Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. IX

[Knaight]

they didn't have stirrups, using a different saddle design which gripped the rider at the waist, which held you on but didn't let you stand up in the saddle and bring your whole body weight into a blow, which made couching the lance diffcult (as it was likely to be ripped out of your hand before serious damage was done to the target), and it's harder to generate much force/"get your weight behind" a one handed stab when sat down/in the saddle , so holding it two handed allowed the pre stirrup horseman to get the leverage and grip to hold onto his lance while still getting a good thrust behind it. the late roman heavy cavlary did the same, as did the early Carolingian knights.

Chinese cavalry as well, for that matter. At least, the Chinese cavalry that didn't use imported mongol tactics - by which I mean bows.

[Eorran]

Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?

[Hawkfrost000]

Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?

I know the Desert Eagle .50 cal uses a mechanism that is very similar to that of a rifle. (It'l blow your hands off if your not careful.) But i doubt it fires the bullets that go into a Barett .50 cal.

DM

[Storm Bringer]

I know the Desert Eagle .50 cal uses a mechanism that is very similar to that of a rifle. (It'l blow your hands off if your not careful.) But i doubt it fires the bullets that go into a Barett .50 cal.

DM

it doesn't.

to my knowledge, thier is no mass produced pistol design that fires full size or intermediate rifle cartridges. a few nutjobs may have made one off pistols that can, but it;s not common, nor very practical. the recoil would be too much for you to aim properly.

[Autolykos]

Also, rifles use the wrong type of powder (it burns a lot slower than pistol powder). You'd waste most of the energy for a very impressive (and possibly dangerous) muzzle flash.

EDIT: That doesn't keep people from building abominations like this or this.

[The Boz]

The Desert Eagle is gas-operated, and I guess that's what Darius meant when he compared it to a rifle.
It fires .50 Action Express rounds, which are large, powerfu, but NOWHERE close to the .50 BMG fired by weapons such as the M2 or the Barrett M82.

[Yora]

"Nowhere" is the right word.

Spoiler

Show

While we are at it: Is there a reason for silver-colored cartridges instead of traditional brass ones?

[Joran]

Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?

Closest production model I can think of is the FN Five-Seven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-seven

It shares ammo with the FN P90, which is basically a submachine gun, but fires smaller caliber, higher velocity rounds.

There are also specialty handguns like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_Research_BFR

or the Contender handgun (break-open 14" long pistol) that can fire the Winchester .30-30 rifle round.

Gun nuts being who they are, you can just google a rifle round and the word "pistol" and you'll get pistols designed to handle rifle rounds. For instance, I typed 5.56 NATO (the round used in the M16) pistol and got a couple hits.

[gkathellar]

Could you wear brass knuckles and still be able to grapple or wield a sword effectively?

You couldn't do any grappling that required the use of your fingers.

For reference: there are "grappling aids" just as brass knuckles are "striking aids" — one example is the yawara.

I have a question, why did the parthian cataphracts wield their lances with two hands? What effect does wielding a lance with two hands have as opposed to wielding it couched?

Two arms are generally stronger than one arm.

[Conners]

I'm rather curious about the physics of weapons and armour. I'm not sure how to look that up though... I'd like to know what hardness, sharpness and velocity would be required of say a sword, to penetrate a chest-piece (metal, wood, leather, whatever). Not even sure if those are the correct terms, however...

[Yora]

That depends on a lot more factors, like the materials used in the weapon and the armor, the angle of the strike, the striking surface, the manufacturing quality of the equipment, and so on.

There have been diferent types of armor from different materials at different qualities made all over the world for thousands of years and the same thing holds true for weapons.

There have been some tests of people strapping pieces of armor to a post or board and striking it with a well aimed strike or shoting it at point blank range, and then measure the impact forces involved.
However, these circumstances would never apply in actual combat, as the target keeps moving and probably trying to kill you, so you never get the chance for such a well placed perfect strike or shot.
Also, many types of armor work best not by stopping a weapon, but by making it to glance off harmlessly to the side.

[Spiryt]

Allan Williams had done quite a lot of testing, I believe much of it is gathered in his The Knight and blast furnace book.

Here and there you can encnounter data from it:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot...vs-muscle.html

Not really sure how those energies were measured - total energy of 'attack' or actual energy delivered on target, but it's some decent survey in any case - showing some basic relations.

I'm rather curious about the physics of weapons and armour. I'm not sure how to look that up though... I'd like to know what hardness, sharpness and velocity would be required of say a sword, to penetrate a chest-piece (metal, wood, leather, whatever). Not even sure if those are the correct terms, however...

