Why does the cross bow do more damage than the m4?

[taco86 156]

My biggest problem with the m4 doing so little damage is that eventually when the game gets a bolt action rifle in .223/5.56  it will be completely useless if it does the same damage as the m4 as it should since its the same caliber.

 

If we get a .223/5.56 bolt gun, I'd hope they go with a 20 inch barrel variant.  I'm not 100% sure on the exact figures, but a 20 inch barrel produces close to 20% more muzzle energy than a 14.5 inch barrel.  A .223/5.56 bolt gun could even be modeled as using 75-77 grain match ammo as well, significantly increasing the effective range.  Either way, there are completely plausible explanations as to why a full length .223/5.56 rifle would do more damage than a carbine.

[gibonez 3633]

If we get a .223/5.56 bolt gun, I'd hope they go with a 20 inch barrel variant.  I'm not 100% sure on the exact figures, but a 20 inch barrel produces close to 20% more muzzle energy than a 14.5 inch barrel.  A .223/5.56 bolt gun could even be modeled as using 75-77 grain match ammo as well, significantly increasing the effective range.  Either way, there are completely plausible explanations as to why a full length .223/5.56 rifle would do more damage than a carbine.

 

Only difference we would really see is in a slight increase in muzzle velocity and thus more range.

 

Damage should be pretty darn close if not exactly the same.

[taco86 156]

The damage that a bullet inflicts to an animal is pretty much based on three main factors...  How much energy the projectile has, how quickly the projectile can dump it's energy, and of course what specifically is destroyed within the permanent and "temporary" wound channels.  In terms of a 5.56, the faster it's moving the faster it dumps energy while also having more energy.  Gel tests show a relatively significant difference in terms of amount and rate energy is transferred between the m4a1 and the m16 as an example.  There is no doubt that the same bullet fired from a m16 is measurably more effective than the same bullet fired from a m4...  Velocity is massively important when it comes to terminal ballistics.

Edited April 22, 2014 by taco86

[ptk (DayZ) 178]

Wow, what a ride this thread has been, going from comparing crossbows and m4's to navy seals, knife wounds and the geneva fucking convention! Only in the Dayz forums lol, and gentlemen i applaud each and every one of you...

I only hope they add an enchanting table because i like my arrows frosted!

[gibonez 3633]

The damage that a bullet inflicts to an animal is pretty much based on three main factors...  How much energy the projectile has, how quickly the projectile can dump it's energy, and of course what specifically is destroyed within the permanent and "temporary" wound channels.  In terms of a 5.56, the faster it's moving the faster it dumps energy while also having more energy.  Gel tests show a relatively significant difference in terms of amount and rate energy is transferred between the m4a1 and the m16 as an example.  There is no doubt that the same bullet fired from a m16 is measurably more effective than the same bullet fired from a m4...  Velocity is massively important when it comes to terminal ballistics.

 

I understand and yea I agree that it should do more damage but what I am saying in terms of a human taking the damage and within the context of realism there would be really no discernible difference from a guy getting shot in the chest from an m4 or from a 20 inch varmint rifle.

 

for the sake of realism both wounds should be equally deadly .

 

Perhaps at extended ranges the velocity increase would be noticeable.

[akafugitive 244]

Deflection is changing the course of a projectile so that the greater part of the force is expended to keep the projectile travelling on a slightly altered trajectory.

 

As for armor piercing arrows, I'm sure they exist, though I doubt you'd find them in common hunting use. We need to drop the fringe cases when talking about this stuff. Yes, there is a crazy AR15 platform crossbow that shoots arrows over bolts and does some serious damage, edge case. Yes there are specific armor piercing arrows out there somewhere. Edge case. There are types of ammo that will shred through body armor. They aren't in common use, so I've left them out of the discussion.

Correct me all you want, Armor(Modern or Midevil) are all designed for what you just said, this is why they are not flat, they are curved to move the object, and/or force it applies away from the core of the body, and all have a weak-spot right at the centre when the deflection curve changes to match the opposite side of the body.

 

I wasn't even talking about armor piercing arrows... All arrows are armor piercing because they use a sharp edge to pierce...

