It was invented so that the chinese military could have a round that only they used, so some random logistics officer can't sell it and pocket the cash. In that regard, yes, it is superior to 5.56 and 5.45 because you can bet that either of those would be sold on "surplus" market, and ammo you have is always superior to ammo you don't have.
What, do you think the Chinese, the people who treat saving face like it's their national sport, would just admit "yeah, we made this because we don't trust our soldier not to pawn off everything not nailed down"? Besides, who are you to argue with both God and triple doubles?
Unlikely. The 5.8 seems to be done purely so that they could claim to have a more potent round than NATO, and for reasons of . In reality however the 5.8 barely has more muzzle energy than 5.56mm and most likely performs far worse against body armor, especially since it hasn't been quite as rigorously developed to counter it in the way 5.56mm has.
But like all domestically created Chinese shit, it has the rather catastrophic issue of never being combat tested to any meaningful degree. Creating generations upon generations of something that essentially amounts to cargo-cult copies of what the Soviets and the US were doing. The QBZ for example is just a cargo-cult rifle that is the successor of a gun that was essentially an abortive attempt to fit an AK system into a FAMAS clone
In all fairness, it does have like 10% less drop at 500 yards, which is a possibly realistic range for an intermediate round. Of course, that's literally one foot.
As we all know, in terms of damaging targets, a larger diameter bullet is better. The Chinese have some of the best scientists in the world so they obviously know this as well. Other countries have weaker soldiers who can’t carry as much mass, so they’ve sacrificed kill power for lighter, smaller diameter, weaker rounds.
Clearly you’re moronic. Bullet effectiveness does not scale linearly with caliber.. it scales at the square you fricktard. Do you even math? 7.62 (any 7.62) is 72% better than 5.8 because it inflicts 72% more damage points.
There's no parent case so you'd have to turn it, and then make a one-off barrel for testing.
If done right it should be a slightly lighter 6mmAR, on paper it's a very good looking intermediate cartridge and with the smaller rim you're avoiding the AR bolt issues that Grendel and 6mmAR have. NATO really fricked up intermediates (twice) and there's baggage from that, but if you're going in fresh like the chinks and you're not moronic then your standard cartridge is going to look something like this.
I imagine it's be easier to make the die for it than turning the brass itself. Machining a single die would be hard, possibly require CNC, but infinitely easier than turning x number of brass and maintaining consistent wall thickness.
You'd really only need a couple just to confirm assumptions. It's not outside the norms in any way, it's .223/.308 being at the upper and lower limits of an effective intermediate fricking with people's idea of what to expect. It's just a happy medium and I'm sure it meets all reasonable expectations unless somebody fricks up manufacturing, but that's nothing to do with the design.
Nah, SCHV power ranking is 5.56>5.8>5.45. >why
Western HATO area 51 gay alien technological developments mean that 5.56 gets the better projectile designs, which is why its better. 5.8 has better theoretical potential than 5.45 for a military cartridge so it gets second despite chink projectile designs gimping it. 5.45 gets last because it has the least potential while still having shit projectile design. 5.45 does have a potentially interesting niche for civilian defensive use given its low recoil, close range of use for such situations, and the fact that barriers are almost never a factor in civilian DGUs. Although 5.56 is already doing a decent job of that, the significantly lower recoil might be desirable for octogenarians or those suffering from chronic neuro-muscular disorders or something i dont know. Unfortunately this is completely invalidated by lack of quality projectile design, ubiquity, guns chambered in it that arent shit, etc.
no
/thread
Fpbp.
It's just so people stop selling ammo.
can you explain your reasoning?
Yes.
It was invented so that the chinese military could have a round that only they used, so some random logistics officer can't sell it and pocket the cash. In that regard, yes, it is superior to 5.56 and 5.45 because you can bet that either of those would be sold on "surplus" market, and ammo you have is always superior to ammo you don't have.
Source: this was revealed to me by God.
I remember this being posted like a year or two ago and some anon proving that it was bullshit, but I forget why.
What, do you think the Chinese, the people who treat saving face like it's their national sport, would just admit "yeah, we made this because we don't trust our soldier not to pawn off everything not nailed down"? Besides, who are you to argue with both God and triple doubles?