The thing is very broad topic, and there's no really way to look at it other than particular examples.

Much more important that sharpness or hardness, in the first place, will sword in the first place : it's cross section, weight, ridigity and general build.

Then comes the matter what exactly happens during attack, so wielder stabs the stuff with his sword. And wielder then obviously matter very much - his build, strength and experience with sword.

Later, what exactly armor itself is.

[Conners]

Hmm, I was afraid that'd be the case. It'd be much easier if we knew the physics, and could just work out a percent chance of the blow glancing off from a bad angle.


Changing the question: How much will the material of the weapon change penetration?

Let's say we take an iron-headed arrow, and try to shoot it through a shirt of steel mail armour. How much difference will there be if the arrowhead is common steel instead? Would there be much of a change if pattern-welded steel or damscus/wootz stuff was used?

Just wondering if it's a thing where, "Gasp! a sword of damascus steel!!" or, "Why bother with Damasucs stuff...? Really, you won't notice much difference from an iron sword. Don't let those Dwarves/Saracens sucker you in so quickly!"

[Spiryt]

Changing the question: How much will the material of the weapon change penetration?

Let's say we take an iron-headed arrow, and try to shoot it through a shirt of steel mail armour. How much difference will there be if the arrowhead is common steel instead? Would there be much of a change if pattern-welded steel or damscus/wootz stuff was used?

There's not really way to call something "common steel" and tell much from it.....

Steel arrowhead could generally achieve better results, because of generally greater hardness and ability to hold the edge and shape -compared to most iron used.

Hard to say how much difference that would make against mail shirt all in all.

As far as pattern welding goes or whatever goes - it's even harder to answer.

Depending on exact patterns of different material, micro structures, or whatever we're talking about, we would have very different things to talk about.

Generally, techniques like that would be very time consuming processes to create nice, reliable piece of quality blade, especially where one couldn't otherwise count on material having proper qualities.

I doubt that usage of it would make much difference in case of small piece of arrowhead - even if anyone would use such time consuming and usually expensive techniques for thing that is ultimately disposable, as arrow.

In short, RPG's and stuff love to form :

Bronze < Iron < Steel < Wootz < Ceramite < Phytoplankton

Chains, but reality obviously is not simple as that, probably from visible lack of molecules of "betterness" and "worseness" in Universe so far.

[Yora]

Isn't bronze better than iron for tools and military equipment? Why else would people have gone through the trouble of making bronze when iron was readily available?

[Eldan]

Mainly because iron smelting is more difficult and requires higher technological development.

Bronze can be melted in a relatively simple oven. If you have, say, a kiln for pottery, you can do bronze working. Iron requires complicated furnaces.

Or in other words:
Melting point of Iron: 1538°C.
Melting point of bronze: Around 950°C, depending on composition. Tin melts at only 231°C.

[Spiryt]

Isn't bronze better than iron for tools and military equipment? Why else would people have gone through the trouble of making bronze when iron was readily available?

Depends on iron, bronze and application.

But yes, generally bronze was actually much more available, and easier to work, even if generally expensive.

If someone was troubling himself with iron, he would generally go with steel - since during the general smelting processes, carbonizing iron to obtain something more desirable would generally be one of lesser problem, AFAIR.

[gkathellar]

I'm not sure how likely steel arrowheads would have been, in any case. Ammunition is disposable, so you want to use disposable materials that come in large quantities for it, generally speaking. Bronze and other metals that melted at lower temperatures would have been logical for making arrows, and if you were doing iron arrowheads you probably wouldn't have bothered with any of the complicated forging techniques required for good steel.

Bullets are rarely made out of iron for this reason, among others (weight being the other big one).

[Yora]

With the huge steel industry we have today, it would probably be cheaper to make bullets out of steel. No idea how much lead is produced, but it would probably be harder to get than low-quality steel.

[gkathellar]

Hm, I'm not sure. Steel-manufacturing remains pretty energy intensive, and actually casting the metal is really complicated and has a lot to do with temperature and timing. But then, I can't say with any certainty what metals or alloys form the majority of various types of bullets these days.

Still my understanding is that the other reason lead bullets are preferred is that heavier bullets penetrate better and have more predictable flight paths.

[Raum]

Bullets are rarely made out of iron for this reason, among others (weight being the other big one).

Bullets aren't made out of iron or steel because a) they don't work very well outside of shotguns (or sabot rounds) and b) they'd vastly shorten the lifespan of the weapon. It's got little or nothing to do with how disposable the metal is - for that matter, I think steel pellets are mandated in California to avoid adding lead to the environment.

