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.

  • 3271
    MEMBERS
  • 185642
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW evaluation update   Small Arms <20mm

Started 31/7/20 by autogun; 16879 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

4/8/20

roguetechie said:

Getting snippy because someone ran the numbers and went lol nope... Let me see what's ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE within the bounds of physics and sanity and then gives it to people here for free to take a look at and discuss just makes you look like the cranky old troll you are far too often.

You're saying that it would be insane and outside the bounds of physics to plan for an automatic rifleman to carry 330 rounds of polymer-cased TV ammo, which is lighter than 7.62 NATO, but somehow it is perfectly sane and within the bounds of physics to plan for him to carry 1000 rounds of the much heavier SIG ammo?  Seriously?

If the automatic rifleman can't carry 330 rounds of TV ammo, how would any sane, rational person think the automatic rifleman can possibly carry THREE TIMES as much of the SIG ammo???

And BTW, who cares if Nat's numbers were free?  Free garbage is still garbage.

stancrist

From: stancrist

4/8/20

roguetechie said:

I'd much rather be stuck with a 20 round mag AR than Sig's piece of shit ammo which managed to be the worst performing, the heaviest, and from all indications we have would almost certainly be the most expensive to boot. That's a trifecta of suck right there and there's just no getting around that.

Actually, there might be a way around those issues:  The lightweight alloy case that Federal is producing for the NGCT program.

graylion

From: graylion

5/8/20

How would you build an asymmetrical squad?  2+6? 2+5? 3+5?

In reply toRe: msg 51
stancrist

From: stancrist

6/8/20

I'm still interested in learning why Nat and some other folks here think it's impossible for an automatic rifleman to carry 330 rounds of the TV ammo, but somehow possible for him to carry 1000 rounds of the SIG ammo?

Can anyone please explain?  Roguetechie?  DavidPawley?  Anybody?

manimal87

From: manimal87

6/8/20

Because SIGs entry makes more sense... Since it's an LMG with belt fed

With GDs entry.... You can't spare so many mags on a soldier ^^

  • Edited 06 August 2020 15:39  by  manimal87
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

6/8/20

We won WWII with a 20 round mag auto rifle, I don't see the problem. ;)

stancrist

From: stancrist

6/8/20

manimal87 said:

Because SIGs entry makes more sense... Since it's an LMG with belt fed

With GDs entry.... You can't spare so many mags on a soldier ^^

I don't know how many mags might be feasible for the automatic rifleman to carry, but it appears that you misunderstood the situation.

Those guys are saying that SIG's entry makes less sense, in part because its ammo is so much heavier than the ammo used in GD's gun.

Despite that, they also plan for the SIG gunner to carry over four times as much ammo as the GD gunner!  Which makes no sense at all.

If the GD automatic rifleman can only carry 220 rounds, it is beyond ludicrous to plan for the SIG automatic rifleman to be carrying 1000.

  • Edited 06 August 2020 16:26  by  stancrist
Greg (N9NWO)

From: Greg (N9NWO)

20/8/20

My basic take away.  Replace both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 with a new 6.8mm cartridge.  There has been talk of upgrading the M240 to .338NM (8.59x63) which would give it much of the advantage of the M2 .50 cal but with less weight and recoil.

As for the M4, it may not go away for the support troops.  However there has been some exploration of a PDW based on an M4.

Here is an example from Sig https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sig-mcx-rattler-sbr.html

Sig also has, so it happens, an upgrade kit for the M4 https://www.sigsauer.com/store/mcx-rattler-upper-assembly-5-5-300blk.html

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

20/8/20

You can't rechamber the M240 to .338 NM, nor would it be a good idea to if you could.

Enough of the memes.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

20/8/20

In addition to 240's not being rechamberable to 338 as quintus pointed out, i have an issue with the idea that 338 is anything resembling close to .50 bmg performance. You can flat do things with .50 like raufoss that isn't even close to worthwhile in 338.  

The one place that they are like .50's is in ammunition weight and bulk only without the performance increase commensurate to that added weight and bulk.

I also have another serious question for you. Why do you hate buffer tubes so much? Would a shortened buffer tube carbine be acceptable in your eyes?

I see a lot of people that seem to have a strange hate for the AR buffer tube and it honestly baffles me. 

I own and shoot a bufferless AR as well as various other bobbed tube and etc mutants. They're cool, and kinda convenient, but in the end for a combat rifle reliability and consistency often outweigh convenience.

There's about a hundred other upgrades updates and reworks you could do to m4/mk18's that seem to have astronomically better payoff and usefulness imo.

So hopefully you can help me understand why a folding stock and no buffer, and ONLY THAT, is your focus to the exclusion of other approaches.

TOP