Why did?

Why did /k/ lie to me about twist rate

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what's the difference?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1:7 shot closer to top, 1:12 hit closer to bottom
      Other than that, OP has a mouthful of that white gooey stuff again.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        marshmallows?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1:7 shot closer to top, 1:12 hit closer to bottom
      Other than that, OP has a mouthful of that white gooey stuff again.

      You probably misunderstood what they said, just like you misunderstood what you think this video is demonstrating. Perhaps if you phrased your question better you might get some useful information back, but I'm not sure you're smart enough to do that.

      /k/ told me that twist rate affects terminal performance in 5.56.
      But all the gel tests show no difference.
      Was it just a boomer myth all along ?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Keyholing typically reduces terminal performance, so I guess that's kind of true.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          On gel?
          I'd think that keyholing would actually be a performance boost on gel.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >/k/ told me [thing]!

        Shut up moron. Twist rate effects accuracy not stopping power

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing affects stopping power because it isn't real, just like how rain can't make your girlfriend wet

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You say that until I whip out the barrel with 9001 twists

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        its the heavy stuff that doesnt shoot well in 1:12

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Surely you have some proof of someone being so moronic?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >/k/ told me that twist rate affects terminal performance in 5.56.
        No, nobody ever told you that except inasmuch as you need a minimum twist to have effective stabilization for any round.

        The only time "MOAR TWIST" has come up on /k/ in the past few years is people MOCKING the idea for 8.6memeout, which hyped an ultra high twist as somehow meaning more destructive damage.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          8.6 has more angular momentum so it is harder to destabilize and may therefore lose less energy when hitting a target, allowing for pass through. this would help with barriers or in hunting which would reduce meat damage.
          against humans you would get significant overpenetration.
          a petaling projectile would rotate inside the body of whatever you shot because the 3 inch twist rate would cause multiple rotations within the body that is say, a foot in depth.
          it would also obviously not over-penetrate by the very nature of petaling projectiles.

          in any case, it's definitely better at range than 300 blk.
          basically the american vintorez

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >in any case, it's definitely better at range than 300 blk.
            Duh? It's much bigger. So are a million other rounds all the way up to giant wild stuff like 510 whisper, though the one I was personally rooting for was 375 raptor. But that has nothing to do with the ultra high twist.

            Personally I actually am kinda interested for my own reasons if (and only if) it managed to catch on, but I haven't seen anything to justify the memes either.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it needs that twist rate to stabilize the high BC bullet.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it needs that twist rate to stabilize the high BC bullet.
                No it doesn't. You've never used a ballistic calculator in your life.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you can't have an arbitrary twist rate. it wouldn't be stable if they just arbitrarily made it 1:3.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't have an arbitrary twist rate.
                What? Of course you can. I'm having a custom 1:7.5 30cal barrel made right now because I want to experiment with high BC seneca rounds in 300wm. You just do the math (or rather use a calculator vs improved miller by hand) to see what rpm is required to achieve a gyroscopic stability >1.5 for a given round and in turn what twist. RPM=(MV*720)/TR. The only other consideration is that if you're doing jacketed ammo you want to stay below 300k rpm. But that's not an issue with monolithic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >of course twist rates don't matter!
                >that's why i need to buy this specific twist rate for my handloads!
                bro are you dumb?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>of course twist rates don't matter!
                If you got "twist rates don't matter" out of "need to achieve gyroscopic stability factor >1.5" you need to just shut the frick up you fricking noguns. You claimed

                it needs that twist rate to stabilize the high BC bullet.

                >it needs that twist rate to stabilize the high BC bullet.
                It doesn't. Let's use the gorilla subsonic fracturing ones since that's a more challenging case. The bullets are 1.762" long, 285gr, caliber is 8.6, their stated mv 1050fps. Normal 60°F temp. Guess what, at a 1:3 twist the Sg is fricking 14. Ludicrous overspun. That bullet would be completely stable (Sg=1.55) all the way down to a 1:9 twist.

