autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).

  • 3175
    MEMBERS
  • 180398
    MESSAGES
  • 6
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The 1952 Hall report “redux”   Small Arms <20mm

Started 4-Aug by EmericD; 1664 views.
EmericD

From: EmericD

4-Aug

SCHVPapist said:

This is a gross misapplication of cook-off limits - just because that much ammo is carried doesn't mean that it will all be fired so rapidly as to bring cook-off limits into play, since infantry engagements are often a series of intermittent firefights which burn a portion of ammunition, between which the weapon will have time to cool.

I agree that you don't need to fire your ammo load fast, but my point is that in some instance, you could be tempted to do it... just like during the battle of Wanat, for example.

Notice, that you can fire more rounds than the cook-off limit (people are "routinely" doing that during Youtube destruction test), you just need to empty every magazine, and resume fire as soon as a fresh round is inserted. It's simply not a safe practice.

As you mentioned, the SAWS study is interesting, but it's very difficult to extract a definitive conclusion from it.

The CA mix performed badly in situation 1 & situation 5.

Situation 1 was a short assault (2 minutes) starting at 148 m and finishing at 15 m from the foxholes and it seems that weapons were used close to their thermal limits, compared with weapon mix SA.

Situation 5 was "long" range fire support and thermal limits were not a problem, but the military effects of this weapon mix were significantly lower than both the UA and SA weapon mixes.

The CA mix performed well in situation 4 & situation 7, but not significantly better than the UA mix in those 2 situations...

So, I can only conclude that the Stoner rifle was a better assault weapon (situation 1) and a better long-range weapon (situation 5) than the M16, but for quick shooting at a small number of targets, when you don't meet the thermal limits of the rifle (situation 4 & situation 7), the M16 was better than the Stoner, and in those scenarii the M14 was delivering similar military performance (CET & sustainability, near misses were not recorded).

All in all, and according to you cultural bias, you can conclude that:

- the best assault rifle is the Stoner, it's the only one that is allowing the soldier to benefits from the large increase in firepower brought by the light weight of the 5.56 mm ammo.

- the best rifle is the M14, as it never scored last in any scenarii and most of the time is a close second.

- the best rifle is the M16, because its just like the M14 (scoring well in the same scenarii), but allows the soldier to carry more ammo.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

4-Aug

You know that taking a study and twisting the results beyond recognition is kinda the definition of arguing in bad faith right?

As is changing what your axis of argumentation is every time someone pins you on one thing.

tastethecake

From: tastethecake

4-Aug

The M16A1 was not designed to be a SAW, therefore I don't see any problem with it blowing up if you magdump more than 6 whole magazines into the distance. A soldier is not going to have only one engagement every single time they go on patrol, they may have multiple, they may have none. Having the extra ammo on hand as long as it does not negatively affect mobility too drastically makes sense IMO. Therefore, I agree with your assessment of the situation, its no big deal.

tastethecake

From: tastethecake

4-Aug

EmericD said:

you could be tempted to do it... just like during the battle of Wanat, for example.

IMO the solution to that problem would be better training and an emphasis on accurate fire. There can be a compromise between full auto fire and KD range style well aimed shots.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

4-Aug

So not to be a Debbie downer but emphasizing accurate fire makes the colossally untrue assumption that you know the location of what's shooting at you / what you intend to shoot.

Most gunfire in a combat setting is prophylactic/exploratory fire not plinking at something you know is there.

"Emphasis on accuracy" is a key gerp talking point and it's actively stupid in the context of infantry combat.

stancrist

From: stancrist

4-Aug

EmericD said:

I agree that you don't need to fire your ammo load fast, but my point is that in some instance, you could be tempted to do it... just like during the battle of Wanat, for example.

That certainly could happen.  And indeed probably would happen.

But, which is the more prudent basis to set riflemen's ammo load:

- Concern that a few rifle barrels may be destroyed by overheating?

- Or carrying enough ammo to accomplish the assigned missions?

stancrist

From: stancrist

4-Aug

roguetechie said:

You know that taking a study and twisting the results beyond recognition is kinda the definition of arguing in bad faith right?

Indeed.  Rather like the guy who argues that carrying 300 rounds of one NGSW ammo is impossible, but says that carrying 1000 rounds of a heavier NGSW ammo is quite doable.   ;^)

  • Edited 04 August 2020 21:50  by  stancrist
EmericD

From: EmericD

5-Aug

You know that taking a study and twisting the results beyond recognition is kinda the definition of arguing in bad faith right?

??????

EmericD

From: EmericD

5-Aug

That certainly could happen.  And indeed probably would happen.

But, which is the more prudent basis to set riflemen's ammo load:

- Concern that a few rifle barrels may be destroyed by overheating?

- Or carrying enough ammo to accomplish the assigned missions?

I'm certainly not going to try to blame a soldier who think he needs 3-4 times the allocated ammo load to accomplish his mission!

But as someone whose mission is to provide soldiers with the small-arms they "need", I would feel very sad if a soldier once told me that he needed to carry 3-4 times more ammo than the safety limit of his rifle in order to accomplish his mission.

As a joke, I would say that the M16A1 of the Vietnam-era (using LSA low flash-point lubricant), was pretty safe from cook-off because the weapon would simply jam before reaching the "thermal danger zone".

stancrist

From: stancrist

5-Aug

EmericD said:

...as someone whose mission is to provide soldiers with the small-arms they "need", I would feel very sad if a soldier once told me that he needed to carry 3-4 times more ammo than the safety limit of his rifle in order to accomplish his mission.

I refer you back to what SCHVPapist said in post #11:  "...just because that much ammo is carried doesn't mean that it will all be fired so rapidly as to bring cook-off limits into play...artificially restricting ammunition load due to cook-off limits is not representative of the realities of infantry combat..."

TOP