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.

  • 3279
    MEMBERS
  • 186030
    MESSAGES
  • 16
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

20x102 mm cannons   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 22-Oct by Guardsman26; 5876 views.
smg762

From: smg762

31-Oct

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-Oct

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-Oct

roguetechie said:

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

smg762

From: smg762

1-Nov

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-Nov

Very much blasphemy.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

1-Nov

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

That's entirely sane.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

1-Nov

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-Nov

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
smg762

From: smg762

1-Nov

Do you think a modern attempt at .50 Ct would be more compact than the stoner designs of old?

Especially with compressed propellants.

And given that caseless 556 is literally half the size, i think the .50 is the one and only weapon that could benefit from caseless

Gr1ff1th

From: Gr1ff1th

1-Nov

A hypothetical Textron LWMMG with CT .338 would easily beat the competition, and volume doesn't matter anywhere near as much for a LWMMG-Type gun as weight does,  if it's being transported by dismounted infantry, for non-weight limited vehicles you do have a point about the bulk though

TOP