 hurr durr overpenetration

All that shit ties to energy, dipshit.

>>667301

>putting words in my mouth

>putting more words in my mouth

>you're stupid based on my strawman of your post!

Relax your anus, dude. I didn't insult you or try to say you were wrong, and what you just posted doesn't qualify as an argument. And no, extremely fast bullets do not always penetrate deeper as a rule, due to factors such as fragmentation and deflection. Super light and fast bullets break up on impact and the resultant smaller fragments lack the necessary momentum to continue penetrating as far in a soft target as a solid projectile would have; 5.56 NATO M193 and M855 are proofs of this. Work on being less emotionally invested in an opinion. All I said were things that I had observed from my own shooting experience, and conclusions that I drew based on those experiences. I didn't call you a dipshit, so don't be so disingenuous.

>>667315

Breakage reduces penetration for the same reason expansion does: increase in surface area to energy ratio. Small projectiles have poor penetration not because they're light, but because they're not very energetic in relation to their impact cross section. Hence why sabots are a thing - a projectile far lighter than ordinary, with far greater penetration than ordinary, all due to small cross section compared to the energy it carries.

I get your angle that "physics don't mean shit we've got practical evidence" but the evidence conforms to the physics which you just don't grasp that well, and the entire subject revolves around nothing but physics.

>>667426

>Small projectiles have poor penetration not because they're light, but because they're not very energetic in relation to their impact cross section.

Because momentum, the measure representing an object's current force and direction in motion, and its resistance to a change in said motion, is not affected by mass? Because losing mass does not affect the energy of an object? You're being awfully condescending when it seems like you're conveniently ignoring the fact that there being less of something means it has less potential energy, by definition. If this were not true then there would no reason to make heavy projectiles, period, and all firearms science would have been thrown out decades ago and we'd all be using varmint cartridges exclusively.

I never at any point implied that physics isn't real, and fuck you for being so intellectually dishonest as to make an assertion like that. I'm telling you that we can observe the results of physics in practice, in real life, and there is no book of formulas thick enough for you to simulate all the complex nuances between the literal hundreds of variables depending on what you shoot, from which direction, what you hit, using what round, and so on. Especially not something as daycare-tier simplified as 'GOTTA GO FAST is everything' while pretending that things you will realistically be shooting at are in any reality a consistent material, density, positiion, or whatever else. Physics does not happen in a vacuum, and unless you have ever handled a firearm in real life or watched a lot of other people doing it, that's not something you can replicate just by plugging numbers. You can't just claim that things matter or don't matter because you said so, that's a faith-based argument and thus it's completely worthless. Models are theory. Evidence is proof.

>>667428

>potential energy

That's KINETIC you fuckwit. Not even going to entertain the rest of your drivel.

>>667255

>Kinetic energy (a working force) is lost as heat, sound, light, vibration, and the deformation of the bullet itself, all types of energy which are not being applied to the intended target

That's a fair point, though this same principle applies to heavier bullets as well.

>Higher momentum (mass x velocity) means the object resists slowing, so it keeps more energy over distance.

Yeah, sectional density is probably the most important thing in external ballistics when already using modern spitzers.

>I have never fired a rifle round that was more effective than Federal .308 Winchester 180 grain Power-Shok jacketed soft points

For rifles external ballistics become a lot more important, and it might be optimal for the game type to use a heavier bullet that can hold together well and produce smaller temporary cavity for a bit longer, potentially increasing the chance to reach vital organs like heart or damage lungs instead of losing all the energy before that. That's not what my point was, aside from calling out his obnoxious hypocrisy. My point was that is we ignore external ballistics and focus on terminal one, having 2 bullet - a lighter and heavier one, carrying the same energy then with the same bullet construction we'd have more penetration from the heavier one, obviously, but if we optimize both bullets for a certain amount of penetration we'll end up with a faster expanding bullet design for the heavier and slower expanding one for the lighter bullet, similar to how soft points and hollow points both expand, yet they do that at different speed. That way we'd end up with a slower bullet expanding faster and leaving greater permanent cavity, while lighter bullet expands slower but due to it's higher velocity it creates bigger temporary cavity instead. Your problem was likely that 150gr was designed as a varmint bullet and so expanded rapidly, losing it's energy far too fast.

>>667256

>they did also have significantly less penetration

Well, that proves my assumption. Proper bullet constriction is important, and one thing about higher velocities is that the faster you go the harder is it to achieve the best results, with 5.56, for example, even the best soft points break apart when shot up close. That's an obstacle that can be overcome, though.

