• Announcements

    • Brentonator

      Forum Rules (Please Read)

      Hello everyone and welcome to the No More Room In Hell Forums! We greatly appreciate your interest and support. Please feel free to begin post and become a part of this community. But please make sure that you read and understand the following rules so things can stay as clean and as orderly as possible around here. These rules are expected to be follow by any and all members at all times. Disobeying these rules will result in disciplinary action by a moderator. #1. Off color remarks are acceptable but can be deemed inappropriate at the discretion of the moderators. #2. Flaming and disrespecting other members of this community or this mod is strictly prohibited. #3. Please do not post links relating to warez or illegal downloading. #4. No offensive content is to be posted (gore, dead babies, porn). #5. Please do not spam topics to increase your post count. #6. No excessively large signatures. Signatures that violate this will be modified. #7. Signatures are not to be used as a spamming tool. If your signature's sole purpose is to annoy or distract other members, it will be removed. #8. Please do your part to be as friendly, respectful, and helpful to anyone and everyone on this forum. #9. Your posts may be removed at any time at our sole discretion. #10. Remember the terms of your registration...a copy is posted below but may not represent the latest version of our terms of use. #11. No advertising other communities or products. Have fun.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Moody

SIR with PIE rounds?

79 posts in this topic

Admittedly, that does seem like a bit of an unrealistic test, assuming the data is even totally legitimate. One still needs the contextual information behind the tests to really accurately evaluate the results. I am quite opposed to Maxx in that I actually like AR15s. Having used them I find the recoil light and brilliantly handled, the accuracy is great, and all told, unless one is totally unacquainted with the rifle or is otherwise incapable of maintaining it, or one really needs to fire over 10 000 rounds (which is not even plausible for any combat situation), the reliability is totally solid. As a previous poster stated, the stories of terrible reliability stemmed from designs that were altered from Stoner's originals (by the DoD dick heads) and the use of poor ammunition as well as a lack of standard issue cleaning kits in the combat hell that was South Vietnam. As little of a fan of the military as I am, guys who enlist have often said that they find the AR15 platform terrible during basic training, when rifles that were often poorly maintained and well over ten years old were used, but then find that it is actually a very solid and reliable rifle after they receive their (newer) individual kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Admittedly, that does seem like a bit of an unrealistic test, assuming the data is even totally legitimate. One still needs the contextual information behind the tests to really accurately evaluate the results. I am quite opposed to Maxx in that I actually like AR15s. Having used them I find the recoil light and brilliantly handled, the accuracy is great, and all told, unless one is totally unacquainted with the rifle or is otherwise incapable of maintaining it, or one really needs to fire over 10 000 rounds (which is not even plausible for any combat situation), the reliability is totally solid. As a previous poster stated, the stories of terrible reliability stemmed from designs that were altered from Stoner's originals (by the DoD dick heads) and the use of poor ammunition as well as a lack of standard issue cleaning kits in the combat hell that was South Vietnam. As little of a fan of the military as I am, guys who enlist have often said that they find the AR15 platform terrible during basic training, when rifles that were often poorly maintained and well over ten years old were used, but then find that it is actually a very solid and reliable rifle after they receive their (newer) individual kit.

Well actually over 10,000 rounds in combat per kill is the recorded ratio in vietnam, I think it's down to about half that now, I'd have to check up on the numbers though. The rifles are accurate, but have a weird sight that induces "tunnel vision" and decreases battlefield awareness. It is also very hard to acquire targets with the M16's complicated sights. The recoil is extremely light because the round is a .223 also know as a 5.56. The round has zero stopping power. A huge complaint with the rifle is unarmored enemies are shot and continue on fighting, some don't even know they've been shot. It takes up to 10 rounds to cause someone to collapse from shock/damage. I know because in every war book/biography I have read soldiers have complained about the unreliability of the round. How when they shot someone they wanted that person to go down, not act like nothing had hit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a sight actually degraded accuracy so much as you have said in almost every post you've made then they would never even bother to issue it. Also anyone who survives up to 10 rounds of ammunition was lucky enough to dodge all the vitals. A round that is used by so many guns that doesn't kill? We don't live in a god damn video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a sight actually degraded accuracy so much as you have said in almost every post you've made then they would never even bother to issue it. Also anyone who survives up to 10 rounds of ammunition was lucky enough to dodge all the vitals. A round that is used by so many guns that doesn't kill? We don't live in a god damn video game.

To quote the awsome voice actors of Killing Floor " Money money money" and "LOADSS OF MONAAAY". Oh and while I have not been hit by a bullet fired by a weapon that uses a powder charge I am an extensive paintball player and have been shot numerous times by my opponents and I have not noticed. Crazy as it sounds when the adrenaline is pumping pain becomes relative. This normally happens when moving from cover to cover. Say ill get shot in the shoulder while moving up I really wont notice the pain until my eyes make contact with the hit itself. It sounds really weird and I cant explain it in all honesty. What it all comes down to you react more to the force of the blow than the pain it causes "at first".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To quote the awsome voice actors of Killing Floor " Money money money" and "LOADSS OF MONAAAY". Oh and while I have not been hit by a bullet fired by a weapon that uses a powder charge I am an extensive paintball player and have been shot numerous times by my opponents and I have not noticed. Crazy as it sounds when the adrenaline is pumping pain becomes relative. This normally happens when moving from cover to cover. Say ill get shot in the shoulder while moving up I really wont notice the pain until my eyes make contact with the hit itself. It sounds really weird and I cant explain it in all honesty. What it all comes down to you react more to the force of the blow than the pain it causes "at first".

