Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: X-ray on August 31, 2004, 09:08:59 PM
-
http://www.firearmsid.com/A_featurevideo.htm
:lol:
(I know it's an oldie, but it's a goodie)
-
heh
on a slightly OT note - can any of the Americans on the board answer a question for me:
If I visit the US (never been before) am I allowed to use firearms on a range, not being a US citizen? I used to fire rifles and LMGs when I was an army cadet, and would like to have a go on a rifle range again - really enjoyed shooting when I was younger.
-
@ Cyberus
You can still fire rifles in the UK, but most ranges will only let you fire rim-fire weapons such as semi-automatic .22s. They usually have centre-fire carbines too, in popular handgun calibres susch as .38, .44 and .45. Black powder weapons are also popular. In fact those are the only handguns that are legal to fire in the UK.
If you want to fire heavy rifles you'll have to go to Bisley.
But I can pretty much guarantee (based on my visit to the US in 2003) that you'll be able to find somebody who will take you out to a quiet place and tear a cactus in half with an Uzi machine pistol or a self-loading rifle.
-
Cyberus wrote:
heh
on a slightly OT note - can any of the Americans on the board answer a question for me:
If I visit the US (never been before) am I allowed to use firearms on a range, not being a US citizen? I used to fire rifles and LMGs when I was an army cadet, and would like to have a go on a rifle range again - really enjoyed shooting when I was younger.
Yeah, I used to enjoy the LW90 :-)
-
@ Bloodline
It looks big and mean, I agree :-P
http://www.newhollandconstruction.com/products/detail.asp?Reg=NA&RL=ENNA&id=887&archived=0
You got the model number right?
-
Since I'm bored, and trying to calm down after breaking the tray of my CDRW (cutting myself in the process), damaging my computer tower and cutting my hands up trying to take the drive out and fix the tray, I'll calculate some physics from this.
First I have to convert these archaic American units. I can't work in such weird, hard to use non-decimal systems.
The rifle weighs = 13.6 Lb (6.2 kg in real units).
The bullet weighs = 720 grain (0.047 kg).
Muzzle velocity = 2600 fps (792.5 metres/second).
First I want to calculate the momentum of the bullet as it left the muzzle, so I can calculate the momentum of the gun jumping backwards. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity, so:
M = m*v
This number would meaningless in itself, but we can insert it into a balanced equation where the momentum of the bullet is m2*v2 and the momentum of the gun moving back in recoil is m1*v1. Since they are equal (every action has an equal and opposite reaction), we can equate them. We also know three of the values so we can plug them in to get the fourth.
m1*v1 = m2*v2 => 6.2*v1 = 0.047*792.5
Rearranging algebraically gives:
v1 = (0.47*792.5)/6.2 = 60.1 m/s
Which means the rifle jumps back at 60.1 metres per second (134.4 mph, or 197.2 feet per second). Imagine 14 Lb hitting your arm at 134.4 mph.
If this isn't impressive enough, we can calculate the force applied by this. Since almost all of it is applied over a very short time, and I can't be arsed, I won't calculate impulse. First, to get acceleration we'll *assume* that the speed of 60.1 m/s is reached only in a fiftieth of a second, 0.02 s. Acceleration is the quotient of velocity and time, so
A = v/t = 60.1/0.02 = 3005 m/s².
And force is the product of mass and acceleration:
F = m*a = 6.2*3005 = 21700 newtons.
21700 newtons is roughly equivalent to a weight of 2170 kg, or 2.4 tons, or 16125 foot-pounds (as opposed to the 11000 foot-pounds force advertised). Although 2.4 tons sounds a lot, it's only applied for a very short time.
So basically it was incredibly DUMB to fire that kind of rifle without a recoil damper or a tripod, and if it hasn't spun out of his hands it would probably totally shattered his collarbone. Now you know the physics reasons why. :) Nobody that stupid should be allowed a lighter, never mind a gun.
Just feel pity for anything on the other end of the bullet. If the bullet was brass it could pentrate about 15mm of plate steel, if it was steel about 30mm, if tungsten about 45mm, if DU about 60mm (enough to knock out a WW2 tank with a decent hit). A human being would be transformed into a pile of shapeless flesh by the passage of the supersonic shock wave alone. Obviously one not suitable for 'protecting your property' with, unless you are being attacked by armoured vehicles and have a very, very strong arm. Or are just incredibly thick and think big guns are cool.
-
@ Kenny
That video was taken from another website originally (I will find it) where several people (at least ten) fired the rifle. Although the recoil is brisk, it is not unmanageable: many of the shooters handled it just fine. If you play the video frame by frame you will see that our unfortunate man has not held the rifle firmly enough and he has allowed it to jump backwards at an angle. His stance wasn't ideal either.
Edit: here's the link
http://www.accuratereloading.com/videos.html
-
X-ray wrote:
@ Bloodline
It looks big and mean, I agree :-P
http://www.newhollandconstruction.com/products/detail.asp?Reg=NA&RL=ENNA&id=887&archived=0
You got the model number right?
Hmmm... :-D
I think I meant the IW90 (or maybe it was the L85), I get the numbers confused but basicly a single shot version of the SA80.