Much like all Chinese tech:
Unlikely. The 5.8 seems to be done purely so that they could claim to have a more potent round than NATO, and for reasons of . In reality however the 5.8 barely has more muzzle energy than 5.56mm and most likely performs far worse against body armor, especially since it hasn't been quite as rigorously developed to counter it in the way 5.56mm has.
But like all domestically created Chinese shit, it has the rather catastrophic issue of never being combat tested to any meaningful degree. Creating generations upon generations of something that essentially amounts to cargo-cult copies of what the Soviets and the US were doing. The QBZ for example is just a cargo-cult rifle that is the successor of a gun that was essentially an abortive attempt to fit an AK system into a FAMAS clone
This. Keyholing ammo has a bigger impact surface over normal, functional ammo. It's basic geometry and physics.
When have the Chinese ever made something that works as advertised?
>and even 5.45
5.45 is inferior to 5.56
It's lighter and has less recoil
Yeah but it has .11 less
Ok, you've convinced me
>Oh thank God, my infantry small arm has 8 feet less drop at 1000 yards.
In all fairness, it does have like 10% less drop at 500 yards, which is a possibly realistic range for an intermediate round. Of course, that's literally one foot.
Just doing the math here, but 5.8 is about 4% better than 5.56 and a bit more than 6% better than 5.45.
(5.8 - 5.56) / 5.56 = 4.3%
(5.8 - 5.45) / 5.44 = 6.4%
As we all know, in terms of damaging targets, a larger diameter bullet is better. The Chinese have some of the best scientists in the world so they obviously know this as well. Other countries have weaker soldiers who can’t carry as much mass, so they’ve sacrificed kill power for lighter, smaller diameter, weaker rounds.
Only real, black men are strong enough to carry 7.62 which is 31% better than 5.8
Clearly you’re moronic. Bullet effectiveness does not scale linearly with caliber.. it scales at the square you fricktard. Do you even math? 7.62 (any 7.62) is 72% better than 5.8 because it inflicts 72% more damage points.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>*autisticly punches himself*
You got the bullet diameters wrong. Check the bullet diameter for 5.8 and 5.45 on Wikipedia
THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE
No.
i remember reading somewhere that 5.8, 6 and 6.2 mm are the most efficient bullet diameters, can anyone confirm/deny?
Has there been any real world data at all or some gays homebrew testing handloads that fit 5.8 specs to see what it can do
There's no parent case so you'd have to turn it, and then make a one-off barrel for testing.
If done right it should be a slightly lighter 6mmAR, on paper it's a very good looking intermediate cartridge and with the smaller rim you're avoiding the AR bolt issues that Grendel and 6mmAR have. NATO really fricked up intermediates (twice) and there's baggage from that, but if you're going in fresh like the chinks and you're not moronic then your standard cartridge is going to look something like this.
I imagine it's be easier to make the die for it than turning the brass itself. Machining a single die would be hard, possibly require CNC, but infinitely easier than turning x number of brass and maintaining consistent wall thickness.
You'd really only need a couple just to confirm assumptions. It's not outside the norms in any way, it's .223/.308 being at the upper and lower limits of an effective intermediate fricking with people's idea of what to expect. It's just a happy medium and I'm sure it meets all reasonable expectations unless somebody fricks up manufacturing, but that's nothing to do with the design.
Yes. Generally speaking newer equals better.
5.8>5.45>5.56>7.62 (either)
Same as xm7>QBZ-95>m16>m14>akm>ak47
>M14>AKM
Do you know who won the war? Also, for me xm7 will be just a glorified m14 until US Army will win a war with it.
Nah, SCHV power ranking is 5.56>5.8>5.45.
>why
Western HATO area 51 gay alien technological developments mean that 5.56 gets the better projectile designs, which is why its better. 5.8 has better theoretical potential than 5.45 for a military cartridge so it gets second despite chink projectile designs gimping it. 5.45 gets last because it has the least potential while still having shit projectile design. 5.45 does have a potentially interesting niche for civilian defensive use given its low recoil, close range of use for such situations, and the fact that barriers are almost never a factor in civilian DGUs. Although 5.56 is already doing a decent job of that, the significantly lower recoil might be desirable for octogenarians or those suffering from chronic neuro-muscular disorders or something i dont know. Unfortunately this is completely invalidated by lack of quality projectile design, ubiquity, guns chambered in it that arent shit, etc.