This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 8-Dec by Farmplinker
Latest 8-Dec by schnuersi
Latest 7-Dec by autogun
Latest 6-Dec by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 4-Dec by stancrist
Latest 4-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 2-Dec by smmheart1
Latest 1-Dec by EmericD
Latest 30-Nov by Refleks
Latest 26-Nov by stancrist
Latest 25-Nov by autogun
Latest 23-Nov by Farmplinker
Latest 23-Nov by Refleks
Latest 22-Nov by stancrist
Latest 17-Nov by PRM2
Latest 17-Nov by TonyDiG
Latest 16-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 16-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 15-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Nov by TarheelYank
Latest 14-Nov by JPeelen
Latest 13-Nov by DavidPawley
Latest 10-Nov by Lorrybaker
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
I hope this works:
Yes it does. Thank you!
As you can bet, with this kind of official annoucement, Germany was not going to adopt the SS-109 until all the nails were put in the G11 coffin.
I think that's a good example of the difference between the US's view and the German's view on this topic.
The US wanted a "universal cartridge" for the squad, and the SS-109 was considered sufficient to deal with ligtly armored targets up to around 550 m.
For Germany, the 5.56 mm was not able to cover all the roles of the LMG, so 2 rounds were needed, and the 5.56 mm was "overpowered" for only "protecting the LMG".
For Germany, the 5.56 mm was not able to cover all the roles of the LMG, so 2 rounds were needed, and the 5.56 mm was "overpowered" for only "protecting the LMG"
Thanks for sharing that info. Definitely a different perspective.
Its a shame they didnt take a closer look at the Austrians, who also used the MG3, and then protected it with 5.56 AUGs. Cold War 1984 goes hot, Austria really had the best mix of anyone - MG3's, AUGs, and Glock 17's.
In terms of a less "overpowered" caliber, it would have been interesting had they pursued the 4.6x36 /HK36 more. Work on reducing bolt impact to improve FA contolability, bump capacity to 36-42 (something divisible by 3 for 3rd burst) and equip it with an optic. Could have been a low recoil, lightweight, 1200rpm 3rd burst launcher.
Micro-calibers are very prone to the water in the bore problem, and the smaller the bore, the more serious is that problem
They also are very ineffective against improvised cover, such as walls, earth/sand berms etc
In terms of a less "overpowered" caliber, it would have been interesting had they pursued the 4.6x36 /HK36 more.
They did, but in a caseless form... the G11 was the "product improved" version of the HK36, with an even lighter round, a "less strange" magazine (still impractical because it was too long), and better full-auto stability.
If you want to revive the "micro caliber fever" of the 70s, you could reload a .17 WSM with a scaled-down "balle D", you will end with a 29 gr bullet with a C7 around 0.16 at a MV around 750 m/s.
"They did, but in a caseless form... the G11 was the "product improved" version of the HK36, with an even lighter round, a "less strange" magazine (still impractical because it was too long), and better full-auto stability."
Yes, its just it didn't work ;-) Of all the downsides to the G11, that ACR report is pretty damning - not only did it not improve hit probability at any distance, but it was markedly worse then a M16 with iron sights.
Is there any indication of why both Germany and the US were so gung-ho on hyperburst? Had it worked well with test fixtures, and just not translated once put into the ACR trial with real guns?
Micro-calibers are very prone to the water in the bore problem, and the smaller the bore, the more serious is that problem They also are very ineffective against improvised cover, such as walls, earth/sand berms et
Thats good to know. But the Germans did seem satisfied with the risk with the 4.73 for the G11, and I havent heard reports of the 4.6 MP7 having water logged bores? But perhaps thats because they've been deployed to the desert.
Design was sound and the prototypes worked awesome. SAS was delighted with them
However, these were the years in which political management destroyed both CETME and Santa Barbara facilities. They calculated costs so badly that they have to cut corners like crazy. Both CETME L and AMELI were so poorly built because of such "savings" that had to be discarded just after some years.
We have heard a lot of terror stories of soldiers who had to go to missions with non-functional rifles, or with rifles that they knew that were going to fail after a couple of magazines. Talking about the magazines, they were specially crappy, the same than plastic furnitures...
Indeed nowadays CETME-L built by american companies work reliably. The problem was not the design at all. The same happened with the batchs for our Guardia Civil, of much better quality
what a sad and shameful end of our capabilites. And nobody went to jail because of that
In NGSW news, we may have a finalist picked in the coming months or so, with contracts expected to be issued by April. Its also alleged that the current geopolitical tensions may hasten the rifles adoption.
The article also seems to re-confirm that the competition is now between SIG and TV for the 6.8, with Textron no longer mentioned.
Thanks a lot for the fix.
Well, we had the M-14. Winchester and H&R knew how to make guns, so they didn't pay as close as attention as they should have. So a lot of problems with their rifles in the field. TRW, which also got a contract, had never made rifles before. So they carefully studied "how to make rifles", tested their machinery and assembly procedures. They produced the best M-14s. Sadly, the contract was cancelled before the new equipment was paid off.