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.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189808
    MESSAGES
  • 8
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 505784 views.
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

EmericD

From: EmericD

18-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

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.

Right, the FIR scope is bulky because you have 2 scopes in one, the thermal channel and a DVO, and you could switch from thermal to visual with just a push on the pad located on the front grip. Thermals scopes are eating batteries very fast, you still have a usable DVO if you run out of juice.

stancrist

From: stancrist

18-May

EmericD said:

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

Yup.  That is indeed what I wrote.

EmericD said:

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",

I'd be extremely surprised if they had said "the SS109 is standard US caliber" because "SS109" is not a caliber.

Whether 55gr M193 Ball or 62gr SS109/M855 Ball -- or even 77gr Mk262 Special Ball -- the caliber is 5.56mm!

JPeelen

From: JPeelen

18-May

Stan, you way of arguing is sometimes, well,  hard to follow?

For example, you wrote to the effect that a simple barrel change was about all needed to turn the M16A1 into an M16A2. To  which Emeric  responded that there was more to the adoption of the M16A2 than just a barrel change.  

In message 2653 you explain at length the many differences between M16A1 and M16A2 to show the readers how wrong Emeric was in his opinion. As I understand it, message 2653 represents a 180 degree turn from what you wrote before and explains in detail the correctnes of what Emeric wrote. 

Or the usefulness of firing SS109 type ammunition from M16A1, which Emeric denied. You actually use graphics from the M16A2 Field Manual, which prove exactly what Emeric wrote. But you create the impression that Emeric had said, the SS109 could not be fired at all from the M16A1, which he of course did not. He had simply stated what everyone knows and what the U.S. Field Manual on the M16A2 at length explains: if you want to hit anything short of barn doors, don't use SS109 type ammunition in a M16A1 or other rifles with a twist intended for M193.            

njb3737

From: njb3737

18-May

Getting back on the subject of NGSW , what’s the chances of another NATO nation taking on the 6.8 x51 round ?

what l’m seeing is largely a no , Germany , Sweden and Canada all have current IW ( rifle ) replacement programs in process and all sticking with either 5.56 or in the case of Sweden possibly 7.62n.
 

We could have a situation where the biggest NATO member the US is operating a different calibre to the rest not a good situation if a major war occurs .

like the ss-109 debate I think Europe needs an answer and NATO a competition.  


 

TOP