This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 21:45 by stancrist
Latest 16:27 by smg762
Latest 13:55 by stancrist
Latest 16-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 16-Jan by smg762
Latest 16-Jan by BruhMomento
Latest 14-Jan by David Finkel(ish) (mahjong54)
Latest 13-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 11-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 10-Jan by mpopenker
Latest 5-Jan by stancrist
Latest 31-Dec by smg762
Latest 27-Dec by bradys555
Latest 26-Dec by smg762
Latest 25-Dec by poliorcetes
Latest 25-Dec by autogun
Latest 24-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 23-Dec by gatnerd
Lol Springfield was the epicenter of the worst of the worst unfortunately Stan.
The shenanigans they pulled and the good designs they screwed us out of are legendary in their own right.
You can drastically outperforn a light 5mm, go with a .22 or 6mm thats only 45grains, with an ogive long enough to retain the BC.
if you can solve the barrel wear issues, you have a 3800-4300fps round. And no heavier than 556 with alum or poly case.
I noted that the 6mm unified, 30mm GAU, and some others have SUCCESFULLY used aluminum cases...how did they solve the problems i wonder
Regarding l/d ratio, the FN 15mm had really long bullets for their APDS....look at the pics.
I did, and that is indeed a 5-ish calibre long projectile. And I don't remember that project being cancelled for something other than the sudden lack of a need for a weapon that outperforms .50 BMG but isn't an autocannon yet. That sabot is a lot bigger relatively than you'd want for an infantry weapon though.
...the good designs they screwed us out of...
Which good designs?
In terms of protectig from hard impacts, a CT could be good, but what about just havig an extremely long neck, and cramming the whole bullet inside it.
Gettig a high BC is fairly easy because you can use a smaller caliber like 4.7mm and just make the bullet heavy ish. Like 48grains.
This is an obvious argument for velocity over bullet quality
Ok before i sign off heres my last bizzarre idea...how about a .22 (AR2 or FABRL shape)
with 4 slight fins or extensions on the bearing surface. This brings the caliber up to 6mm or 6.5mm allowing for extreme energies.
Again these fins are just as long as the bearing surface so they support the entire bullet in the barrel.
Obviously you need a wad behind it to seal the gas. And i dont know how these bore-riding fins would interact with the rifling
FAL or AR-10. FN MAG, which we finally adopted..... after the problems with the M-60 were mostly fixed. That's just the 1950s.
Yeah, but in the 1950s, the Army was looking for a lightweight rifle and machine gun.
The FAL weighs as much as the M1, and the MAG is almost as heavy as the M1919A6.
Sure, the FAL and MAG were better than the M14 and M60 in some respects, but how did Springfield "screw us out" of them?
As for the AR-10, certainly it was basically a much better design than both M14 and FAL, but ArmaLite screwed itself with that.
Sure, the FAL and MAG were better than the M14 and M60 in some respects
Stan, I believe that you misspelled "nearly all" as "some."