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.

  • 3382
    MEMBERS
  • 193569
    MESSAGES
  • 15
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Exploring The Design Space   Ammunition <20mm

Started 25/7/15 by NathanielF; 172426 views.
NathanielF

From: NathanielF

27/7/15

autogun said...

 

On the subject of the SCHV - Badcow54 has been doing a very interesting analysis of suppression, taking into account previous experimentation and working out aural and physical impact factors to calculate an overall suppression index (which varies with range). This makes it very clear why 7.62mm MG fire is perceived by its users to be far more effective than 5.56mm fire. This will be included in the revised version of his article which should be up on my website in the next week or so.

 

 

That would be pretty interesting to see. I always enjoy reading Emeric's work, even if we don't always see eye-to-eye.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27/7/15

NathanielF said...

...the light 85gr bullet satisfies the Army's requirement for a round that can be used in training ranges. The Army has shown that they will accept combat rounds with lead cores (e.g., Mk. 262 being used outside of SOCOM) as long as those rounds are not being used for training. Great, so here's where you cheat. If more range is desired, additional loads can be introduced or brought out from stores that have heavy, lead-cored bullets in either OTM (for DMRs) or steel-jacketed FMJ (for SAWs/MGs) bullets to meet those additional requirements...

The problem with the above idea is that the Army has shown they want only one round for both training and combat.

 

NathanielF said...

This does mean there would need to be additional suites of tracers, etc...

Same problem as above.  The Army wants only one standard tracer, etc, round.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27/7/15

renatohm said...

NathanielF said...

the biggest factor here is additional magazine weight

Would poly mags change the argument a bit?

There's a good chance that a future rifle would use polymer magazines.  If so, then I don't see magazine weight being a significant issue.

More important, IMO, is magazine size.  The longer (front to rear) the magazine is, the worse the ergonomics, especially for soldiers with smaller hands.  The length is also critical in determining how many mags can be worn in chest pouches.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27/7/15

autogun said...

stancrist said...

autogun said...

...bearing in mind that MGs are always likely to have longer barrels than IWs...

Two words that should never be used -- "never" and "always"   ;^)

Basic English comprehension: "always likely to have" does not mean the same as "always have" - it's describing a probability.

Yup.  But is "always likely to have" even an accurate statement?

  M1 rifle, 24" bbl; M1919 machine gun, 24" bbl

  M14 rifle, 22" bbl; M60 machine gun, 22" bbl

  M16 rifle, 20" bbl; M249 machine gun, 18" barrel

  M4 carbine, 14.5" bbl; M249 machine gun, 14.5" bbl

renatohm

From: renatohm

27/7/15

Thanks for the detailed answer.

 

In short: life is compromise, and one has to make the optimal choices based on one's needs.

And as Stan points out, mag lenght is important in ergonomics, especially for warfighters with smaller hands, and for storing, for all warfighters.

 

Being a little pickier: do you have any idea how much volume is lost when using poly cases?

Msg 6327.41 and the next 1 deleted

What I would find interesting is a 7.62 round based on the existing case for a longer ogive projectile. Either by dropping the length of the case to about 45/47 mm and perhaps using a rebated rim case like the .284 winchester. Your .224 scaled up to 7.62 is looking around .27 and 9.8ish grams. An MV of 840 mps should be practical with the larger case at least. 

H_Minus

From: H_Minus

27/7/15

stancrist said...

M1 rifle, 24" bbl; M1919 machine gun, 24" bbl

  M14 rifle, 22" bbl; M60 machine gun, 22" bbl

  M16 rifle, 20" bbl; M249 machine gun, 18" barrel

  M4 carbine, 14.5" bbl; M249 machine gun, 14.5" bbl

Others you left out:

M16 rifle, 20" bbl; M60 machine gun, 22" bbl

M4 carbine, 14.5" bbl; M240 machine gun, 24.5" bbl

M4 carbine, 14.5" bbl; M249 machine gun, 18" bbl

  • Edited 27 July 2015 19:03  by  H_Minus
Msg 6327.45 deleted
TOP