>the more massive bullet is not guaranteed to be the more effective, but it has good likelihood and opportunity to be more effective

I think that it's easier to observe the expansion/effectiveness of a heavier bullet and manufacture it that way so you've got less chances to fuck up with them, especially when expansion and penetration is the only thing looked at with modern rounds, ignoring temporary cavity.

>However, when trying out JHP ammo for 9mm Parabellum, I found that the 115gr and 124gr loads were more effective than the heavier loads

Well, i've found out one thing that is unrelated to terminal ballistics that impact these things, especially in pistol rounds that have big bullets - the lighter bullet you go the more powder you can fit in the case so you can get more energy out of a lighter bullet. With equal amount of powder though the heavier bullet would likely have a very little bit more due to it longer staying in the barrel.

>>667315

>extremely fast bullets do not always penetrate deeper as a rule, due to factors such as fragmentation and deflection

That's completely unrelated factors though. Weren't we talking physics rather than customer advice? As for velocity's relation to penetration, no, the higher velocity the more energy is spent on temporary cavity, while you want to be as slow and heavy as you can, carrying maximum energy and concentrating it on the smallest area possible, both for permanent and temporary cavity. Kind of like arrows - they tend to penetrate tissue quite well, unlike bones, yet they often carry less energy that a mere 22lr.

>>667426

>Hence why sabots are a thing - a projectile far lighter than ordinary, with far greater penetration than ordinary, all due to small cross section compared to the energy it carries.

That's for penetration of hard objects though, the tissue is a bit different. I know less about this topic but i can point out that 5.56 does penetrate better than 308 at the muzzle, with this being the reason lvl III+ body armor appeared.

>>667429

>being illiterate

Nigger, potential energy is what an object possesses based on its position in relation to another object and what it would take to make object A reach object B. That's an object at point x with mass n and 0 current velocity, with another object at x1, to explain it as simply as possible. If you had actually read my post you would understand why I used that term in that context, and you would have noticed that I differentiated it from kinetic energy as mentioned throughout the rest of that post and my others. Thanks for admitting you have nothing to contribute to this thread.

>>667430

You do have a point about bullet design, and although it's been a while since I've had any of the 150grs around, I believe that I remember the design of the two rounds being basically the same - same brand and product, after all. The 180gr is just a little longer, but they're about identical apart from that, so it's likely that that particular design simply isn't as good at a lighter weight - as a .30 caliber spitzer, with a certain profile and composition and so on as I mentioned before.

It might be concluded that for a specific bullet type in a given cartridge, there are 'sweet spots' in the velocity:mass ratio; that is to say, if energy remains close to the same as a standard load, then the 'best' loads for a certain task (say, shooting amorphous ayylmaos) could be found within a range of lighter/faster and heavier/slower. Obviously, the limit is when you want your bullet too fast or too heavy and the round loses energy unless there is a significant increase in pressure, which would then change how those things scale against each other, since suddenly you can increase one variable while the other remains constant, for a net gain in energy.

I would say that large, high caliber cartridges, such as .45-70, have probably the widest acceptable range of velocities and masses, and smaller rounds axiomatically have less wiggle room. Would you agree?

>>667437

>the design of the two rounds being basically the same

Then it's obvious that the lighter bullet will expand faster and cause the effect you described, proving my point. The overall state of soft point technology isn't that modern though, so you might have no other choice but to use a heavier bullet that works with the design that everyone uses and so on. Modern improvements of HPs like bonded jacket could significantly change that, if properly implemented.

>there are 'sweet spots' in the velocity:mass ratio; that is to say, if energy remains close to the same as a standard load, then the 'best' loads for a certain task (say, shooting amorphous ayylmaos) could be found within a range of lighter/faster and heavier/slower

I doubt that. The "sweet spot" defining feature really is the penetration that allows you to blow varmints up and go straight through the deer if needed, and penetration is not only about bullet weight but also about bullet construction so changing weight is only necessary if your bullet choices are limited, forcing you to use slower bullets because manufacturers can't be bothered to design a slower expanding and tougher bullet.

>large, high caliber cartridges, such as .45-70, have probably the widest acceptable range of velocities and masses, and smaller rounds axiomatically have less wiggle room. Would you agree?

Well, yes, though it's not really practical to use lighter bullets in these cartridges, aside from few exceptions. 45 hollow points will break apart, fly worse and make the cartridge even more limited compared to smaller, higher velocity ones. Versatility is not that good of a thing whey you are versatile at being limited or handicapped.