 

Armor piercing ammo uses piercing and/or mass to defeat armor on the first shot(what arrows use both of, always)

 

Arrows have removed someone from the combat in far more cases in war then firearms have, but that does not mean I would sport a bow to a battlefield today given the choice.

 

Volleying an arrow makes it more lethal as it returns to earth, volleying a bullet does not have the same effect because it has no mass or sharp edge to dig itself in. Arrow volleys would punch through shields, steel armor and be a long wooden object sticking out your ass and shoulder at the same time. They took many soldiers wearing heavy suits of armor that were more resilient then a survivor in a hoodie out of combat in one blow constantly, they may not have been dead yet, but they certainly were not about to fight back.

 

 

 

Like Dr. Burd said:

 

1 shot to stop

1 shot to drop

1 shot to confirm the kill

 

If you don't follow that rule on many occasions an armed enemy will in fact get up and run away or be returning fire on you again, regardless if they die from their injuries 10 minutes later.

 

That also does not mean that 3 shots will kill a guy always, it means this:

 

First shot(s) on the core of the silhouette to stop it from being effective.

Second shot(s) more precisely placed with intent to remove the threat from combat.

Third shot(s) placed on the now mostly stationary target is placed precisely in a killzone for added insurance.

 

Sometimes this doesn't even take 3 shots, sometimes deviation needs to be compensated for and until it is confirmed you have effectively ended the threat of your target, keep lighting it up. Also shooting a guy 10 times all hitting non lethal zones won't do anything except make him bleed more and faster, yes the higher amount off blood loss will lead to them passing out and eventually die faster as a result, but will never become an instant death shot.

Edited April 22, 2014 by akafugitive

[akafugitive 244]

My biggest problem with the m4 doing so little damage is that eventually when the game gets a bolt action rifle in .223/5.56  it will be completely useless if it does the same damage as the m4 as it should since its the same caliber.

 

The 5.56 should incapacitate people with 1 solid chest shot. It should severely hurt people with a single stomach shot.

 

People really under estimate how nasty and damaging the round is.

 

The 5.56 is a flat shooting super fast cartridge that has excellent ballistics even out to 1000m.

 

The only area that the 5.56 kinda lacks in is how easily the wind is able to push the bullet in flight this is the sole reason why long range shots are hard with a 5.56 rifle, thankfully newer high grain boat tail bullets such as the 77 grain sierra match king fix this allowing for much easier shots at 1000m or more.

A longer barrel will effect it's velocity in a positive way, making the kinetic transfer higher and the chance for incapacitation on a single shot greater.

 

5.56 is a nasty round because it delivers such a vicious wound when it hits. In a lot of cases I would rather be hit by a 7.62, Atleast that holds together usually and just tumbles out the backside, lots of guys are known to get back up after being tagged by a 7.62(unless delivered by a sharp shooter). 5.56 may require 2-3 shots a lot of time to get them on the ground(and delivered in a second), they usually dont try to stand back up again though.

Edited April 22, 2014 by akafugitive

[gibonez 3633]

A longer barrel will effect it's velocity in a positive way, making the kinetic transfer higher and the chance for incapacitation on a single shot greater.

 

5.56 is a nasty round because it delivers such a vicious wound when it hits. In a lot of cases I would rather be hit by a 7.62, Atleast that holds together usually and just tumbles out the backside, lots of guys are known to get back up after being tagged by a 7.62(unless delivered by a sharp shooter). 5.56 may require 2-3 shots a lot of time to get them on the ground(and delivered in a second), they usually dont try to stand back up again though.

 

That 2-3 shot statistic is usually on enemy combatants right ones that are hopped up on drugs and or adrenaline ?

 

Would you guess that an unsuspecting sober person would get knocked out and incapacitated from a single 5.56 to the chest or gut ?

[akafugitive 244]

That 2-3 shot statistic is usually on enemy combatants right ones that are hopped up on drugs and or adrenaline ?

Would you guess that an unsuspecting sober person would get knocked out and incapacitated from a single 5.56 to the chest or gut ?

Yes adrenaline plays a big part in why it takes a few rounds to get an alert person to the ground, however someone unsuspecting may just collapse and get right back up after adrenaline kicks in if you don't deliver fatal enough shot(s) to keep them down. This is why you always double or triple tap a target on the first shot(marksmen/snipers excluded).

