piracy and the small yacht

I suspect your post isnt directed to me ........ and your experiences are quite extraordinary. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
after your experiences - have you thought of an interesting next career /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
John, I really don't care if you believe me or not.
Go and play at Trafalgar, mind you don't get shot. It hurts.
I don't think there's much point in discussing ballistics here.
The muzzle energy of a .45 ACP may be only a quarter of a 7.62 but the energy transfer is similar.
Colmce, don't talk bollocks.
Unfortunately, landaftaf, it was my present career that got me perforated.
 
What were the rounds that:

[ QUOTE ]
used to be that a round going through your arm or leg and not hitting the bone would be just a flesh wound so long as it didn't hit a major blood organ or the bone.

[/ QUOTE ]

After all the 7.62mm isn´t a modern round, it IS the .30" round of WW2 (do the math, 25.4 x 0.3 is 7.62). I suspect it is this round that you are talking about.

7.62/.30 is a big round for sure but relys on hitting something hardish (ie bone) to transfer its energy, if it doesn´t then jacketed rounds will pass through, it isn´t "high velocity" as with the modern 5.55mm round.

9mm pistol/SMG rounds aren´t in the same league, 7.62 short (ie Eastern block) knocks it dead, let alone 7.62 long rounds as used previously by NATO.
 
Aren't there 2.55cm to an inch, or have I gone mad? The .303 Lee Enfield round is actually slightly larger diameter than 7.62 .303 x 2.55 = 7.72mm

But the bigger difference is in the size of the cartridge and the shape of the bullet. Stand one alongside the other and you can see that they are a very different thing.

The "modern 5.55mm round" is actually quite old. The SA80 rifle is essentially the EM52 (I think it was called) which was a design rejected in the early 50's in favour of the SLR with 7.62mm round.
 
Having spent a good part of my life wandering about with hope in my heart and a rifle in my hand.I do take exception to your remarks.And nothing that I have seen or heard in this thread has changed my view that you are talking uninformed rubbish.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't there 2.55cm to an inch, or have I gone mad?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've gone mad /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif 2.54cm/in

[ QUOTE ]
The .303 Lee Enfield round is actually slightly larger diameter than 7.62 .303 x 2.55 = 7.72mm

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure - but 0.30" isn't .303" you don't seriously think NATO standardised on a UK calibre do you /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif We had LMG's in the early 80's that were essentially the Bren gun from WW2 re-chambered and barrelled for 0.30". They may even have been actual Bren's that saw WW2 service /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

By "modern 5.55" I meant modern introduction to service rather than design sorry about the confusion.
 
Captain of Industry

You can't fool me. You just strike this Torygraph Reader pose to stay in with your Mobo owning chums. Actually you help old ladies across the road and I know you made sandwiches and gave them out to striking miners in the 80s. And you remember that bird we met on the picket line at Wapping? She's says you're the kindest soul who ever lived, with soft hands. There was something about an undemanding lover who drove her to Greenham and cooked for her friends there, but I never quite caught it.
 
My apologies - I think that the sun had got to my head. I was comparing 9mm with 5.56 supersonic rounds. The 7.62 is a slower and subsonic round if I remember correctly. Please re-read my previous post reference bones being shattered to refer to the 5.56 NATO round.

Anyway, it doesn't make much difference to my general argument. I am still fuming that anyone can claim that being shot is like being stung by a hornet. I have dealt with people who have been shot, and its easy to identify people who talk complete and utter rowlocks on the subject....
 
Someone has very kindly referred the correct muzzle velocities to me and reminded me that 7.62 although slightly slower than the 5.56 is still a supersonic round. I retract my apology....

Glad to hear that someone was listening better than me in their small arms lectures!
 
Kinda - but to know the muzzle velocites you have to know what is firing it (ie the barrel length), from memory the SLA would be supersonic but certain short-barreled kit like H-K's may be subsonic. Not sure about AK's taking the 7.62 short round (must be slower as it has less powder driving it though, and quite a short barrel) - was more interested in the AK's rate of fire than its muzzle velocity in our SA lectures /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Acquaintance of mine had two AK47 rounds pass through his lower torso. The entry and exit holes are smallish. But the rounds had passed through the body of a vehicle (and his driving seat) which presumably took much of the oomph out of them.
 
On the off chance that you are looking for a straight answer to your question, suggest that you read the RCC's Red Sea Pilot as to the real risks of a Red Sea transit. The book condences the experience of a fair few who have made this passage in recent years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top