Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 13:21 by stancrist
Latest 13:09 by EmericD
Latest 5:44 by Guardsman26
Latest 1-Oct by stancrist
Latest 30-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 29-Sep by stancrist
Latest 27-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 26-Sep by stancrist
Latest 24-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 24-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 24-Sep by farmplinker2
Latest 22-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 20-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 19-Sep by stancrist
Latest 19-Sep by stancrist
Latest 19-Sep by smg762
Latest 18-Sep by JPeelen
Latest 17-Sep by graylion
Latest 17-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 16-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 14-Sep by smg762
Latest 7-Sep by EmericD
Latest 5-Sep by stancrist
Latest 4-Sep by renatohm
Latest 4-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
2-May
DavidPawley said:Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available. Not because it might be necessary, but because it would allow discovery of issues before the production configuration for the weapons is locked in
Very concerning given AP is its reason to exist.
Hopefully they actually test the SP against real ceramic Level IV and not just RHA.
And hopefully if it turns out 6.8 is not able to defeat IV @ 200m+ this is discovered before the Army buys 100k battle rifles.
...
On the flipside, while I question the 6.8 rifle, the 6.8 lightweight LMG I do think is a great addition. Although if its not AP it would have been much better as a .264 LICC EVOLYS as Emeric described given the ammo weigh reduction.
2-May
gatnerd said:DavidPawley said: Whilst this is production qualification, it is somewhat concerning that AP won’t be available.
Very concerning given AP is its reason to exist.
Methinks you guys worry too much. Personally, I see no cause for concern. Instead, I view the decision to conduct the PQT without SP ammo as an opportunity to cancel NGSW and change course to 6.5x43 LICC (or similar).
2-May
stancrist said:conduct the PQT without SP ammo as an opportunity to cancel NGSW and change course to 6.5x43 LICC (or similar)
From your lips to St. John Brownings ears
2-May
My guess is that one reason that the NGSW energy goals were set so high was to allow GP ammo to defeat as much body armor as possible. The goal is to keep the use of tungsten to a minimum. Based on Buffman's tests, fast EPR bullets do a good job of defeating body armor designed to stop 5.56x45 and 7.62x51.
3-May
Oh, I’m only worried that Army won’t cancel NGSW and change course, but also:
Regrettably this seems to be the trajectory of all small arms replacement programs.
3-May
graylion said:Thanks! What does that translate into?
My guess:
SP = Special Purpose = ADVAP (ADVanced AP) = tungsten carbide core EPR,
GP = General Purpose = steel core EPR = ball.