This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 2:04 by gatnerd
Latest 3-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 3-Dec by nincomp
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)
I asked him about it and I didn't understand his explanation so I give up lol.
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?
Because (as I said in my response to your original post) the Mk47 is much too heavy and bulky for the purpose.
They want a weapon that, like the XM25, can be carried and operated by one man. That fact is clearly stated in the RFI:
The PGS is envisioned to be a man portable integrated weapon system that enables precision engagements to destroy personnel targets in defilade and in the open with increased lethality and precision compared to the legacy M203/M320 grenade launchers.
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?
I don't know if "arguing" is the right word.
A US designed HEDP 40 x 53 mm grenade needs 6.49 sec to reach 1000 m. What is the ToF of the 25 x 40 mm at this same distance? Even using the better FF of the 25 x 59 mm, I can't do better than 6.55 sec.
FYI -- This is the only statement in the RFI about time of flight:
After trigger pull, time of flight to target no greater than 3 seconds to 500 meters.
Trying to steal the limelight of the superior caliber by taking its name is the sort of underhanded tactic the Grendel cabal used to kill off the competition.
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...
Baloney. You said no such thing.
Here is what you actually wrote:
"We see this issue much more acutely with grenade launchers whether they are LV or HV so I'm going to use them as an example.
The US military right now is looking to buy something like the xm25 again because they need an HE flinger to service urgent targets up to 1000 meters. So why would they be looking for something with a much shorter time of flight and higher velocity even at the cost of drastically reduced explosive payload and blast radius when they have the fancy striker AGL with very advanced grenade sights which can reach out to way past 1000 meters Tony?"
FYI -- This is the only statement in the RFI about time of flight: After trigger pull, time of flight to target no greater than 3 seconds to 500 meters.
The ToF of the US 40 x 53 mm HEDP is 2.78 sec at this range (500 m).
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.
Ha. Sten556 is your sock puppet! I see it all now.
I wish I was that talented.
Yes, it turns out both trajectory and time of flight are important.
If you can't hit what you're aiming at (and even 40x53 needs you to direct hit if you're trying to bust things like VBIED's) your shots are essentially wasted.
But again, none of this was actually ABOUT the whole 40x53 versus xm25 thing... (That's an interesting topic on it's own though especially since the Chinese have done some interesting work in this area)
I love that rather than understand that an example is an example this forum's rather predictable response is to uselessly chase Their tails beating the example to death rather than Actually address the real issue I was bringing up.
Well played sirs, you have once again fended off someone's best attempts to have a useful and productive conversation.
I trust you are proud of yourselves.