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.

  • 3346
    MEMBERS
  • 190043
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 520997 views.
EmericD

From: EmericD

15/12/21

gatnerd said:

I assume for the APFI, they'd be looking at Tungsten?

Yep.

gatnerd said:

And do you think the 6mm ARC with such a projectile would be viable for defeating Level IV? Or is it mostly for general barrier / vehicle penetration?

Not at 600 m, but I think that you could defeat some lvl IV up to 200 m with the 6 mm ARC (and the proper bullet, of course).

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

15/12/21

Pointyglass breakers seem kinda suspect, in my experience sniping tough glass at an angle you want your bullet with a flat tip for minimal trajectory change. This pointy solid just seems to offer less deformation than a jacketed hollow point when shooting through glass so can probably punch taught thicker glass, but its also deflecting much more randomly than flat nosed solid.

Swiss P Tactical -> glass breaker

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

16/12/21

Thats very interesting. A laymen such as myself would have thought pointy tips would slide through glass more easily and therefore be preferable, but apparently thats the opposite. 

I wonder if the same is true for pistol bullets - whether a flat point FMJ would be better through glass than a typical round nose FMJ? 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

16/12/21

Pointy tips penetrate better, but as you are never really hitting the glass at a perpendicular angle you want a flat tip for a predictable and much smaller angular deflection when the bullet gets through the glass, the pointy tip is far more unpredictable in terms of how it will deflect when going through glass which might not be that critical when shooting trough car glass as target is very close to the glass , but is quite important when shooting trough building windows where the target could be some distance away.

nincomp

From: nincomp

16/12/21

EmericD said:

The STT-15 rifle with the 18" Proof Research barrel, so they could probably make a direct comparison with the Seekins SP-10 they already use.

It appears that this rifle uses 5.56x45-width magazines.  It will be interesting to see if there are any feeding issues.  Occasionally this is still reported in the 6.5 Grendel forum that I follow.  Perhaps Hornady managed to eliminate the problem somehow with a combination of geometry and bullet choice.   If feeding issues are encountered, I wonder if anyone will bother to run trials with rifles built on the LWRC SIX8 platform.  Although the SIX8 was optimized for the 6.8 SPC, it has a magazine well that is wider and longer than a typical AR15.  

I find it interesting that the US's NGSW program concentrates on improving performance with new platforms and (relatively) high chamber pressures whereas the 6mm ARC goes the opposite direction and utilizes chamber pressures below that of current NATO military cartridges in order to use an older, existing platform.

I find it odd that so much emphasis is still placed on maintaining the bolt and barrel extension diameters of the AR15 when it is now a simple matter to manufacture larger, stronger ones.

stancrist

From: stancrist

16/12/21

nincomp said:

I find it interesting that the US's NGSW program concentrates on improving performance with new platforms and (relatively) high chamber pressures whereas the 6mm ARC goes the opposite direction and utilizes chamber pressures below that of current NATO military cartridges in order to use an older, existing platform.

I find it odd that so much emphasis is still placed on maintaining the bolt and barrel extension diameters of the AR15 when it is now a simple matter to manufacture larger, stronger ones.

None of that should be surprising. 

The US Army can afford to spend the necessary time and $$$ developing completely new guns and ammo.

The 6 ARC was derived from the 6.5 Grendel, a commercial endeavor created on a far more limited budget.

There is simply too little financial incentive to develop high-pressure loadings of 6 ARC for commercial sales.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

16/12/21

So far all the 6ARC mags i have seen are just 6.5Grendel mags .

Many are branded or rebranded Israeli e-lander mags. I havent seen any realy dedicated 6 ARC mags so far. 

nincomp

From: nincomp

16/12/21

There would be no need to "develop completely new guns."  Several companies have built versions of the AR15 with stronger bolts and barrel extensions: Colt, Olympic Arms, ARPerformance, and CMMG to name a few.  It is not very difficult, given the current state of CNC machining.   Heck, the CMMG "mutant" guns use an oversized bolt and barrel extension for the 6.5 Grendel and 7.62x39 and are in current production.   The 6mm ARC is designed around a weakness inherent in a 60+ year-old platform designed for a less powerful cartridge.  As an engineer, it is almost insulting that so little has been done to optimize something called the "Advanced Rifle Cartridge".  THAT is what makes it particularly interesting.   Note that I wrote 'interesting", not "unbelievable" or "shocking!"    Furthermore, the 6mm ARC is not even anything new, since it is in between the 6mm PPC and 6mm AR both in size and performance.   Those cartridges have been around for a number of years.

A variation of the SIX8 form LWRC with a stronger bolt and barrel extension shooting a shortened 6mm Optimum utilizing SIG high-pressure hybrid cases would be VERY interesting.  The 6mm ARC is a bit ho-hum in comparison.

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

17/12/21

nincomp said:

As an engineer, it is almost insulting that so little has been done to optimize something called the "Advanced Rifle Cartridge". THAT is what makes it particularly interesting

Developing a new cartridge for the existing platform is more or less like putting the cart in front of the horse

First you get a desired ballistic solution for your proposed range of scenarios. Then you design a cartridge for this solution, with desired weapons' features in mind. And only then you start designing weapons for the cartridge

At least, it should be done in that way, in theory

In practice, you get failures like 6.5 Gr or 6.8 rem Spc.

EmericD

From: EmericD

17/12/21

nincomp said:

I find it interesting that the US's NGSW program concentrates on improving performance with new platforms and (relatively) high chamber pressures whereas the 6mm ARC goes the opposite direction and utilizes chamber pressures below that of current NATO military cartridges in order to use an older, existing platform.

The goals were simply different.

The US Army wanted to achieve results that no other portable system could provide, so they needed something totally new.

I think that the 6 mm ARC started it's life as an answer to the question: "what would be the most effective round that could be fired out of a C7/C8 rifle/carbine?" 

TOP