Someone hopped up on drugs is another story, expect to empty a mag, specially close range, they get little to no response from their nervous system, essentially pain won't to shit. They need to be shot until biology fails them, and are no longer able to advance because body functionality ceases to exist.

You use a 30m+ gap and try to have an obstacle in-between when doing approaches, because the average person(on adrenaline) could cross approximately 10-15m and deliver a fatal knife blow before they were shot effectively enough to put them on the ground. Someone hopped up on the wrong kind of drugs can cross about 20-25m before put on the ground, that is a lot more rounds put into the target.

Edited April 22, 2014 by akafugitive

[Valadain 270]

Correct me all you want, Armor(Modern or Midevil) are all designed for what you just said, this is why they are not flat, they are curved to move the object, and/or force it applies away from the core of the body, and all have a weak-spot right at the centre when the deflection curve changes to match the opposite side of the body.

 

I wasn't even talking about armor piercing arrows... All arrows are armor piercing because they use a sharp edge to pierce...

 

Armor piercing ammo uses piercing and/or mass to defeat armor on the first shot(what arrows use both of, always)

 

Arrows have removed someone from the combat in far more cases in war then firearms have, but that does not mean I would sport a bow to a battlefield today given the choice.

 

Volleying an arrow makes it more lethal as it returns to earth, volleying a bullet does not have the same effect because it has no mass or sharp edge to dig itself in. Arrow volleys would punch through shields, steel armor and be a long wooden object sticking out your ass and shoulder at the same time. They took many soldiers wearing heavy suits of armor that were more resilient then a survivor in a hoodie out of combat in one blow constantly, they may not have been dead yet, but they certainly were not about to fight back.

 

 

 

Like Dr. Burd said:

 

1 shot to stop

1 shot to drop

1 shot to confirm the kill

 

If you don't follow that rule on many occasions an armed enemy will in fact get up and run away or be returning fire on you again, regardless if they die from their injuries 10 minutes later.

 

That also does not mean that 3 shots will kill a guy always, it means this:

 

First shot(s) on the core of the silhouette to stop it from being effective.

Second shot(s) more precisely placed with intent to remove the threat from combat.

Third shot(s) placed on the now mostly stationary target is placed precisely in a killzone for added insurance.

 

Sometimes this doesn't even take 3 shots, sometimes deviation needs to be compensated for and until it is confirmed you have effectively ended the threat of your target, keep lighting it up. Also shooting a guy 10 times all hitting non lethal zones won't do anything except make him bleed more and faster, yes the higher amount off blood loss will lead to them passing out and eventually die faster as a result, but will never become an instant death shot.

 

Medieval armor is strategically rounded to deflect. Modern helmets are curved to deflect. Modern body armor, however, is just fitted. Kevlar is an extremely tight knit of plastic fabric that a bullet has difficulty penetrating, spreading a single point of impact across a wide area. It is built to catch bullets, not deflect them. Ceramic plates under the armor may add some deflection properties for rounds that penetrate Kevlar, but to my knowledge, these aren't in game and would effectively stop an arrow or bolt, so aren't really beneficial to the conversation.

 

There are armor piercing arrow heads. They have a smaller profile to force the sharp point through a smaller area of resistance so it will carry more force into the target.

 

I don't disagree with the rest. Yes, it can take a few shots to kill someone. Less shots, however, than arrows if placed in exactly the same spots. That was the only point I was trying to make.

 

-Arrows and bolts are less effective than rifle bullets.

-Arrows or bolts may be more effective than a single handgun round on a soft vest with a good shot, otherwise, you are going to be eating some lead.

[akafugitive 244]

Medieval armor is strategically rounded to deflect. Modern helmets are curved to deflect. Modern body armor, however, is just fitted. Kevlar is an extremely tight knit of plastic fabric that a bullet has difficulty penetrating, spreading a single point of impact across a wide area. It is built to catch bullets, not deflect them. Ceramic plates under the armor may add some deflection properties for rounds that penetrate Kevlar, but to my knowledge, these aren't in game and would effectively stop an arrow or bolt, so aren't really beneficial to the conversation.

There are armor piercing arrow heads. They have a smaller profile to force the sharp point through a smaller area of resistance so it will carry more force into the target.

