Thread 64102892

Why do people scream if you go lower than 10in on an ar when there are plenty of examples of guns with similar or the same caliber that perform well and are liked for what they are?

What makes you think a Draco performs well?

>>64102900
.30 caliber vs .22 caliber.

A Draco only loses like 300 fps

Because the loss of velocity is exponentially increasing.
From 20in to 16.5in you lose just 105fps.
From 16.5in to 11in you lose 413fps.
From 11in to 6in you lose 624fps.

Only time I advocate for bullpups
Don't fall for the SBR meme if you need to go small

>>64102892 (OP)
Bullet work best when break apart
Bullet need go fast to break apart
Need long barrel to fast bullet

>>64102892 (OP)
>that perform well and are liked for what they are?
The only people who like those guns are literal vidya gayming children and plebbitors

>>64102892 (OP)
5.56 gets it's lethality from it's velocity. If you shorten the barrel you reduce the velocity by a lot and in some cases so much that the rounds become noticably less lethal.

>>64102892 (OP)
Why don’t you spend five fucking minutes on a search engine instead of posting this shit thread? There’s also a QTDDTOT thread that is perfect for lazy retards like you.

>>64102892 (OP)
What's better an SBR or an SMG?

>>64103090
11.5 PSA AR mogs everything

>>64103090
SBR, but not by much. An AR with a 7-inch barrel performs very similarly to a P90 with a 10.3-inch barrel.

>>64102892 (OP)
Why don't they make an AR15 bullpup? I only found this, and it looks dildos

>>64103223
>bullpup ar15
This reminds me of this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anuGYDAhyNI

>>64103223
>AR-15
What about BRN-180 based? AKB-23.

Join me in 2025 and build a sbr 300 blk brother.

>>64103291
Make sure you get a stupid short 6"-9" barrel as well.
300 blk solves the sbr AR question.

>>64102892 (OP)
if there are no regulations on length then we will see millions and millions of SMGs sold in 6 months

>>64103622
Only because of cowadoody fags buying their favorite euroshit meme guns and no because they're any good.

>>64104492
I really think that if someone would make a good functioning one with a delayed blowback mechanism that didn't cost an arm and a leg they would be very popular for hd. Pistol round won't over penetrate and costs less and is easier to supress, much easier to aim/shoot than a pistol while being lighter and more maneuverable than a rifle. Trouble is to get anything good you have to spend 2gs+

>>64102985
I'm too stupid, is 16.5 enough to stuff it up my butt?

>>64104632
Just build a 5" .300 AR and load it with subsonics.

>>64103077
Same goes for 5.45, or any fuckfast military cartridge in the .22 range.

That's why the Soviets developed the 9x39, so their glowies and operators could shoot a subsonic boolit from a very short or suppressed barrel, while still maintaining lethality. Only through mass instead of weight.

>>64104796
>*mass instead of speed

>no one uses the SBR galil
>NO ONE uses the G33, let alone the sbr one
>russian hitsquads like the 74u because 5.45 out of a short barrel is about as effective as x39 out of any barrel.

I built an SBR because they're kino, not because they're practical

>>64102985
>17" to 16.5" gains 20ft/s
It's worrying that somebody looked at this and thought "yeah that seems fine, we haven't fucked up our test protocol here".

>>64103223
Because AR-15s need a buffer spring, you'd have to shoot it up over your shoulder or something. There are plenty of bullpup AR-18 derivatives.

>>64103111
On paper. An 11.5" PSA mogs everything on paper. It's miserable as fuck to shoot in any enclosed space.

>>64105054
>enclosed space
indoor ranges aren't real ranges

>>64105086
I don't use indoor ranges, but I do live in a fucking house. I'd rather not blow my eardrums out at 2am

>>64104770
no. It's still heavier than a good PCC and the ammo is still more expensive. Also sbrs are big gay faggot shit for niggers.

>>64105086
it's real for 99% of gun owners. Sorry but most people don't own land or live in bumfuck nowhere with blm land

>>64105089
A 20" rifle shot inside your house will also deafen you though? How is this an issue with sbr's specifically?

>>64102892 (OP)
Because 5.45 is a better cartidge

>>64105107
20" won't be pleasant but 11" will make your eyeballs vibrate.
Put it this way, the muzzle pressure is going to be about the same as the inside of a 45 ACP when it's firing.

>>64105121
pressure? A house isn't a submarine what are you talking about. Maybe you meant the sound?

>>64105248
Sound is pressure dipshit.

>>64105107
Because you fucking..
>>64105248
Oh you're trolling. Carry on.

>>64102892 (OP)
>perform well
>hk 53

>>64105273
The remote operated eardrum piercer works fine

>>64105256
its sound not water

>>64103198
this anon knows

>>64103090
Neither unless they're full auto select fire from the factory (not even FA conversions)
Anything else is larp

>>64106254
you a thurd, now that's a larp

>>64103111
But I'm not poor anon

>>64106259
>hurr durr
ok nogunz
Kamala lost btw

>>64105248
bad faith argument. You've either never fired a gun, pretending to be a retard for laughs, or actually a retard. All three options paint you a jackass.

