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
  • 185626
    MESSAGES
  • 5
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

XM-25 here we go again...   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 9/11/20 by autogun; 15713 views.
autogun

From: autogun

13/11/20

I've thought for some time that rifle grenades deserve a closer look. A few years ago, I finished a presentation on grenade launchers (in which I suggested that the advent of advanced sights, air-burst systems and MV rounds seemed likely to result in a specialist grenadier in the section) with this:

If there is a specialist grenadier in the infantry section/squad, will other riflemen still use UBGLs? Possibly not: there is already resistance to carrying the weight of around 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs) of launcher permanently attached to the rifle, with many US soldiers reportedly preferring to carry it as an additional stand-alone weapon, complete with shoulder stock.

This suggests that there might be a case for considering the use of rifle grenades instead. These are less accurate, but typically carry twice the HE load and avoid the need to carry a separate launcher. The French are dedicated users of rifle grenades; shown here is their APAV40 DP in comparison with the M433 HEDP LV grenade.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

13/11/20

Ole 30mm Yugoslav M60 had 70g of Hexolite or similar explosive and all up weight of 480g 

Real use for rifle grenades was if remember correct 150m , beyond that accurate aiming was not great, but of course, if you had side-mounted optics sights or even ballistic computers as some have for Grenade launchers I don't think there would be much difference in range or accuracy.

But on the other hand GM-94 43mm has more HE charge than 30-40mm rifle grenade(although no fragmentation belt)

GM-94 43mm launcher was always fascinating ,' grenade 250g weight is close to 40mm but it has 130+g of explosive(vs cca 30g in 40x46) and with 85m/s muzzle velocity its also  faster , downside is recoil.

Russian KBP GM-94 43mm Multi-Role grenade launcher

GM-94 grenade launcher in service Russian counter-terrorism task forces Several VGM93 cartridges are available, as follows: VGM93.100 - Thermobaric (FAE) rou...

Red7272

From: Red7272

13/11/20

And given the multiplying effect of thermobaric it's effective radius is probably still as large as a fragmenting projectile. It's a big and heavy launcher as required by the round, but looks much more practical than revolver launchers which are even larger and heavier. 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

14/11/20

autogun said:

This suggests that there might be a case for considering the use of rifle grenades instead. These are less accurate, but typically carry twice the HE load and avoid the need to carry a separate launcher.

I think this idea has a lot of merit in light of emerging optics technology.

The Army is looking to go from IR lasers to IR Laser with integral range finder:

https://www.army-technology.com/news/l3harris-secures-order-for-delivery-of-storm-2-to-us-army/

Meanwhile, Matbock has come up with a simplified grenade launcher sight. The range to target is entered, and then the weapon is simply raised upward. When the right angle for the range is achieved, a light turns green, signifiing for a shooter to fire.

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/grenade-launcher-sight-socom

If the 'grenade launcher angle' feature of the matbock was added to the IR Laser range finder (seems like a pretty simple addition) then every soldier would essentially be equipped with a Grenade FCU for firing rifle grenades, with a minimal increase in bulk vs the current Ir laser sight + range finder.

The only problem I see - possibly insurmountable - is the switch to 100% suppressed use. At a minimum, this would require greatly expanding the diameter of rifle grenades to be able to slip over a suppressor. 

I also imagine firing a RG with a 6.8 would result in pretty insane levels of recoil. Plus whether a bullet catch system could contain 6.8 AP.

autogun

From: autogun

14/11/20

gatnerd said:

The only problem I see - possibly insurmountable - is the switch to 100% suppressed use. At a minimum, this would require greatly expanding the diameter of rifle grenades to be able to slip over a suppressor.  I also imagine firing a RG with a 6.8 would result in pretty insane levels of recoil. Plus whether a bullet catch system could contain 6.8 AP.

All good points.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

14/11/20

Recoil, in the end, is down to the mass of the RG and if you want less you just need to make them lighter, Old RG were quite heavy as they were initially meant for anti armor the non-overcaliber antipersonnel versions have tiny charge for given weight Only cca 70g of explosive for 500g grenade. The lighter grenade easier the bullet traps job ,There are walkarounds for absorbing the bullet by telescoping the trap and even by telescoping function compressing a secondary propellant that is discharged through the nozzles on the body but i don't think the RG is making comeback ,even tough it would make much more sense wen it comes to rifle launched drones or guided ammo.

The Grenade launcher is simply to entrenched ,and with 203 on the scrapheap the side opening ones can house longer payloads.

Altough when you look at PIKE its basicaly the size of a rifle grenade only constrained to fit the 40m Grenade launcher

This one looks like it uses missile seeker as aiming optic 

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

14/11/20

Just need more trap material. Or a mag of blanks for grenade launching.

EmericD

From: EmericD

14/11/20

Farmplinker said:

Just need more trap material. Or a mag of blanks for grenade launching.

Or just a "pass-thru" grenade, like the old FN "Bullet Thru(R)" rifle grenade.

Interesting enough, this concept didn't catch up because it was nearly impossible to make a good HEDP.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

14/11/20

If you read the rfi and know the backstory here you know that this is targeted for an American built xm25 redux (hk had to hand over the TDP) with a new revised optic based off either the fws cs fws i or the ngsar optic. Luckily the government owns basically all the IP for these options so it should be a straight up see who can build us x number of these for the best price and or something better.

The nicest part about that is the optics technology has gotten CHEAP in the years since this program stuttered out. (even the prototype STP ngsar optics are about $10k each for hand built low volume protos)

Also things like either ivas or envg b are already set up to interface with this and envg b runs $15k each while ivas prototypes are coming in at $10k each for the battalion set soldier touchpoints.

Between the DOD owning the IP and technology finally being of age to do this stuff in small cheap packages this is a program that should go fast.

I say should because we all know it probably won't, but on the surface very few of the usual roadblocks apply.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

14/11/20

An HEDP grenade not designed in the 70's would be plenty lethal. There's been preliminary studies done on this already. As an added bonus they might cost less too.

TOP