I don't disagree with the rest. Yes, it can take a few shots to kill someone. Less shots, however, than arrows if placed in exactly the same spots. That was the only point I was trying to make.

-Arrows and bolts are less effective than rifle bullets.

-Arrows or bolts may be more effective than a single handgun round on a soft vest with a good shot, otherwise, you are going to be eating some lead.

You are right about Kevlar absorbing and distributing force and they do use less deflection then hard armor, but they do conform to the body using the natural curve of the torso to deflect the projectile away from the core, not towards it.

Ceramics may have less of a curve to them then a steel breastplate but that goes right back to what I said earlier, bullets are easier to deflect(unless we are talking large rounds). If you are going to wear soft armor with the plates you wear it under to absorb more tram a since plates slamming into your ribs or spine can cause just as much damage, soft armor is really only effective when tight to the body anyways or the path the bullet takes when entering the sheets of Kevlar will become unpredictable.

Modern armor was designed to reduce weight(mind you wearing a full set of 10x12 with the 6x8's get heavy after awhile) and make soldiers more resistant to being shot by firearms, since a guy holding a crossbow would just be filled with holes before he got a shot off.

Curious, in your opinion what would be more lethal and why? An m4 using 5.56×45 or an ak-47 using 7.62x39.

Edited April 23, 2014 by akafugitive

[Valadain 270]

You are right about Kevlar absorbing and distributing force and they do use less deflection then hard armor, but they do conform to the body using the natural curve of the torso to deflect the projectile away from the core, not towards it.

Ceramics may have less of a curve to them then a steel breastplate but that goes right back to what I said earlier, bullets are easier to deflect(unless we are talking large rounds). If you are going to wear soft armor with the plates you wear it under to absorb more tram a since plates slamming into your ribs or spine can cause just as much damage, soft armor is really only effective when tight to the body anyways or the path the bullet takes when entering the sheets of Kevlar will become unpredictable.

Modern armor was designed to reduce weight(mind you wearing a full set of 10x12 with the 6x8's get heavy after awhile) and make soldiers more resistant to being shot by firearms, since a guy holding a crossbow would just be filled with holes before he got a shot off.

Curious, in your opinion what would be more lethal and why? An m4 using 5.56×45 or an ak-47 using 7.62x39.

 

It really depends on the circumstances. Given exactly equal and perfect circumstances and bullet make-up, the 7.62 is bigger and will cause more damage. Getting the bullet to the target, however, is very important. So if you are asking which is more lethal overall, I'd probably say the 5.56 as it will be more likely to hit where you want to hit.

 

Of course, circumstances change everything. I've read that soldiers fighting in thick foliage tend to prefer the larger round as it is far less likely to deflect when passing through leaves. So overall, I'd say the difference between the two is probably pretty negligible and entirely up to circumstance.

[akafugitive 244]

It really depends on the circumstances. Given exactly equal and perfect circumstances and bullet make-up, the 7.62 is bigger and will cause more damage. Getting the bullet to the target, however, is very important. So if you are asking which is more lethal overall, I'd probably say the 5.56 as it will be more likely to hit where you want to hit.

Of course, circumstances change everything. I've read that soldiers fighting in thick foliage tend to prefer the larger round as it is far less likely to deflect when passing through leaves. So overall, I'd say the difference between the two is probably pretty negligible and entirely up to circumstance.

Yeah, what makes it good at passing through foliage and even defeat armor in less rounds is also what can make it less lethal. When a 5.56 hits a person the fragmentation of the bullet causes brutal internal damage. With a 7.62 it can hold together better and tumble then pass through the body, actually doing less internal damage. A 7.62 has the capability of winding the target and dropping it to the ground with a single shot, however the wound caused is usually less and will not keep the target out of action.

I use a 6.8spc carbine, pretty much the best of both worlds.

Edited April 23, 2014 by akafugitive

[Valadain 270]

Yeah, what makes it good at passing through foliage and even defeat armor in less rounds is also what can make it less lethal. When a 5.56 hits a person the fragmentation of the bullet causes brutal internal damage. With a 7.62 it can hold together better and tumble then pass through the body, actually doing less internal damage. A 7.62 has the capability of winding the target and dropping it to the ground with a single shot, however the wound caused is usually less and will not keep the target out of action.

