Arms n Ammo

Just opened this thread cause I'd thought that their where too many seperate threads on guns and ammos that I make it more centralised.

Got this one question on one gun within PLA arsenal...

With QCW-05 if its sub-machine gun it should have a high rate of fire say 750r/m but its got mere 400r/m, and its velocity is extremely low with ~200m/s that pretty slow time for it to impact on target...compare to T79/85 with +750r/m and +350m/s velocity...(I KNOW DIFFERENT AMMO) but the 5.8x21 compare to 7.62x25 its velocity should be substantially higher...

SO what gives???

I believe those specs are for the silenced version.

though the silenced version or not the r/f shouldn't drop

PrOeLiTeZ said:

though the silenced version or not the r/f shouldn't drop

Click to expand...

Yes, it should. Silenced weapon has lower muzzle velocity, that means it takes a longer time for it to traverse the barrel, that means less rounds per unit time.

Heh, 200 m/s will take 0.0025 sec to go 0.5 m, and that corresponds to 400 rounds/second. I don't think the acceleration time would account for the orders of magnitude difference. My guess is the integral silencer requires slower bolt operation. Or perhaps it is slowed down on purpose to make fully automatic fire more controllable.

RedMercury said:

Heh, 200 m/s will take 0.0025 sec to go 0.5 m, and that corresponds to 400 rounds/second. I don't think the acceleration time would account for the orders of magnitude difference. My guess is the integral silencer requires slower bolt operation. Or perhaps it is slowed down on purpose to make fully automatic fire more controllable.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right, now I feel stupid.

I do think it's a design decision, however, this is hardly going to be a weapon to spray bullets with, a lower RoF shouldn't make much difference.

Right, it is a weapon for squad leaders of recon groups or "special forces", they hardly need to spray.

RedMercury said:

Right, it is a weapon for squad leaders of recon groups or "special forces", they hardly need to spray.

Click to expand...

though they dont need to spray, shouldn't the rate of fire for submachine guns be classfied as high r/f as in 750r/m or above? but this new generation submachine gun has lack of r/f.....

and those specs given i doubt that it would have a lower muzzle velocity then the heavier longer 7.62x25 compare to their 5.8x21 it should have increase in velocity....its a cqb weapon so you really dont get much time to aim the weapon properly....unless your going for the optimal max range shot of 200m.....

i know also that the weapon system platform also alters the properties of the ammunition being fed...but if they designed for the 2 shot in the gut and 1 on the head kind of weapon then thats perfectly fine....accuracy increase over rate of fire maybe that was the up and downside to the weapon

Why have a single thread? When the thread gets long, it becomes hard to follow. Plus, members could go off topic, like now.
-----
The unibody design of the AK and related guns is well proven to be very strong, able to shoot after getting ran over. But could new plastics- and more importantly, modular guns (like M16 with its upper and lower receiver. Type 03 is now a dual body body gun, unlike Type 87; and yes, I think the two would have different field strips.) -take the same amount of punishment?

sumdud said:

Why have a single thread? When the thread gets long, it becomes hard to follow. Plus, members could go off topic, like now.
-----
The unibody design of the AK and related guns is well proven to be very strong, able to shoot after getting ran over. But could new plastics- and more importantly, modular guns (like M16 with its upper and lower receiver. Type 03 is now a dual body body gun, unlike Type 87; and yes, I think the two would have different field strips.) -take the same amount of punishment?

Click to expand...

If you are refering to comparing the punishment of the T95 and T03 then I would go with T95. T03 has more plastic parts then the T95, the T95 internals mechanism still are basically the same as T87.

However I do like the T03 but dont like the aim sight its too crude....a rear peep sight such as the ones on the current T95 would be good....and a more skeletal stock but with lighter stronger steel would be better for durability then the plastic-rubber ones now on the T03.

Yes this thread was mean't to be broad covering any firearm related discussions.