>>667430

It's the same for penetrating tissue, because tissue is a solid object. With huge elasticity and tiny shear modulus and ultimate tensile strength, but a solid nonetheless. As opposed to a liquid, which readily moves out of the way of a penetrator and immediately rejoins into a bulk material after it passes. And with gases you can basically work with idealized versions of equations. Also, sabot basically a design of nearly every AP bullet in existence - tiny steel core in a lead shell. The idea being that the lead shell is shed as it is stopped by the armor because of its size, the steel rod will continue moving with less impedance. The lead shell is kept because 2 mm rod penetrator doesn't exactly makes grievous wounds, and being specifically designed to maximize penetration, it just zips right through the body.

>>667452

Wait nevermind, a lot of designs just wrap a steel rod with copper jacket and pad it with a bit of lead to give it more of a ballistic shape. I guess you don't really need to make a small radius penetrator unless you're trying to defeat level 6 armor, in which case good fucking luck anyway.

hhhhhhmmmmmm

>idea for interesting pdw cartridge

5.45x25mm

it uses the long high b.c bullets of 5.45x39mm using 7.62x25mm tok ammo necked down for the 5.45mm bullet, surely it might make 2300 fps or 701.04 meters per second, with a harden steel core bullet for armor penetration

>>668407

>In metric that's .338

Silly me, I obvious mean that in non-metric.

>>668407

I've actually thought about necking the .45-70 casing down to .338, myself, with a short and sharp shoulder angle for accuracy. I tried mocking it up at one point but I couldn't find any torrents for QuickLOAD, and I'm not paying $150 for that shit. Obviously that's not perfectly straight, but if you could do it it'd be a round that probably rivals most .30 caliber big game rounds, except it would fit in a short action.

If you were to put, say, a 160 grain .338 flat nose bullet atop a 33mm case (a tiny bit shorter than .44-40 Winchester, same length as .357 Magnum, a tiny bit longer than .44 Magnum), I'd imagine you could probably load it to 1800 ft/s while keeping the pressure reasonable (below 35k psi). People can get loads out of .44-40 as hot as 200/2000 in rifles, so I'd expect good results… however, at that case length I think it'd probably be pointless, being so close to a lot of other revolver cartridges, so I might use a 36 or even 40mm case just to differentiate it and make it stronger. At that point it'd be competing with .454 Casull and .500 Smith & Wesson, and you could probably argue for it as a lighter-recoiling but slightly less powerful option than those.

>>668434

>I think it'd probably be pointless, being so close to a lot of other revolver cartridges

I can see two angles to pursue here: a military and a revoler/lever rifle one. .338 Lapua Magnum is basically the de-facto sniper cartridge by now, and we might see it adapted as a machine gun cartridge in the future. So if you had a .338 pistol cartridge, then you could use the same barrel blanks, like how the Russians did it with all of their 7.62 cartridges. It's not important in the greater scheme, but it makes my autism tingle. After all, if you go for new cartridges, then you could might as well do this.

As for revolvers, a semi-rimmed version could work like federal magnum. That is, maybe you could cram six of them into a cylinder that can only hold 5 .357 Magnum cartridges. Yet it would be somehow bigger, so you could dispell some of the worries about the Federal Magnum's performance. And although I can't find definitive information about it, I suspect 5.56 NATO chargers (or stripper clips, if you prefer useless neologisms) should be able to hold .327 Federal Magnum the same way 7.62x39mm chargers hold .357 cartridges. Therefore, if our semi-rimmed .338 cartridge has the same rim diameter as the Federal, then you could use those chargers as speed loaders. In addition, if you make a lever gun for the longer version you've mentioned, then this could be a companion cartridge specifically for lighter loads.

>>668407

>how would a straight-walled 8,58mm magnum cartridge perform?

It'd perform the way you make it perform. The caliber is not the defining feature of a cartridge, there also are case capacity and maximum pressure. 357mag has pretty big capacity but it's pressure is almost 10Kpsi less than 327 fed mag, which is why the latter is capable of almost matching the former from shorter barrels while being significantly thinner, shorter and using smaller bullet. If you make the case capacity and pressure in between those two you could get something that is either between those two both in power and longer barrel gains, or you could end up with a lighter-recoiling and possibly more powerful 357mag with almost all it's barrel gains if these increases end up being multiplicative, which i suspect is the case so you can easily beat 357 if you just scale up 327's capacity to the caliber.