I use a 6.8spc carbine, pretty much the best of both worlds.

 

Makes sense, I'm guessing you are talking military rounds. Private sector there are so many different make-ups of bullets, that I didn't really consider fragmentation. You can get FMJ, Steel Core, Hollow Point (a sort of JHP with a plastic tip for .223). I assumed the foliage issue had more to do with the mass of the round than the integrity of the round, but honestly, I've never been in combat, let alone jungle combat.

[akafugitive 244]

Yeah hollow points are great to put down unarmored targets fast and minimize collateral damage. I do hope we actually see them in game as well as the subsonic rounds.

I will admit a know a lot less about civilian firearms aside from the ones people use on other people, I don't really hunt as often as I would like anymore, and my skill comps are done with military grade firearms.

Edited April 23, 2014 by akafugitive

[eskamick 20]

7.62x39 and 7.62x51 have a harder time defeating body armor than 5.56....depending on the type of armor your talking about. Kevlar can't stop most rifle rounds. Ceramic armor is defeated by multiple hits regardless of caliber. Steel plates are more likely to stop 7.62 than 5.56. 

 

5.56 is most effective out of a 16" barrel at about 150 m with 55gr m193,100 m with m855. This is due to explosive fragmentation causing an immediate stop. Different bullets have different ranges that they fragment at but at any range a 5.56 will still punch a hole in you and possibly cause a stop due to a CNS hit or shock.

 

7.62 caliber rounds or heavier have a different wounding mechanic combining velocity with mass and creating large permanent crush cavities which ... well suck to have inside of you :D

 

Ballistics is a wonky science but it seems to work.

 

Also keep in mind that if the devs decided to push for a bit more realism in long distance engagements a 15,000 dollar AS50 that shoots 1.5 m.o.a. should be feared less than an 600 savage model 10 that shoots  under 1 m.o.a.

[gibonez 3633]

7.62x39 and 7.62x51 have a harder time defeating body armor than 5.56....depending on the type of armor your talking about. Kevlar can't stop most rifle rounds. Ceramic armor is defeated by multiple hits regardless of caliber. Steel plates are more likely to stop 7.62 than 5.56. 

 

5.56 is most effective out of a 16" barrel at about 150 m with 55gr m193,100 m with m855. This is due to explosive fragmentation causing an immediate stop. Different bullets have different ranges that they fragment at but at any range a 5.56 will still punch a hole in you and possibly cause a stop due to a CNS hit or shock.

 

7.62 caliber rounds or heavier have a different wounding mechanic combining velocity with mass and creating large permanent crush cavities which ... well suck to have inside of you :D

 

Ballistics is a wonky science but it seems to work.

 

Also keep in mind that if the devs decided to push for a bit more realism in long distance engagements a 15,000 dollar AS50 that shoots 1.5 m.o.a. should be feared less than an 600 savage model 10 that shoots  under 1 m.o.a.

 

You gave me chub by mentioning a model 10.

 

Now I must ask which model 10.

 

I am quite fond of the  Model 10 FCP SR shame they no longer make them.

 

 

Great value and a good looking gun.

[eskamick 20]

I think there are obviously better precision rifles out there the savage was just one of the cheapest. I think the 10fp is around $600 and still can pull under a minute groups.

[gibonez 3633]

I think there are obviously better precision rifles out there the savage was just one of the cheapest. I think the 10fp is around $600 and still can pull under a minute groups.

 

Yea the savage is an amazing bang for your buck rifle.

 

The accutrigger is just lovely too. Hands down better than the stock crap trigger on a remington 700 hate the xmark trigger.

[Crazy_Spider 235]

The question is in the title.  I'm seriously wondering why the cross bow is a one hit to the chest with it's 100ish ft/lbs of energy...  In comparison, the m4 takes several body/chest shots yet it has over 1,200 ft/lbs of energy?  Realistically an arrow/bolt wound is childs play compared to high velocity rifle wounds.

 

P.S. This is not a "buff m4" request, the m4 was simply used as an example.

   An arrow is large. So there is more stopping power. Honestly, in real life, you'd much rather be shot by a gun than an arrow. A bullet will just pass through you if it is powerful enough (normally is depending on what kind of bullet it is), while and arrow will split a massive wound in your chest on impact. It most certainly is NOT child's play.