You want bullets soft enough to be deformed by the gunpowder and engage the rifling in the barrel. If the bullet is too hard, you'll have to have a higher pressure explosion (which may well mean a heavier gun) to force the needed deformation and your rifling will be worn away much quicker.

[Spiryt]

With the huge steel industry we have today, it would probably be cheaper to make bullets out of steel. No idea how much lead is produced, but it would probably be harder to get than low-quality steel.

Depends, but probably not really. In Rome from Republic to Imperial period lead was pretty widely used, from pipes in aqueducts, roofs, small coins, anchors and other sailing equipment, sling bullets, obviously, to dished in some cases.

Up to this day guy that deals with pipes is called a plumber.

Many people were constructing rather clunky theories about fall of the Rome being causes by lead poisoining.

Lead with it's low melting point and relatively large quantities was quite often byproduct of smelting some other ores, AFAIU.


All in all, It probably wasn't harder to get that cheaper steel stuff.

[Mike_G]

I think steel pellets are mandated in California to avoid adding lead to the environment.

Steel pellets are mandated for hunting waterfowl in lot of places. The thing is, birds pick up stones to keep in their craw to help grind up food. If there are lots of lead pellets at the bottom of a pond, and a duck or whatever picks them up, it will get lead poisoning. Poison accumulates more and more the further up the food chain you get, so you have apex predators with huge levels of toxic heavy metals.

Lead pellets give better range and spread, but with steel shot, you don't poison your hunting grounds and you can more safely eat the fish and fowl from that area.

[Yora]

Real world question about weapons in fiction:

Did the cricket bat as a substitute for a baseball bat originate from Shaun of the Dead or did it have a reputation as a melee weapon in the 20th century before that?

I've seen it a couple of times in recent years, usually in tongue in cheek situations.

[Fhaolan]

Real world question about weapons in fiction:

Did the cricket bat as a substitute for a baseball bat originate from Shaun of the Dead or did it have a reputation as a melee weapon in the 20th century before that?

I've seen it a couple of times in recent years, usually in tongue in cheek situations.

It's a club that is used to hit things. :)

My dad tells me that when he was in school in England sixty years ago, they'd run around and hit each other and anything that came close to them with the cricket bats. And get yelled at for it, of course.

The first time I saw a reference to a cricket bat *specifically* as a weapon, rather than as a weapon of opportunity, was in 'Life, the Universe, and Everything' by Douglas Adams. Originally a Doctor Who script that was rejected.

[Yora]

Okay, so for brittish kids, that totally was a weapon of choice.

It's just that Brittain isn't such a huge exporter of such kinds of movies.

[bansidhe]

On the cricket bat question,Belive it or not I was just thinking this for the last few days!.

I distinctly recall reading a comic in my youth [70,s],where IIRC the hero was a British officer fighting the Japanese,his sidekick,a lad of about 13 or so,s weapon was the Officer,s cricket bat.
Referred to as "Clickey Ba'" in the pre PC stories,this kid could take out an entire Jap platoon with it,shattering katanas left and right![pre katana fanboy time too!]

I have seen it obscurely referenced in several novels,mainly in Robert Rankins,where its a bit of an in joke,but some others I cant recall too.

[The Boz]

With the huge steel industry we have today, it would probably be cheaper to make bullets out of steel. No idea how much lead is produced, but it would probably be harder to get than low-quality steel.

Chinese rifle and pistol bullets are typically steel. Their performance is pretty much the same as the norm, sometimes even worse because of flesh overpenetration or failure to tumble.

[fusilier]

Changing the question: How much will the material of the weapon change penetration?

8mm Lebel rifle ammo is solid brass, and everybody I've talked to who shoots it is really surprised by it's armor penetration! It's got about the same weight, energy, and shape as 8x57mm Mauser, so the material can matter a lot.

[Conners]

The arrows bit was merely for an example. I was just wondering how much difference the material could make to penetration and damage.

Consensus would be: "Not much" I'd suppose? Improved materials would mean a more durable weapon, though? That'd be enough reason to use better materials, so your sword will keep its edge better and not get broken in the heat of battle.


One thing to note with arrowheads, is that some of them were reusable. In Japan, they marked their arrowheads with their family symbol, to count how many kills they had gotten and to make it easier to find their own arrowheads. Japanese arrowheads weren't dispensable or made out of cheap metal... those things were monstrously designed, to cause all sorts of pain and bleed.