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.

  • 3332
    MEMBERS
  • 189325
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 477685 views.
JPeelen

From: JPeelen

20/9/21

I have no problem with your view that "HK is evil". Anyone who has read my opinions regarding the MG5 knows I am not HK's friend. On the other hand, facts should remain facts.

Just last week I listened to a presentation where a very experienced figure in small arms mentioned that you can say a lot against HK, but one of their advantages is literally "wading in fired cases" due to the very intensive testing they do.  

Your taking resort to mentioning alleged(!) indications(!) of "high breakage rates", totally unsupported by fact, is in my view misplaced and not in accordance with the view a large majority of experts in this field have about HK reliability. It seems, the not-invented-here syndrome has taken over. (Funny, due to HK basically only copying the Stoner design.) Mentioning "they die to M855A1" while the M4 variants suffered the same problem is also "economical with the truth."

Criticize HK as much as you like, but stick to proven facts.      

P.S.: It is of course possible to shoot every weapon to pieces if the maltreatment is harsh enough. But this says nothing about the real world combat quality of the weapon.    

  • Edited 20 September 2021 14:34  by  JPeelen
smg762

From: smg762

20/9/21

If CT ammo is short enoufhh to fit in a P90 style mag, it would make a great IAR....each guy could have 40 round mags. 

And the SAW guy could have extended 50 rounders.  The idea also works with a beefed up CBJ round.

How tall and wide is a CT 6.8....

  • Edited 20 September 2021 16:01  by  smg762
smg762

From: smg762

20/9/21

ALSO....this vid shows a slam and go belt box and it can interchange with normal.mags.... or am i missing something

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KwgcEnwS5EQ

stancrist

From: stancrist

20/9/21

I wish I could take credit for them, but no, they are not my creations.

They're from battleorder.org  battle order rifle squad - Google Search

  • Edited 20 September 2021 16:36  by  stancrist
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

20/9/21

EmericD said:

You can mount an ACOG on a Minimi, but you can't expect to easily zero the scope with an open bolt / full auto LMG, or that the scope will keep it's zero every time you change a belt.

I'm curious how the new FN Evolys will effect what we can expect as far as LMG accuracy? It has both the monolithic top rail, ensuring a consistent optic zero, and also reportedly has a free floating barrel and accuracy of 1.5-2.5moa.  Plus the hydraulic buffer to reduce recoil dispersion. 

"The DM151 is "slightly" better than the M993 and could defeat most level IV at a minimum range of 200 m (when fired from the SCAR-H PR)."

Thats very impressive and surprising; the Chinese $100 Level IV was stopping the Lapua 248gr AP485 .338 Tungsten at 200yd. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdRFYmPmetc

What do you think is causing these data disconnects? Is it that the tungsten loads Buffman has tested are pretty mediocre vs what is currently out there? Or is that these latest crop of Level IV plates he's testing against are unusually hardy? Perhaps both? 

For the Level IV plates you / Europe tests against, are they Level IV plates where its a ceramic solid plate backed by soft IIIA kevlar vest like the US ESAPI? Or more 'stand alone' plates where its ceramic glued to a 15mm+ UHMWPE plastic backer, as used by the Chinese and others? 

The difference in penetrating kevlar (a dense fabric) vs UHMWPE (a solid plastic) was one thing I could think of that would explain these wildly different results. 

Msg 7519.1613 deleted
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

20/9/21

EmericD said:

I didn't say that the RoF of the HK was magical, just that the sustain fire capability of a properly engineered assault rifle is 2-3 times higher than that of the M16A1, which is enough to think about the interest of keeping a 7 kg belt-fed 5.56 mm weapon in the squad. Back in the '60s, the Stoner M63 did already much better than the M16A1. I think that with the exception of the first series of the G11 firing the 4.7x21 mm, every assault rifles of that area had better sustained RoF than the M16A1.

My problem with your conclusion here is that cookoff limits are very noisy things to collect data on, and you're comparing two different tests separated by multiple decades.

Now, like, do I fundamentally disagree? Well I have no data contradicting it, and it feels like an exaggerated, but largely correct conclusion to me, sure. The 416 has a gigantic radiator and in other tests that's been demonstrated to definitely help. So I'm not trying to refute you (you don't have to accuse me of being in Colt's pocket this time!). Where I would draw the line is in assuming that the M4 has the same cookoff limit as the M16A1 (that doesn't appear to be true), and in the kind of bizarre insertion of the ARX-160 into this assessment, when that rifle has nowhere near the size of radiator that the 416 has, nor does it have the same direct mounting system.

What is certainly true is that the radiator appears to be the significant factor here, not anything else (cyclic rate would also affect it quite a bit). An IMR or URGI or whatever would probably keep up well enough for the 416. Throw in TV ammo, and I sincerely doubt you're looking at a worrisome situation with any of these rifles.

And, for the record, there may be some idea around these parts that I like, hate the HK416 or something? I don't. What I specifically lobbied against was pure-fleeting the M27, which is a very early variant of the 416, and which the USMC made it very clear would not be subject to changes (although maybe they eventually will upgrade them), and which would cost, like, seriously, an insane amount of money to do. I even made a list of recommended changes to the M27 that I thought the USMC, if they chose to go that route, ought to make. But, of course, I do think URGI was the better solution overall (crankshaftgate aside).

stancrist

From: stancrist

20/9/21

smg762 said:

If CT ammo is short enoufhh to fit in a P90 style mag, it would make a great IAR....each guy could have 40 round mags. 

And the SAW guy could have extended 50 rounders.

How tall and wide is a CT 6.8....

The 6.8 CT cartridge is almost as long as a 7.62 NATO round, and looks to be just slightly fatter.

If my calculations are correct, a 30-rd P90-type 6.8 mag would be as long as a 50-rd P90 5.7 mag.

Which means that a 40-rd 6.8 mag would be about 2.5" longer, and a 50-rd mag about 5" longer.

A top-mounted mag eliminates most of the rail space, severely limiting what optics can be used.

Your proposed 6.8 magazines would be so long that it's doubtful they could be stowed on the body.

And can you imagine how difficult and awkward mag changes would be, especially in the prone?

The P90-type magazine works fine on the P90.  The P90-type magazine on a rifle or IAR, not so much.

stancrist

From: stancrist

20/9/21

smg762 said:

ALSO....this vid shows a slam and go belt box and it can interchange with normal.mags.... or am i missing something

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KwgcEnwS5EQ

I may be wrong, but I don't think that is a "slam and go" belt-fed.

TOP