>>64102892 (OP)
The Krink was disliked in Russian service

I used to love SBRs until I started messing around with an internal ballistics computer and realized just how much a cartridge gets nerfed in an inappropriate barrel length. I still love SBRs though, I just don’t think 5.56 or 5.45 or anything similar belong in short barrels. A short barrel demands a certain maximum overbore ratio to ensure an acceptable amount of efficiency, otherwise the result is something stupid like <700ft*lbs out of a 5.56 when it’s a >1300ft*lb cartridge.

I also found out that every COAL and barrel length combination has a certain caliber and bullet length ideal that will yield max energy at some given range. Seems obvious that this would be true, I know, but it was interesting to find out and now I know what it means (or ought to mean) to say “this cartridge is designed/optimized for an 8” barrel.”

>>64105121
Is calculating muzzle pressure as simple as max pressure * (case volume/total volume of barrel and chamber)?

>>64103622
>SMGs
>in the year of our lord, 2025.

I don’t disagree, but I weep. They’re cool, but they were obsoleted forever ago. Can we Atleast get some PDWs in non-meme chamberings?

>>64105039
Look at the trend. If you’ve ever chronographed rounds before you’d know that there can be tons of difference between one round and the next.
The only mistake they made was assuming the competency of their readers.

>>64105149
Yes it does, in energy, and even retained energy cause typically 300blackout supers have BCs around 0.17-0.2. It’s not without cost though. Increased cartridge mass, increased recoil (imperceptible but it is higher), reduced MPBR, no fragmentation, and importantly, reduced sectional energy (by a lot). These things may not matter too much for civilians but they render 300 blackout a non starter as an infantry caliber. The weight alone is a huge demerit, it’s like 4 grams heavier per shot, almost 2 pounds over 210 rounds.

14.5" barrels only exist because the military wanted to be able to mount a bayonet on a carbine

>>64108695
Some cartridges still work great in SBRs. 22LR, for example, works great in a 12" barrel. I can't wait until $0 tax stamps or (god forbid) NFA-less SBRs. Combining a barrel length reduction giving 12" nearly the same speed as 16" (within ~10fps) or ~10-11" about the same speed as 18" if not better with a silencer, I really think we'll see more companies release whatever barrel length actually makes sense for the cartridge and rifle, not what the laws says makes sense for all rifles. That being said my next gun I want is a 20-some inch 22 Magnum just to ensure it stays quiet despite the extra powder. Coming across silenced 22LR noise comparisons is hard, at least reliable ones. With all the research I did I still took a guess. Goes straight from super short pistol to 18". God help you if you want to know what they fuck half the people online shoot regarding ammo. 22 mag, even worse. I've yet to look deep into that, though, but I don't have much hope.

PS: I could've sworn Savage or Mossberg made a 14" 22 Magnum "Trapper" rifle in the past couple years; am I losing my mind?

>>64108794
The meme chambering is the point. You need something with better external ballistics than a pistol so second-line troops can fight back with any effectiveness if they're ever shot at.

The US figured this out 80 years ago with .30 Carbine. A pistol's rainbow ballistics and energy loss don't really cut it beyond 100 yards.

>>64104806
Serious question- what’s with all the shilling for this dogshit caliber recently? For the longest time it was widely accepted that 5.45 was average at best and now in almost every thread discussing barrel length some retard comes spewing this shit about how it’s an effective cartridge. Why?

>>64105112
>5.45
has anyone built an HK 33 / HK 93 / HK 53 in this chambering?

>>64109043
22lr just has rifle in the name. It’s got a tiny amount of powder behind the bullet, so it’s gonna be extremely efficient from short barrels. 12” might even be long ngl

>>64109058
Yeah it’s still a meme chambering. The Indians of all people managed to fit their equivalent of a 5.56 MARS inside the grip of picrel. IIRC it’s got something like 850ft*lbs from the 12” barrel. So non-meme-chamberings are doable, and we don’t have to pretend 5.7 and 4.6 are some groundbreaking special breed of ammunition.

>>64109106
NTA. I guess one could say nice things about the bullet shape/ogive length. That’s about all though

>>64102900
>Draco
Go to a psychiatrist so they cure your chronic niggabrain, ghetto buddy.

>>64102944
The one in the picture though is 5.45. Peep the mag curvature.

Short affordable AR? Probably gonna get loaded with affordable 5.56 that will icepick when it could have fragmented nicely from a full barrel.
Short expensive import 5.56? More likely to get autistically matched with a suitable choice of ammo that will perform with that short barrel, when necessary.
Short 5.45/7.62x39? The affordable ammo achieves its goal in a short barrel because its goal was only to yaw/icepick in the first place.

>>64108901
>no fragmentation, and importantly, reduced sectional energy (by a lot).
What are the implications of this? What does it look like in practice?

>>64111159
Fragmentation means a more devastating wound. Higher sectional energy means better barrier/armor penetration (everything else equal)

Sectional energy is also *kinda* a proxy for external ballistics, as it’s going to inform what SD*v^2 will be, which is the main thing that long range shooting selects for.

>>64111174
Aren't .300s supposed to outperform 5.56 in at least one of those categories?
How do you have a heavier round with worse fragmentation and armor penetration if it has similar muzzle energy and preserves energy better while in flight?

