View Full Version : ...When size matters...
Feb 3 2002, 03:14
Lot of discussion about what should do how much damage, how big the actual round is, etc.
When I read that a .22mm is bigger than a .50 round, I realise that we must be talking two different 'units of measurement' here.
Someone able to give me a concise explanation of what the relationship between mm and caliber(?) is...
Feb 3 2002, 03:34
I don't know who said that a .22mm is bigger than a .50, but that information is incorrect. In fact, there is no such thing as a .22mm bullet that I'm aware of.
There are two common designations for small arms calibers, one using metric measurements (millimeters), and the other using imperial measurements (inches, or simply 'caliber').
Thus, a .50 caliber bullet has a half-inch diameter. One inch is 2.54 centimeters, so the .50 caliber bullet is equivalent to a metric diameter of 12.27 millimeters. Clearly, a .22mm bullet is not going to be bigger than a .50 caliber bullet.
When you get to artillery pieces and large naval guns, the term caliber refers to the ratio of length to diameter, but that's another story... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'm guessing you mean 22mm not .22mm? But that in itself is not a very ordinary calibre, 20mm, 23mm and 25mm are far more common. Those rounds ARE Bigger than .50.
.22 (of an inch) is a pretty low velocity round used in rimfire rifles, but it's certainly not as big as a .50 round.
It's kind of silly that US (normally) uses inches and Europe, Russia, China etc use MM. The patern certainly seems to be the same for weapons.
Feb 3 2002, 04:58
Yeah ... When are you gonna accept the damn metric system, Americans?! We're sick of dividing by 12!! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Feb 3 2002, 05:40
america made up there own measurments ahhahahaha!
metric system owns!!!
its way mush easyer
Feb 3 2002, 06:06
Let me do a few conversions here:
.22 = 5.56mm
.30 = 7.62mm
.38 = 9mm
.40 = 10mm
.50 = 12.7mm
...and so on....
Calibre means the diameter of the bullet and the corresponding rifle barrel that goes with it.
It does NOT mean any specific casing, let me clarify.
7.62 (Russian) and 7.62 (NATO) are two different rounds entirely, the name after the calibre is stating the type of cartridge used with the bullet.
In this case 7.62 Russian = 7.62x39mm (the casing is 39mm long) and 7.62 NATO = 7.62x51mm (the casing is 51mm long)
So, when someone refers to a .30 (or 7.62mm) calibre rifle they can mean a number of things, since there are a vast number of casings that use a .30 (7.62mm) bullet.
Feb 3 2002, 07:27
I agree, metric makes a LOT more sense. Evevn though EVERY math and science textbook in the US teaches (or tyrs to, anyway) the metric system, nobody seems to use it. It's a damn shame that we keep using an impossible sytem that causes plenty of problems. (You may remember the failure of that Mars probe a few years back.)
Imperial isn't American, imperial weights and measures were the standards legalised by the British parliament.
Anyways moving to OT http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Feb 3 2002, 16:08
I'm in high-school in america and they just started teaching us the metric system.....
I hate there crappy system
It really isn't difficult.....
1lb = 0.4535kg, 1kg = 2.205lb
1Yd = 0.914M, 1M = 1.094Yd's
1" = 2.54cm, 1cm = 0.394"
Although of course having an electronic organiser with a converter does tend to make things easier http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Feb 4 2002, 00:53
The imperial is very impractical. That's whats getting it down. I could not bare doing all my physics work in imperial units & therefore quit physics. I would have shut a whole career option out just cause i couldn't bare working with a units, very silly in my opinion.
please don't reply complaining that i "should have just put up with the imperial units" in the fictional situation
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.