|
|
|
#1 |
|
Join Date: May 2016
|
There's a lot of reasons why a bullet is designed one way or another. Weight, cost, its accuracy (based on its size vs the barrel's length), wounding channels, etc.
I understand some of the basics, like having carbines for light infantry and LMGs for support, but I don't understand what each bullet is actually ideal for. Let me explain. The 5.56 NATO seems to be a popular ammunition for assault rifles, its slender profile allowing dozens of rounds to be stacked into a single magazine. It does about 4d+2 or 5d piercing damage, depending on carbine or rifle barrels. It's plenty enough damage to kill an unarmored human, and can penetrate DR 12 assault vests. Its power is limited, though, as it wont even scratch DR 23 trauma plates unless it's VERY lucky. My guess is that the 5.56 isn't meant to go up against heavier, DR 25-35 troops, and meant to engage "non-plated" opponents and/or provide suppressing fire. Also, since lucky shots will still go through helmets and limb armor, the 5.56 is still a threat, enough to intimidate foes out of key locations. I think with the solid numbers is easier to imagine what bullets could be used against, but I'm not sure my assumptions are all correct. What about "full-size" bullets like the 7.62x51? Were they used against plated targets, maybe thin-skinned vehicles? And what about the weird .338 Lapua Magnum that only appears in High-Tech once for the AI-AW sniper rifle? |
|
|
|
| Tags |
| bullets, help me out here |
|
|