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.

  • 3351
    MEMBERS
  • 190152
    MESSAGES
  • 7
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

For Your Amusement   General Army topics

Started 15/9/21 by stancrist; 14691 views.
EmericD

From: EmericD

6-Aug

schnuersi said:

The new XM5 uses a cartidge that is roughly the same league as the 7,92x57 power. At the same time its significantly lighter than the FG42. This gun should be completly unusable if we apply the same standards.

Well, in nearly all the current videos of the XM5, the rifle is fired with a suppressor and is using the "Training Practice" round (~2900 J), which is not really in the same league as the 7.92 x 57 mm (~3500 J).

If the XM5 is lighter than the FG42 (3.8 kg for the bare XM5 vs. 4.2 - 4.95 kg for the heaviest FG42 according to Wiki), once you put a suppressor (+0.66 kg), a short front grip (+0.1 kg), an EOTech red dot (+0.26 kg), a x3 magnifier (+0.18 kg) and a AN/PEQ laser pointer (+0.23 kg), you're ending around 5.23 kg for the gun, without magazine and ammo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf3ZlUkOCg

And the "real stuff" is supposed to use the XM157 scope, which should weight around 1 kg, so the "rifle weight" will be around 5.7 kg (without magazine). The "full XM5 system" is expected to be significantly heavier than the FG42...

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Aug

EmericD said:

Well, in nearly all the current videos of the XM5, the rifle is fired with a suppressor and is using the "Training Practice" round (~2900 J), which is not really in the same league as the 7.92 x 57 mm (~3500 J).

I am not talking about the practice round but the real combat loading. Which is above 3000 J and the the same range as the 7,92x57. If we would compare downloaded versions the question would be how would the FG42 perform with a sub 3000 J version of the 7,92x57.

EmericD said:

And the "real stuff" is supposed to use the XM157 scope, which should weight around 1 kg, so the "rifle weight" will be around 5.7 kg (without magazine). The "full XM5 system" is expected to be significantly heavier than the FG42...

Fair enough. Allthough the FG42 also could be equiped with a scope wich would certainly result in a unloaded weight ~5,5 kg.
The late version of the FG42 is ~5 kg empty. The early ones which had to be significantly redesigned have been lighter.

Never the less I still don't see why the FG 42 should be any worse than the XM 5 (using combat load) recoil wise. Concidering the FG42 had a muzzle break and could recoil into the stock to dampen it. While the XM5 doesn't seem to have such features. Its just a little heavier.

Msg 7919.16 deleted
mpopenker

From: mpopenker

6-Aug

schnuersi said:

I am not talking about the practice round but the real combat loading. Which is above 3000 J and the the same range as the 7,92x57. If we would compare downloaded versions the question would be how would the FG42 perform with a sub 3000 J version of the 7,92x57.

You see, the XM5 has a barrel almost twice shorter than a typical 7.62x51mm "battle" rifle, which means much greater bullet acceleration, and more sharp recoil impulse / higher peak recoil force, even if the total ME is about the same.

EmericD

From: EmericD

6-Aug

schnuersi said:

I am not talking about the practice round but the real combat loading. Which is above 3000 J and the the same range as the 7,92x57. If we would compare downloaded versions the question would be how would the FG42 perform with a sub 3000 J version of the 7,92x57.

The current SOP with the 5.56 mm M4 is to fire only semi-auto, so I'm not really sure that full-auto firing behavior of the XM5 was something of real interest for the US Army. There is the XM250 for that job.

schnuersi said:

Never the less I still don't see why the FG 42 should be any worse than the XM 5 (using combat load) recoil wise. Concidering the FG42 had a muzzle break and could recoil into the stock to dampen it. While the XM5 doesn't seem to have such features. Its just a little heavier.

That could mean that full-auto firing with the XM5 will be of limited interest, which is OK for a system designed to be used in semi-auto mode, the full auto mode being devoted to the XM250.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Aug

EmericD said:

The current SOP with the 5.56 mm M4 is to fire only semi-auto, so I'm not really sure that full-auto firing behavior of the XM5 was something of real interest for the US Army. There is the XM250 for that job.

Butt SOP for the battle rifles and the FG 42 has been to fire semi auto allmost all the time as well. For full auto there have been LMGs and GPMGs. So it is as I say: the argument these rifles are "uncontrollable" in full auto is not valid.

EmericD said:

That could mean that full-auto firing with the XM5 will be of limited interest,

Again exactly how it has been in the past.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Aug

mpopenker said:

You see, the XM5 has a barrel almost twice shorter than a typical 7.62x51mm "battle" rifle, which means much greater bullet acceleration, and more sharp recoil impulse / higher peak recoil force, even if the total ME is about the same.

So you say the XM5 is worse than the old battle rifles or the FG42?

dskellogg

From: dskellogg

6-Aug

Please just let us know when you're taking pre-orders for TFW, 2nd edition.

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

7-Aug

schnuersi said:

So you say the XM5 is worse than the old battle rifles or the FG42?

I've never shot an FG-42 or XM5, and the closest thing that I fired in bursts was the AK-308, but I expect the recoil of the XM5 to be more brisk and sharp, and thus less comfortable to the shooter, especially without the thick clothing and/or body armor

autogun

From: autogun

7-Aug

EmericD said:

That also highlight the benefits of the .276 Pedersen, which was 25% lighter (with less recoil) than the .30-06 M2, while delivering the same amount of energy at medium & long range... a truly missed opportunity.

Emeric, do you happen to know how the BCs of the .276 Pedersen compared with the .303 Mk VII (flat based) and Mk XIII (boat tailed)?

TOP