Also, like the title proposal, but I think you need the name recognition. May I suggest "Marine Mike's Games and Ammo"
Marine Mike Reviews: Bullet Penetration
- Thread starter Marine Mike
- Start date
pretty good, but I would like to say one thing about your "Magazines and reloading" review: there are quite a few Tom Clancy games that are "you have so and so many clips, if you reload, you loose a clip", along with Frontlines: fuel of war. [small]Both are good games, and I would suggest them[/small]
Thank you so much for taking the time to share this with us. I know I'll be eager to read any more you can pump out... heh.
I love reading your reviews, they're extremely interesting and impressive. It's amazing how much realism is left out of games for the sheer amount of unpredictability warfare has and you explain that in perfect detail. You definitely should write articles for the Escapist you would bring something new and riveting to this site.
two things: first, i'd like to hear about gun jamming, he only game i know that does i-i--i---i-ss s-symst-tem sho-ock-k 2 but still, some of those guns might as well be cardboard and modern games guns must be god-crafted...
second, for kicks, try comparing these facts to doom
second, for kicks, try comparing these facts to doom
What are you talking about? Doom is the most realistic shooter out there, I'm just not allowed to discuss the military's energy weapon research codenamed "Project BFG-9000".z(ombie)fan said:
Well maintained guns do not jam often, the most commonly malfunctioning weapon is your open-bolt machine gun such as the M249 SAW and M240. Guns are a lot like sex, things always go more smoothly with proper lubrication... and its a lot less fun to shoot blanks... and if you shoot your gun too much your barrel will turn red... OK, thats enough gun innuendo for one night.
*chuckle*Marine Mike said:
yes, in real life we can fire and fire those shotguns, and never have to reload!
rocket launchers fire like explosive handguns!
oh god nostalgia-induced headache!
I think the reason most military's don't use anything but FMJ ammunition is because expanding ammunition is pretty worthless against an armoured target. Something designed to fragment as soon as it meets significant resistance is not going to deliver good penetration.
Plus FMJ is the best "all-around" ammo type. Hollow points don't do well against armor, and AP rounds don't have enough lethality against unarmored targets.Rolling Thunder said:
Too true. What bemuses me, though, is why in all military simulations, including realistic ones, a wall can stop bullets? Now, it could certainly slow them to the point armour made the damage minimal, but my question is....Marine Mike said:
What the hell is the point of cover again? Concealment?
Edit: These theories need testing.
A big help in surviving combat is learning the different between cover and concealment and how to use it to your advantage. Concealment is fantastic, the enemy cannot accurate engage a target it can't see. Also, even if they manage to hit you, they won't know it right away which gives you a much higher chance of survival.Rolling Thunder said:
Just about all cover is also concealment, so its obviously more preferable to just concealment. Even if the bullets coming at you can penetrate your chest-high wall of choice, there is still the chance that some of the incoming bullets can be deflected, fragmented, or otherwise rendered less harmful to your overall health. Add that to the fact that you are also concealed at the same time makes cover a lot safer than just standing in the open.
You need to take an M16 to a chest-high wall and prove these theories. Also, you get to shoot a chest-high wall. That should be fun.Marine Mike said:
a joule is just a metric calorie, which is the theoretical amount of energy your body absorbs from food. this is, of course, an inexact science, since the human body is a lot fussier than a machine (for which we also use joules). it'll absorb calories/joules differently from different foods. considering that a big mac has proteins and preservatives, a much higher ratio of calories will be absorbed than from something healthy. so, big mac=not as dangerous in its final (post-digestion) energy level than a machine gun round in its post-fired state. more people will probably die from eating foods like big macs than will die from gunfire, though, so maybe it's all a sliding scale of danger.Marine Mike said:
as a side note, i've fallen in love with you all over again for noticing this at all.
I know this review is old, but I felt I had to help you out with your unit conversions quandary.
Anyway, I did your math and it turns out bullets really ARE more powerful than big macs. Power being defined by the SI standard unit of power: the Watt, of course!
(The US customary unit of power is "horse power." Talk about archaic!)
Joules are watt-seconds, so you can determine the power (in watts) by dividing Joules by the number of seconds in which the energy is delivered.
A big mac has 2,300,700 joules and takes about 24 hours to digest. That's 2,300,700 watt-seconds divided by 86,400 seconds.
So Big macs deliver about 26 watts. (for reference, the human body uses about 125 watts at rest.)
the .223 winchester, on the other hand, deliver 3,275 joules in less than a second...say .25 seconds just for giggles. 3,275 watt-seconds / .25 seconds
So bullets deliver about 13kW.
Yeah, I'll take a big-mac please.
Interesting note: This explains what the perplexing "kilo-watt-hours" are on your electric bill. They're really just a convoluted measurement of energy (joules = watt-seconds)and can be directly converted into joules, calories, foot-pounds or BTU's.
