Project Reality Forums

MoZo1 wrote:Magnum can shot through a CO2 patron, and AK a railway track. It's true. However who knows, what's with HP (Hollow-point) or other anti personal ammunition, which has diferent ballistic?

first of all, sorry for quoting such an old post but the thread is active so..

1st. An ak would really have problems with a railway track. It's pretty thick. Not saying it's not possible, I'd just say it's pretty unlikely. Level III and IV steel trauma plates are probably something like 0.3"-0.4" thick. And they can stop an ak47 bullet.

And then, no need to worry about hp or any other bullets like that. FMJ is the only allowed bullet type in a war. (with small caliber weapons) Can't say if everyone follows those rules.

Overall it would be great to get better penetration. Would improve both realism and gameplay so much.

What about penetration through bodies?

With the upcoming insurgent additions, it may be useful to add some bullet penetrations to bodies if possible, so they cant be used as human shields as much. That way as a US if youre chosing to fire on an insurgent being blocked by a civ, atleast you know youll get your target.

Sneak Attack wrote:yeah, an AK-47 round should be able to go where it wants to.

And G3 even further.

Shining Arcanine wrote:Pretty much everything can penetrate sheet rock and plywood while most weapons can penetrate brick and concrete. See the following video:

http://www.militaryvideos.net/videos.php?videonum=43

From the video, only the M16 and M249 SAW have difficulties with brick and concrete, although I would expect the M9 and M4 would have difficulties with brick and concrete as well, given that the M9 is a hand gun and the M4 is based on the M16.

M4 is weaker than M16 and cause smaller wounds because the bullet velocity is much lower due to the shorter barrel.

causticbeat wrote:What about penetration through bodies?

With the upcoming insurgent additions, it may be useful to add some bullet penetrations to bodies if possible, so they cant be used as human shields as much. That way as a US if youre chosing to fire on an insurgent being blocked by a civ, atleast you know youll get your target.

Bullets will go right throw bodies and fragmentation vests. The only thing that can keep you safe from them are the ballistic inserts, which many troops do not use because it inhibits movement or the Dragonskin body armor, which the army does not want its troops to use, although a few generals are wearing it.

Jonathan_Archer_nx01 wrote:M4 is weaker than M16 and cause smaller wounds because the bullet velocity is much lower due to the shorter barrel.

That is exactly why I said that the M4 would have difficulties with brick and concrete as well.

"Dragonskin body armor, which the army does not want its troops to use"

curious, why not?

causticbeat wrote:What about penetration through bodies?

With the upcoming insurgent additions, it may be useful to add some bullet penetrations to bodies if possible, so they cant be used as human shields as much. That way as a US if youre chosing to fire on an insurgent being blocked by a civ, atleast you know youll get your target.

there is bullet penatration through bodies atm.

Jonathan_Archer_nx01 wrote:M4 is weaker than M16 and cause smaller wounds because the bullet velocity is much lower due to the shorter barrel.

no

a slower round will do more damage, it doesnt make a nice clean hole like a fast round will, it will tumble and jump around inside of you and fuck you up. thats why shotguns scare the fuck out of people, because its a massive slow round and will destroy your chest. though it has trouble going through hard stuff such as rock and what not. thats why body armor will stop buckshot but not a M16 round which is much smaller but faster, though buckshot to the chest would destroy you much better then an m16 round to the chest.

kick *** video whoever put it in. listen to that 30mm shell hit the floor, sounds like some1 dropping an aluminum baseball bat on the floor.

I believe in a later release all statics should be revised and allow this, cover does not offer concealment.

causticbeat wrote:"Dragonskin body armor, which the army does not want its troops to use"

curious, why not?

The army wants to use there own interceptor Armour, and try to discredit Dragon skin (there scared by the fact that the spent alot of money developing amour when theres better amour already developed)

****, i quoted the wrong part of the persons post. my question was: no bullet can go through a person's head and into someone elses? not even a 50 cal bullet?

Sneak Attack wrote:no

a slower round will do more damage, it doesnt make a nice clean hole like a fast round will, it will tumble and jump around inside of you and fuck you up. thats why shotguns scare the fuck out of people, because its a massive slow round and will destroy your chest. though it has trouble going through hard stuff such as rock and what not. thats why body armor will stop buckshot but not a M16 round which is much smaller but faster, though buckshot to the chest would destroy you much better then an m16 round to the chest.

kick *** video whoever put it in. listen to that 30mm shell hit the floor, sounds like some1 dropping an aluminum baseball bat on the floor.

Bullet fired from M16 would hurt you badly because it would fragment due to high velocite whereas bullet fire from M4 would make only small clean hole.

Jonathan_Archer_nx01 wrote:Bullet fired from M16 would hurt you badly because it would fragment due to high velocite whereas bullet fire from M4 would make only small clean hole.

I doubt that this is true. Even though an M4 has a lower velocity, I belive it would still do alot of damage to its target, and if it hit a bone or hard surface would also fragment in much the same way the a bullet fired from an M16 does.

damn that dragonskin is amazing, stops 40 straight rounds of 7.62 at 20ft

Jonathan_Archer_nx01 wrote:Bullet fired from M16 would hurt you badly because it would fragment due to high velocite whereas bullet fire from M4 would make only small clean hole.

stfu.

Lower velocity = more damage to soft target.

Look at the difference between regular and subsonic 5.56mm ammo for real world proof.

