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.

  • 3357
    MEMBERS
  • 191126
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Squad Support Weapon   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 17-Jun by stancrist; 22130 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

5-Jul

graylion said:

and no suppressive fire?

If you want the ability to provide suppressive fire, why would you use rifles?

JesseH1234

From: JesseH1234

9-Jul

I do really love the idea of rifle grenades, on paper anyway they are definitely efficient pound for pound (and probably dollar for dollar-------little fuzed shells are pricey, and any kind of timed airburst thingy will be crazy expensive).  I think 40mm grenades are ~50% fuze by both mass and volume.  While obviously easier to hit with if you've got it, even a high velocity 30mm cannon won't punch through the kind of armor a good HEAT rifle grenade will.  Massed frag grenades, or the ability to put up a wall of smoke at a distance without calling anyone...... very attractive. 

My only potential beef/question on rifle grenades: can you actually get most troops to actually use them?  Is there a way to mitigate the recoil?  Or is everyone just a wimp but France, Japan, and some plucky Balkanites?  My impression is that while RGs are vastly more efficient in terms of payload delivered, most militaries have gone the 30-40mm tube route because rifle grenades are just so unpleasant to shoot. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

9-Jul

25mm OCSW round had both range an ability to penetrate armor  , Rifle granades have punch but are hard to aim at any real distance 

17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

9-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

It looks like the system you are showing is a crew served weapon.

Wouldn't a better comparison be to the 25 mm individual weapons ?

renatohm

From: renatohm

9-Jul

A modified Barrett rifle firing OCSW ammunition was tested but ultimately not adopted.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/12/05/potd-barrett-xm109-ampr/amp/

renatohm

From: renatohm

9-Jul

Nope.

OICW fired 25mm grenades but they were lighter and slower than the ones fired by OCSW - not unlike individual and crew served 40mm grenade launchers.

graylion

From: graylion

9-Jul

renatohm said:

pe. OICW fired 25mm grenades but they were lighter and slower than the ones fired by OCSW - not unlike individual and crew served 40mm grenade launchers.

Goodness. did the US ever envision a situation where logistics might be a bit stretched possibly? 

17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

9-Jul

The individual weapon was a low velocity 25 X 40 mm.

The crew served weapon was 25 X 59 mm. 

Like with the 40 mm grenades the bigger one has much better range.

I don't know if the 25 X 59 has a better grenade than the 25 X 40.

The grenade for the 40 X 53 grenade is more powerful than the 40 X 46.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

10-Jul

The 25x59 grenade was (is) much better. Higher velocity, HEDP availability, base fused, near double HE capacity.

The Barrett payload rifle (XM109) was a great solution to the perceived need that led to NGSW, but 1. it had a lot of recoil, noise and overpressure for the firer, 2. It didn’t look like what the Army thought they wanted at the time Barrett proposed it.

TOP