Tankerd18

I own a Lee Enfield No 4 myself. It's a good gun, detachable box magazine, nice magazine size "for it's time", powerful round... I like the bolt design a lot, it cocks the hammer when you're pushing it forward instead of the Mauser design which cocks when you are turning the bolt open. It makes for a really fast bolt. I think my three complaints would be: it's heavy, it's bulky, and it's ammo is kind of uncommon. If I handloaded for it I'd probably shoot it all the time.

Haha, I'm not going to say Marine Sniper dude is not a little over the top. I've got you there. But dude you don't need to be so hostile, it's not that serious. I'm still sticking with my point of, I've seen it before, it does more than poke a hole in you. Does that work a little better for you? Please humor me, and tell me you don't honestly believe a 7.62mm pointy metal slug going over a half a mile a second should do insignificant damage because its 3/10ths of an inch in width. Also, for the record: We're done when we're finished responding to each other. You aren't the boss of ANYONE on these forums. If you're done arguing with me, stop replying. That's done. And please, when you respond. Be polite. It's gonna be okay.

@BazBake: Look dude I'm not trying to be rude with you about it. But you're talking like youre cornered by a bunch of people that you can't convince of your point of view: which so far you can't. I'm not looking too much into this, it's not that serious. Hence why I have not read up your Vietnam surgeon deal, and hence why I have not come up with my own research backing up what I said. I don't need to, I don't have to prove anything, as the common consensus agrees with my point of view. I'm trying to give you a point of view from experience, which you don't have, and I do. I know you are absolutely convinced you are right. But dude, you don't need to go through the last 10 posts and pick out what everybody said that you don't like and lay down a snotty little cornered rat rebuttal. It's not helping you convince US that you are right. And that's your goal, isn't it? When I say take it with a grain of salt. I mean look at what everyone else is saying, and consider that perhaps you are wrong. My goal isn't, and wasn't to convince you of anything. It's to convince you to look at some other pieces of research and open up to the idea that there is much more going on when a bullet hits you than getting a hole poked in you. Spare me the impolite rebuttal, it's not helping your argument.

Hey everybody, I made an account to reply to this! Okay now I will say, OP... I think there's some holes in your argument. Now I totally agree that perhaps there should be a bit of a re-look at how much damage certain bullets do. Where I disagree is the permanent cavity point of view you are presenting. From what I've seen there's at least two guys on here who have some sort of military experience. And hey guess what!? I just happen to be a US Army tanker I know all kinds of things about bullets! ...Especially 5.56, 7.62, 9mm, and .50 BMG. And I also know at some point back there someone mentioned exit wounds. Let me assure you, and this is emphasised heavily in even low level Army basic combat life saving, the little 7.62 sized AK hole you have in your torso is never, ever comparable to the gaping exit wound it leaves on the side it comes out. Except in cases where the bullet was going really slow, or bounced/tumbled and went through more flesh than normal. Normally the exit wound is always exponentially larger, like the Marine guy said: 7.62 can blow out an orange sized chunk of your back, easily. This isn't made up. This is straight up, undoubted, been seen for years and years common military knowledge. Someone in here mentioned how temporary cavity can make a small critter such a varmint explode when hit by a high velocity round. This is also completely true. If the strength of your skin and flesh to contain the temporary bullet cavity is exceeded, your flesh is going to break open. For instance, I know of an instance where an insurgent got "clipped" in the side of the head by a little baby 5.56 mm NATO round fired from an M16. It didn't poke a neat little whole in his skull, it blew half of it away. Look up the extent of the damage President Kennedy's head took when he was assassinated. It definitely wasn't 6.5mm Carcano sized on both sides. It's not just the head either. If you take a grazing shot to the side, there's a good chance it will split you wide open. This is exactly what I'm talking about when the muscle, skin, and bone of the body cannot withstand the force coming from the expanding temporary wound cavity. Enough about the temporary wound cavity. Someone back there mentioned shooting someone with .50 BMG and .50 AE at the same distance. I don't feel like messing with quotes, but I have to totally back this individual up. It's not always so much about the width of the bullet as it is about the velocity, and the grain weight of the projectile. From what your argument seems to be promoting, I'm gathering that a 115 grain 9mm bullet shot at 1000 feet per second would hurt you more than a 123 grain 7.62X39mm bullet traveling at 2500 fps because it would leave a larger wound cavity as its wider. Well let me confidently assure you that you are incorrect. I've seen people shot by 9mm, I've seen people shot by 7.62X39... There really isn't a comparison. The rifle bullet going over 2 times faster will screw you up more EVERY TIME. Next, I don't know too much about your data, and I really don't feel like reading into it. But are you sure that data isn't more about Vietnam wounded survivors and not about deceased casualties? Because I guarantee you're more likely to survive a bullet that luckily only poked a hole in you instead of a bullet that blew a gaping one in you. OP: I'm not saying I don't appreciate your research into this. And in conclusion I do still believe there should be more accurate bullet damages. But honestly, I've spent my time over there... Twice to be exact. And I know for a fact that speed and bullet weight have a much more significant influence on the death the bullet deals than the bullet's width. Rifles aren't the primary weapons of soldiers just because they're more accurate man... They're our primary weapons because a rifle bullet hits you so ridiculously hard, and fast, that it's not comparable to that of a pistol. a 115 grain standard 9mm NATO ball doesn't even SORT OF have shit on even a 62 grain 5.56mm NATO ball round. But seriously though: be open to expanding your horizons a bit. It's really cool that you're willing to do this kind of research into improving a game like DayZ, and almost everyone here appreciates that, and at the same time everyone wants you to take their points of view with a litlte more salt. Your points are not invalid... But there's now at least 3 service men/veterans, and a good few others that directly disagree with your point of view. Marine sniper guy: don't get worked up over this, man. At least he has tried to research into it a bit and isn't totally talking out of his ass. Though I completely agree with you, 7.62 will put the average chum on the ground dead/unconscious/bleeding to death incapacitated almost every time you tag him in the torso. Oh and by the way I handload .30-06, .243 Winchester, .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO, 9mm NATO, and .45 ACP. I do know a bit about what I'm talking about. Also, Hornady A-Max and V-Max don't explode, they expand really fast. The worst they might do is fragment if they hit flesh fast enough. And in reality that is much less damaging than a bullet staying intact. But yeah if you wanna see a bullet that "explodes" look up Barnes Varmint Grenades. Pretty sweet. Thanks for having me forum, hopefully I'll get a reason soon for my 2nd post. Haha.