>>64111183
Because that energy is distributed over a larger frontal area. To pierce through x area of armor, you need x energy. To pierce through 2x area, you need 2x energy. A 30 cal bullet has a frontal area 1.89x greater than 5.56, so it needs 1.89x as much energy to have identical armor pen.

As for 300 blackout outperforming 5.56 in fragmentation, admittedly I know very little about bullet construction and terminal effect, but ive been led to believe fragmentation is more violent and happens more consistently at high velocities. Enough to shred the bullet’s jacket, things like that. Maybe it’s possible to carefully craft a bullet with deliberately designed weak spots to fragment at low velocities too?

>>64111207
>A 30 cal bullet has a frontal area 1.89x greater than 5.56, so it needs 1.89x as much energy to have identical armor pen.
Does mass not have a place in SD calculation? .300 blk is typically 2-3x as heavy as a 5.56 counterpart.
>As for 300 blackout outperforming 5.56 in fragmentation, admittedly I know very little about bullet construction and terminal effect, but ive been led to believe fragmentation is more violent and happens more consistently at high velocities. Enough to shred the bullet’s jacket, things like that. Maybe it’s possible to carefully craft a bullet with deliberately designed weak spots to fragment at low velocities too?
There are a lot of factors going beyond just the dimensions of the cartridge.

>>64111244
>mass and SD

Well yes ofcourse. But imagine I lightly tap you with the point of a bullet with 1 ton per square inch of sectional density. it’s not gonna do anything, because there is hardly any energy behind it. So you need velocity cause a stationary object has no kinetic energy. Sectional energy is SD*v^2 (or just divide energy by caliber^2, same thing). In the case of 300 blackout, it has about equal total energy to 5.56, but it’s distributed over 1.89x the area, so sectional energy is only 53% that of 5.56

If the >2x heavier 30 cal bullet were going the same speed as 5.56, then it would have more sectional energy, but it’s going far slower.

>>64111318
>But imagine I lightly tap you with the point of a bullet with 1 ton per square inch of sectional density. it’s not gonna do anything, because there is hardly any energy behind it.
Yes, but we're talking about a cartridge with slightly higher energy than the 5.56 round when it connects.
>In the case of 300 blackout, it has about equal total energy to 5.56, but it’s distributed over 1.89x the area, so sectional energy is only 53% that of 5.56
That's already covered in the "SD" portion of the equation, which factors in both mass and the area. You're plugging in the variable a second time and writing out the results from the first equation.
A 150 gr round with 1.89x the frontal surface area should have an SD 1.44x that of a 55 gr with the same energy.

>>64111331
I think you’re confusing SD and sectional energy. Sectional density only tells you how dense the bullet is. It says nothing of how much energy there is behind every unit area. Imagine I have 2 300 blackout loads. Bullet shapes are identical but one is made of aluminum and the other of steel. The steel bullet has 3x the mass, thus 3x the sectional density. But these 2 loads will have the same total energy when I fire them from a gun, and since they have the same frontal area, they’ll have the same sectional energy,

You can’t really increase the sectional energy of a given cartridge. It’s basically just dependent on propellant mass, pressure, and caliber. But you can change the sectional density of the bullet - just use heavier or lighter bullets. Velocity will adjust accordingly and in the end you will have the same* sectional energy regardless of bullet mass.

*im assuming there is no loss in efficiency from using a lighter bullet, but in reality, there is. For a given cartridge, heavier bullets will have slightly more muzzle energy than the lighter ones.

>>64111331
> Yes, but we're talking about a cartridge with slightly higher energy than the 5.56 round when it connects

We are, however, comparing it to 5.56. Yes it will have more energy (at all ranges), but “slightly higher” will not cut it. To equal the same sectional energy, it will need 1.89x the total striking energy. And if it has that, it just becomes “5.56, scaled up by 1.89x”

>>64111351
Just to be sure:
SD x Velocity^2 is the idea here, right?
That gets us to our end number?
>Sectional density only tells you how dense the bullet is. It says nothing of how much energy there is behind every unit area.
Then you're referencing something that's not even in the formula.
And again, the density of the bullet is what's being considered when we consider the size of the frontal area.
If I have a density of (3/4) units, I don't divide the number at the end by 4 again to compensate. We already plugged that one in.
Now, your end numbers look mostly right, but for reasons jumped around.
Sticking to the formula, if we treat the SD of the 5.56 as "1" and the SD of the .300 blk as "1.443", then using the muzzle velocities of real rounds (55gr, 3270 ft/s and 150gr, 1900 ft/s), it still comes to 5.56 having about 2.05x the amount of provided energy.
Even out at 300 yards, the relationship is mostly the same.
The one thing to note is just that the 5.56 loses a quarter of its velocity when shrunk down to 7-7.5". They end up with very similar energy totals (point blank) then. I'm willing to bet air resistance covers the rest from there.

>>64102985
>20% energy reduction going 20" -> 14"
FUCK short barrels are gay

>>64111465
>14”
>short
lol, lmao, that’s considered full-size these days. There are people who fashion themselves as super serious operators running around with 10” 5.56 barrels. There is nothing wrong with 5.56, never was, just that long barreled guns are a pain in the ass and everybody wants an SBR instead.

