This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 12:20 by stancrist
Latest 6:11 by EmericD
Latest 4:19 by graylion
Latest 2:52 by schnuersi
Latest 14-May by Farmplinker
Latest 14-May by autogun
Latest 13-May by Petrus_Optim
Latest 13-May by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 12-May by graylion
Latest 12-May by gatnerd
Latest 12-May by nincomp
Latest 9-May by DavidPawley
Latest 9-May by taschoene
Latest 9-May by gatnerd
Latest 29-Apr by mpopenker
Latest 28-Apr by taschoene
Latest 28-Apr by autogun
Latest 24-Apr by taschoene
Latest 24-Apr by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 22-Apr by stancrist
Latest 22-Apr by gatnerd
Latest 20-Apr by roguetechie
Modern stuff from 7:00 onwards
You can mount an ACOG on a Minimi, but you can't expect to easily zero the scope with an open bolt / full auto LMG, or that the scope will keep it's zero every time you change a belt.
I'm curious how the new FN Evolys will effect what we can expect as far as LMG accuracy? It has both the monolithic top rail, ensuring a consistent optic zero, and also reportedly has a free floating barrel and accuracy of 1.5-2.5moa. Plus the hydraulic buffer to reduce recoil dispersion.
"The DM151 is "slightly" better than the M993 and could defeat most level IV at a minimum range of 200 m (when fired from the SCAR-H PR)."
Thats very impressive and surprising; the Chinese $100 Level IV was stopping the Lapua 248gr AP485 .338 Tungsten at 200yd.
What do you think is causing these data disconnects? Is it that the tungsten loads Buffman has tested are pretty mediocre vs what is currently out there? Or is that these latest crop of Level IV plates he's testing against are unusually hardy? Perhaps both?
For the Level IV plates you / Europe tests against, are they Level IV plates where its a ceramic solid plate backed by soft IIIA kevlar vest like the US ESAPI? Or more 'stand alone' plates where its ceramic glued to a 15mm+ UHMWPE plastic backer, as used by the Chinese and others?
The difference in penetrating kevlar (a dense fabric) vs UHMWPE (a solid plastic) was one thing I could think of that would explain these wildly different results.
I didn't say that the RoF of the HK was magical, just that the sustain fire capability of a properly engineered assault rifle is 2-3 times higher than that of the M16A1, which is enough to think about the interest of keeping a 7 kg belt-fed 5.56 mm weapon in the squad. Back in the '60s, the Stoner M63 did already much better than the M16A1. I think that with the exception of the first series of the G11 firing the 4.7x21 mm, every assault rifles of that area had better sustained RoF than the M16A1.
My problem with your conclusion here is that cookoff limits are very noisy things to collect data on, and you're comparing two different tests separated by multiple decades.
Now, like, do I fundamentally disagree? Well I have no data contradicting it, and it feels like an exaggerated, but largely correct conclusion to me, sure. The 416 has a gigantic radiator and in other tests that's been demonstrated to definitely help. So I'm not trying to refute you (you don't have to accuse me of being in Colt's pocket this time!). Where I would draw the line is in assuming that the M4 has the same cookoff limit as the M16A1 (that doesn't appear to be true), and in the kind of bizarre insertion of the ARX-160 into this assessment, when that rifle has nowhere near the size of radiator that the 416 has, nor does it have the same direct mounting system.
What is certainly true is that the radiator appears to be the significant factor here, not anything else (cyclic rate would also affect it quite a bit). An IMR or URGI or whatever would probably keep up well enough for the 416. Throw in TV ammo, and I sincerely doubt you're looking at a worrisome situation with any of these rifles.
And, for the record, there may be some idea around these parts that I like, hate the HK416 or something? I don't. What I specifically lobbied against was pure-fleeting the M27, which is a very early variant of the 416, and which the USMC made it very clear would not be subject to changes (although maybe they eventually will upgrade them), and which would cost, like, seriously, an insane amount of money to do. I even made a list of recommended changes to the M27 that I thought the USMC, if they chose to go that route, ought to make. But, of course, I do think URGI was the better solution overall (crankshaftgate aside).
If CT ammo is short enoufhh to fit in a P90 style mag, it would make a great IAR....each guy could have 40 round mags.
And the SAW guy could have extended 50 rounders.
How tall and wide is a CT 6.8....
The 6.8 CT cartridge is almost as long as a 7.62 NATO round, and looks to be just slightly fatter.
If my calculations are correct, a 30-rd P90-type 6.8 mag would be as long as a 50-rd P90 5.7 mag.
Which means that a 40-rd 6.8 mag would be about 2.5" longer, and a 50-rd mag about 5" longer.
A top-mounted mag eliminates most of the rail space, severely limiting what optics can be used.
Your proposed 6.8 magazines would be so long that it's doubtful they could be stowed on the body.
And can you imagine how difficult and awkward mag changes would be, especially in the prone?
The P90-type magazine works fine on the P90. The P90-type magazine on a rifle or IAR, not so much.
ALSO....this vid shows a slam and go belt box and it can interchange with normal.mags.... or am i missing something
I may be wrong, but I don't think that is a "slam and go" belt-fed.
That's really strange because I read that post and hit reply to it... LoL.
Forum software is haunted, like the moon.
So my biggest issue when talking about how a squad much less a platoon should be armed in anything other than the loosest how would I want to arm 6-13 dudes I was going to squad up with sense.
Im not convinced that I understand really well how a platoon or company should or even DO operate. I've been doing some reading about it but it's not the kind of second nature to me it would need to be for me to form really good/useful thoughts about how armament affects tactics and vice versa.
I have lots of ideas and etc but I really haven't been trying to slot them into a mental model of how an army actually operates.
Hopefully at some point it will make more sense to me.
Yeah no I'm not talking about them dying to early super hot m855a1 and suboptimal magazine followers. I'm talking about them beating themselves to death with current production m855a1 which has had the peak pressures backed off from Early batches.
As far as "unproven allegations" go, HK can't cheat physics and physics plus the inviolable nature of Technical Data packages which are practically carved in stone by the finger of god himself as far as your hopes of changing them is the problem here.
Hiding behind the whole HK will lawfare anyone who dares publicly give anything but a glowing review to their shit doesn't change the fact that the HK 416 is going to have unacceptably high breakage rates with ANY newer than 2008 american ammo for a very specific reason. It's not even hk's fault totally, m855a1 etc isn't what the gun was optimized to shoot at the time of the contract win.
I hate that people try to hide behind HK being extremely poor sports about any criticism ESPECIALLY if it's justified!
We should be holding our defense industrial base to a higher standard rather than accepting mediocrity as our lot in life.
Edit to add: and no m4's don't have the same trouble with the ammo types (PLURAL) the 416 does, nor would you expect them to since the two guns do not have the same operating system.
Muh nuh uh is my second least favorite argument when it comes to anything having to do with HK.
Finally, the m4 and m4a1 also suffer from the whole inviolate tdp situation AND the whole the Marines kill every PIP/M4A2 initiative in the crib so they don't have to explain to congress why they're paying 4x as much per gun as the army or etc is now paying when the army gun is both better and cheaper. But even with that millstone around it's neck fact is m4a1's Don't have anywhere near the HK breakage rates with the same ammo.
My take on DM151 vs Lapua AP485 that buffman tested is that Chinese armor is above the minimum level 4 threshold and DM151 would not be succeesfull against it as well.
But AP485 is relatively oldfashioned AP with relatively large caliber penetrator
Older nato AP seemed to focus on penetrating steel plate , and particulary some NATO 3.5mm steel target , prior to rise of jihadi mobile with improvised armor what were these mild steel targets supposed to represent?2 sheets of 50's car body panel?
Mr. T (MrT4) said:
But AP485 is relatively oldfashioned AP with relatively large caliber penetrator
AP485 seems to use a tungsten (metal) core, DM151 is using tungsten carbide core, that could make a huge difference against ceramic...