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.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189813
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 505909 views.
EmericD

From: EmericD

9-Jun

stancrist said:

Which means the FCS will not be a game-changer. So, does it really matter what caliber the next-gen infantry rifle is?

That's not exactly what I meant.

The experience we have with the FELIN system is that most of the system capability is useless 95% of the time, so issuing a FCS to every and all soldiers is both expensive and ineffective.

But, having at least one FCS per combat team is an interesting option, because from time to time you have opportunities to prepare your fire, so having one or 2 guys with that capability is a real boost, but that's the reason for Designated Marksmen.

My conclusion is that FCS are great, but one for the DMR and one for the AR is probably enough.

There are better choice than FCS for the rest of the team.

stancrist said:

I'm thinking perhaps the OICW program actually had a sound basic concept for a truly game-changing weapon system, but just botched its execution.

The firing sequence of the OICW needed around 12 seconds, other similar programs needed similar timeframe.

Imagine having to stay on the battlefield, in the open, without moving, for 12 seconds in order to be able to shoot...

Now, add the fact that even a ~1 lbs defensive handgrenade needs to explode at less than 5-7 m of it's intended target to be effective (and sometimes much closer), and then try to launch such grenade with a sufficient muzzle velocity so it could reach it's target in less than 6 seconds...

A Milkor MGL and a PDW are probably as good as any OICW, and even this combination is not widely used.

stancrist

From: stancrist

10-Jun

EmericD said:

My conclusion is that FCS are great, but one for the DMR and one for the AR is probably enough. There are better choice than FCS for the rest of the team.

I agree.  That approach seems more sensible to me than FCS for everyone in the squad.

But, I'm also wondering if it might now be possible to field a successor to the assault rifle.

Rifle bullets just seem so inferior to bursting munitions for most infantry combat scenarios.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said:  I'm thinking perhaps the OICW program actually had a sound basic concept for a truly game-changing weapon system, but just botched its execution.

The firing sequence of the OICW needed around 12 seconds, other similar programs needed similar timeframe.

Imagine having to stay on the battlefield, in the open, without moving, for 12 seconds in order to be able to shoot...

That is certainly undesirable.  I did not know that the OICW firing sequence took so long.  Surely that problem can be solved?

EmericD said:

Now, add the fact that even a ~1 lbs defensive handgrenade needs to explode at less than 5-7 m of it's intended target to be effective (and sometimes much closer), and then try to launch such grenade with a sufficient muzzle velocity so it could reach it's target in less than 6 seconds...

ToF ~3 seconds in this example:  https://youtu.be/161JT0WRVf4?t=355

EmericD

From: EmericD

10-Jun

stancrist said:

Rifle bullets just seem so inferior to bursting munitions for most infantry combat scenarios.

Then, maybe, we can design a high explosive round that could be fitted around the barrel of the rifle, launched with  ball ammo, without having to close the rifle gas port, so you could immediatly fire "kinetic rounds" after launching the HE round?

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

10-Jun

I have always like FN's 'OICW Lite' implementation with the original F2000:

The F2k had a purpose built compartment in the stock, which powered the computerized Fire Control Unit for the grenade launcher. And then reportedly it also had a direct view optic for the rifle. The FCU was intended to correct for both trajectory as well as also be able to program future airburst grenades.

It's a shame the package was never purchased or more widely marketed as its a very solid concept. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

10-Jun

EmericD said:

Then, maybe, we can design a high explosive round that could be fitted around the barrel of the rifle, launched with  ball ammo, without having to close the rifle gas port, so you could immediatly fire "kinetic rounds" after launching the HE round?

Heh, heh.  Cute, but no.  Too inefficient.  The soldier has to lug around a heavy rifle and its ammo, which reduces the number of HE rounds carried.

And is your proposed solution even a viable option with the XM5?  Seems like that big round thing on the muzzle would be somewhat problematical.

stancrist

From: stancrist

10-Jun

gatnerd said:

I have always like FN's 'OICW Lite' implementation with the original F2000

I rather liked it when I first saw it many years ago.  But I now think it's much too heavy (see my comment about rifle weight in my reply to Emeric).

More importantly, the "OICW Lite" is also too limited by the 40mm grenades.  It seems to me that bursting munitions need to be of larger caliber.

Think something much closer in size to this:

EmericD

From: EmericD

10-Jun

stancrist said:

Heh, heh.  Cute, but no.  Too inefficient.  The soldier has to lug around a heavy rifle and its ammo, which reduces the number of HE rounds carried.

So, what would be an "efficient" way to launch a ~1 pound HE warhead?

Maybe a lighter rifle, with lighter ammo?

stancrist said:

And is your proposed solution even a viable option with the XM5?  Seems like that big round thing on the muzzle would be somewhat problematical.

That big round thing is a QD variety, isn't it?

So, just use a QD suppressors that could be mounted on a standard 22 mm OD flash hider.

stancrist

From: stancrist

10-Jun

EmericD said:

So, what would be an "efficient" way to launch a ~1 pound HE warhead? Maybe a lighter rifle, with lighter ammo?

I'm thinking maybe a dedicated grenade launcher, with a separate PDW for CQB.

EmericD said:

That big round thing is a QD variety, isn't it? So, just use a QD suppressors that could be mounted on a standard 22 mm OD flash hider.

Is it feasible to launch rifle grenades with an SBR?

How well does the HK416FC shoot rifle grenades?

EmericD

From: EmericD

11-Jun

stancrist said:

Is it feasible to launch rifle grenades with an SBR?

You need to leave 10 cm between the gas block and the tip of the flash hider, which is OK for barrel length above ~12.5" (I think that's SBR territory).

stancrist said:

How well does the HK416FC shoot rifle grenades?

Launching rifle grenades was expressively NOT a requirement for the F-C version (we bought it as a PDW, not a carbine or a rifle).

We could have required the F-C to be able to launch rifle grenades (and mount also a bayonet for good figure), and finish the competition buying an "infantry rifle" (capable of launching rifle grenades and using a bayonet) with a 14.5" barrel, and a "PDW" (with the same capabilities) with a 12.5" barrel.

That would have been pretty stupid.

PRM2

From: PRM2

11-Jun

Two questions about the use of rifle grenades:

1. During World War 1 the British Army ended up using old SMLEs as dedicated grenade launchers, with their stocks reinforced by wire wrapping, due to the hammering that the rifle got when used as a grenade launcher. Do you have to monitor and possibly limit the number of rifle grenades fired from individual rifles?

2. You discussed the time to achieve a firing solution for OICW earlier. However, is it recommended that rifle grenades are used in conjunction with some sort of rangefinder/known range where possible, to improve accuracy especially at longer ranges?

TOP