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.

  • 3257
    MEMBERS
  • 184816
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 234227 views.
smg762

From: smg762

15-Sep

Going back to the NGSW or GP idea, could one not have a sig or textron sized gun in 6.8, and then have the gun easily switch calibers to say, a 5mm round.  This gives both the Hi and Lo ammo.

I think the robinson xcr could do this albiet with 556 and 762AK

stancrist

From: stancrist

15-Sep

smg762 said:

Going back to the NGSW or GP idea, could one not have a sig or textron sized gun in 6.8, and then have the gun easily switch calibers to say, a 5mm round.

I imagine that it very probably could be done.

It seems rather unlikely any army would do it.

  • Edited 15 September 2021 16:59  by  stancrist
smg762

From: smg762

15-Sep

Is it particularly hard for a gun to switch between one large round and then a smaller, 5.7x28 sized round....in terms of the mechanics.

Also i had a rather random question....the old ww2 Armour piercing capped rounds (apcbc) apparently boosted the abilities of non-tungsten penetrators....

Is this somethig that could work in a modern round...apparently they kept the bullet concentric...reducing the angle of penetration.

Also apparently they reduced the likelyhood of steel shattering... the steel cores of the ww2 guns would shatter at speeds of 2600fps or more. 

  • Edited 15 September 2021 17:45  by  smg762
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

15-Sep

Isn't... the "bottom cover" on the belt box?

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

15-Sep

Everyone who keeps trying to make belt fed automatic rifles, I am not going to list all of them.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

15-Sep

Going from 6.8 to something 5.7x28 size in one gun would be suboptimal, like extremely suboptimal.

You could possibly make it happen and it would be an excuse to do triple stack mags because they're kinda cool but it would be incredibly dumb.

Also a 5.7x28 sized round just wouldn't be militarily very useful.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

15-Sep

We can add Hungary and turkey both to the list!

I have pictures handy.

Personally though the most interesting foreign development I've seen in awhile has got to be the chicom qn202 pike clone and the Russian disposable underbarrel launcher and grenade development. They're both quite interesting.

Here's some more Belt fed rifles for you guys though. The Turkish one even comes in 7.62nato.

ETA: I know quintus actually has some doubts about these very light "squad level" belt feds and his uptime calculations do kinda support that so long as you can't reload them consistently faster than an m249 reload. The other issue is making one guy in your squad more heavily encumbered than the other members which presents issues of it's own.

If however you go to TV neckless cases or CT, and especially if you fix the link weight situation, along with something that if not slam and go is at least FASTER you do change the calculus quite a bit.

A lot of the disagreement here and in general comes down to how we want to operate everywhere from the squad level on up.

I personally don't buy "IAR THEORY" that you can or should replace volume of fire with precision fire at all times in all situations.

I fear that this is one of those ideas that only holds up in a constrained ROE COIN environment and would not necessarily be the best way to fight other types of conflicts we know we are facing.

At the same time, the biggest most pressing scenario we are likely to face (China) could result in situations where precision over volume has to be leaned on because we can't physically get enough ammunition into theatre to afford the high ammunition expenditures volume of fire would impose on the logistical train.

Logistics and production capacity are going to be incredibly important going forward no matter what we choose.

EwingGreg

From: EwingGreg

15-Sep

I remember reading something to the effect that Army told Armalite the Barrel they designed was too heavy, and Armalite told them exactly what would happen with the lighter barrel.   Surprise, Surprise, they were right.    Institutional Sabotage?

stancrist

From: stancrist

15-Sep

"Unfortunately, one of the biggest gaffes in a design that otherwise stacked up well against competing rifles was the inclusion of a composite barrel made of aluminum and steel. The composite metal, an untried design specified for the rifle trials by ArmaLite president George Sullivan despite strong objection from Stoner, burst during a torture test performed by Springfield Armory in 1957."

NRA Blog | A Brief History of the AR-10, the AR-15’s ‘Big Brother’

stancrist

From: stancrist

16-Sep

roguetechie said:

I know quintus actually has some doubts about these very light "squad level" belt feds and his uptime calculations do kinda support that so long as you can't reload them consistently faster than an m249 reload.

If Quintus' theoretical calculations support the notion that belt-fed MGs at the squad level are a bad idea, then his calculations are questionable, because they are not supported by reality.*

roguetechie said:

The other issue is making one guy in your squad more heavily encumbered than the other members which presents issues of it's own.

Is this really an issue?  This disparity has existed fir at least 80 years.  During the Second World War, automatic riflemen carried weapon and ammo loads weighing more than twice as much as carried by riflemen. 

And paratroop squads had the M1919 LMG, which is much heavier than the M249.

roguetechie said:

A lot of the disagreement here and in general comes down to how we want to operate everywhere from the squad level on up.

I personally don't buy "IAR THEORY" that you can or should replace volume of fire with precision fire at all times in all situations.

As I understand "IAR theory" the way that the USMC intends to employ it, it is not solely about precision fire.  It's also about distributing volume of (full-auto) fire to all members of the squad, instead of concentrating it in only three SAW gunners.  It remains to be seen how this "every man an automatic rifleman" will fare in battle.

-------------------------------------------------------

*Some internet experts argue for mag-fed automatic rifles at the squad level. 

In strong contrast, military professionals prefer to use belt-fed machine guns.

  • Edited 16 September 2021 4:48  by  stancrist
TOP