Gasoline has potential energy stored in it's chemical bonds, you'd measure that in Joules.
But then gasoline engines convert that chemical energy into motion at a specific rate, you call that POWER and can label it in watts or horse power.
Wrong. A Joule is the metric version of a foot-pound. Calories and joules are both metric, but the joule is the SI standard and calories are rarely used outside the food industry.Divine Miss Bee said:a joule is just a metric calorie, which is the theoretical amount of energy your body absorbs from food. this is, of course, an inexact science, since the human body is a lot fussier than a machine (for which we also use joules). it'll absorb calories/joules differently from different foods. considering that a big mac has proteins and preservatives, a much higher ratio of calories will be absorbed than from something healthy. so, big mac=not as dangerous in its final (post-digestion) energy level than a machine gun round in its post-fired state. more people will probably die from eating foods like big macs than will die from gunfire, though, so maybe it's all a sliding scale of danger.Marine Mike said:
as a side note, i've fallen in love with you all over again for noticing this at all.
Anyway, I did your math and it turns out bullets really ARE more powerful than big macs. Power being defined by the SI standard unit of power: the Watt, of course!
(The US customary unit of power is "horse power." Talk about archaic!)
Joules are watt-seconds, so you can determine the power (in watts) by dividing Joules by the number of seconds in which the energy is delivered.
A big mac has 2,300,700 joules and takes about 24 hours to digest. That's 2,300,700 watt-seconds divided by 86,400 seconds.
So Big macs deliver about 26 watts. (for reference, the human body uses about 125 watts at rest.)
the .223 winchester, on the other hand, deliver 3,275 joules in less than a second...say .25 seconds just for giggles. 3,275 watt-seconds / .25 seconds
So bullets deliver about 13kW.
Yeah, I'll take a big-mac please.
Interesting note: This explains what the perplexing "kilo-watt-hours" are on your electric bill. They're really just a convoluted measurement of energy (joules = watt-seconds)and can be directly converted into joules, calories, foot-pounds or BTU's.
Gasoline has potential energy stored in it's chemical bonds, you'd measure that in Joules.
But then gasoline engines convert that chemical energy into motion at a specific rate, you call that POWER and can label it in watts or horse power.
When you factor in the amount of time that the energy is delivered, then you are absolutely correct. However, I still giggle at the thought of the Big Mac having more potential energy than a bullet. Thank you for the enlightening perspective.tavelkyosoba said:I know this review is old, but I felt I had to help you out with your unit conversions quandary.
Wrong. A Joule is the metric version of a foot-pound. Calories and joules are both metric, but the joule is the SI standard and calories are rarely used outside the food industry.Divine Miss Bee said:a joule is just a metric calorie, which is the theoretical amount of energy your body absorbs from food. this is, of course, an inexact science, since the human body is a lot fussier than a machine (for which we also use joules). it'll absorb calories/joules differently from different foods. considering that a big mac has proteins and preservatives, a much higher ratio of calories will be absorbed than from something healthy. so, big mac=not as dangerous in its final (post-digestion) energy level than a machine gun round in its post-fired state. more people will probably die from eating foods like big macs than will die from gunfire, though, so maybe it's all a sliding scale of danger.Marine Mike said:
as a side note, i've fallen in love with you all over again for noticing this at all.
Anyway, I did your math and it turns out bullets really ARE more powerful than big macs. Power being defined by the SI standard unit of power: the Watt, of course!
(The US customary unit of power is "horse power." Talk about archaic!)
Joules are watt-seconds, so you can determine the power (in watts) by dividing Joules by the number of seconds in which the energy is delivered.
A big mac has 2,300,700 joules and takes about 24 hours to digest. That's 2,300,700 watt-seconds divided by 86,400 seconds.
So Big macs deliver about 26 watts. (for reference, the human body uses about 125 watts at rest.)
the .223 winchester, on the other hand, deliver 3,275 joules in less than a second...say .25 seconds just for giggles. 3,275 watt-seconds / .25 seconds
So bullets deliver about 13kW.
Yeah, I'll take a big-mac please.
Interesting note: This explains what the perplexing "kilo-watt-hours" are on your electric bill. They're really just a convoluted measurement of energy (joules = watt-seconds)and can be directly converted into joules, calories, foot-pounds or BTU's.
Gasoline has potential energy stored in it's chemical bonds, you'd measure that in Joules.
But then gasoline engines convert that chemical energy into motion at a specific rate, you call that POWER and can label it in watts or horse power.
THREE INCHES?! What happens to such a round after exiting the substance though? Is it true that if you're sitting in a tank and one of those puppies makes it through it will ricochete around the interior...fucking up whomever is inside?Marine Mike said: