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.

  • 3278
    MEMBERS
  • 185967
    MESSAGES
  • 8
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 319435 views.
Gr1ff1th

From: Gr1ff1th

26-Oct

I meant when you read Emerics comment reporting the results of his neckless ammo experiment (He said it was 3-4 MOA) and then comparing it to the "USAMU Tester", and yes In an earlier post I attached an image of the draft requirements about the MOA requirement, it seems to be about 1.7 MOA

Msg 7519.1734 deleted
stancrist

From: stancrist

26-Oct

Gr1ff1th said:

yes In an earlier post I attached an image of the draft requirements about the MOA requirement

Yes, I saw that image.  However, it is a draft of a request for proposals, not a requirements document.

The RFP lists "desired goals" -- a brief summary of the main performance and characteristics they hope to get -- but doesn't go into detail.

The requirements documents I have seen went into much greater detail, and specified "threshold" (i.e., minimum acceptable) and "objective" (i.e., what they hope to get) performance.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

26-Oct

We definitely know his accuracy claims about the GD entry are wrong since guns and ammo just did a feature on their gun and is talking about 1 moa consistently including flyers.

5.2 kg though with an MRDS which is a big oof.

Unfortunately we don't get to see it's insides in the article.

So between someone pointing out the black Vienna sausage thing and this, at best we have another 6.8 spc grade USAMU guy if he was AMU at all.

As someone just old barely old enough to remember fairly reputable gun guys swearing that Glocks and other "Plastic frame guns" were going to prove to have horrible longevity any day now in the era I cut my teeth in, it's starting to look like the hordes coming out against "plastic casings" are pretty much just this generations grey beards bitching because it's new and scary and they don't like it.

The problem being, the gun industry is a very small place dominated by perception not actual reality so these disparate angry old men could genuinely fuck up a good thing.

EmericD

From: EmericD

26-Oct

Gr1ff1th said:

I meant when you read Emerics comment reporting the results of his neckless ammo experiment (He said it was 3-4 MOA) and then comparing it to the "USAMU Tester", and yes In an earlier post I attached an image of the draft requirements about the MOA requirement, it seems to be about 1.7 MOA

Two things :

- After firing the neckless round, we loaded the same bullet with the same powder load in a conventional brass case, and fired those rounds from the same gun. While the accuracy was improved, the difference was not very significant.

- One problem with the "USAMU tester" comment is that both Textron and True Velocity rounds are put in the same basket, but the TV round is pretty conventional in the way it sit in a properly designed chamber.

Gr1ff1th

From: Gr1ff1th

26-Oct

Thanks for the primary source response Emeric, this has really cleared up any doubts surrounding the supposed accuracy issue, As I said before, I am not a personal believer in this theory, the post was to encourage discussion in this forum to get to the bottom of this, and it seems like we have

Gr1ff1th

From: Gr1ff1th

26-Oct

Rouge, I think your point about the hordes coming out against "plastic casings" will only prove to be more true as time goes on as this whole discussion has evidenced, the similarities are very obvious to previous evolutions in firearms and ammo design and their detractors (Glocks in your time, and TV/CT Ammo in mine), in addition it is really great news that neckless designs are indeed 1 MOA capable, this certainly has positive implications for the use of any future 5.56 + 7.62 neckless designs in existing DMRs and Sniper Rifles. And finally, does the GD rifle really weight 5.2KG!, that does not bode well for either the SIG or the Textron's weight 

nincomp

From: nincomp

26-Oct

If I recall correctly, Emeric's neckless 5.56 was fired in a rifle with unmodified 5.56x45 or .223 chamber.  The TV neckless is designed to be shot with a chamber optimized for it.

There are essentially two different "neckless" concepts being discussed on this site, and the older one dates back a decade or more.  This is the one that Emeric has mainly discussed which is intended to permit longer-ogived bullets to be fired in existing weapons.  The 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 cartridges in normal brass cases are limited to relatively short ogives.  In Emeric's "retrofit" design, the neck is removed to allow the longer ogive of a more streamlined bullet to reach completely back to the shoulder of the cartridge.*   Unfortunately, this means that the full-diameter shank of the bullet must travel a significant distance (the distance formerly occupied by the neck material + original freebore) before it becomes supported by the rifling and bore.  We had suspected that there would be an accuracy penalty, but only recently has Emeric had time to actually test real world examples.  It is possible that future optimizations, including some to the projectile shape, might increase accuracy.

The second neckless concept is the one being used by TV.  In this case, the barrel is optimized for the cartridge, with the chamber's throat being moved back to permit a more normal jump to the lands.  This style of neckless cartridge should be significantly more accurate.

* At one point, when moderate-recoil General Purpose Cartridges (GPC's) were a major topic on this forum, I had suggested that a  lower-recoil GPC-style cartridge could be shot from a standard 7.62x51 weapon.  The cartridge would be neckless, permitting the use of a higher-BC 7.62 projectile and less propellant.  The thought was that the lighter, lower recoiling neckless round would be able to match energy of a standard NATO 7.62 round at long range (800m or so).  As it turned out, I was not the first person to think of the idea, and Emeric had already applied for a patent on it.

stancrist

From: stancrist

26-Oct

roguetechie said:

...guns and ammo just did a feature on their gun and is talking about 1 moa consistently including flyers.

5.2 kg though with an MRDS which is a big oof.

A big oof, indeed. 

Thanks for the info.  I don't have access to G&A. 

Is it possible to shoot 1 moa with a MRDS, or did they have a different sight installed for the accuracy test?

PRM2

From: PRM2

27-Oct

I've found the cheapest way to get access to G&A is through an app on my tablet called 'Readly'. It costs about £9 a month here and has saved me a shed load of money and waste of paper in not buying loads of car, motorcycle and aviation magazines, which would only be read once. They have back issues of G&A going back to the end of 2014 and also have a few other firearms related magazines. You can normally get a deal for the first month for free to see if you like the magazine selection. The disadvantages are you don't get a permanent copy and loose access when the subscription stops.

TOP