                The 1:3 twist is not needed for stability and nobody ever claimed that you fricking moron because it's obviously fricking moronic. It was claimed that it increased damage somehow, which is harder to test.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you clearly never understood what i was saying to begin with. and yes they explicitly said that they started using 1:3 for stability in short barrels.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a petaling projectile would rotate inside the body of whatever you shot because the 3 inch twist rate would cause multiple rotations within the body that is say, a foot in depth.
            This is fricking ANCIENT fuddlore called the buzzsaw effect. I've seen this shit parroted as far back as publications from the late 40s/early 50s. That you morons are will b***h about fudds and boomers nonstop and then turn around and repeat shit like this like it's gospel never ceases to amuse me.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it's been shown to happen in gel blocks. they didn't have high twist rate bullets back then so that doesn't make any sense.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they didn't have high twist rate bullets back then
                Whitworth experimented with twist rates and bullets all the way down to 1 turn in 1 inch all the way back in the mid 19th century. I wouldn't be surprised if there were others before him. There really isn't anything new under the sun when it comes to firearms.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If the twist rate is 1:3 then that means that the expanded bullet will make multiple full rotations in your chest cavity idk what to fricking tell you that's how it works.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If the twist rate is 1:3 then that means that the expanded bullet will make multiple full rotations in your chest cavity idk what to fricking tell you that's how it works.
                Anon, even basic b***h 55gr 5.56 out a 16" barrel with an MV of say 3000fps and a 1:8 twist would already be doing 270000 revolutions per minute, or 4500 per second. Every single bullet will do lots of full rotations through a foot of flesh.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a 1:8 twist would already be doing 270000 revolutions per minute, or 4500 per second
                >Every single bullet will do lots of full rotations through a foot of flesh.
                With a 1:8 twist, it would be doing exactly 1.5 rotations through a foot of flesh if it maintained the same velocity as in open air, which it doesn't.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >if it maintained the same velocity as in open air, which it doesn't.
                >which it doesn't
                Exactly?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro you are a total fricking moron. The twist rate is twists per inch. Your fricking 1:8 means it turns once every 8" so maybe 2 turns if a person has a super thick chest.
                Frickin meanwhile 1 turn in 3"? 4 turns, maybe 5 bro. Frickin WAY more. Dude is gonna be TORN up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                4/10, had something going then tried a little too hard.
                no (you) this time but better luck in the future!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Bro you are a total fricking moron. The twist rate is twists per inch. Your fricking 1:8 means it turns once every 8" so maybe 2 turns if a person has a super thick chest.
                Frickin meanwhile 1 turn in 3"? 4 turns, maybe 5 bro. Frickin WAY more. Dude is gonna be TORN up.

                I'm going to rate you 4/10 anyways as the spin rate of the bullet has so little to do with the energy dump and damage it may as well not exist.
                We've had this thread before and a very smart anon did very smart math about how rotational velocity adds kinetic energy
                Long story short it basically doesn't, and at these twist rates (yes even 1:3) it's less than 50ft.lb.

                I hope you aren't the same anon who started that other thread I remember from a few weeks/couple months back because if so, damn you're fricking dumb and just can't figure out shit being explained to you.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >muh tracer round stabilization

              Stoner was right. The tradeoff between stabilization for tracers and later AP and yaw-maxxing can be justified one way or the other. The 1:12's closer to the original intention for the latter, and what can be ultimately a longer wound channel should it yaw and dance around in the intended two-legged enemy combatant. GWOT vets not using 20'' barrels with 55g at 1:12/1:14 as ye olden types and being dubious about 556 not putting people down reasonably leaves the terminal effect question open (or maybe it's just religious zealots doing Red Sand Dawn while out of their mind on meth, or shit aim) as to what's more desirable.

              >This is fricking ANCIENT fuddlore called the buzzsaw effec

              It's demonstrably not-- the permanent wound cavity is much larger.. The 'fuddlore effect' in question was set upon experimentally during 300 blk development (hence intended for 8'' barrel at 1:5 twist) and they would have gone for even tighter twist rates if it weren't for stabilization trade offs with it. It's not just the rotations per se, but the Additional Surface Area following the hydrostatic shock - which is more bigger and more violent - of the wound channel thereafter (8.6's utility against big game where the latter comes into play in quartering shots particularly is significant). This

              https://i.imgur.com/OuGgXCB.jpeg

              8.6 has more angular momentum so it is harder to destabilize and may therefore lose less energy when hitting a target, allowing for pass through. this would help with barriers or in hunting which would reduce meat damage.
              against humans you would get significant overpenetration.
              a petaling projectile would rotate inside the body of whatever you shot because the 3 inch twist rate would cause multiple rotations within the body that is say, a foot in depth.
              it would also obviously not over-penetrate by the very nature of petaling projectiles.

