|
>>
|
No. 108085
ID: 9dcda2
File
154640232214.png
- (125.81KB
, 602x602
, fin stabilized sabot.png
)
>>108081
> Wouldn't smoothbores be a better solution
No. Tanks use smoothbore guns to accommodate the fin stabilized discarding sabot rounds. Rifling works really well to stabilize standard projectiles. I can't recall the name, but there was that company that put out smoothbore ARs with little nerf football shaped bullets.
> since the range at which such pistols are used is minimal
Accuracy is important. In a civilian defensive scenario, the saying goes that "There's a lawsuit attached to every stray round." Also, you don't always get to choose your engagement distance. Think about the police officers responding to the North Hollywood shootout.
> and you'd get the benefit of slightly higher muzzle velocity out of the same barrel length.
Pistols really don't have enough velocity to matter. You're throwing a chunk of lead that will impact a target and make a 9-12 mm hole in meat, probably break bones, and penetrate some light barriers. Really unless you hit something important like the heart, central nervous system, or some big arteries, it may not stop an attacker.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
Rifle rounds like 5.56 and 5.45 are entirely dependent on velocity to cause a secondary effect of fragmentation or tumbling once it hits a target. That's why rifle rounds leave a tiny entrance hole and a massive exit hole. (If they exit.)
Brass Fetcher: Discussion on Simulated Shot Lines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6noiXAFHAE8
https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06/why-id-rather-be-shot-with-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
|
