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).

  • 3177
    MEMBERS
  • 180491
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Chinese Level IV vs Tungsten .338   Small Arms <20mm

Started 29-Sep by gatnerd; 1879 views.
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

29-Sep

As a Buffman patreon supporter, I got an early preview to his upcoming .338 Tungsten AP test.

The video is currently unlisted, but should be appearing soon.

In the meantime, the results were very surprising.

https://lapolicegear.com/la-police-gear-level-iv-ballistic-armor-plate.html?avad=227253_a1d35a681

So, a $119, Chinese Level IV plate is capable of stopping 249gr Tungsten .338 @ 200yds. 

This is a Tungsten projectile with a 4,143 ftlb / 5,600 J energy. And its not making 200 yards against some of the lowest grade Level IV.

Barring some technological revolution, it does not look good for the prospects of the NGSW as a long range armor killer. It also makes me even more skeptical of the .338 LWMMG. 

Big props to Buffman for another fantastic test. 

  • Edited 29 September 2020 19:23  by  gatnerd
Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

29-Sep

ACOGs or LPVOs and aim around the plate.

Like most of us have been saying since NGSW was announced.

Red7272

From: Red7272

29-Sep

Who knew a stupid idea would turn out to be stupid? Nearly everyone. There is a reason every military calibre between 8 mm and 13 mm went belly up in the last 100 years. They don't do enough that a 7.62 calibre won't do anyway.  

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

30-Sep

Yes, without a serious gain in AP ability, there's little to recommend the .338 over a lighter, 'super 7.62' like .300 PRC with its 3.65-3.7" COL if the goal is simply anti personnel against unarmored adversaries out to 1500yds. 

But really I think the results are more damning for the 6.8 NGSW; it's very hard to imagine how the 130-140gr AP 6.8 is going to improve upon the 249gr .338AP in terms of long range Level IV penetration. 

Unless there's some unknown, serious improvement in Tungsten AP tech, its looking like NGSW will be obsolete for AP by the time its introduced. 

At which point we'd be stuck with a bunch of magnum battle rifles that can't penetrate armor. 

Red7272

From: Red7272

30-Sep

gatnerd said:

Yes, without a serious gain in AP ability, there's little to recommend the .338 over a lighter, 'super 7.62' like .300 PRC with its 3.65-3.7" COL if the goal is simply anti personnel against unarmored adversaries out to 1500yds. 

Here I see the same case can be made for a 50 BMG marksman rifle as with the use of a 50 BMG machine gun. There are always going to bunkers and vehicles that need to be engaged as well as equipment that needs to be destroyed. Small groups can be as easily suppressed with a marksman rifle as a LMG when the ammunition explodes and vaporises rocks. Adding another round to the logistics train is to be avoided, but adding some match 50 BMG should not be impractical. 

autogun

From: autogun

30-Sep

gatnerd said:

Unless there's some unknown, serious improvement in Tungsten AP tech, its looking like NGSW will be obsolete for AP by the time its introduced.  At which point we'd be stuck with a bunch of magnum battle rifles that can't penetrate armor. 

Exactly the point that I and others made several months ago.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

30-Sep

I tend to agree. 

Given the dispersal of a machine gun at 1500 meters, I think something like the a .50 DMR could actually be as suppressive or more. Especially if equipped with something like a 'smart scope' that compensates for drop at that range. 

I think the Raufuss round is considered match accurate, as well as being a pretty knarly API. 

Conceivable even something like a tripod equipped .50 Barret with smart scope:

Added advantage here being that a rifle tripod is only ~5lbs. 

Or of course, any number of HE launchers, from AGL's to 60mm's like Imortar to an ATGM like Spike SR could be used for targets beyond the range of 7.62. 

In reply toRe: msg 7
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

1-Oct

So I found the G7 for the 248gr AP load:

https://www.fiocchi.com/en/product/338-lapua-mag-fmjap-2

And here's the impact results, using Buffman's velocity:

So at 200yd, it was still impacting with both good velocity and tremendous energy.

Yet was stopped by a $119 chinese plate. 

Whats interesting is Lapua advertises this round as 906 m/s (2970fps) from a 26" barrel. Assuming thats the real velocity, and Buffman got a slower handload to test, we would see a further AP.

Re-running the #'s based on this 2970fps velocity, we would hit the 'Penetrate' velocity of 2560fps out to 250yds. 

But we'd still hit the 'not penetrate' velocity of 2421fps @ 310yd. 

While this would certainly be better, it still bodes very poorly for the 6.8 NGSW, and would also relegate the .338 LWMMG to AP at 5.56 SAW distances.

  • Edited 01 October 2020 3:12  by  gatnerd
In reply toRe: msg 8
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

1-Oct

One potential variable for future AP - and perhaps the last hope for 6.8 NGSW - is Tungsten Hardness. 

Nammo lists their HV at 1200-1500:

However Lehigh lists their 300gr Tungsten at 1800HV:

So perhaps increases in tungsten hardness will offer improvement in AP ability?

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

1-Oct

I've been warning about this for five years, not that anyone listens to me. 

TOP