>>64111434
You don’t need to include sectional density at all. It’s just that there is a way of calculating sectional energy by using sectional density, because mass and caliber are both involved in the sectional energy calc, just not necessarily combined into one unit. Just do this. Find the muzzle energy of your cartridge, divide by frontal area to get foot pounds per square inch. That’s it. That’s your sectional energy. (No need to use pi, so long as you’re always omitting it)

To compare 5.56 and 300 blackout.

>5.56, m855a1, 62gr@2950fps = 1200ft*lbs
>1200/.224/.224=22,915ft*lbs per square inch

>300 blackout, 125gr@2215fps = 1362ft*lbs
>1362/.308/.308=14,357ft*lbs per square inch

22,915 > 14,357

That’s it. Energy is just a quantity of something the bullet in motion has. But when it comes to penetrating shit, what matters is how much of it it has relative to the area of the section of armor or barrier you intend to destroy to get through.

>>64111434
Energy: 1/2 mass x speed^2
Sectional energy: energy / frontal area
Sectional density: mass / frontal area

>>64111481
>10"
>35% energy reduction compared to 20"
Ultra gay

>>64111482
What if I’m American and want to find energy in foot pounds? What unit do I use for velcoity?

>>64111496
>What if I’m America
I recommend suicide.
>foot pounds
Why do you want to measure energy in feet and pounds? sounds completely unhinged.
>What unit do I use for velcoity?
Meters per second.

>>64111481
>>64111482
I get you. Thanks for the formulas.

>>64103090
300blk sbr with supersonics

>>64102985
>Winchester M855
You mean the dogshit that nobody shoots if he can help it?

>>64102900
Dracos themselves are only bad because of their nonexistent QC. 7.62x39 loses almost nothing going from 16" to 12".

>>64103296
>>64103291
I like secret squirrel subsonic rounds but .300 blackout is never going to be practical for anything other that niche uses, it is not well suited to a general purpose pdw

5.7x28 is much beter for compact pdws and it can also be used as a pistol round. Its a shame its kind of a retarded cartridge design, and maybe in a perfect world we would have had 4.6x30 adopted by nato instead

>>64113256
Why isn't .300 good for general purpose?
A short barrel AR is stupid light and compact. With .300 you still get excellent power.

>>64113256
> Its a shame [5.7x28] is kind of a retarded cartridge design

Please elaborate. What would you change about the 5.7?

>>64104796
>soviets developed the 9x39
>they needed a subsonic bullet that was heavy
>aren’t they so fucking smart
We didn’t need to develop a version of the 9x39 because we already had 45acp. Same muzzle velocity, almost the same bullet weight. We had the De Lisle Carbine long before the vintorez existed.

>>64103223
buffer tube. same reason they don’t have folding stocks

>>64113705
9x39 achieve better accuracy at longer range with more power and ability to use an AP core ammo if needed, if you want a more fair comparison look at .300BLK or .300 whisper, both of these are easily comparable to 9x39 and even outshine it in some case

>>64113049
You're right the difference is probably smaller with better rounds.

>>64103023
True
True
False

>>64113705
>We didn’t need to develop a version of the 9x39 Sonny because we already had 45acp. Same muzzle velocity, almost the same bullet weight. We had the De Lisle Carbine long before the vintorez existed, bucko.

>>64113588
>What would you change about the 5.7?
Replace it with .221 Remington Fireball.

>>64113839
eggsplain how not achieving full burn results in the same velocities plz?

>>64104796
Actually they invented it because they were too dumb to get 7.62x39 to work for subsonic use while functioning reliably like westerners did with .300 blk

>>64108901
You don't know what you're talking about, some of the most popular supersonic loads for .300 blk do fragment meaningfully, ex 110gr VMAX and Varmageddon loads. Popular for HD and work great on deer too.

>>64114017
Oh, sick. That’s what I would do as well lol.

Or 22 APG
Or 5.56 MARS
Or 5.56 MINSAS
Or 6x35TSWG if you have big hands

Picrel is something I sketched up. The cross section of a grip at its thinnest point where it interfaces with the web of your hand. Red is the magazine, assuming 1mm wall thickness, made of steel. White is the grip. 1mm thick at the front strap, assuming it’s made of aluminum. Total grip width 1”, total grip depth 2.15”. The cartridge length is 1.8” and the case head diameter is .393 (10mm). I think it can work. The whole thing is made of graceful curves with no real sharp edges, and the overall size is very manageable - it’s like a hair deeper than a Glock 20 grip.

When I model that cartridge in the powley computer at 80kpsi, it projects a muzzle energy of >1050ft*lbs from an 8” barrel (.257 bullet, 0.9” long). Not a good pistol cartridge, but a great mp7 cartridge.

>>64114077
Keep reading the thread. I mention in this post (>>64111207) that my knowledge of terminal effect and bullet construction is limited. All my other points are true.

>heavier cartridge
True
>more recoil
True
>reduced MPBR
True
>less sectional energy
True

>>64103254
the 10.5 version of this is smaller than the mdr micron and I legit think there should be some doorkickers somewhere looking into it for giga concealed rifles (you can get a 10 inch brn-180 upper)

>>64113839
NTA, his 3rd point IS true, just as long as nobody is arbitrarily defining “fast” as being some velocity threshold. All loads will produce faster velocities out of longer barrels up to a point where friction slows the bullet down more than the gas accelerates it.

