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.

  • 3346
    MEMBERS
  • 190038
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 520520 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

17-May

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: Call it "self-fulfilling prophecy" if you like, but the fact remains that the only reason 5.56x45 was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber. The Belgians would never have developed the SS109 loading if 5.56mm had not been a US standard caliber.

Sir, no Sir. When the SS-109 was selected, there was not a single US rifle (or weapon) able to use this ammo.

???  You lost me.  You seem to be objecting to my comments, but I don't see how your statement relates to what I said.  

Is there reason to think the SS109 loading would have been developed if 5.56mm had not been a standard US caliber?

EmericD said:

If the goal was "to adopt the standard US caliber", then NATO countries would have selected the M193 or the proposed XM777 (compatible with the M16A1), and they didn't.

At the time, 5.56x45 had been a US standard caliber for years.  M193 was the US standard Ball loading.

5.56x45 was adopted by NATO as a standard caliber.  SS109 was made the NATO standard Ball loading.

NATO adopted the same caliber as the US, but opted for a different loading.

ETA:  Note the caliber is the same for both the M16A1 and M16A2:  5.56mm.

EmericD said:

By the way, some M16 were transformed to fire the 4.85 x 49 mm, it was just a barrel (and buffer) swap, just like the SS-109.

a.  So you're admitting that I was right, that only a new barrel was needed to use the SS109 loading?

b.  How did the Brits manage to make a cartridge with ~0.2" greater OAL fit into the M16 magazine?

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17-May

The Felin dates from ~2007 per wikipedia; substantial progress in computing power, energy efficiency, sensors. and general miniaturization has occurred since then. 

For reference, the first Iphone was released in late 2007, to give a sense of how technology has progressed since then. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

18-May

electronics get  smaller all the time

You can buy of the shelf civilian scopes with a built-in laser range finder and ballistic computers for a while now and most new thermals have these features in form factors way smaller than Felin .

This is no super futuristic tech anymore, you can literally have similar scope to Vortex made by a number of OEMs today. I am actually somewhat surprised that Vortex NGSW optic offering is such a conservative design, fusion of quite mature commercial tech that was available 5y ago, not one that will be available in the next 5 years..* then again Vortex is hardly a top optics developer 95+% off their offerings are branded stuff made by Chinese, Philippine and Japanese OEMs and in some cases like their higher-end stuff literal finished Japanese OEM scopes get disassembled and reassembled in US with few US made parts added.

These days 4000$ buys you thermals with all the functions of the Vortex sight and then some in not overly large  form factor.

A couple hundred $ buys you chinese LRF red dots that come in small for factors ,barely larger than old Aimpont and clones. So technology is at the stage when widespread use of scopes with built in LRF and balistic computers is quite feasible , but the next stage that is already very doable ,link to electronic trigger is likely less likely to overcome military conservative thinking at least in mayor platforms.

EmericD

From: EmericD

18-May

Apsyda said:

Given the failures of a lot of superscopes in the last decade, I don't have the highest hope for this new NGSW FC either. The French already mostly did the same thing with their Felin project, and we can see how well that went.

Into a system that is fielded since ~2010?

But you're right that even if the FELIN system works "as designed" on paper, the troop acceptance of a 6+ kg IW is low, and we are currently working on a replacement of the FELIN sights with something much lighter.

EmericD

From: EmericD

18-May

stancrist said:

EmericD said:        stancrist said: Call it "self-fulfilling prophecy" if you like, but the fact remains that the only reason 5.56x45 was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber. The Belgians would never have developed the SS109 loading if 5.56mm had not been a US standard caliber. Sir, no Sir. When the SS-109 was selected, there was not a single US rifle (or weapon) able to use this ammo. ???  You lost me.  You seem to be objecting to my comments, but I don't see how your statement relates to what I said.   Is there reason to think the SS109 loading would have been developed if 5.56mm had not been a standard US caliber?

You wrote that "the ONLY (emphasis mine) reason 5.56 mm was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber".

I find this affirmation highly objectionable, because at the time of adoption of the SS-109, there was not a single weapon in US service that could use this cartridge for military service.

Had NATO adopted the US championed XM777, then yes your affirmation would stand, but NATO didn't select the XM777.

I can't say that I read all the official reports of this evaluation, but at least I read several kilograms of test reports and minutes of meetings, and no one ever mentioned the point that "the SS-109 is standard US caliber", because it was clear for everyone, including the US Army, that adoption of the SS-109 would be paired with the adoption of another rifle.

And they did exactly that with the M16A2.

Had NATO selected the UK round, the story would have been the same.

But the odds were slims as the XL64 "Individual Weapon" was a bullpup rifle, and the XL65 "Light Support Weapon" was box feed...smile

njb3737

From: njb3737

18-May

Would replacement of the FELIN sights become a standard set up on the HK416f ? Giving a ‘FCS’ to soldier in place of a current in service optic ?

Given the work you are doing on potential improvements to the 5.56mm round adding a light weight FELIN mk2 could produce an impressive set up I think.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

18-May

What kind of functions did Felin optic offer so we can estimate which commercial offering is closest to that , i understand Felin is a whole system not just the scope , but lets see what gives in terms of scope alone.

If understand correctly the toaster thermal is just one scope per squad ,what do others have ?

nincomp

From: nincomp

18-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

I am actually somewhat surprised that Vortex NGSW optic offering is such a conservative design, fusion of quite mature commercial tech that was available 5y ago, not one that will be available in the next 5 years..*

I wonder if there are other features that have not been made public or if there is significant upgrade potential.

EmericD

From: EmericD

18-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

What kind of functions did Felin optic offer so we can estimate which commercial offering is closest to that , i understand Felin is a whole system not just the scope , but lets see what gives in terms of scope alone.

Well, the FIR (FAMAS IR) sight, for example, provides an IR channel with low and high magnification, a direct view optic (with low and high magnification), an electronic reticle with different colors, the capability to record and broadcast the video to other members of the group (including the shooter, so you can use the video mode to observe and shoot while staying covered) and of course you can access all those functions (and others, like the zeroing of the reticle with 25 m increments) from the front grip of the rifle.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

If understand correctly the toaster thermal is just one scope per squad ,what do others have ?

There's a difference between the number of scopes issued (one for every FELIN soldier) and the number of scopes used. A 6+kg Individual Weapon is not winning the "hearts & minds" of the soldiers, so there is only one poor soul that is taking the FIR and the EOTech 552.

The others are using only the EOTech 552 as their primary sight, without the FIR scope...

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

18-May

The problem with thermals is that you are looking at a display screen not through glass so quite bad as a day scope and poor at target ID, making for a lot of bulk if you add a direct glass channel as well.

On the other hand, because its a screenplay thermals are the easiest to make smart with true disturbed reticles, recording and sharring of video feed , navigation etc etc.  But just looking at advances in phones and their cameras i would bet my money on digital vs glass optics for the future . But then you would probably want Samsung to build the scope not Vortex

TOP