              in any case, it's definitely better at range than 300 blk.
              basically the american vintorez

              is *mostly* correct.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yaw-maxxing
                Twist rate makes no difference for yawing in flesh. Flesh is hundreds of times denser than air and will tumble a bullet regardless of how fast its spinning

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The 1:12's closer to the original intention for the latter
                The original intent is that when 5.56 was developed the only barrel blanks in .224" caliber were for varmint calibers, which meant 40-45 grain bullets, thus 1:14" was used because that was enough to stabilize shorter bullets. The 55gr was on the edge of stability but keyholed in the denser and colder Arctic testing so it had to be replaced by 1:12" as mass production could be contracted out.
                The only reason 1/14 was used was because they used off the shelf barrel blanks. You people have attributed mythical abilities to something that was picked without any specific intent.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lmao this reads like some incoherent boomer rambling straight off THR or barfcom.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's worse than 300blk, since 300blk can use supers that do amazing, like 125 hr nosler BTs.
            8.6 blk is also worse than 338 fed, since 338 fed can use any subsonic that 8.6blk does, but 338 fed will drive the same weight supers ~600fps faster.
            8.6 blk is also completely fricking moronic, because 338 spectre drives the same bullets the same speed from an AR15 length action.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, as someone who really really really is not a fan of 8.6 and hoped for one of a number of different other better choices might have been in its place, you're still missing the point: standardization. Those of us that reload have lots of excellent, better choices. But there is definitely "a market" (ie, the vast majority of the population) for people who just want to buy ammo premade and be done. 8.6bo is the first "big subsonic short barrel" kind of round where the developers actually made a serious effort from the beginning to have it ultimately become a SAAMI standardized round with broad commercial support. That's the value.

              Though I'll note with some amusement that their stupid gay ass super high twist rate may well have fricked them on that one. It failed the vote this past January, scuttlebutt was that Hornady opposed it because they want to be able to do bonded/jacketed bullets and 1:3 twist is so high that's impossible to do safely, plus Gorilla was saying they were seeing better accuracy with 1:5-1:6.5, and 1:3 produced more flyers. Sometime this summer is I think the next potential vote, haven't heard whether Nosler or someone got onboard, otherwise they're going to have to change things.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your weak bait thread failed.
        dealwithit

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But moron you… took the bait

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Idk. Thread is still up a day later and has vigorous debate.
          Win in my book

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The only people I've seen claiming that twist rate affects terminal performance are the marketers at Q for the 8.6 Blackout. Too fast of a twist can spin some super thin jacketed bullets apart, and too slow of a twist can fail to stabilize. Faster twists can also sap a few fps from the velocity, but it's negligible. Otherwise, the only thing that a faster twist rate gives you is the ability to stabilize longer bullets.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It effects external performance, not terminal performance, regardless of what the Q shills claim.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's literally irrelevant.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is relevant to bullet stability which makes it relevant to terminal ballistics.
      The best bullets at the moment are the heavy ones, which means long for caliber, which requires faster twists to stabilize. Even for something with AR mag length constraints can take advantage of something like a Hornady 75 BTHP and 14" won't stabilize it, let alone something even better like the 88 ELD.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You probably misunderstood what they said, just like you misunderstood what you think this video is demonstrating. Perhaps if you phrased your question better you might get some useful information back, but I'm not sure you're smart enough to do that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You probably misunderstood what they said
      They said that the 1:14 twist rate produces more heinous wounds than the 1:7
      >just like you misunderstood what you think this video is demonstrating
      The vid is demonstrating that there is no measurable difference in wounding
      >Perhaps if you phrased your question better you might get some useful information back
      You knew exactly what I was asking homosexual

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They said that the 1:14 twist rate produces more heinous wounds than the 1:7
        "They" are moronic fudds who confuse stability in flesh/water/gel with stability in air, two dramatically different things

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're moronic.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Animals aren't made of gelatin

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Incorrect.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Glycine is the amino acid that makes up the majority of human tissue

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The meat target is stupid and paul harrel ruined an entire generation of gun enthusiasts

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the results are actually pretty relative to the same results as gel tests
        18 in = back of t shirt/first layer of fleece
        12in = tshirt
        10in = lost in the lung tissue/doesnt penetrate back ribs etc

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            then show me a shitty round that gets caught in fleece or speer gold dot or hst getting caught in the ribs

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nah, prove your original claim

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you prove your original claim fricking homosexual
                whats your magical hirtenbergers L7A1 ticondas that didnt have good expansion or the same results in gel as the meat target, for you to become such a butthurt contrarian?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >good damage
          >alotta damage
          >pulverized!