>>64114108
10 inch 300 blkout brn-180 is what I meant

>>64114121
I recoil just thinking about holding that bullpup. Bullpups ought to be used as platforms for very long barrels that would almost preclude conventional architecture. Like a 20” barrel (suppressed, maybe), not a 10” barrel in a tiny and cramped gun with awful weight distribution. Where is my thumb supposed to go on the VFG? Inside the triggerguard?

>>64114096
I mean the recoil one is effectively meaningless given the difference is practically undetectable, and the sectional energy thing is a weird one to bring up. I assume you're bringing that up in relation to penetrating armor but frankly no intermediates are good enough at that to justify selecting one cartridge over another for infantry use in the current year. It also has the benefit of reducing the velocity needed for effective rifle like wounding, greater SA means more drag and more TSC for a given velocity. Your other points are definitely valid though, I do not believe that .300 blk is a sensible choice for a general issue rifle but it does very well have a place for some military use cases.

>>64114108
It looks like the ar from deus ex

>>64114108
Huh, neat. I do think that VFG should have some kind of angled top end or flat extension "guard" under that silencer, though (could be simple as a ~4" long pic riser. Or extend the rail over the silencer or get one of those silly Kryons for their actual intended purpose instead of getting it for a P&W (though an ~11.5" could be made 16.5" with their F model and no extensions, therefore not an SBR; 2 birds, one stoned or whatever).

>>64114068
Jesus fucking Christ, is this the dumbest post so far?

>>64114121
>>64114108
That's tits. I fucking hate being left handed.

>>64114473
Hahaha retard sucks to be you.

My sister is left-handed and my parents, being religious, thought this meant she was the devil or possessed by a demon or something. They bullied and tormented her into doing things (writing etc) with her right hand. Today she is ambidextrous.

>>64114088
5.56 MINSAS is a pooland knockoff of 5.7 FN that's even worse in every way.

6x35 is enormous and you might as well just use .300BLK since it's mainstream.

>>64114088
>>64115046
I do however like the 6.2mm cartridge. It's like a miniature .250 Savage, I'd love to see it in a 20" OAL bullpup.

>>64115046
5.56 MINSAS is an almost 1:1 clone of 5.56 MARS (picrel, fourth from left). It is nothing like the 5.7x28.

>>64115094
The reason I’m using (more like hallucinating) a .257 bullet is because I wanted the caliber and bullet length to be at the optimal values to maximize retained energy at 300 yards. I found a 0.9” bullet length to be about optimal, but 3 different calibers gave more or less similar retained energy results at 300yds - .243, .257, and .264. So I just picked the middle one. .243 has a tiny bit more energy at 300 but at the expense of muzzle energy, and .264 has a bit less at 300, but with a bit more muzzle energy (higher efficiency cause wider caliber). All of this was assuming an 8” barrel.

So basically that cartridge I mocked up is in a way optimized for an 8” barrel. Kinda nerfed by the barrel, cause adding a mere 4 inches in barrel length increases muzzle energy by like 15%.

This whole thing was an exercise to see how potent a grip-fed cartridge can be. Performing the same exercise with a 20” barrel will yield a completely different cartridge. Probably .204 in caliber or something like that

>>64115095
Nathaniel is wrong about it, it's only similar to 5.56 MARS in that it's the same case length. According to DRDO's own numbers it gets 450 ft-lbs from a 12" barrel, compared to 500 ft-lbs from a 10" barrel for 5.7 FN.

>>64115122
The fuck? How? Something must be wrong there, because transforming the 5.7 to 5.56 MINSAS requires increasing the case length and making it wider (+50% internal volume just by widening the case). So the energy must be higher. Either those figures you posted are wrong or the cartridges are loaded to like 30kpsi.

>>64115143
Super low pressure I think. It's not intended to be a rifle cartridge, they designed it for the MPoo7: >>64109216.

I was wrong about the 5.7's power, after checking my numbers it only gets 400-450 ft-lbs from a 10" barrel. Still, the MINSAS cartridge isn't more powerful.

>>64115171
>MPoo7

Kek.

There’s no reason the MPoo7 can not withstand normal rifle pressures (looks like it’s a miniaturized AK action). So why would they drop the pressure?

>>64115194
Recoil, I'd assume. They originally made a 5.56x45 carbine to go with the INSAS but it was uncontrollable in auto so they shitcanned it and developed the 5.56 MINSAS cartridge. Also, the case is only the same length as 5.56 MARS, it's not the same diameter. Here's the cartridge photo from DRDO scaled to match the length of the MARS in your photo.

>>64115203
>case is not the same diameter.

I’d be astonished if the parent case of the MINSAS isn’t either the 5.56 or at the very least the 30 carbine. But there aren’t any good images on the internet to get a good sense of its proportions. Yours is the best one. Are you sure that’s not the MARS though?

>recoil
Idk. Only if they really need it to be controllable/useful in full auto

>>64115203
>>64115242(me)

Your photo is the 5.56 MARS. That’s Nathaniel’s picture from his TFB article.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/21/modern-personal-defense-weapon-calibers-005-the-5-56x30mm-mars/

I feel like I’m going insane. Where have I seen the MINSAS before and why do I think it’s based on the 5.56? Surely I’m thinking this for a reason, and did not simply hallucinate the cartridge.

