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
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 520871 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

17-May

roguetechie said:

Rifle and ammunition weight doesn't exist in a vacuum and I think that we're about to find this out in a big way.

It should prove interesting. 

I see they apparently dropped the original 210-round basic ammo load nonsense. 

That helps a little with soldier carry load, but at the expense of combat endurance.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

17-May

Yes, combat endurance is something that's a very key interest of mine.

In the case of the machine gunner load 4 100 round nutsacks is probably ok but the rifleman load seems pretty lacking to me personally.

In the case of machine gunners, the ability of 6.8 to turn cover into concealment versus the 5.56 m249 it ostensibly replaces is likely extremely worthwhile.

I personally think pairing 6.8 belt feds and DMR's with 5.56 carbines could be workable but doing both the rifleman and gunner seems like combat persistence will take a dangerous hit.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

17-May

End of the day the future is in the new optronics , 6.8 makes no sense if you don't drastically up the hit probability with optronics, but then again optronics alone would also drasticaly increase 5.56 and 7.62 effectiveness.

New upgrades to gear over the past 2 decades came with a considerable weight penalty,and the only weight they saved was by cutting the barrel down, even on bullpups its all 16in and shorter barrels. IT seems like today's soldiers even with 5.56 barely carry any more ammo than they did 7.62 in the past.

EmericD

From: EmericD

17-May

stancrist said:

Except for the caliber, the M16A2 was an almost completely different rifle than the M16A1.

That's what I wrote.

The US did adopt another rifle along with the (then) new 5.56 x 45 mm.

stancrist said:

You're wrong on both counts. a.  Like M193, the SS109/M855 is "just another loading" of 5.56x45 ammo. b.  The M16A1 can fire SS109/M855 ammo (but accuracy is unacceptable).

No, Sir, plain and simply.

Issuing SS-109 / M855 ammo to soldiers equipped with M16A1 would be a bad joke during training, but it would be lethal during combat operation.

As you know, soldiers, unlike some civilian shooters, don't use their guns only to make noise and entertaining videos on Youtube.

The picture you're showing could be misleading, as the dispersion depends on the temperature.

With air temperature above 32°C, you could stabilize the SS-109 in barrels with a 1-in-12" twist and see only a slight reduction of the accuracy.

With air temperature around 21°C, you will find the reduction of accuracy shown in the diagram.

With air temperature below 0°C, you won't be able to get all your shots in a 2 m x 2 m square target above 100 m.

"5.56 x 45 mm" ammo is defined by the STANAG 4172, what manufacturers do for civilian applications is of poor interest.

stancrist said:

Call it "self-fulfilling prophecy" if you like, but the fact remains that the only reason 5.56x45 was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber. The Belgians would never have developed the SS109 loading if 5.56mm had not been a US standard caliber.

Sir, no Sir.

When the SS-109 was selected, there was not a single US rifle (or weapon) able to use this ammo.

If the goal was "to adopt the standard US caliber", then NATO countries would have selected the M193 or the proposed XM777 (compatible with the M16A1), and they didn't.

All the tests were performed "against" 7.62 mm control weapons, and the SS-109 was the only SCHV cartridge able to defeat a "10 gauge" plate at a range similar to the 7.62 mm ball ammo (>550 m), all others fall short of that requirement.

The fact that it used the same case than the US .223 Remington was a wise move from the Belgium side, the UK followed a similar path with the 4.85 x 49 mm. By the way, some M16 were transformed to fire the 4.85 x 49 mm, it was just a barrel (and buffer) swap, just like the SS-109.

So, NATO adopted the round that delivered the best performance (by large and far) and the US adopted a new rifle to fire it, and history would have been similar in case of a UK 4.85 x 49 mm "victory". NATO would have adopted a new round, and the US a new rifle.

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

17-May

Given the failures of a lot of superscopes in the last decade, I don't have the highest hope for this new NGSW FC either. The French already mostly did the same thing with their Felin project, and we can see how well that went.

stancrist

From: stancrist

17-May

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: Call it "self-fulfilling prophecy" if you like, but the fact remains that the only reason 5.56x45 was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber. The Belgians would never have developed the SS109 loading if 5.56mm had not been a US standard caliber.

Sir, no Sir. When the SS-109 was selected, there was not a single US rifle (or weapon) able to use this ammo.

???  You lost me.  You seem to be objecting to my comments, but I don't see how your statement relates to what I said.  

Is there reason to think the SS109 loading would have been developed if 5.56mm had not been a standard US caliber?

EmericD said:

If the goal was "to adopt the standard US caliber", then NATO countries would have selected the M193 or the proposed XM777 (compatible with the M16A1), and they didn't.

At the time, 5.56x45 had been a US standard caliber for years.  M193 was the US standard Ball loading.

5.56x45 was adopted by NATO as a standard caliber.  SS109 was made the NATO standard Ball loading.

NATO adopted the same caliber as the US, but opted for a different loading.

ETA:  Note the caliber is the same for both the M16A1 and M16A2:  5.56mm.

EmericD said:

By the way, some M16 were transformed to fire the 4.85 x 49 mm, it was just a barrel (and buffer) swap, just like the SS-109.

a.  So you're admitting that I was right, that only a new barrel was needed to use the SS109 loading?

b.  How did the Brits manage to make a cartridge with ~0.2" greater OAL fit into the M16 magazine?

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17-May

The Felin dates from ~2007 per wikipedia; substantial progress in computing power, energy efficiency, sensors. and general miniaturization has occurred since then. 

For reference, the first Iphone was released in late 2007, to give a sense of how technology has progressed since then. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

18-May

electronics get  smaller all the time

You can buy of the shelf civilian scopes with a built-in laser range finder and ballistic computers for a while now and most new thermals have these features in form factors way smaller than Felin .

This is no super futuristic tech anymore, you can literally have similar scope to Vortex made by a number of OEMs today. I am actually somewhat surprised that Vortex NGSW optic offering is such a conservative design, fusion of quite mature commercial tech that was available 5y ago, not one that will be available in the next 5 years..* then again Vortex is hardly a top optics developer 95+% off their offerings are branded stuff made by Chinese, Philippine and Japanese OEMs and in some cases like their higher-end stuff literal finished Japanese OEM scopes get disassembled and reassembled in US with few US made parts added.

These days 4000$ buys you thermals with all the functions of the Vortex sight and then some in not overly large  form factor.

A couple hundred $ buys you chinese LRF red dots that come in small for factors ,barely larger than old Aimpont and clones. So technology is at the stage when widespread use of scopes with built in LRF and balistic computers is quite feasible , but the next stage that is already very doable ,link to electronic trigger is likely less likely to overcome military conservative thinking at least in mayor platforms.

EmericD

From: EmericD

18-May

Apsyda said:

Given the failures of a lot of superscopes in the last decade, I don't have the highest hope for this new NGSW FC either. The French already mostly did the same thing with their Felin project, and we can see how well that went.

Into a system that is fielded since ~2010?

But you're right that even if the FELIN system works "as designed" on paper, the troop acceptance of a 6+ kg IW is low, and we are currently working on a replacement of the FELIN sights with something much lighter.

EmericD

From: EmericD

18-May

stancrist said:

EmericD said:        stancrist said: Call it "self-fulfilling prophecy" if you like, but the fact remains that the only reason 5.56x45 was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber. The Belgians would never have developed the SS109 loading if 5.56mm had not been a US standard caliber. Sir, no Sir. When the SS-109 was selected, there was not a single US rifle (or weapon) able to use this ammo. ???  You lost me.  You seem to be objecting to my comments, but I don't see how your statement relates to what I said.   Is there reason to think the SS109 loading would have been developed if 5.56mm had not been a standard US caliber?

You wrote that "the ONLY (emphasis mine) reason 5.56 mm was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber".

I find this affirmation highly objectionable, because at the time of adoption of the SS-109, there was not a single weapon in US service that could use this cartridge for military service.

Had NATO adopted the US championed XM777, then yes your affirmation would stand, but NATO didn't select the XM777.

I can't say that I read all the official reports of this evaluation, but at least I read several kilograms of test reports and minutes of meetings, and no one ever mentioned the point that "the SS-109 is standard US caliber", because it was clear for everyone, including the US Army, that adoption of the SS-109 would be paired with the adoption of another rifle.

And they did exactly that with the M16A2.

Had NATO selected the UK round, the story would have been the same.

But the odds were slims as the XL64 "Individual Weapon" was a bullpup rifle, and the XL65 "Light Support Weapon" was box feed...smile

TOP