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
  • 190039
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

anti material rifle not dead   General Military Discussion

Started 29/9/21 by Mr. T (MrT4); 10727 views.
Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

2/10/21

smg762 said:

Does the 50 really create a large danger space for troops.....

It's more a matter of that it creates a large danger space for anything in the general vicinity.  In the heat of the moment, it can be easy to forget that that .50 round that I just shot doesn't magically disappear once it hits (or misses) the target, or immediately slows to a safe velocity after it skips off a street or a body of water.  That's a big, heavy, angry bullet that's still going someplace, and whatever is at that place when it eventually arrives isn't going to be happy about it.

Of course, this is not a new problem.  20 years ago, when we were concerned about the collateral damage caused by errant .50 fire, we simply used something smaller rather than trying to spin up a whole new line of gimped ammunition, but whatevs.  Modern problems require modern solutions and all that, and figuring out ways to make legacy products work for new (and not so new, in this case) problems makes the MIC a sad panda.

smg762

From: smg762

2/10/21

And when one panda sues another panda...

In reply toRe: msg 33
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

3/10/21

Does anyone know how 14.5mm B32 API stacks up to the .50bmg Raufos round in terms of penetration? 

The 14.5 has 2x the energy, but is a steel core API, whereas the .50 Raufos is Tungsten + HEI. 

And are there any modern 14.5mm Raufos equivalent loads?

I ask because these 14.5mm rifles are ~2x the size  of a .50bmg rifle. So I'm wondering whether the 'juice is worth the squeeze' in terms of effectiveness, or if these 14.5mm rifles are strictly of interest as a way to make use of current stockpiles of 14.5mm ammo. 

14.5 in foreground, .50 bmg behind, to give sense of scale for rifles by Truvelo:

smg762

From: smg762

3/10/21

If the 50 has 12000lbs energy in full length barrels, im guessig it only has 8000 in those 30inchers?

EmericD

From: EmericD

3/10/21

gatnerd said:

Does anyone know how 14.5mm B32 API stacks up to the .50bmg Raufos round in terms of penetration?

The 12.7x108 mm API B-32 (~52 mm long steel core) is nearly delivering identical AP capability as the 12.7x99 mm APEI NM140.

The 12.7x99 mm PPI (~54 mm long steel core) is mid-way between the NM140 and the NM173 / NM185.

The velocity to defeat 50% of the time a 21 mm RHA plate is around:

  • 670 m/s for the 12.7 mm B-32,
  • 660 m/s for the 12.7 mm NM140,
  • 595 m/s for the 12.7 mm PPI,
  • 545 m/s for the 12.7 mm NM173 / NM185. 

The 14.5x114 mm API B-32 is using a 63.3 mm long, high hardness, steel core, the capability is much better than the NM173 (if the gun barrel is long enough).

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

3/10/21

gatnerd said...

Does anyone know how 14.5mm B32 API stacks up to the .50bmg Raufos round in terms of penetration? 

The 14.5 has 2x the energy, but is a steel core API, whereas the .50 Raufos is Tungsten + HEI. 

And are there any modern 14.5mm Raufos equivalent loads?

The B32 will do 32mm RHA at 500m and there’s a tungsten cored BS41 that’ll do 30% more, but both are old.

There’s apparently some Chinese developments in a SLAP-style round that will do 40mm path length (sloped plate is quoted) in RHA at 1000m

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/drdxrk/cross_section_of_chinese_dgj02_145x114mm/

Limited searching suggests that’s about twice what the Raufoss would do, albeit absent  the incendiary effect.

smg762

From: smg762

3/10/21

Didnt the 50SLAP have issues with bullets flying into the barrel

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

3/10/21

I’ve seen it suggested that the polymer sabot might not be entirely stable over long periods of storage, but different manufacturers might use different materials that are more stable and military use during rated life would not see that issue in any case.

 

smg762

From: smg762

3/10/21

Well i heard that either the 50 or 762 had issues with failing sabots during bursts. Sent the core into the barrel so they discontinued it.

  • Edited 03 October 2021 20:15  by  smg762
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

3/10/21

EmericD said:

The 12.7x108 mm API B-32 (~52 mm long steel core) is nearly delivering identical AP capability as the 12.7x99 mm APEI NM140. The 12.7x99 mm PPI (~54 mm long steel core) is mid-way between the NM140 and the NM173 / NM185. The velocity to defeat 50% of the time a 21 mm RHA plate is around: 670 m/s for the 12.7 mm B-32, 660 m/s for the 12.7 mm NM140, 595 m/s for the 12.7 mm PPI, 545 m/s for the 12.7 mm NM173 / NM185.  The 14.5x114 mm API B-32 is using a 63.3 mm long, high hardness, steel core, the capability is much better than the NM173 (if the gun barrel is long enough).

Great info as always, thank you. 

Also quite the revelation. I hadn't realized 12.7 was so much more capable then .50 bmg (I had thought it to be a 9x17 vs 9x18 type of difference). 

Likewise, your data shows how penetrator length can really effect penetration, and how a long enough steel penetrator can mitigate the need to employ tungsten. 

In terms of the .50 bmg replacement we were discussing in the other thread, what would be the minimum practical caliber to have a 52-54mm PPI style penetrator? 

And has there been any study on penetrator shape as it relates to penetration? The PPI and others penetrators are rather blunt and sturdy points that looks like they would be fairly durable on impact. 

Would a finer, VLDish pointy penetrator tip effect its ability to penetrate? I wonder whether the finer point would be more susceptible to deforming/shattering on impact, reducing the efficacy of a "VLD-AP" PPI type projectile? If so that would kill off the hopes for a .375-416 style .50 replacement, as they rely so heavily on a VLD profile. 

TOP