I don't really see that much point in that though, with 357mag already being commonly used, even if being suboptimal in terms of pressure, recoil and size, while for a more modern cartridge 327 already does all that quite well. I'm not good at theorizing about these things as i'm mostly about optimization so i'd be ok with just two pistol cartridges - 7.92x24 and 7.92x25, covering most

>>668434

Use this site, it just works torrentz2.eu/search?f=quickload

>>668437

>.338 Lapua Magnum is basically the de-facto sniper cartridge by now, and we might see it adapted as a machine gun cartridge in the future

Isn't it rivaled by 6.5CM?

>worries about the Federal Magnum's performance

If loaded up to it's actual limits it's almost as good as 357mag from 4" barrel and is still better than anything short of best 10mm loads from a semiauto pistol. And it's already there and is quite common, maybe even from the moment of introduction - the 100gr AE load that is.

>5.56 NATO chargers

What on earth uses these? Mini 14? Bolt actions? I don't really see that as relevant even if rim diameters are the same for these cartridges. Potentially easier conversions are a lot more important factor.

>>668556

>If you make the case capacity and pressure in between those two you could get something that is either between those two both in power and longer barrel gains, or you could end up with a lighter-recoiling and possibly more powerful 357mag with almost all it's barrel gains if these increases end up being multiplicative, which i suspect is the case so you can easily beat 357 if you just scale up 327's capacity to the caliber.

That's good to hear. It's not that I want a boutique cartridge, I'm just theorizing about equipping a military that doesn't need to adhere existing standards and is supported by its own arsenals.

>Isn't it rivaled by 6.5CM?

No, that's 6.5×47mm Lapua. Both that and 6.5 Creedmoor have vaguely the same length and casehead as 7.62mm NATO, and their performance is nearly the same. 8.58×70mm Lapua Magnum is real magnum cartridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5mm_Creedmoor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9747mm_Lapua

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum

>What on earth uses these?

Vid related. Nearly every STANAG magazine is capable of accepting that spoon, and the US still issues its 5.56 ammunition in bandoliers filled with chargers.

>>668569

>I'm just theorizing about equipping a military that doesn't need to adhere existing standards and is supported by its own arsenals.

Well, modern standards are quite flexible so you can easily pick something that's good for you without any downsides so there's little reason to unintentionally introduce incompatibility. .308, .312, .338, .355, etc. all are quite common and the margin between them is quite tiny.

>8.58×70mm Lapua Magnum is real magnum cartridge.

Yeah, it's bigger, but what are advantages that it brings? Longer supersonic range? Less drop? More energy downrange? A 6mm optimum can be supersonic up to 1200m and still has almost 300ft-lbs of energy at that range, with higher BC bullets that drift on the wind less. A 6.5mm cartridge can do that and be even bigger, while what does .338lm have to offer afterwards? Being as loud and recoiling and barrel-burning and flashy as a scaled-down 50BMG? Smaller caliber and larger BC is the goto for long range performance and an 8mm caliber doesn't strike me as a small one.

>>668573

>Being as loud and recoiling and barrel-burning and flashy as a scaled-down 50BMG

Something like that; think of it as a smaller and lighter alternative for that cartridge.

>>668577

Well, you're free to try. I doubt that it'd be really that practical to use with general purpose 6-7mm cartridges present, not enough to issue it specifically for that purpose, anyways. Even designing a bit lighter anti materiel rifle with hydraulic recoil dampening stock would be more reasonable.

>>668661

Is it just a fancy way of saying 9mm+p+? Because if it fits 9mm mags then it's likely just that - an overpressure 9mm. Not that bad itself, with it's 500ft-lbs but significantly behind the SIG with it's 600-650. Still an ok defensive ammo, not really good for anything else, not powerful, versatile or useful enough, really.

>>668667

>Well, you're free to try.

I don't have to try anything, the cartridge really is the de facto choice for sniper rifles by now., and there is even a machine gun:

https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/u-s-a-machineguns/lwmmg-eng/

>designing a bit lighter anti materiel rifle with hydraulic recoil dampening stock would be more reasonable

Actually, it can supposedly retain a similar amount of kinetic energy at longer ranges to what .50 BMG is capable of. In addition, there is a gap in the armour levels of vehicles: after 7.62 NATO or Russian the next step is either .50 BMG or 14.5mm. So Lapua Magnum should be able to destroy a truck that is armoured against 7.62 cartridges nearly as well as .50 BMG, but if the truck is better armoured than that, then won't even .50 BMG can penetrate it. And the jump is even higher if you are up against NATO standard armour, because that directly goes to 14.5mm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG_4569

You'd have to get something like these for that:

https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/large-caliber-rifles/austria-large-caliber-rifles/steyr-iws-2000-eng/

https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/belgium-machineguns/fn-brg-15-eng/

>>668668

Even if it has a longer casing it won't do shit because it has to maintain 9mm OAL to fit into the mags, you're just seating the bullet deeper. Unless they raise the numbers so high that even +p+ rated guns can't handle that their data is either dishonest or straight up a lie. Quickload is not a good estimator of a cartridge's power and fails to give meaningful information when going out of conservative estimations of common loads.

