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.

  • 3333
    MEMBERS
  • 189354
    MESSAGES
  • 13
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

20x102 mm cannons   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 22/10/21 by Guardsman26; 6250 views.
smg762

From: smg762

31/10/21

In hindsight i think size of ammo is more important on a vehicle gun....this would favour a CT round or caseless.

The biggest flaw with the M2 is hit probability because theres no major recoil buffer to keep bursts on target.

Sighting is also poor....a modern HMG needs an integrated optic and better single shot precision.

How viable would a supressor be on HMGs...

Could one reduce the size of .50 via compressed powder

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

31/10/21

I would say CT is the opposite of the way you want to go on a 50 bmg gun since the current bmg rounds are already VLD, and caseless is just always a terrible idea.

There's not just one biggest flaw with M2 and recoil isn't really one of the worst even since they put m2's in soft recoil cradles fairly regularly.

I do however agree on the sighting thing in a way and it's one of the things that would be addressed on the design I have in mind. That said though, you do know that the M2 can fire in closed bolt single shot right?

You do also know that Carlos Hathcock had a world record longest distance confirmed sniper kill using an M2 with a unertl scope attached that stood from the Vietnam era well into the war on terror right?

You can suppress m2's people already do it, and any replacement gun would likely get a can too.

As far as the compressed powder thing the answer is yes, what do you think I was suggesting doing for the lightweight case high pressure 50 replacement I outlined?

Finally, it has come to my attention from your last post that you basically have no idea what the M2 is, what current ones are capable of, and what the issues may be. You should fix that.

You just suggested that the m2's chief problem is lack of accuracy when it's common knowledge that  Carlos Hathcock held the world's longest confirmed kill sniper shot record with a bog standard one for multiple decades... That's a pretty glaring oversight.

You're trying to "fix" something you don't actually know anything about and that's always going to go poorly

smg762

From: smg762

31/10/21

I was referring not to accuracy, but to poor hit probability in bursts...Socom found that the 338mg had far higher hit probability when bursting at 1500m

Given the 50s power, any replacement would benefit from a large recoil buffer with a spring that literally takes all the recoil...like a tank gun (or the g11)

M2 only recoils about an inch which isnt enough for my liking

The interest in CT was that it might let the crew carry more ammo.

What about a linkless system with some kind of tround to fit the rounds more tightly

  • Edited 31 October 2021 15:20  by  smg762
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

31/10/21

First off, I'm going to call bullshit on the socom thing since whatever comparison you're referencing either compared apples to automobiles or, far more likely, you have grievously misunderstood what the study was actually saying/are trying to apply what they were saying in ways they didn't mean.

On the recoil thing, considering that most 50's live in remote weapons stations all that matters is that the servos are up to the task.

The design I'm thinking of as the starting point for my ideal "replacement 50" was gas operated with a non recoiling barrel, had better hit probability, and was very manageable in a soft recoil cradle even on a tripod that wasn't heavily sandbagged.

There's a couple things you could and should do to said design in the revamp you'd be doing anyway which would make it even more of a pussycat to the point where what you're talking about just wouldn't be a problem.

Going to the lightweight TV style high pressure steel base polymer case neckless and an optimized link would save you all but the same amount, and possibly more, than going straight CT which would introduce a bunch more engineering issues to make work right and have decent operating life.

CT isn't a magic wand and definitely isn't right for every application, this is one where it would just be unnecessarily costly for debatable if entirely nonexistent benefit over what can be done with the "neckless" saboted solution. The problem with trounds and packing things more tightly is you wind up with a vastly more expensive complex and technologically intricate system for debatable gain. Essentially the tround packing density "improvements" look really good on paper but it's incredibly difficult to translate that into real world advantages.

In other words, real small arms engineers gave this problem their all and couldn't really make the paper gains work out in functioning designs so the likelihood of the people we have now succeeding where they didn't is basically zero.

This is a large part of why I favor the solution set I do, it's within reach of the actual people and capabilities we have currently. I'm not interested in theoretical best possible solutions here.

What I'm interested in, and you should be too, is something that can actually REPLACE THE M2. 

What this means from a practical and functional perspective is that we want to build a new workhorse gun that can chug away with minimal contractor level maintenance on top of tens of thousands of vehicles in all manner of conditions with pretty minimal support and etc.

Whatever it is needs to work and work well, have some room for growth, be minimally techno gimmicked up, and preferably work with all the supporting shit like ammo chutes and mounts and more we currently have.

If your 50 replacement can't do that it's less than worthless and useless, it's a pipedream that will never make it out of development for extremely good reasons.

stancrist

From: stancrist

31/10/21

roguetechie said:

What I'm interested in, and you should be too, is something that can actually REPLACE THE M2

smg762

From: smg762

1/11/21

What are the dimensions of your replacement....caliber, muzzle energy, barrel length and gun weight

Going slightly off topic, do you knkw the core diameter of .50 or 14.5?

And are there any materials that are heavier than steel but still affordable (not DU or tungsten)

  • Edited 01 November 2021 1:36  by  smg762
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

1/11/21

Very much blasphemy.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

1/11/21

So you want me to fully design a replacement caliber and gun for a hypothetical conversation?

That's entirely sane.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

1/11/21

smg762 said:

In hindsight i think size of ammo is more important on a vehicle gun....this would favour a CT round or caseless.

For ammo cans / belts, cartridge thickness seem to be the bigger issue than cartridge length when it comes to maximizing capacity. 

So a CT .50 would likely have worse capacity for its RWS ammo box then a conventional case.

L-R: ARES .50 TARG [.50 CTA], US .50BMG Type 10 SALVO, US .50BMG hypervelocity test, US .50BMG hypervelocity test (same project), US .60 aluminum case Ball, Belgian FN BRG-15 15.5x115mm TP-T

https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/experimental-heavy-machine-gun-and-autocannon-cartridges/44113

At least here, we would see a serious reduction in rounds per RWS box for .50 CT vs .50 bmg brass, even if there was indeed substatial weight reduction.

This could explain why we haven't seen Textron pursuing a CT option for the .338 LWMMG program or a .50 CT as a potential M2 replacement. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

1/11/21

gatnerd said:

smg762 said: In hindsight i think size of ammo is more important on a vehicle gun....this would favour a CT round or caseless.

For ammo cans / belts, cartridge thickness seem to be the bigger issue than cartridge length when it comes to maximizing capacity.  So a CT .50 would likely have worse capacity for its RWS ammo box then a conventional case.

Quite right.  If smg762 is concerned about ammo capacity, CT ammo is not the way to go.

gatnerd said:

This could explain why we haven't seen Textron pursuing a CT option for the .338 LWMMG program or a .50 CT as a potential M2 replacement.

I think that's an unlikely explanation, seeing as how the 5.56 and 7.62 CT rounds are fatter than conventional ammo.

The more likely reason is simply lack of demand.   Users are not seeking a new .50 caliber, so Textron has no motive to develop .50 CT.

  • Edited 01 November 2021 16:08  by  stancrist
TOP