That only works for the pain aspect of it. Adrenaline won't save your organs from being ripped apart. Adrenaline won't save your bones from shattering. Adrenaline won't save your brain functionality inflicted by the wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus shit I cant absorb the point of someones statement without looking like a jackass!

I would recommend seeing a doctor about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would recommend seeing a doctor about that.

Sorry, I was too distracted by your poor grammar and useless text to see that you finally got to the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to address this point by point.

Well actually over 10,000 rounds in combat per kill is the recorded ratio in vietnam, I think it's down to about half that now, I'd have to check up on the numbers though.

The problems with that statistic are that:

1. those numbers do not necessarily even reflect the actual number of rounds used by infantry in combat;

2. that statistic also includes such things as fire from Close Air Support and vehicles, which, once again, does not reflect the effectiveness of a rifle;

3. most ammunition expended is not aimed at the actual body of a target anyway, but rather to function as suppressive fire for better maneuvering.

The rifles are accurate, but have a weird sight that induces "tunnel vision" and decreases battlefield awareness.

Peep hole sights are intended for accuracy, whereas the funky sights on AKs are often offset (especially with the forward sight) and are difficult to employ precisely. If anything, the AR15 is a platform for precision killing whilst an AK is good as a suppressive general workhorse.

It is also very hard to acquire targets with the M16's complicated sights.

Wrong. I assume that you have never used a rifle with peep hole sights. Indeed, when sighting, one acquires the target without looking down the sights, regardless of what rifle or sighting system one is employing unless one is beyond a range where identification with the naked eye is possible.

The recoil is extremely light because the round is a .223 also know as a 5.56. The round has zero stopping power. A huge complaint with the rifle is unarmored enemies are shot and continue on fighting, some don't even know they've been shot. It takes up to 10 rounds to cause someone to collapse from shock/damage. I know because in every war book/biography I have read soldiers have complained about the unreliability of the round. How when they shot someone they wanted that person to go down, not act like nothing had hit them.

It is a "weak" round, yes, as it is basically a heavier, more powerful .22, but shot placement matters much more than round size at any rate. A 7.62x51mm that misses all vital organs will be little more effective than a 5.56mm. While the exit wound will be larger with the .308/7.62mm, this blood loss will not result in instant death at any rate in either case. To this end, shot placement with a 5.56mm is actually extremely easy to control and effective; the round emphasizes making the shot count rather than simply unloading a volley of ammunition that one hopes will subdue a target.

And Xendrid, Merc was making a basic point which you indeed failed to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allow me to address this point by point.

The problems with that statistic are that:

1. those numbers do not necessarily even reflect the actual number of rounds used by infantry in combat;

2. that statistic also includes such things as fire from Close Air Support and vehicles, which, once again, does not reflect the effectiveness of a rifle;

3. most ammunition expended is not aimed at the actual body of a target anyway, but rather to function as suppressive fire for better maneuvering.

Peep hole sights are intended for accuracy, whereas the funky sights on AKs are often offset (especially with the forward sight) and are difficult to employ precisely. If anything, the AR15 is a platform for precision killing whilst an AK is good as a suppressive general workhorse.

Wrong. I assume that you have never used a rifle with peep hole sights. Indeed, when sighting, one acquires the target without looking down the sights, regardless of what rifle or sighting system one is employing unless one is beyond a range where identification with the naked eye is possible.

It is a "weak" round, yes, as it is basically a heavier, more powerful .22, but shot placement matters much more than round size at any rate. A 7.62x51mm that misses all vital organs will be little more effective than a 5.56mm. While the exit wound will be larger with the .308/7.62mm, this blood loss will not result in instant death at any rate in either case. To this end, shot placement with a 5.56mm is actually extremely easy to control and effective; the round emphasizes making the shot count rather than simply unloading a volley of ammunition that one hopes will subdue a target.

And Xendrid, Merc was making a basic point which you indeed failed to grasp.

I'll go through point by point also.

Those statistics do accurately reflect those fired in combat as the statistic is only for the rifles, not other things. So don't assume. :) And yes I know that most ammunition is fired in a suppressive way, which directly relates to why the M16 is bad. Because it jams, and most riflemen are just putting as many rounds downrange as possible.

That makes sense about the sights, sorry and thank you.