>>668741

>960 rowland

Piece of shit lie like everything that came ot of this lecherous motherfucker. It's nothing but over glorified overpressure 9mm+p+ that requires custom brass and barrels only that faggot makes, conveniently. Same thing with 460 rowland - 45 super except only from this faggot.

>Are saboted rounds in a straight wallee cartridge completely out as a topic in this thread?

Sabots would be most beneficial in rifle cartridges, in handguns this is not really the case. Also, technology is not really good enough for common use unless it's something weird like 6.5CBJ. When it finally arrives, it will be able to shift things a lot in terms of rifle internal ballistics but that's a topic for another thread and is not really mature enough.

>.40cal case

Low capacity, high recoil, poor ballistics, 9mm format. 357SIG only somewhat fixes 2 of those.

>injection molding THV/Lehigh cavitator projectiles

>>648020

>>668781

I dont know enough about this rowland guy to quite understand all the hate thrown his way.

You didnt really address either my question about using .40cal cases or sabots. I understand that .40 has some drawbacks, however, like .357sig, it always has more energy that 9mm has to offer. The extra case capacity should allow a subcal bullet to reach higher energy levels, but without the need to form the brass and create a necked cartridge. Slap rifle rounds werent noted for their accuracy, which could in part be due to the wall thickness of the sabots they used, if they were not holding the bullet properly centered in the bore of the rifle. A thinner sabot should reduce that issue (potentially, Im no materials engineer).

And again addressing this threads circling back to .312 projectiles and .30 carbine as a caliber of choice.

If we look at light for caliber ammo choices for .40cal, we can look at liberty civil defense, which throws a 60grn schp at 2000+ fps. .30 carbine throws a 85-105grn pill at around 2100fps from a 16" barrel. So using a light sabot, and a .312 bullet in the 50-60grn range, we can see short barreled .30 carbine performance from a pistol length barrel, in an existing straightwall cartridge case.

>>668808

>I dont know enough about this rowland guy to quite understand all the hate thrown his way.

He's a scam that sells you already existing solutions that only differ in that they are proprietary so he can milk you out of your money.

>The extra case capacity

It only has extra case capacity in comparison to 9mm.

>a subcal bullet to reach higher energy levels, but without the need to form the brass and create a necked cartridge

Point by point:

Sabot technology is still very much in development and should not be considered a solution until it improves.

Forming brass is likely to be cheaper than fucking with those, especially in pistol rounds.

A necked cartridge has several advantages like better feeding.

40 short and weak is shit and deserves to die right after 9mm does.

>.30 carbine throws a 85-105grn pill at around 2100fps from a 16" barrel

It shoots 110gr bullet at 2000+fps from an 18", i don't know where did you get that info from.

>.312 bullet in the 50-60grn range

And that's not 30 carbine performance in any way, shape or form. If you ever had an idea this is you should not be allowed to discuss these things.

>>668815

>40 short and weak is shit and deserves to die right after 9mm does.

Careful, someone's going to link another Paul Harrell video.

>>668824

The thin is that it's NOT weak. When you purchase .40 from a store, it's loaded to +P+ pressure levels, and often outperforms many similar sized cartridges which are at normal pressure levels.

The reason why it's called short and weak is because you can easily overpressure 9mm and get superior results, the russians do it after all. To talk least of overpressurizing the 10mm to get essentially rifle scale energies.

>>668815

>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.

I came across this video, where .357sig xtreme penetrator is hitting 2100+ fps consistently from a pistol.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rFepaP_dFG4

From 9:31 on. Thats AR pistol length bbl energy levels from a pistol. Realistically, how quickly is that bullet losing energy, compared to a stubby barreled 5.56?

>>668845

It's called short and weak because it's literally a shortened and weakened version of 10mm.

bump, where'd you go Russ-friend?

>>628552

PP2000 is good.

But the classics are always best, sten gun for example.