all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 13 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I got a little curious about calibers having these arbitrary weird numbers and tried converting them. So, 7.62mm is just 0.3 inches, and .357 is just 9mm, are they using the other system just to sound special or what? xd

Also neither .223 nor 5.56mm make sense to me, no idea what they are cooking

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • One is thousands of an inch, which is a typical unit of measure for milling operations. As the other person in this chain has said, ballistics is a weird game. End of the day, m(ass)*v(elocity)=f(orce), and the goal is getting f to a useful value. At that level, big and slow and small and fast have the same outcome. But, because ballistics is bastard, other factors start to interfere.

    For example, If you want to shoot farther, you can either go faster, or be lighter. Going faster requires more powder in the case, which creates a different profile for the round and changes the acceleration profile during firing (there are several rifle rounds over the years that have approximately the same load and bullet, but are ever so slightly different shaped, to change how the powder burns off and how it accelerates down the barrel)

    Being lighter reduces your final impact force, and can impact stability mid flight (leading to alterations to the length and profile of the round itself)

    Closer to the first point and tangentially related, the US has been a capitalist hellscape for a while, and has numerous instances of a company making a firearm using a new round because they did the math and said this is what we want and what you should want, followed by everyone else making more or less a clone of it if the gun in question sells well. Due to copyright it can't be identical, but as math goes, there a lots of ways to reach the same outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 16 hours ago

    While the diameter is the same the heights and sometimes shape of the the bullet is a bit different. A .357 is significantly taller than a 9mm. This prevents you from using the bullets interchangeably even though the diameter is the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 16 hours ago (1 child)

    Silly metric conversions, everyone just calls it 14-inch shells.

    But now that Walmart doesn't have them how am I gonna supply my King George V-class battleships?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

    I mean, 7.62mm in a handgun is also... optimistic.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 1 day ago

    they don't call it a hand cannon for nothin'

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    Even 38mm seems excessive. (1.49" for the primitives)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 day ago

    The Colt Tennessee-Class.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Great! ...so now where am I supposed to get this? I mean that defeats the purpose of 'open carry!'

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 20 hours ago
    [–] 15 points 1 day ago (4 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    But highest kill ratio per round!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 18 hours ago*

    Trigger console

    Add this elegant piece of furniture to your living room and fire your 357mm Handgun from the comfort of your sofa.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 20 hours ago

    This is why the US needs the metric system... like the rest of the world.

  • source