Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 4:28 by EmericD
Latest 1:56 by stancrist
Latest 20-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 19-Sep by stancrist
Latest 19-Sep by stancrist
Latest 19-Sep by smg762
Latest 19-Sep by njb3737
Latest 18-Sep by JPeelen
Latest 18-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 18-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 17-Sep by graylion
Latest 17-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 16-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 14-Sep by smg762
Latest 8-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 7-Sep by EmericD
Latest 5-Sep by stancrist
Latest 5-Sep by RovingPedant
Latest 4-Sep by renatohm
Latest 4-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 2-Sep by stancrist
Latest 25-Aug by stancrist
Latest 22-Aug by stancrist
Latest 22-Aug by smg762
10-May
Excellent Stan, that 3rd image is perfect.
Edit:
Source:
https://www.army.mil/article/256697/ngsw_signifies_an_evolution_in_soldier_lethality
However this source gives different weight:
https://www.army.mil/article/256697/ngsw_signifies_an_evolution_in_soldier_lethality
8.35lb bare, whopping 9.8lbs suppressed:
Suppressor is unusually heavy, as the SIG SLX upon which it is based is 'only' 1.21lbs.
10-May
gatnerd said:Suppressor is unusually heavy, as the SIG SLX upon which it is based is 'only' 1.21lbs.
There is probably an error in the reported weight of the 7.62 mm SLX-QD.
https://www.sigsauer.com/slx-suppressor.html
The weight of the 5.56 mm "direct thread" and "QD" version are 1.08 lbs and 1.21 lbs respectively, but for the 7.62 mm both versions are given at 1.21 lbs, which seems strange, as QD versions are inherently heavier than direct thread versions.
1.46 lbs for an QD inconel suppressor that should survive full-auto fire and the muzzle pressure of the 6.8 x 51 mm round is not that heavy.
10-May
Good catch with SIG listing them both as the same weight, clearly and error on their part.
Then the image weights should be pretty accurate, or at least should not overstate the weight, which is what I was keen to avoid.
12-May
gatnerd said:Accuracy is everything, although short of someone pitching a grenade into that tiny firing port not sure if any grenade would be able to defeat that bunker.
Video of another assault on the bunker. Multiple grenades thrown into the entrance failed to neutralize the position.
The drone dropped two more hand grenades (@ 8:55 and 10:00 in the video below) a few inches from the firing port.
Shortly thereafter the Russians (There were a lot more than I thought!) abandoned the bunker, escaping via a rear exit.
@ 11:00 one Russki appears to fire three rounds at the drone, without hitting it. Infantry needs an anti-drone weapon?
???????? ????? ?????????? ?-2 (54 ????) ????????? ??????? ??????, ??? ???? ??????? ???????. ???? ?????????? ???????, ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????????? ??.?...
13-May
stancrist said:Infantry needs an anti-drone weapon?
I think thats one of the takeaways from the Ukraine war. Certainly need one more then they need a NGSW-R....
As for what that weapon would be, theres drone jammer guns, but that will likely not work on emerging AI / Autonomous drones. A proximity airbust M72 LAW would work on loitering quadcopters, but would be way too slow to deal with a FPV diving suicide drone.
...
In terms of grenades, we've seen a number of lackluster effect in various vids. I wonder to what extent that is older F1/RGD-5 style hand grenades being meh due to a limited number of fragments, vs frag grenades in general being meh in outdoor use?
13-May
Updated NGSW vs M4 graphic - alas had to use a 3d render for the M4, couldn't find one of the M4 w/ current PEQ15 + ACOG by itself.
15-May
renatohm said:4.5 pounds heavier, 10 rounds less - yikes!
what's that in real money? Also, clearly putting the rifle into rifleman