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.

  • 3271
    MEMBERS
  • 185621
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 283992 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Aug

I wonder how many rounds would need to be fired with the "bullet hose" concept in order to get at least one hit on an unprotected body part, at any distance beyond CQB range.  https://youtu.be/Vy4Nw08Jf_U?t=14

  • Edited 23 August 2021 13:20  by  stancrist
nincomp

From: nincomp

23-Aug

A "bullet hose" would certainly be most effective at close range.  Operators would probably be taught to move the weapon in small circles while firing (not unlike the movement I was taught to use when fighting a fire with a firehose).  

The difficulty in hitting an under-protected area is why I have expressed some doubts about infantry rifles being effective against opponents with good body armor.  I just don't know how realistic it is to attempt to defeat modern (and future) chest armor with an infantry rifle that resembles what we use now.  It would seem that relatively large explosive rounds with proximity fuses might be needed to assure enough shrapnel for disabling hits.  At this point, the HE effect may be more important.

I am reminded of a film critic's comment about the 1997 movie "Starship Troopers" in which human infantry fights insectoid aliens: "...it's inefficient to try to kill them with machinegun bullets when all it takes is a grenade and you can blow them right up real good." https://youtu.be/R6RV64Y2Ggs?t=140

I know that there have been a number of discussions on this site about having a "golf bag" of different weapons available for different circumstances, but it seems that the weapons needed to fight well armored opponents are different that those needed for more traditional infantry battles.

 

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Aug

nincomp said:

A "bullet hose" would certainly be most effective at close range.  Operators would probably be taught to move the weapon in small circles while firing (not unlike the movement I was taught to use when fighting a fire with a firehose).  

That does not seem like a viable option to me, if only because it violates the KISS principle.  The needed diameter of the circular movement would vary according to the target distance.  To attain proficiency with such a technique would require a far greater training ammo allotment and much more range time than infantry riflemen have ever had.

nincomp said:

The difficulty in hitting an under-protected area is why I have expressed some doubts about infantry rifles being effective against opponents with good body armor.  I just don't know how realistic it is to attempt to defeat modern (and future) chest armor with an infantry rifle that resembles what we use now.  It would seem that relatively large explosive rounds with proximity fuses might be needed to assure enough shrapnel for disabling hits.

I like the idea of HE airburst, but it also has a serious flaw as a potential solution to the body armor problem:  It is not a viable option for engagement ranges closer than the round's arming distance.

nincomp said:

I know that there have been a number of discussions on this site about having a "golf bag" of different weapons available for different circumstances, but it seems that the weapons needed to fight well armored opponents are different that those needed for more traditional infantry battles.

The "golf bag" or "arms room" concept has been implemented by special forces, but SF operators are able to shoot thousands of rounds per year in training.  That has never been the case with line infantry.

smg762

From: smg762

23-Aug

What would your thoughts be on an improved CBJ round in a p90 magazine. Obviously it's a bullet hose but what about accuracy.  I think if they lowered the sabotage to 6mm with a larger .18 bullet....it keeps it totally concetric

And as for the 6.8, could it's energy be improved with a polymer plastic bearing surface...in terms of less friction

  • Edited 23 August 2021 17:36  by  smg762
stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Aug

smg762 said:

What would your thoughts be on an improved CBJ round in a p90 magazine.

I doubt that effective range would be anywhere near acceptable to the military.

smg762 said:

And as for the 6.8, could it's energy be improved with a polymer plastic bearing surface...

I have no idea.

smg762

From: smg762

24-Aug

The performance would be far beyond the 6.5    it's a 4.5mm  bullet with 6mm ceeedmore enedgy.  33grains at 5500fps.

Probably loud too

stancrist

From: stancrist

24-Aug

5500 fps from the 6.5 CBJ???  neutral_face

smg762

From: smg762

24-Aug

No its an enlarged version of the cbj.

basically a grendel case wjich easily does 5500 wih 31 grain bullet. Im wonderig about things like noise and just being unpleasant to shoot.

Seeing buffmans recent vid of the tungsten 338 failing to penetrate,  im convinced that hyperspeed is a better approach

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

28-Aug

Lets see if this works:

TOP