This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 6:21 by schnuersi
Latest 3:25 by gatnerd
Latest 3:21 by gatnerd
Latest 2-Dec by smmheart1
Latest 1-Dec by EmericD
Latest 30-Nov by Refleks
Latest 28-Nov by stancrist
Latest 26-Nov by stancrist
Latest 25-Nov by autogun
Latest 23-Nov by Farmplinker
Latest 23-Nov by Refleks
Latest 22-Nov by stancrist
Latest 17-Nov by PRM2
Latest 17-Nov by TonyDiG
Latest 16-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 16-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 15-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Nov by TarheelYank
Latest 14-Nov by JPeelen
Latest 13-Nov by DavidPawley
Latest 10-Nov by Lorrybaker
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 7-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Whether or not it is or is not "right" is a matter of opinion.
However, the convention of bore size = caliber is a reality.
What was it you said about the people who deny reality?
Or maybe the whole point of velocity being not so good because of the handcapty in weight, recoil, cost and complexity should be obvious. The go fast boys would want our troops carrying tripod weapon int combat because the muzzle velocity certainly makes up for it... that post exemplifies it perfectly the advantages of a sensible solution.
Are you going to explain why 7mm (.284" bullet) is the "ideal" caliber?
Maybe you should educate yourself more and read the work of Mr. Murray, he does that better than anyone else. But basically it's the ideal compromise of range, stopping power, recoil, etc for a rifle. It's the one size missing until now.
When Murray talks about 7mm being the ideal caliber, he's referring to .284" diameter, not .277" diameter.
So, if NGSW does get adopted, we will have a caliber that's smaller than his supposed "ideal" (7mm) caliber.
And yet my follow on comment is still dead In the x ring since we discussed this here when these articles first hit...
How is it that one of us works for an actual MOD and they're the one that's shockingly more badly informed?
We need something with oh I don't know between a 22 and 24 inch barrel that does oh let's say no more than 2600 fps and is let's just call it between 270 and 280 caliber.
When someone writes "something like an XM25", I have a bias to consider that he is talking about the XM25 or a close derivative with similar ballistics, not an imaginary weapon delivering imaginary ballistics.
And yet my follow on comment is still dead In the x ring since we discussed this here when these articles first hit... https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/news/army-grenade-launcher-xm25-cdte-punisher-weapon/%3famp How is it that one of us works for an actual MOD and they're the one that's shockingly more badly informed?
Where is the reference to the Mk47 in this article?
What I'm reading is a comparison between the XM25 capability and the M320 firing the 40x46 mm Low Velocity grenade, which is what I pointed out a few post above.
The entire grenade launcher example was deliberately meant to be as absurd and exaggerated as possible while still illustrating why time of flight matters.
This is what we've been arguing about right?
It's meant to illustrate how time of flight:
1. Is actually important
2. Only somewhat correlates to muzzle velocity
3. Because muzzle velocity only somewhat correlates to time of flight, it must necessarily mean that there is at least one other factor which affects time of flight.
4. There are in fact multiple other factors that inform a round's time of flight between the muzzle and a target.
5. Time of flight whether you're talking about mortars grenades or rifle bullets DOES MATTER.
This is why I picked 40x53 vs 25mm xm25. In that comparison you have all 5 of these points kinda more clearly shown in ways that are obvious to someone than you do in something like a rifle bullet.
So let's keep working with this 40x53 mk47 versus xm25 comparison because it's already here.
We can see that even though the US already has mk47's fancy sights and all they still for some reason want basically xm25 2.0.
The justifications listed pretty much talk about the fight from 1000 meters inward.
On paper the mk47 should already cover 1000 meters inward right?
Then why do they still want yet another thing that appears to cover only a small fraction of what mk47 covers?
At this point you brought up muzzle velocity which is not time of flight.
Because muzzle velocity does not actually = much less function as a passable stand in for time of flight, it took the entire conversation off the rails and now everyone is confused. (I will not apologize for saying that you missed the point entirely here and this is incredibly frustrating)
There is still a reason why they want something more xm25 like when they already have mk47 with the cool gunsights even though it would appear that an xm25 like thing will have vastly worse stats on paper. It has a smaller blast radius, can't reach as far etc etc and even worse is that just looking at paper stats like MV etc the xm25 appears to be basically the same thing only worse and more limited!
Yet in reality the xm25 and mk47 are different weapons that do entirely different things even though on paper they can at first glance appear to be broadly similar with the xm25 being all around worse and more limited.
The xm25 may start with the same or even less muzzle velocity for all that this matters in the slightest, it's trajectory and time of flight though are so different that you get much different performance from it all the same!
You can do things with an xm25 you just can't with a mk47 and the reverse.
This is why they started the process of potentially resurrecting the xm25 in 2020 even though they already have the mk47.
If time of flight and it's much more closely correlated than muzzle velocity factor of trajectory by extension really didn't Matter you just outright wouldn't even see calls for something more xm25 like to be procured when the mk47 is already being used.
Again I'll point out that In my initial post I deliberately said Im going to use this as an absurd example that illustrates my point wrt time of flight and this comparison does do exactly that.
Time of flight and trajectory don't even appear in the star blocks most people use to compare and contrast a given weapons system or caliber against another and thus in most people's minds these can't possibly be a major factor that could determine the suitability or unsuitability of a given gun or caliber.
This is outright wrong.
They are some of the bigger driving factors that can differentiate between things that appear similar on paper now but in reality are world's apart.