This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 14:00 by schnuersi
Latest 14:00 by graylion
Latest 13:39 by schnuersi
Latest 11/11/21 by gatnerd
Latest 10:00 by schnuersi
Latest 6:02 by autogun
Latest 26-May by roguetechie
Latest 26-May by schnuersi
Latest 21-May by nincomp
Latest 21-May by Barnowlgreen
Latest 20-May by Apsyda
Latest 20-May by Farmplinker
Latest 20-May by ramosausust
Latest 20-May by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 19-May by schnuersi
Latest 14-May by Farmplinker
Latest 14-May by autogun
Latest 13-May by Petrus_Optim
Latest 13-May by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 12-May by graylion
Latest 12-May by gatnerd
Latest 9-May by DavidPawley
Latest 9-May by taschoene
Latest 9-May by gatnerd
Latest 29-Apr by mpopenker
Latest 28-Apr by taschoene
Latest 28-Apr by autogun
Payload ! Just like the 20 mm MG151 versus the 15 mm version, or the 20x102 vs. the 14.5x114. If you want to increase the penetration while keeping the .50 "Form Factor", then the .460 Steyr or the .416 Barrett are the way to go (similar core length, but higher MV and better BC, so much more impact velocity).
In terms of ground use, what would be the primary goal/effect of increasing the payload? Would it be for improving the ability to set cars/technicals on fire over current .50? And is the current .50 lacking in that regard? Or would the payload offer some other benefit, such as improving the ability to shatter/smash through walls and concrete?
In terms of concrete penetration, is the rule similar to steel and ceramic, where core length is paramount?
Great info on SRTA/pressure on bolt life.
One bureaucratic snafu on the .61. Being over .60, that would make it a light cannon, rather than a machine gun by US military definition.
Other than that, it would be awesome!
Would it be for improving the ability to set cars/technicals on fire over current .50? And is the current .50 lacking in that regard? Or would the payload offer some other benefit, such as improving the ability to shatter/smash through walls and concrete?
Today, most APCs are already immune to 14.5x114 mm AP rounds on the frontal and lateral arc, so I don't think trying to increase the AP capability of a .50" is the way to go.
The .50'' SLAP is already existing, fielded and delivering 14.5 mm AP performance, but only the USMC is using it, and in limited numbers.
The .50" MP, on the other hand, is used by nearly every western armies, and gives decent AP capability + 1 g of HE payload and fragments. Those fragments are not going to penetrate any armor but are great to defeat cameras, sensors, antennas, RWS... located on every current APC, and also to effectively defeat "technicals" or suicide bomb cars.
The current way to "upgrade" the M2HB is to replace it with a 40 mm "High Velocity" grenade launcher, so a truly "high velocity" round that retain the external ballistics of the .50 BMG, but with a bigger payload (the .61" vs. .51" is a ~20% increase of the diameter and ~70% increase of the volume) may be the way to go (or the diameter should be increased to ~18 mm to carry enough HE to justify the upgrade, like the experimental 18x81 mm Tarantula).
The problem with the 14.5 mm / 20x102 mm / 30x113 mm upgrade is that those 3 rounds are using twice the propellant load of the .50" BMG, you simply can't expect to replace a M2HB with those without any side-effect.
for a 50 replacement, what are you thoughts on a higher powered round which is designed around a very potent Apfsds round. (all of it's ammo options are telescoped including API)
lets say the muzzle energy was 20k Ft Lbs....would the dart be much use against vehicles in realistic scenarios?
Yes, a full auto version of the IWS.
Seriously though, wouldnt an APFSDS with 20k ft lbs be more destructive than an API round?
I came across this truly superb article on the effectiveness of a 20mm AMR.
Worth checking out. Theres penetration fragmentation data, long range ballistics, recoil impulse data, surveys of current off the shelf systems, and potential design features of a future AMR rifle:
Theres 48 pages of great data in there, but the conclusion is:
Yes, that is an excellent presentation.
Regrettably, little appears to have progressed in the 12 years since I first read the article.
I’d like to see a 20mm AMR broadly adopted, not limited to SOF. Infantry and engineer platoons could benefit from the capability.
I would opine that the lack of progress is due to a 20m AMR being too much of a niche weapon, even for special forces.
For infantry platoons, a multi-purpose weapon makes far more sense, hence the USMC and Army choosing the M4 CG.