Hosted by autogun
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 9:24 by nincomp
Latest 24-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 24-Jan by RovingPedant
Latest 24-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 21-Jan by autogun
Latest 20-Jan by stancrist
Latest 20-Jan by Red7272
Latest 19-Jan by Jeff (Jefffar)
Latest 19-Jan by Red7272
Latest 19-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 18-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 17-Jan by autogun
Latest 17-Jan by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 13-Jan by renatohm
Latest 13-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 11-Jan by pg55555
Latest 11-Jan by mpopenker
Latest 10-Jan by autogun
Latest 10-Jan by stancrist
Latest 5-Jan by Red7272
Latest 2-Jan by renatohm
Latest 2-Jan by TonyDiG
Latest 2-Jan by Mustrakrakis
Latest 1-Jan by graylion
Latest 31-Dec by renatohm
Latest 31-Dec by smg762
Latest 30-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 28-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 28-Dec by graylion
Latest 28-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 26-Dec by graylion
Latest 25-Dec by DavidPawley
Latest 25-Dec by renatohm
22-Dec
Hi i had an idea for a military cartridge in the .18cal range (4.65mm)
This would be given extreme, M4 esque energies from long barrels....and present a difficulty in stabilising the 47grn bullets.
Anyway to eliminate the inevitable barrel wear problems, i wondered if it would help to use the advanced modern stuff, like the hammer forged barrels on daniel defence guns.
I also considered sabots...im sure their poor accuracy in the 1980s tests was due to the very light projectiles. Ultimately i would require flawless 600m accuracy.
Quality control is the main issue with sabots.
So yeah, any thoughts....
My main question is about rhe barrel wear.....also, do these advamced materials make the barrel heavier than usual?
22-Dec
Diameter matches the MP7 round...4.65.
Length would.be around 25mm like the russian 545 or 224 valkyrie.
I dont think the l/d ratio would be related to barrel wear....other than bearing surface amount.
23-Dec
Well there is no reason to change unless the round does something special and no reason to go that small unless the reason is velocity.
One of Emeric's old copper projectiles was 6.5 mm and 6.8 grams for a BV of .235. Scaled down to 4.7 of so that gives us a BC of .164 and a mass of just over 2 grams. Now in a case like the .224 Valkyrie that gives scope for around 1200 mps though barrels will need to be a bit longer than the current fashion. No AP to speak of but it will be much flatter and with a shorter time of flight out to 800 metres or so. The only question is barrel wear.
23-Dec
Right. My energy requirement was 1100lbs (21 inch barrel approx)
With that energy, a 6.5mm projo would have awful performance. (or even a .22)
I did wonder how 4.6mm would fare compared to .20 or .19 cal, but the real thing i was wondering was about the barrel wear being reduced with advanced materials.
23-Dec
smg762 said:I dont think the l/d ratio would be related to barrel wear....other than bearing surface amount.
You're right that there is no direct relationship between a bullet L/D and barrel wear, but if you want to use a projectile with a ~5.4 L/D, then saboted bullet are simply not an option.
23-Dec
ok. I wasnt too keen on sabots anyway...but i heard they actually allow a longer l/d bullet than normal rifling.
23-Dec
smg762 said:ok. I wasnt too keen on sabots anyway...but i heard they actually allow a longer l/d bullet than normal rifling.
Nope, they have a negative impact not a positive one. Unless you have a sintered tool steel projectile which is coke bottle shaped and VLD, there is no point.
Even then a crimped on copper sleeve would be more accurate and practical.
23-Dec
Sabots allow a fin stabilised projectile which means you can have a higher L/D ratio.
Technically you can have fins on the tail of a full-bore projectile, but needs a longer tail/bigger fins to be effective. Or you go for deploying fins, which are a nuisance in large calibre and probably impractical in small ones
23-Dec
Perhaps perfect sabot açcuracy (in small arms) could be achieved if you tried to take the exact proportions of a tank APFDS, (projectile weight versus muzzle energy).....
..and EXACTLY scale them down.
Tank flechette penetrators are 4.5kg each....sabot is roughly 3kg...
I dunno the energies though. Perhaps someone who knows could then do the math and work out how much a rifle projo would weigh.
Clearly more than 10grains as used in the ACR trials
Problem is tanks have no weight targets to reach....everythings very heavy
To match those proportions would probably mean a package weighing similar to 308 battle rifles