-
I get the numbers confused but basicly a single shot version of the SA80.
L-98. I fired it in the ATC. Enjoyable unless it is a very cold day and your upper-body strength isn't at rock-ape levels (reloading requires a strong-ish arm). Though last time I fired it, I guess I was about 15 or 16, and a good deal smaller than I am now :-)
-
Uh, isn't that only like 5.56mm? About .22 calibre? And it's muzzle velocity is much lower than usual rifles. I imagine the recoil from that is like being slapped with a small, underfed goldfish.
-
KennyR wrote:
Uh, isn't that only like 5.56mm?
Correct.
About .22 calibre?
Dunno. Can't remember, it has been a while since I've seen one.
And it's muzzle velocity is much lower than usual rifles. I imagine the recoil from that is like being slapped with a small, underfed goldfish.
The .22 rifle is like that. The L-98 hasn't got much of a kick on it, probably triple the kick of the .22 rifle. A satisfying amount of kick (at least, that's how I remembered it) :-)
-
Completely OT:
Did you sell legolas.com?
Did the prepubescent girls saying, 'You suck' finally get to you? :lol:
-
*google*
He still owns it. :-)
-
Cyberus wrote:
Completely OT:
Did you sell legolas.com?
Did the prepubescent girls saying, 'You suck' finally get to you? :lol:
Heh. No, I still run it. A friend persuaded me to try the forums idea with banners at the top, in an attempt to make a little bit of money.
I'm still looking to sell it. I haven't figured out what'd be the best way of getting the highest number of people to see that it is for sale, though it might not be worth much now that the LotR trilogy has finished in the cinema.
-
Mikeymike wrote:
The .22 rifle is like that. The L-98 hasn't got much of a kick on it, probably triple the kick of the .22 rifle. A satisfying amount of kick (at least, that's how I remembered it)
5.56mm *is* .22 inch, that's why I'm confused. Maybe there's a different cartridge size, then, between standard .22 rifles and NATO 5.56mm rounds. But I don't see why that would be, since the NATO round is designed for assault rifles and so has a reduced charge compared to semi-automatics.
Incidentally, the reason why this tiny round is so deadly is because it fragments and spins on impact, almost making it a fragmentation (frangible) round. That's barely keeping to the Geneva Convention, which rules that only solid FMJ ammunition may be used in warfare.
-
> Obviously one not suitable for 'protecting your property'
> with, unless you are being attacked by armoured vehicles
Better safe than sorry! :lol:
-
Cartridge designations and nomenclature can be misleading.
Take these cartridges for example:
218 Mashburn Bee
223 Remington
5.56 Nato
219 Zipper
225 Winchester
220 Weatherby Rocket
Did you know that ALL of those are exactly .224 calibre?
And a .38 Special is actually a .357 and a .357 Magnum is a .357 with a bigger powder load and longer cartridge case.
So the calibre may not be what it is branded as, and the powder charge may vary from one cartridge to another even if the calibre is the same. A typical example of how this can be confusing is what happened to me on the range. Last year I completed a course involving several rifles, some of which were fully automatic. But my example involves the 'daddy' of the group, which was a single shot hunting rifle in 300 Winchester magnum. That's .308 of an inch, but the cartridge length is 3.3 inches. So there's a lot of powder in there. Well I fired that and it almost knocked my earguards off. I developed a lot of respect for that rifle.
Two weeks ago I was on a range in the UK where a guy had a replica Sharps Black Powder Rifle. The calibre of the thing was .541, firing a huge bullet that weighs 38grams!!
He offered me a go, and I was reluctant because the .308 had given me such a hard time, and here was a rifle that was over 50 calibre. In the end my ego got the better of me and I fired the thing, expecting to go home bruised.
Not so.
Although it was black powder (a class 1 explosive) there was less propelant than in the Winchester 300 Magnum, and recoil was a lot better than I thought. It's a rifle I could shoot all day, unlike the 300 Magnum.
There are a lot of factors to consider when discussing the firing of small arms. Velocity, weight of the weapon, height of the barrel relative to the grip - these all affect perceived recoil. My little 6.35mm Baby Browning has more recoil 'bite' than my Vektor 9mm, yet the Vektor hits a hell of a lot harder.
In terms of wounding effects...well don't get me started, that is after all my specialty. I have unfortunately seen too many gunshot victims.
-
I must say that when I was training with the LA-81 - the naval version of the iron site SA80, I found the recoil to be pretty viscious, certainly far greater then the Lee Enfield 303 that I had used previously in the ATC some years previous.
That said, the SA-80 and all its variants are.. well quite frankly crap, the fall to bits, jam frequently, are supplied with poor grade return springs, the firing pin tends to snap way too often and given the wieght and range of the things, are all round poor.
They're too big and bulky around ship to really be considered a replacement for the sterling SMG (which, if you're on board ship, you DON'T want HV ammo flying around) and lacks the range and reliability of the SLR (Which was an absolutely superb weapon).
That said, I'd take a bren gun (LMG - fired one once at a range, beautifull weapon) over either, as it is stupidly accurate and so reliable its daft. Not to mention that the recoil is easier on a person despite its using a larger calibur round.