gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3370
    MEMBERS
  • 192323
    MESSAGES
  • 30
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 574136 views.
Sten556

From: Sten556

14/8/21

Doesn't matter, this proves this so called time of flight thing is not an absolute rule, therefore useless to compare weapon system or anything at all and should be ignored.

Sten556

From: Sten556

14/8/21

This should be posted every time any nerd that design cartridges and isn't a REAL SOLDIER posts their imaginary HVSC concepts. It will meant bigger guns and greater weight compared to the sensible solution of true intermediary bores.

In the words of the immortal Cris Murray:

"Someone recently sent me a CD-ROM that included information on how to design cartridges, oh God! Now we have geeks with computers who think they can design better weapons and bullets.  Akin to the numerous home design programs out there: Now anybody with a mouse can be an architect or anyone with a calculator is a rocket scientist. So it should stand to reason (following the same line of flawed logic) that now anyone should be able to design a better cartridge?  I’m a soldier and a gun-guy who has a computer, not a guy with a computer who thinks he’s a soldier."

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

14/8/21

Yes, fuck time of flight... The enemy will patiently stand there and wait 18 seconds for your 40x53 round to get there.

It's in the official LOAC right next to the provisions prohibiting bullets that Actually do their job.

stancrist

From: stancrist

14/8/21

roguetechie said:

Time of flight always matters.

That explains why no army uses mortars.

Oh, wait...

Sten556

From: Sten556

14/8/21

stancrist said:

That explains why no army uses mortars.

You could even say the long time of flight and huge drop are actual advantages to clear obstacles and even fire in non line of sight scenarios. A flat shooting bullet just can't do the same! Less is more.

stancrist

From: stancrist

14/8/21

EmericD said:

The development of the .264 USA received more "public coverage" than the .277 sibling, but generally when you are developing "two" programs you are talking less about the one you really push. So maybe the .264 USA was just the .277 umbrella.

Maybe, although that seems needlessly devious to me.  Besides, I have not seen any public statements or presentations -- about either version -- from anyone in the AMU.  All of the "public coverage" has been by private individuals like Tony, Nick, and Nathaniel.

So maybe there was more info published about the .264 USA simply because it was developed more than the .277 USA?  IIRC, it was about the same time frame that SOCOM began also looking at 6.5mm cartridges for rifle and machine gun.

EmericD

From: EmericD

14/8/21

roguetechie said:

Like, I get it, arguing in bad faith is your thing and all but you're genuinely giving Stan a run for his money today.

OK, so you answered to Tony that ToF was critical for hitting something, then you pointed out that the US Army wanted something like the XM25 and not the Mk47 as an example (when in fact the ToF of the XM25 is higher than the ToF of the Mk47), and I'm arguing "in bad faith"?

Please, next time just check your numbers.

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

14/8/21

You could have compared 40x53mm to 25x59mmB, and noted the velocity increase of 80 percent for the 25mm AGL. I wonder why you chose not to?

  • Edited 14 August 2021 17:37  by  QuintusO
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

14/8/21

Whether you're being disingenuous or not, Emeric, I've never known you to steelman your opponents. That really comes off as weakness in your arguments.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

14/8/21

<Stan>RFP & RFI are lies to cover breaching Hague iii, not what the reason for the request and the desired capability!  </Stan>

TOP