[eskamick 20]

   An arrow is large. So there is more stopping power. Honestly, in real life, you'd much rather be shot by a gun than an arrow. A bullet will just pass through you if it is powerful enough (normally is depending on what kind of bullet it is), while and arrow will split a massive wound in your chest on impact. It most certainly is NOT child's play.

Stopping power...crap I hate that phrase.

 

The wounding mechanics of an arrow or bolt is based on bleeding. Deer usually don't just drop with a solid hit with an arrow or bolt. They do however die within a few minutes(depending on shot placement of course) You are more likely to get an immediate stop<---- with a rifle. Also a rifle will cause a larger wound channel than an arrow due to velocity.

[taco86 156]

   An arrow is large. So there is more stopping power. Honestly, in real life, you'd much rather be shot by a gun than an arrow. A bullet will just pass through you if it is powerful enough (normally is depending on what kind of bullet it is), while and arrow will split a massive wound in your chest on impact. It most certainly is NOT child's play.

Pretty much everything you've stated is comparatively wrong...  I'm not trying to be mean, but an arrow or bolt has no where near the stopping power of the vast majority of fire arms, most specifically HV rifles...  So yes, in terms of both KE transfer, and wound channels, an arrow or xbow is certainly "childs play" when directly compared to rifles.

 

  "A bullet will just pass through you if it is powerfull enough" this quote shows me that you simply do not have an understanding of terminal ballistics...  Generally the faster a rifle round is moving, the faster it will dump energy when it hits animal tissue...  This has been explained in detail within the thread, please go back and read the specifics if you're having trouble understanding.

 

P.S. A 7.62x51mm m80 round has roughly 30x more energy than your typical hunting xbow....  like so...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGYF8DTLcj4

Edited April 23, 2014 by taco86

[Skyelur 57]

Stopping power. A well-placed bolt will kill almost anything; but lethality does not equal stopping power. A bolt can sever an artery or pierce the heart or throat, but your fatally-wounded attacker still has plenty of time to dump dozens of rounds into you. In fact, they may not even realize how bad they've been hit; modern arrowheads are razor sharp and complete pass-throughs are common on deer sized targets with as little as a 50 pound pull. Your attacker is eventually brought down by blood loss- a process that can be instant or hours with a well placed shot.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Skyelur

[Valadain 270]

Pretty much everything you've stated is comparatively wrong...  I'm not trying to be mean, but an arrow or bolt has no where near the stopping power of the vast majority of fire arms, most specifically HV rifles...  So yes, in terms of both KE transfer, and wound channels, an arrow or xbow is certainly "childs play" when directly compared to rifles.

 

  "A bullet will just pass through you if it is powerfull enough" this quote shows me that you simply do not have an understanding of terminal ballistics...  Generally the faster a rifle round is moving, the faster it will dump energy when it hits animal tissue...  This has been explained in detail within the thread, please go back and read the specifics if you're having trouble understanding.

 

P.S. A 7.62x51mm m80 round has roughly 30x more energy than your typical hunting xbow.

 

This. The faster a projectile goes, the more a liquid body (the human body) reacts like a solid on impact.

[Whyherro123 2283]

Pretty much everything you've stated is comparatively wrong...  I'm not trying to be mean, but an arrow or bolt has no where near the stopping power of the vast majority of fire arms, most specifically HV rifles...  So yes, in terms of both KE transfer, and wound channels, an arrow or xbow is certainly "childs play" when directly compared to rifles.

 

  "A bullet will just pass through you if it is powerfull enough" this quote shows me that you simply do not have an understanding of terminal ballistics...  Generally the faster a rifle round is moving, the faster it will dump energy when it hits animal tissue...  This has been explained in detail within the thread, please go back and read the specifics if you're having trouble understanding.

 

P.S. A 7.62x51mm m80 round has roughly 30x more energy than your typical hunting xbow....  like so...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGYF8DTLcj4

Yep, pretty much. Arrows, bolts, and other subsonic projectiles effectively "cut" a hole in flesh. Supersonic (hell, not necessarily supersonic. A musket ball has relatively low velocity (1100-1200 ft/s with 120 grains of propellant), and it will still turn you into mince when it hits) ​liquefy flesh, due to the forces involved.