>>64115203
Alright here’s the MINSAS.

https://youtu.be/ijiXPk1T4jA?si=vGQ2aBsIGmYHX4r1

0:50

Bullet to case head ratio makes me think it’s based on the 5.56.

>>64115251
I clipped the MARS photo from >>64115095, fourth from the left. The MINSAS photo is from a bulletin by the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation, the agency that developed both the MINSAS cartridge and the JVPC PDW: https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/sites/default/files/technology-focus-documrnt/TF_Oct_2021.pdf.

I'd assume you thought that the MINSAS cartridge was based on the MARS because Nathaniel made a comparison between them in that article. There's also a knockoff wiki article from over a decade ago claiming the MINSAS is based on the MARS, but clearly that person is talking out of their ass: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/MINSAS

>>64115265
Go to that article I linked and look at the first pic. The cropped picture you posted, that apparently someone is trying to pass off as the MINSAS, is the leftmost cartridge, the 5.56 MARS. The MINSAS in the Indian guy’s video looks like it has a very low shoulder angle.

>>64115274
I think you misunderstood me. I cropped the black and white cartridge from the picture you posted here: >>64115095
Then I cropped the color cartridge from the DRDO paper I linked here: >>64115265
Then I scaled it so the cartridges were the same length.

>>64114108
Thing looks like one of the only legitimate uses for one of these. Like that one interwar SMG with a spherical foregrip.

>>64115278
No I understand. this is hilarious. The DRDO cropped Nathaniel’s picture of the MARS and is presenting it as the MINSAS. Picrel. Left is Nathaniel’s pic (zoomers in), right is from the DRDO pdf.

Also I don't think the MINSAS is based on the 5.56x45 case. It's developed by a government agency of one of the largest countries in the world, and one that's obsessed with indigenous design and production even when it doesn't make sense. They have their own ammo factories and they're entirely capable of drawing brass to whatever dimensions they want, they're not wildcatters cooking up handloads in a shed.

>>64115285
I don't think so, the MINSAS photo is scaled a little larger (see height) and the case is still a little narrower (I drew lines across each diameter and moved them onto the other cartridge.

>>64115306
Bro that’s very obviously a cropped and slightly lower resolution of Nathaniel’s picture. Look at this vertical black smudge or whatever it is on the cartridge case. And the little black dot to the top left of it. It’s the same picture.

Someone should tell Nathaniel.

>>64115314
I actually think you're right, and the reason that the quality is fucked and the ratios are different is because someone just dragged from the corner to scale it.

>>64102892 (OP)
That's half the barrel length 5.56 needs to perform well. Just get an AK if you want short barrel shenanigans. Performs very well at short lengths.

>>64113588
It needs to be lubricated with some kind of belgian space varnish, because it has absolutely no taper, which is really not a good attribute for a military round that will probably get shoved into some very dirty chambers.

>>64113282
Because its still not really optimized as a PDW round, its a long subsonic rifle round that can also larp as 7.62x39.

PDWs need to be light and utra compact, so mag-in-grip or bullpup, and the ammo should ideally be light, like the original 5.7 and 4.6 rounds for the nato pdw trials.

>>64109106
>recently

i havent seen any recent shilling but exotic calibers, especially 'enemy' calibers always get magical properties added.

>>64116570
Small powder load, supersonic, expanding/fragmenting heavy bullet .300
Excellent for a PDW, mag in grip is gay. 10'' AR-15 with a slim handguard and collapsed stock is plenty small enough for the PDW/SMG role.

>>64116588
Idk man I stepped away from here in probably the spring of 23 and haven’t been back until now and the last thing I rember was the consensus being that 5.45 was dogshit and nobody wanted to use it, not even the russians that were issued 74s. I come back now and it seems every thread where either barrel length or calibers are being discussed, some esl nignogs are shilling for it and nobody dignifies it

You retards are going to lose your mind when you find out about 77gr 556

>>64113060
>7.62x39 loses almost nothing going from 16" to 12".
Losing 100 fps is bad when you've only got 2340 to begin with.

>>64102892 (OP)
Because they're for gay reddit school shooters who got groomed by glowniggers

>>64117236
Losing less than 5% of your total velocity for a four fewer inches of barrel seems like a good trade off to me. You can take 7.62x39 down to 10" and still be in the ballpark of 2000 fps.

>>64117551
Dropping below mach 2 takes you below a key threshold for good terminal effect. The draco is a very big pistol.

>>64102985
Why do 16.5 to 14 and not 16 to 14.5?

>>64116735
If you haven't noticed we've been even further over run by trannies and faggots and retards in your absence. 762> 545

>>64116735
>>64119891
>Giving a single fuck about ziggerslop
See picrel

>>64109226
This; 5.45 is 5.56 with the benefit of hindsight.
It's got a shorter and fatter case that burns powder more consistently and leaves more room in the mag for a longer bullet with a better ogive, grain for grain. This means it doesn't lose as much velocity to shorter barrels and it also retains velocity better at range. These advantages aren't observable when you're shooting surplus steel-case out of a wonky rewelded AK but if somebody in the US would make good brass 5.45 and a decent rifle to match, it would outperform a 5.56 equivalent.
At least, in theory. They sort of already tried with .224 Valk and that was a flop because in actual practice you can't squeeze much out of calibers below 6mm.

