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.

  • 3258
    MEMBERS
  • 184830
    MESSAGES
  • 15
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 236900 views.
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

22-Aug

nincomp said:

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?

Depends what your exact requirements are. NGSW has a whole host of requirements that are very ambitious and directly resulted in the configuration they have now.
 

nincomp said:

I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?  At some point, the only thing that will work is HE, autocannon rounds or shaped-charge warheads.

What I suggest is that everyone calm down, let NGSW play out, and, if you have any stake in this industry, get ready for the "second go 'round" when people inevitably decide that NGSW actually created some pretty significant capability gaps that need to be filled.

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

22-Aug

The change to doctrine would still use semi-automatic fire; "Aim for the other head".fearful

After all, plates tend to be mounted on the upper, not lower, torso. A low body aim point could hit the lower torso or upper thighs.

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-Aug

Farmplinker said:

The change to doctrine would still use semi-automatic fire; "Aim for the other head". fearful

Cute.  relaxed 

However, nincomp specified a "bullet hose" -- meaning full-auto (and presumably still aiming for center of mass).

Red7272

From: Red7272

22-Aug

nincomp said:

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?  I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?  At some point, the only thing that will work is HE, autocannon rounds or shaped-charge warheads.

Watch what the Russians and Chinese do. When it is an issue they will find a solution. Currently it seems no but the US one actually cares.

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Aug

MG68 would solve this Afghan War tactical problem

Use code: PURPOSE for 10% off your order -- https://bit.ly/3j0DcQvI was lucky enough to have the opportunity to test fire the SIG Sauer prototype machine gun...

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Aug

I wonder how many rounds would need to be fired with the "bullet hose" concept in order to get at least one hit on an unprotected body part, at any distance beyond CQB range.  https://youtu.be/Vy4Nw08Jf_U?t=14

  • Edited 23 August 2021 13:20  by  stancrist
nincomp

From: nincomp

23-Aug

A "bullet hose" would certainly be most effective at close range.  Operators would probably be taught to move the weapon in small circles while firing (not unlike the movement I was taught to use when fighting a fire with a firehose).  

The difficulty in hitting an under-protected area is why I have expressed some doubts about infantry rifles being effective against opponents with good body armor.  I just don't know how realistic it is to attempt to defeat modern (and future) chest armor with an infantry rifle that resembles what we use now.  It would seem that relatively large explosive rounds with proximity fuses might be needed to assure enough shrapnel for disabling hits.  At this point, the HE effect may be more important.

I am reminded of a film critic's comment about the 1997 movie "Starship Troopers" in which human infantry fights insectoid aliens: "...it's inefficient to try to kill them with machinegun bullets when all it takes is a grenade and you can blow them right up real good." https://youtu.be/R6RV64Y2Ggs?t=140

I know that there have been a number of discussions on this site about having a "golf bag" of different weapons available for different circumstances, but it seems that the weapons needed to fight well armored opponents are different that those needed for more traditional infantry battles.

 

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Aug

nincomp said:

A "bullet hose" would certainly be most effective at close range.  Operators would probably be taught to move the weapon in small circles while firing (not unlike the movement I was taught to use when fighting a fire with a firehose).  

That does not seem like a viable option to me, if only because it violates the KISS principle.  The needed diameter of the circular movement would vary according to the target distance.  To attain proficiency with such a technique would require a far greater training ammo allotment and much more range time than infantry riflemen have ever had.

nincomp said:

The difficulty in hitting an under-protected area is why I have expressed some doubts about infantry rifles being effective against opponents with good body armor.  I just don't know how realistic it is to attempt to defeat modern (and future) chest armor with an infantry rifle that resembles what we use now.  It would seem that relatively large explosive rounds with proximity fuses might be needed to assure enough shrapnel for disabling hits.

I like the idea of HE airburst, but it also has a serious flaw as a potential solution to the body armor problem:  It is not a viable option for engagement ranges closer than the round's arming distance.

nincomp said:

I know that there have been a number of discussions on this site about having a "golf bag" of different weapons available for different circumstances, but it seems that the weapons needed to fight well armored opponents are different that those needed for more traditional infantry battles.

The "golf bag" or "arms room" concept has been implemented by special forces, but SF operators are able to shoot thousands of rounds per year in training.  That has never been the case with line infantry.

smg762

From: smg762

23-Aug

What would your thoughts be on an improved CBJ round in a p90 magazine. Obviously it's a bullet hose but what about accuracy.  I think if they lowered the sabotage to 6mm with a larger .18 bullet....it keeps it totally concetric

And as for the 6.8, could it's energy be improved with a polymer plastic bearing surface...in terms of less friction

  • Edited 23 August 2021 17:36  by  smg762
stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Aug

smg762 said:

What would your thoughts be on an improved CBJ round in a p90 magazine.

I doubt that effective range would be anywhere near acceptable to the military.

smg762 said:

And as for the 6.8, could it's energy be improved with a polymer plastic bearing surface...

I have no idea.

TOP