About the round size though in every nonfictional book/biography every soldier has always complained about soldiers continuing on. I am responding to you too Xendrid. A .22 is small enough that if you miss lungs/heart/brain, the target may act as if nothing as happened. For a short amount of time anyways. Sometimes even with lung shots the enemy may continue to fight for a couple minutes. The round is so small that it does not "shock" the body enough to cause an enemy to "collapse" go into shock, or anything that normally incapacitates a target. Andrenalin easily reduces that amount of pain in a high intensity combat situation to nothing. The round size is the biggest complaint I have about the rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That only works for the pain aspect of it. Adrenaline won't save your organs from being ripped apart. Adrenaline won't save your bones from shattering. Adrenaline won't save your brain functionality inflicted by the wound.

Jesus shit Sherlok you find out that getting shot in the vital organs can kill you all by yourself? You missed the entire point. I honestly did not even bother mentioning stuff like getting shot in the head will kill you because I just assumed that it was common fucking sense. But hey thanks for playing.

Praise Stalin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest I didn't read his post at all. I guess I just get so used to someone complaining about what I said and therefore flaming me then trying to prove some counter point.

I got fooled. You got me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The round size is the biggest complaint I have about the rifle.

Then you would have that biggest complaint with literally every Assault Rifle in the Western World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you would have that biggest complaint with literally every Assault Rifle in the Western World.

.....

No, Just the M16 and it's many variants. Wtf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noobbot, I do like the AR-15 family and I've enjoyed them every time I've used them, I just think that in comparison to what is available now they are outdated and not the best.

So many nicer, more reliable, and more accurate rifles are available. I think that the AR-15 family has reached its limit, it isn't going to improve much more than it already has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From suggestion to gun statistics battle? Anyways, I never tried to suggest to steal the SIR exactly as it is from the book. But there must be better guns out there to kill a zombie with than a M16A4, or an M4. The army would find that better gun, adopt it, change it, and use it. It can be a new version if the M1 Carbine, it could be a new version of the SKS, it could just be a plain new build. But it would have a higher caliber bullet, and greater accuracy, and a rarer jamming rate. It doesn't have to be perfect, just better.

The armies policy might be a 100% improvement now, but will that still hold under such a huge crisis? I could care less about a fictional round (which is not totally unrealistic btw) because it makes no difference in the game, so we can drop the discussion about those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....

No, Just the M16 and it's many variants. Wtf.

Maybe you didn't read my statement clearly.

You said you didn't like the M16 because it fired a 5.56x45mm round even though every Assault Rifle in the Western World uses the 5.56x45mm (with a couple exceptions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you didn't read my statement clearly.

You said you didn't like the M16 because it fired a 5.56x45mm round even though every Assault Rifle in the Western World uses the 5.56x45mm (with a couple exceptions)

Edit

Your right, but many do use the 7.56, a much better caliber. Yes I don't like the 5.56 cartridge. It's much too light. The only good thing about it is recoil, but honestly a 7.56 doesn't have much recoil either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit

Your right, but many do use the 7.56, a much better caliber. Yes I don't like the 5.56 cartridge. It's much too light. The only good thing about it is recoil, but honestly a 7.56 doesn't have much recoil either.

You are talking about 7.62x39mm correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with any firearm related thread, it quickly devolved in to an "AR-15 vs. Everything else" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As with any firearm related thread, it quickly devolved in to an "AR-15 vs. Everything else" thread.

'Tis true. I think I already said /thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evidently you do hate reading, as that's not even close to the argument. At least one of the reviews complains about the stereotypical Texan's excessive cursing.

I'll compare it to the book Rant. Both books are an oral history as told from the perspectives of multiple fictional characters, and both detail the spreading of a virus from it's original "patient zero" (or the more politically correct "superspreader"). The difference is that Chuck Palahniuk is a fucking novelist. He has talent. He didn't ride his father's coattails and write shitty SNL skits. WWZ has no vivid imagery, interesting characters or...you know what? It has nothing going for it. The obituary page of your local newspaper is a more fascinating tale of the undead.

And he looks like half of Lou Ferrigno.

I also don't enjoy the simplicity of bubbles, but I'm neither 4 nor retarded.

Wow, reading through the book again you're...

completely right. Huh. Lemme go check if it changed my opinion.

Nope still like the book, even if most of the reviews are right.

That's odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I registered to give my 2 cents :D

On the topic, the PIE round seems retardedly unrealistic. Also, do you not think that if we could invent a magical gun that was incredibly simple (enough to create in an apocolyptic world), that never jammed, that was rediculously accurate, and fire aformentioned magical-no-mess ammo we would have done so? It would certainly make cleaning up the drug lord's apartment up when he starts a standoff much easier. One of my high-school friends lent me the Zombie survival guide and its pathetic inconsistancies caused me never to finish it (i.e. zombies can't climb, yet they are known to climb up anchor ropes into boats..............). I wouldn't take any of the shit in that book seriously. Ever. Sorry to say, it's a stupid idea =/

On the off topic.... Why would stopping power even MATTER in a situation where you should be SHOOTING ZOMBIES IN THE HEAD? I would agree that an Ak would be much better than a standard military weapon in an outbreak, due to its all around simplicity and ease of upkeep. Then again, the only guns I shoot tend to be weapons I hunt with (30-6, 7mag, .243 and such).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0