          These are not scientific terms. You will now attack me for uttering the word 'science'

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this is the 7th week in a row you've shown "the thing that ruined an entire generation of gun enthusiasts" in class

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the meat target is at least better than the ballistic gelatin

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No its not lol, you just like it cause its more fun

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's objectively worse as it's an inconsistent medium.
          It's a good supplement to further understand the characteristics of a cartridge or projectile, but it sure as frick doesn't replace gel.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Humans are inconsistent mediums cochise. Maybe take your liberal gelatin salesman ass back to gelatown.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Which is why human testing would also give you inconsistent results.
              The entire point of testing is repeatable results, you absolute buffoon. That's why gel exists. Gel is not representative of a human body, never was, and never will be, and that's kind of the fricking point.
              Gel shows us how rounds behave, and how consistently they behave that way. We know what to look for (permanent wound cavity, stretch cavity at high velocities, behavior of the projectile) to objectively compare rounds and projectiles against each other.
              I know for a fricking fact this concept was explained to you in school.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                gel shows you how rounds behave IN GEL
                Gel performance has nothing to fricking do with hitting a real body. Never has, never will.
                >OH BUT GEL SIMULATES FLESH!
                Guess what moron your entire body isnt made up of just flesh and impact kinetics in gel do not show anything close to the reality of an impact into the ribcage.

                It's useful only as a midwit tier comparator and nothing else.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think the problem is an entire generation of gays on youtube have sold ballistics gelatin as something it isn't. It's a scientific medium for scientific tests, which is why it needs to be a certain temperature and consistency (which I've only seen one autist on youtube actually do).

          If you want to see how a round damages flesh, buy a pig carcass like the army does.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fackler did some studies on that back in the 90s, dead meat exaggerates wound size and that's without even getting into if it's been refrigerated let alone frozen and thawed. He found you had to euthanize an animal within a stupidly short time frame to get accurate results. IIRC it was like 30min or less. Death isn't just a gross process, it results in changes on the cellular and intracellular level.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s further back than that. Ultimately, I blame the Mythbusters.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Post your gun with timestamp

        It's objectively worse as it's an inconsistent medium.
        It's a good supplement to further understand the characteristics of a cartridge or projectile, but it sure as frick doesn't replace gel.

        If you don't understand what a round does when it strikes a bone, you don't understand anything useful about the round.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >actual meat and bones with what is equivalent to lung is worse than moron-gel
        k

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I knew I'd find your moronic ass here

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          paul made the meat target because he is a contrarian fudd. his explanation for why he does it is stupid. a human body is not made up of unpressurized hunks of meat, fruit and cloth.

          your arguments for the meat target are always just the same ones paul uses, you like the meat target because its more fun, not because its a better analogue.

          he is not your dad and he will be dead within the year and his channel will be driven into the ground by his uncharismatic, ugly friend.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Twist rate isn't relevant to terminal ballistics (hurting what you hit), it's about intermediate ballistics (hitting things consistently).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >intermediate ballistics

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how many factors can we count to dracula?
    1: Match Ammo to twist rate.
    2: Twist rate to barrel length.
    3: Twist rate in relation to distance(stability+Question2)
    4: Ammo's designated weight and core type.
    5: The only core type you want to match the gun to is steel(Unobtanium for most).
    6: Role of your twist rate(slower=penetrates wood, faster=penetrates barriers)
    7: 5.56 is a meme round for most civvy roles, twist rate doesn't matter. Don't hunt with it. Murder hog.

    I think that covers most of twist rate what-if's. Pardon me.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >6: Role of your twist rate(slower=penetrates wood, faster=penetrates barriers)
      Bullshit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        russian AK's in the 100 series proves this with their twist rate and their 5.45's and twist rate of 1 in 9.45 inch when they scaled it to penetrate a tree at 10 yards that's 4inches thick minimum and still cause 10% of ballistics gel damage.
        >source
        go look it up yerself ya nub, shit was all over /k/ about 2014 when gun-tuberpocalypse was splurging, can't be fricked to find it for you

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Kekfuel this is above the iq level of zoomer /k/, they’ll just say the test means nothing since it’s Russian therefore it’s false or some autism.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Heres a shot in the dark
    Anyone remember a gun or ammo company that pissed off people when it was discovered they recorded themselves shooting tied up living pigs from near point blank range?
    This happened sometime in the mid 2000's during the early years of the GWOT when people were trying to get all those lucrative Military and Cop contracts

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1:7
    >icepicks in your path
    Heh nothing personnell OP...

