They're hardly the same bullet.Originally Posted by ReggayMC
hey man they both fire like bullets or something!
The Colt M4A1 Carbine fires a 5.56x45mm Full Metal Jacket NATO Round.
The Heckler und Koch MP7A1 fires a specially made 4.6x30mm Armor Piercing Round.
The 4.6 has a muzzle velocity higher than that of the 5.56. And it's made of hardened steel that can pierce Kevlar. Once it pierces the Kevlar, it's designed to tumble inside the flesh, creating a bigger entry/exit hole.
Since it's a fairly recently and specially designed bullet, only three guns in the world are chambered for it. The HK MP7/MP7A1, The HK UCP, and the Steyr TMP.
They hardly fire the same round.
That's what I wanted to say.I intended to show that the MP7 is not replacing the G36k which is not issued in large numbers throughout the Bundeswehr. I think there was a misunderstanding before that the G36k had a role like the M4 in US Armed Forces.
That much is true.
That's plain wrong: The MP7 reaches a muzzle velocity of about 725 mps/2400 fps, a 5.56mm rifle reaches more than 900 mps/3000 fps.The 4.6 has a muzzle velocity higher than that of the 5.56.
The UCP project seems to have been canceled. Also, Steyr does not produce the TMP any more, it is now offered by Brugger&Thomet as the "MP9" - in 9mm only.Since it's a fairly recently and specially designed bullet, only three guns in the world are chambered for it. The HK MP7/MP7A1, The HK UCP, and the Steyr TMP.
[quote=nickless;2346903]That much is true.
That's plain wrong: The MP7 reaches a muzzle velocity of about 725 mps/2400 fps, a 5.56mm rifle reaches more than 900 mps/3000 fps.
W.E. So I got one fact wrong...my mistake.
The MP7A1 is still better in terms of CQB, Armor-Penetration, and Rate of Fire.
The MP7A1 has a fire rate of 950-1150 rpm depending on the ammo type.
The M16A4 has a fire rate of 750-900 rpm depending on the ammo type.
The M16 has a higher muzzle velocity, has been in service a lot longer, is better for medium-lon range fighting, and is good for adaptibility. Those are the only fields where the M16 outranks the MP7A1 and in today's battles most soldiers want a weapon that's small, effective, reliable, and powerful.
Did anyone notice that the G36 like carry handle/scope system mounted on the MG 4 in the close up picture is rail mounted?
Thats not the G36 carry handle/scope system.
B&T have chambered prototypes in 4.6mm.
Which happens to be why I said the "G36 like" carry handle.
there are some clear differences between the guns shown in these pictures though.
The MG4 looks very nice!
Well... two.
Stop quoting the ad brochures!The MP7A1 is still better in terms of CQB, Armor-Penetration, and Rate of Fire.
The MP7A1 has a fire rate of 950-1150 rpm depending on the ammo type.
The M16A4 has a fire rate of 750-900 rpm depending on the ammo type.
The M16 has a higher muzzle velocity, has been in service a lot longer, is better for medium-lon range fighting, and is good for adaptibility. Those are the only fields where the M16 outranks the MP7A1 and in today's battles most soldiers want a weapon that's small, effective, reliable, and powerful.
The MP7 was designed to be a personal defense weapon, not an assault rifle. If you compare the MP7 to an assault rifle, just look at this: The M7 has a muzzle energy of 420 Joules, a 5.56mm assault rifle has 1800 - more than four times the energy! And people are still complaining about 5.56mm ammo being too weak... go figure.
Also, the MP7 does not penetrate armor better than a 5.56mm assault rifle: The PDWs responding to the NATO requst back in 1989 had to able to defeat the CRISAT armor target, but any assault rifle can do that easily. They are just superiour to pistols and submachine guns - using classic military ball ammunition - in terms armor penetration.
Last edited by nickless; 03-07-2007 at 03:45 PM.
![-[Crosshair]-'s Avatar](image.php?s=f45529496f11f34d5bc1f700e2611217&u=29225&dateline=1237067289 "-[Crosshair]-'s Avatar")
C7A1s have no ambidextrous parts, the C7A2 does, and has a rod on the charging-handle that goes all the way to the right side. You can push it and it will act as a lever and pull the unlocking mechanism on the left side. The ambidextrous magazine release on the C7A2 works the same way, as a lever.
That seems to be the issue whenever I read threads about these weapons; the PDW calibres are designed to penetrate armour better than PISTOLS (specifically the 9 x 19mm NATO ball ammunition, or whatever it is), not rifles. Comparing them to rifles therefore seems kinda dumb, but hey, I don't know **** so what are you gonna do.Well... two.
Also, the MP7 does not penetrate armor better than a 5.56mm assault rifle: The PDWs responding to the NATO requst back in 1989 had to able to defeat the CRISAT armor target, but any assault rifle can do that easily. They are just superiour to pistols in submachine guns - using classic military ball ammunition - in terms armor penetration.
He never said they were the same bullet. He said they both fired a bullet.
Geez. You fail at being funny.
Why does everyone on here feel like they need to flex their knowledge, and half of the people who do "flex" don't have any real knowledge to show off. Just lots of flabby fat.
Dude, learn to read.hey man they both fire like bullets or something!
He said they, "fire like bullets" as in they are common or same. They really aren't the same and they're hardley like one another.
Ok, let's all get this straight...
When he said "like" he did NOT mean common or the same. He was using it as it is commonly used in slang, just as filler. For example:
I mean, like, it just seemed so, like, obvious to me but like, maybe that was just like me or something.
To the original poster:
That was actually really funny!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