>>64117571
>takes you below a key threshold for good terminal effect
prove it, i think you're a dumb faggot

>>64119977
You want 2k fps (at least) to be your impact velocity not your muzzle velocity, you want the cavity generated by the bullet to expand fast enough that it exceeds the elasticity of the flesh it's displacing so the cavity becomes permanent, that's what makes rifle wounds different to pistol wounds. The exact velocity this occurs at goes up or down inversely with caliber, with 7.62 it might be higher than the commonly cited 2k figure sourced from this paper: emergencymedicinekenya.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1211-Ballistics.pdf
Were I shopping for a 7.62 AK I wouldn't go any shorter than the 104, the cartridge struggles enough at range as-is. You must have seen picrel before, allegedly this was a 7.62 hitting at 150 meters.

>>64120043
> The exact velocity this occurs at goes up or down inversely with caliber

(NTA) my mind is blown. This never once occured to me, but I think you’re right. A bullet twice as wide will be radially redirecting flesh directly in front of it at twice the velocity. Does ogive shape matter here, or does the bullet tumble too quickly for ogive shape to make a difference?

This isn’t good news, because it means small calibers absolutely require a very high velocity. Something they’re gonna lose very quickly in flight.

>>64119946
We were so close to greatness (picrel)

>>64120043
Stretch cavity is cool, but we have modern bullets.
https://youtu.be/WNbQl-13Axk

>>64103223
https://youtu.be/wg5FHvidvYk
Then you didn't look very hard

>>64116909
This place is too broke and noguns to comprehend anything but the most basic 55gr .223, which is why you have so many retards still thinking it's 1974 and the only viable option is a 20" barrel (without the optimal 1:12 twist ofc, because that shit is a tad deeper than redditor knowledge).

>>64120449
The other type of retard is the cult of 77gr match ammunition >>64116909 when purpose designed defensive ammunition exists. E.g. copper monolithics and bonded soft points.

>>64103090
SMG outperforms within its niche. Which is why the mp5 is still in service around the world despite being a 60 year old design.

If you need to do SMG shit, but you also might need to do rifle shit, you might be able to do both good enough with an SBR. But it won't outperform an SMG or a full fat rifle within their respective niches.

>>64120591
What's the point you're trying to make?

>>64120591
no one said 77gr was the end-all-be-all. what it is is a readily available option that has a drastically improved performance out of a sbr. you can have fun with your snowflake shit.

>>64120612
Figure it out
>>64120621
https://palmettostatearmory.com/aac-5-56-nato-70-grain-barnes-tsx-20rd-box-ammunition.html
80cpr btw

>>64120621
and 50cpr for basically federal MSR
https://aeammo.com/federal-ammo-223-rem-62gr-tactical-bonded-soft-point-3050-fps-20-box-25-boxes-500-rounds-free-shipping/

>>64120662
>Figure it out
I can't, someone pointed out that there has actually been development in ammunition in the last half century, then you come in and say that...there has been development in ammunition in the last half century, but in another way other than the (most obvious) example originally used. It's just weird behavior on your part.

>>64120102
>small calibers absolutely require a very high velocity. Something they’re gonna lose very quickly in flight
For a given cartridge and case length, a smaller caliber projectile will have a finer form factor and higher BC, so it will maintain velocity better.

>>64120681
You're on 4chan anon, you should know when you're talking to a sped, basic conversational and social nuance is literally not comprehensible to them

>>64120609
how does an smg outperform an sbr?

>>64120681
>>64120692
morons

>>64120681
Dude has a chip on his shoulder and got tunnel vision when he saw his trigger
>reeeeeeeee 77gr. match reeeeeeeee
lmao

>>64120609
>the mp5 is still in service around the world despite being a 60 year old design.
The MP5 is still in service because it just werks and 9mm is cheap and politically correct for law enforcement use.

>>64120730
Have you tried not being an insufferable aspie? Like do you at least own this round and have an SBR to put it through?

>>64120730
70gr tsx is mid, shit performance through automotive barriers while offering typical mediocre expanding round performance. 77gr tipped MATCHking is the best for open air use and 75gr GD is the best general use round if barrier performance is a concern. Heck, even 75gr tap t2 or a 77gr SMK with a file job on the HP cavity is better. Copper monos are a meme outside of a handful of niche cases.

>>64120749
Have you tried growing some balls?
>do you at least own this round
Who the fuck has brown tips? Here's a 2 inch group with >>64120667 from a 12 inch Larue barrel.

>>64120662
>70gr TSX
another midwit getting hard over marketing lol

>>64120720
Smaller package, low recoil, reduced penetration, quieter, less percussion, shares ammo and potentially mags with your handgun, still very effective.
They have their uses.

>>64120744
Arguably, police only switched to the AR platform (in this context) because of external factors. If you're going to train your police force on AR and have them standard in every police car, you might as well just use a short barrel AR for cqb stuff too. It simplifies training and logistics.

>>64120591
Who the fuck recommends COMOs in 2025?

>>64120823
Cops started using ARs because the North Hollywood shootout happened coincidentally a few years before 9/11. This resulted in a lot of military hand-me-downs and vets already trained on the M4 looking for jobs as cops.

>>64120823
Out of that whole list only quieter and sharing ammo with handguns is true, also if you want notably lower recoil then you're going to be stuck with one of a handful of designs all of which have reliability problems with JHPs.

>>64105054
Who cares use whatever the spergs above are talking about so it hits harder than a 308, and hearing damage isn't real just ignore the noise

>>64120861
That's why they started using ARs, not why they started using short barrel ARs instead of SMGs for cqb purposes.

>>64120862
>Out of that whole list only quieter and sharing ammo with handguns is true
No lol

>>64108772
No but it's probably relatively close.

>>64111351
>For a given cartridge, heavier bullets will have slightly more muzzle energy than the lighter ones.
Lighter bullets go faster and energy is speed^2 while weight's contribution is just weight. A lighter bullet will have more energy assuming the same pressure.

>>64111496
feet per second
pretty convenient

>>64120864
>Smaller package
Not gonna be meaningfully smaller than a 5-6" .300 blk with folding stock. Determined to be false.
>low recoil
The vast majority of SMGs on the market are direct blowback, with comparable recoil to SBRs
>reduced penetration
Blatantly false, literally watch any actual testing of 9mm vs 5.56 in common housing materials
>quieter, less percussion,
True, unless you're using subs, then they sound nearly identical
>shares ammo and potentially mags with your handgun
True

It's ok to just like SMG pattern guns anon, they're perfectly adequate for self defense use. No need to make up reasons that they're AHKCTUALLY better than SBRs.

>>64120692
This is one of those lists that is so general it borders on being useless.

>>64121595
Wrong. The lighter bullet’s velocity will increase but only so much so as to keep Mass*v^2 the same value. Otherwise you could lighten the bullet and increase energy arbitrarily.

Imagine you divide bullet mass by 2. Velocity does not increase by a factor of 2 - it increases by the square root of two. Energy is kept constant, and velocity adjusts to keep this energy constant.

50gr@3000fps=1000ft*lbs
25gr@4242fps=1000ft*lbs
100gr@2121fps=1000ft*lbs

Notwithstanding minor gains in efficiency by using heavier bullets, the above is how it goes. The case contains some amount of energy it is imparting to the bullet. You can’t increase this in any way, certainly not by using lighter bullets (or else you’ve found a way to create energy, you can now go accept your Nobel prize)

>>64121602

It didn’t work though. 50gr@3000fps=1000ft*lbs

Ok let’s go through the kinetic energy formula using fps:
>(50/7000/2)*3000*3000=32,142 (???).

What am I missing?

>>64120591
>>64120662
cool argument lmao

>>64115095
>those rounds
Everything is chrome-err, steel (?) in the future!

>>64115281
>Like that one interwar SMG with a spherical foregrip.
NTA but this fucking thing. Wood ball sphere grip smg thing.

>>64122744
NTA but idfk I use this unironically.
https://www.pyramydair.com/widgets/

>>64123438
Here is an extremely useful tool for ballistic calculations: https://shooterscalculator.com/

And an easy way you can derive energy from mass and velocity is (m*v*v)/450618. Mass in grains, velocity in fps. You can round that number at the end to 450,000 and you’ll still be within 99.9% accuracy. That number contains the conversions for feet to meters, grains to kilograms, and the conversion from joules to ft*lbs

>>64123428
if Restoration Hardware made a gun

>>64122744
>The lighter bullet’s velocity will increase but only so much so as to keep Mass*v^2 the same value.
That's not how it works, energy is not constant for a given cartridge. If it was, you could arbitrarily increase the mass of the projectile for only tiny losses in velocity. It's closer, but still inaccurate, to generalize momentum as constant, which is why SCHV came about in the first place.

Short barrel retards are the most retarded of them all.

>>64122744
The equation is mass, not weight. So you need to convert grains to slugs. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about so you should just stop.

>>64124899
Why would that be the case?
If anything a heavier bullet is more efficient in internal ballistics

>>64124961
Mass and weight are synonymous as long as the force of gravity is constant.

>>64124961
How come joules works with kilos though?
>you don’t know what you’re talking about
Yeah I said that in my post. I did express confusion over the formula

Edit: ermagurd it works now. Thanks


>>64124899
>momentum is constant
No it isn’t. If it were, velocity would double everytime mass is halved and energy would go up arbitrarily.

>>64124961
>>64125882(me)
> How come joules works with kilos though?

This was a dumb question. Ignore it.

>>64104806
>>russian hitsquads like the 74u because 5.45 out of a short barrel is about as effective as x39 out of any barrel.
>5.45
>x39
you realize 5.45 has a case length of 39mm, right dipshit? "x39" means nothing.

>>64127407
>"x39" means nothing.
It means two or three rounds, 5.45 and 9x39 would be the shorthand for the other ones. Context, contrast; instant understanding. x39 is a great abbreviation for 7.62x39mm.
7.62, now that's the part that really means nothing. There's a bajillion thirty cals.

>>64127912
In the context of 5.45x39 vs 7.62x39, calling it "x39" is gorilla nigger speak when x39 is a description of BOTH calibers. Speak like a white man or tilt your head back until you choke on your own saliva.

>>64103223
Because the buffer tube's a shit. There's a reason why everyone worked from the AR-18's base.