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't you link the video anon? Are you that guy that replies to his own forum thread "solved!" and closes it without telling anyone else what you did?

    It's an ARFCOM yt channel video.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >that guy that replies to his own forum thread
      I've never used a forum and I never will boomer.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I've never used a forum
        Where do you think you are right now you moron?
        >PrepHole is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images. PrepHole's collaborative-community format was inspired by one of the most popular forums in Japan, Futaba Channel.
        >inspired by one of the most popular forums in Japan, Futaba Channel.
        >forum

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for those who don't get it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there's nothing to get, it's autistic moron-maxxing with extremely dubious beneficial effect

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's not real!
        >o-ok it's real... BUT IT SUCKS!
        lmao

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No what you don't understand is you're not a ballistic gel whisperer and there are no amazing secrets being revealed.

          Anon, it's a fricking massive hollow point. A 350 grain .34 caliber. Wow the gel shows a really big impact oh so surprising,
          You fricking moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it shows the petals corkscrewing through the gel you blind bastard

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              that happens to every expanding/mushrooming/petalling/HP projectile YOU FRICKING moron

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                well no because they don't have a 1:3 twist rate. maybe there's a bit of twist but not anything significant.
                an apt comparison: this .300 blk subsonic petaling ammo has much slower rotation and it overpenetrates.

                why exactly do you have such a hate boner for 8.6?
                personally i prefer a fragmenting bullet but this petaling stuff does what it says on the tin.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you a shill are you paid to post here. I dont give a fricking shit about no calibers, it's the audacity of the claims being made with extremely minimal and bad testing presented.

                your spin rate isn't making a difference with a kill shot or no kill shot
                get the frick over it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you could claim that the rotation is not important but you can't deny it occurs.
                are YOU paid to run counter-shilling?
                you are way too invested in this emotionally.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I said the truth and you're just a dipshit, goodbye.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you didn't do anything but throw a tantrum

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                whatever helps you sleep at night you idiot

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                speak for yourself

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The exact same twisting pattern is shown.
                Whether a cartridge comes to a full stop or not is up to the manufacturer.
                You can tune projectile design and velocity to achieve any end you want.
                8.6BLK designers as a means of advertising has focused on a part of the market that generally isn't addressed often, min-maxing the line between over and under-penetration. But others could do the same.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is no such thing as over penetration.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >rifle round
      >under penetrates
      >moron thinks this is good
      Lmao even

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to be getting here.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Is that picture supposed to make you look like a complete diaper-shitting frickwit? Good job.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The real base truth of all this target "testing" shit? IT'S ALL BIKESHEDDING. That's why people can get all passionate, because it doesn't matter in the slightest. The original FBI gel test origins dates back almost 40 years now, at a point when handgun loads really did have a lot of variation and zero science shit. And in turn it mattered in helping them set a minimum level floor on acceptable performance. But in part because of that it's now obsolete. Handgun loads are solved, there's lots of quality options that have plenty of pen which is all that matters.

    It never mattered for long guns, they have always been plenty lethal. They all shoot very fast and very hard vs handguns. Gel testing, or meat testing or whatever else testing rifle rounds is purely about entertainment.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It never mattered for long guns, they have always been plenty lethal. They all shoot very fast and very hard vs handguns. Gel testing, or meat testing or whatever else testing rifle rounds is purely about entertainment.

      Wrong. Then why is the M80A1/M855A1 the most lethal round compared to the classic M855 or any rusky shit? Science.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are not a military procurement specialist. I doubt you're anywhere in the military command chain at all. If you were, you wouldn't be depending on rando youtube gel tests either. You are not, and never will be, "a lone wolf fighting enemy forces" at hundreds of yards which isn't thing. Rando youtuber stuff is not science either, since none of them actually control for variables or baseline their testing. And fwiw, M855A1 primary driver was going lead free. They did some other improvements while they were at it sure.

        So no, none of this shit is relevant, it's just entertainment. Any normal center fire long gun round will do fine for blasting a home invader at 5-10yd. If you're hunting feel free to just follow the "1000 ftlbf when hitting animal" rule of thumb, learn vitals and woodscraft like you should, and you'll have zero issues.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *