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.

  • 3360
    MEMBERS
  • 191202
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 552100 views.
EmericD

From: EmericD

31/5/22

stancrist said:

Okay, but I'm not seeing how that answers either of Nick's questions: "How important is the need to engage enemy targets at 600 metres?" "How often will we need to engage enemies at this range?"

That just mean that depending on your RoE, engaging enemy targets at 600 m (or higher) could be rare and few (like during WWII & Korea), or up to one quarter (25%) of the infantry engagements (like Afghanistan).

That also mean that in the first case, issuing a DMR is probably sufficient to deal with those "rare & few" events, but in the second case you will probably need a NGSW.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

31/5/22

EmericD said:

That also mean that in the first case, issuing a DMR is probably sufficient to deal with those "rare & few" events, but in the second case you will probably need a NGSW

Would a Full Power DMR & LMG paired with SCHV rifles be adequate for the 2nd scenario? 

For example NZ's configuration; 5.56 rifles (interestingly using 77gr) paired with a 7.62 DMR and 7.62 LMG:

To me, a similar configuration with NGSW seems better then a pure 5.56 or pure 6.8. 

6.8 LMG(s) and (optionally) 6.8 DMR, paired with 5.56 rifles for the rest. 

EmericD

From: EmericD

31/5/22

gatnerd said:

Would a Full Power DMR & LMG paired with SCHV rifles be adequate for the 2nd scenario?

The NZ weapon mix is very interesting.

80% equiped with 5.56 mm, 20% with 7.62 mm, and their DMR could be used full-auto, to provide limited long-range suppressive fire if necessary.

The team built around the 7.62 mm LMG could carry all the extra 7.62 mm ammo needed.

The Mk262 (from a 16" barrel) is delivering around 50% more KE at 600 m than the M855 (from a 14.5" barrel), providing better hit probability, but the impact velocity of ~410-420 m/s may fail to defeat LVL IIIA soft body armor.

Against unprotected opponents, this combination should be quite effective, at least on paper.

nincomp

From: nincomp

31/5/22

gatnerd said:

  I wonder whether this requires changing the gas setting, and if there is a dedicated setting for both types of ammo?

It is entirely possible that the same gas setting could be used for both.  What matters for rifle operation is the pressure in the barrel and characteristics of the pulse after the bullet passes the gas port.  With a given mass of propellant,  a faster burning rate will reach a higher maximum pressure sooner and transfer energy more quickly to a bullet.  This will leave less energy available in the form of pressurized gasses farther down the barrel at the gas port. 

The calculus changes a bit if SIG has managed to increase propellant energy density in the military cartridge somehow.  The general principle would remain the same but the total amount of energy would be larger.

stancrist

From: stancrist

31/5/22

gatnerd said:

Would a Full Power DMR & LMG paired with SCHV rifles be adequate for the 2nd scenario? 

For example NZ's configuration; 5.56 rifles paired with a 7.62 DMR and 7.62 LMG...

To me, a similar configuration with NGSW seems better then a pure 5.56 or pure 6.8.

6.8 LMG(s) and (optionally) 6.8 DMR, paired with 5.56 rifles for the rest.

That does not seem logical to me.  The only reason to field 6.8 NGSW is to give Level IV armor defeat capability to the rifle squad.

IMO, if the squad should have to fight enemy infantry equipped with Level IV armor, not giving the squad's riflemen the capability to defeat said armor is a bad idea, both for combat effectiveness of the squad and for morale of the riflemen.

nincomp

From: nincomp

31/5/22

stancrist said:

The only reason to field 6.8 NGSW is to give Level IV armor defeat capability to the rifle squad.

Another reason for the NGSW was increased effectiveness and longer ranges, whether against body armor or not. 

Everyone in the squad will need a weapon capable of incapacitating the opponent.  The question is at what range and with how many shots.  I believe that in many cases a mix of light SCHV and heavier NGSW will end up being preferred.  Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

I would think it more important that all weapons use a similar set of controls and share the same "muscle memory" movements.  I found it interesting that one of the SIG reps in a recent video stated that the reason that its Spear still has a rear charging handle is for that reason.  More accurately, I think that he stated that soldiers when under stress tended to reach for the rear charging handle, so it was maintained in the new weapon system for that reason.

stancrist

From: stancrist

1/6/22

nincomp said:

I believe that in many cases a mix of light SCHV and heavier NGSW will end up being preferred.  Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

The "golf bag" approach may seem not unreasonable, but I think it is rather unrealistic to expect it to be adopted.

And judging by history, I also think it unlikely that the US Army would mix 5.56 and 6.8 weapons in the rifle squad.

From the First World War up to the present, the SOP has been to use a common caliber for rifles and squad autos.

U.S. Army Rifle Squad (1918-2020) (battleorder.org)

\

If NGSW gets fielded as planned, I fully expect that US Army rifle squads will be equipped with 6.8 rifles and LMGs.

EmericD

From: EmericD

1/6/22

nincomp said:

I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable.

It's just 2x to 3x more expensive.

nincomp said:

Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense. 

It makes sense from a logistic / strategic point of view, and in a high-intensity conflict that's as important as more technical considerations.

graylion

From: graylion

1/6/22

EmericD said:

nincomp said: I think that a "golf bag" approach of matching the weapon mix to the mission is not unreasonable. It's just 2x to 3x more expensive. nincomp said: Although logisticians prefer everyone to use the same cartridge, it does not always make sense.  It makes sense from a logistic / strategic point of view, and in a high-intensity conflict that's as important as more technical considerations.

As we are looking more at "near peer" instead of COIN, these things need to be considered.

EmericD

From: EmericD

1/6/22

graylion said:

As we are looking more at "near peer" instead of COIN, these things need to be considered.

During WWI, France produced (and used) more than 8 billions of 8 mm Mle1886D cartridges. That's more than 100,000 metric tons of brass used only for the bullets.

During the height of the GWOT, I think that the US used around 1.2-1.4 billion of 5.56 mm ammo per year. At this time, a 5.56 mm cartridge was around 22-25 cents a pop, so that's ~300 millions of € of 5.56 mm ammo per year.

Most of those rounds were used for training, and we know from history that you need to fire more 7.62 mm ammo than 5.56 mm ammo to reach the same level of shooting proficiency (the historical trend is that you needed to fire less 5.56 mm ammo than 7.62 mm ammo to reach the same level of qualification).

With a full fleet of 7.62 mm rifles and a cost of 50 cents a pop, the bill would have raised to more than 800 millions per year (hypothesis: you need to fire 30% more round to reach the same level of proficiency).

With a full fleet of 6.8x51 mm rifles, the bill would be probably higher than 1.1 billion per year...

TOP