This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 22:13 by stancrist
Latest 21:57 by stancrist
Latest 16:05 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 14:37 by stancrist
Latest 27-May by gatnerd
Latest 27-May by autogun
Latest 26-May by roguetechie
Latest 26-May by schnuersi
Latest 21-May by nincomp
Latest 21-May by Barnowlgreen
Latest 20-May by Apsyda
Latest 20-May by Farmplinker
Latest 20-May by ramosausust
Latest 20-May by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 19-May by schnuersi
Latest 14-May by Farmplinker
Latest 14-May by autogun
Latest 13-May by Petrus_Optim
Latest 13-May by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 12-May by graylion
Latest 12-May by gatnerd
Latest 9-May by DavidPawley
Latest 9-May by taschoene
Latest 9-May by gatnerd
Latest 29-Apr by mpopenker
Would have thought that 0.254mm misalignment is huge to even think of having between the bore and the chamber , till you consider the moving chamber design Textron is using. They are screwed .....
Does this mean that you've heard on the grapevine that the Textron is having issues currently, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
No, I have no "first hand" information on the Textron offering.
The "anonymous USAMU" claim about the potential lack of accuracy from GD and Textron just reminds me of an old paper I read regarding CT ammo and out-of-center chamber, so I put the link here.
Ah, Tungsten EPR I assume?
That was my initial understanding, but I was wrong.
The "smoke screen" on this program is denser than anticipated!
That was something I had wondered about awhile back - if they just took the EPR design, and swapped out the steel tip for tungsten, then the projectile would be very front heavy (as opposed to the preferred rearward weight balance.) Also the projectile would be pretty radically different in overall weight.
Same feeling here when the XM1158 ADVAP was presented.
Replacing the steel arrow of an EPR bullet with a tungsten arrow is going to push the CoG of the bullet in an area unsupported by the shank, inducing a lot of in-bore yaw. So you need also to replace the copper core with a denser alloy to achieve proper bullet balance.
SIG NGSW Update high rez pics:
Thanks for the clarification Emeric, It can be kind of hard to convey nuance/specific meaning over text on a forum, especially between two unfamiliar speakers.
For the sake of this whole program, and the future of small arms in general, I really, really hope that they've found a way to maintain sub 0.1mm tolerances during full auto fire, it's already got acceptable accuracy in the LSAT so by extension it should be fine in the NGSW-AR, It's the NGSW-R Carbine I'm worried about, I (And everyone here probably) would also like to see a G&A Issue on their entry, seeing as they're the only one to not have one yet, but that's up to Textron obviously
So in terms of G&A's article on SIG's NGSW, not as illuminating as G&A's article on TV.
But there were a few interesting points.
-Army NGSW requirement is 6,000 round barrel life, but SIG is hitting 12,000 rounds barrel life despite their 80,000psi cartridge.
(This is the most exciting and interesting point; if barrel life has been solved then the future for high velocity 'overbore' cartridges looks very bright.)
-SIG's ammo can run 80kpsi, but also has increased powder capacity due to the thinner brass walls of their case.
-SIG's rifle is described as having 'stout felt recoil' but their LMG is described as being as controllable as the 5.56 M249.
Close up of sectioned SIG 6.8:
That was my initial understanding, but I was wrong. The "smoke screen" on this program is denser than anticipated!
That is intriguing.
Was any indication given to confirm the 135gr @ 3000fps general performance we've seen published? Or is there the chance that those specs in and of themselves are also a "smokescreen"?
Because if the EPR GP we've seen is around 125-135gr, and the actual AP load is using tungsten + a denser alloy then copper for the base, then the overall projectile weight would be a good deal heavier the 135gr.
The point about barrel life exactly what I was thinking, why do so many people in this community (firearms) act as if current barrel technology is the be-all end-all, as if it would never improve, when in reality it HAS advanced, and now has matured to the point where you have people repeating the tired old "I bet these NGSW rifles will be barrel burners, they'll be useless after 2K Rounds!" being proven wrong, this is really exciting stuff and really opens to doors to huge improvements, Maybe Emeric should re examine his GPC paper, specifically his conclusions about bullets in the .243"-.236" range now that this is known
Edit : Although I think his issues with those calibres were his Relative Suppression Index, and his heat flux measurements, which probably could be revised now