Or not be retarded and use common sense. The myth of the 5.56mm fragmentation is absolute bullshit in modern day ammunition against a soft target. The entry hole on a human body is about the size of the tip of your pinkie, the exit wound about the width of your thumb.

Forgot to talk about cavitation as well, which if you don't know what that is, you have no reason to post here in the first place. Yes the original 5.56 did tumble, but it doesn't anymore and hasn't in quite a while. Most people misinterpret cavitation effects for tumbling.

Muzzle velocity of an M16 is anywhere between 910m/s ->960m/s depending on the ammo type and which source/measurement tool you are using. M4 is between 850->880m/s.

Both have more or less the same terminal effects on a human body and both suck ***. When I can watch a buddy pop 5 rounds into a insurgents chest and see him still standing, that's more than enough to convince me.

WNxKenwayy wrote:stfu.

Lower velocity = more damage to soft target.

Look at the difference between regular and subsonic 5.56mm ammo for real world proof.

Or not be retarded and use common sense. The myth of the 5.56mm fragmentation is absolute bullshit in modern day ammunition against a soft target. The entry hole on a human body is about the size of the tip of your pinkie, the exit wound about the width of your thumb.

Forgot to talk about cavitation as well, which if you don't know what that is, you have no reason to post here in the first place. Yes the original 5.56 did tumble, but it doesn't anymore and hasn't in quite a while. Most people misinterpret cavitation effects for tumbling.

Muzzle velocity of an M16 is anywhere between 910m/s ->960m/s depending on the ammo type and which source/measurement tool you are using. M4 is between 850->880m/s.

Both have more or less the same terminal effects on a human body and both suck ***. When I can watch a buddy pop 5 rounds into a insurgents chest and see him still standing, that's more than enough to convince me.

Which is precisely why the military needs to either move to 6.8mm ammo or go back to 7.62x51. But thats an entirely different argument...

Over 50 years late they are!

You guys are all wrong. 70% of human body is water. If you see a moving ship in sea it makes a line in the water and the faster it moves the thicker this line is the further the waves created by this line go. - it works in such a way this in the human body even if fragmentation isn't considered.

Furthermore:
Adam and Jamie tried shooting into water pool with various weapons. They found out that high velocity muzzles were broken into pieces after they hit the water surface whereas low velocity muzzles penetrated surface in 1 piece and slowed down 1-3 metres below, then sank.

And for the last time, bullets fired from M4 don't fragment or frament just a little.



here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weIh3Mc6kU wait for sixth minute (6:30) and learn what happens when muzzle enters a body.

I'M WRONG??? Are you god damn retarded? Go shoot someone with 20 rounds of 5.56mm and tell me I'm wrong.

First. The human body is NOT a bucket of water you smacktard. Ships don't travel super sonic in water, so your argument, like you, is retarded. What you're attempting to explain is cavitation, which you failed miserably at. Go google it.

Next, using mythbusters is down right laughable. They do ad hoc experiments that prove one tiny fact and blow it out of proportion. Cool show, but to use it here, again, retarded. The effects of a round on a human body are dependents on SO many factor that shooting one into a bucket is literally funny.

Whether a bullet 'fragments' or lot relies 10x more on the bullets composition then its velocity once it goes super sonic. The bullets in the mythbuster test and the stupid youtube video you posted ARE NOT THE SAME GOD DAMN ROUNDS THE US ARMY USES IN IRAQ. Again, the mere fact that I'm telling you this proves how stupid you are to assume they are.

Here's some fun facts for you:
1. The youtube video fails horribly. It says the m16 is better than the m14 because it has less recoil. It talks about how its a better design physicaly as well as a smaller round. Yes, that is a factor. HOWEVER, the larger factor is that it has a buffer spring and is gas operated instead of recoil operated like the m14. For that reason alone it is also infinitely less reliable than the m14, which is why ever opportunity I got I carried an M14 (with EBR kit) in Iraq instead of my m4.

2. He compared the accuracy of the m14 on full auto in burst fire to the accuracy of the m16 in full auto in burst fire. This is failure and shows how useless the demonstration is because for starters, neither the m14 nor m16 is full auto anymore.

3. The demonstration you were oh so placing your hopes on, again, failure. It is using the old ball ammunition, which is no longer in use. The rounds we use now, of which I have seen the effects on a human body from head shots, torso, limbs, extremities, do NOT tumble/fragment. That's why I said the myth of the 5.56mm tumble. It USED too, and if we still used the old ammo it would, but we don't, so it doesn't. When I said the entry/exit hole sizes its because I've used my fingers to try and block the blood flow to save someones life. Doubt me again.

The 5.56mm round is a complete failure. The mere fact that the SF guys I worked with are buying up ever 6.8mm upper reciever for their m4's speaks enough. It has horrible effects on a soft target, almost NO penetration to speak of against anything beyond plywood. It COULD have one of those, perhaps even both, but would require a drastic change in ammunition type as well as telling the Geneva convention to screw off.

Lastly, higher velocity does generally create fragmentation upon contact with water. However, the human body is NOT water. So when you eventually listen to me, and look at some pictures/video of the difference between shooting a target with super sonic/subsonic ammo, you will see why slower = better effects for the same size rounds on soft targets, PERIOD.

WNxKenwayy wrote: \ When I can watch a buddy pop 5 rounds into a insurgents chest and see him still standing, that's more than enough to convince me.

You mean BF2 Hit Detection is realistic?!?!?!
But umm yeah Jury has a verdict and Kenwayy wins...