Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 20:51 by gatnerd
Latest 20:48 by gatnerd
Latest 13:21 by stancrist
Latest 5:44 by Guardsman26
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)
16-May
gatnerd said:Now we have a gun thats 13.24lbs loaded, with loaded mags of identical weight/size/capacity to the M14.... To me that should ring alarm bells.
When the French army put a 1.8 kg day / IR sight on a FAMAS to make a 6.6 kg IW (14.5 lbs), the troop acceptance was low...
16-May
gatnerd said:Weight wise, the Marines current M27+VCOG 1-8X VCOG + IR + Suppressor is likely getting up to NGSW weight. I'll have to run those numbers later
Turns out the Marines current M27 is indeed nearly identical to NGSW.
M27: 8lb* (specs of 16” 416 vary from 7.83-8.16lb)
VCOG 1-8 SCO: 2lb
PEQ 16: 0.56lb
NT-4 Suppressor:1.35lb
30rd 5.56 PMAG: 1.1lb
=13.01lb
Both the M27 and NGSW show the downside of variable power optics and suppressors: weight.
I had initially strongly advocated on LPVO scopes for all. But now looking at these ballooning weights, plus the much shorter range fighting we see in Ukraine, I'm more inclined to think LPVO's/Smart Scopes should be for the DMR / Squad leaders, and stick with a 1lb ACOG+RMR for regular riflemen.
Even moreso as a top mounted RDS allows 'passive aiming' with night vision, which is becoming increasingly important now that enemy forces have NVG ability and can see IR lasers. Early reports in Ukraine has said turning on IR lasers was a death sentence.
16-May
gatnerd said:Namely, the M14 (and later the Battle Rifle in general) fell out of favor due to the weapon and ammunition being deemed excessively heavy, relatively low capacity vs enemy weapons, and harsh recoiling. And that was when the weapons were ~10.7lbs loaded.
If people are complaining about a harsh recoil, more mass is a good thing, because physics.
16-May
if you cuold make a durable 762/6.8 gun which weighed only 2.9kg, would the recoil be very harsh?>
16-May
smg762 said:if you cuold make a durable 762/6.8 gun which weighed only 2.9kg, would the recoil be very harsh?>
16-May
graylion said:If people are complaining about a harsh recoil, more mass is a good thing, because physics.
That is a bit simplistic. There is a difference in total recoil and how it is perceived by the shooter.
I recall that the Beretta-True Velocity RM277 had a more sophisticated recoil reduction system than the SIG. I think it was along the lines of the system being used in the XM250, essentially a recoiling barrel/inner-receiver isolated from the main receiver by a damper. The longer barrel of the bullpup also allowed a less energetic cartridge to be used with less energy left to create rocket thrust. The SIG XM5 does not have any recoil-reducing features. I was obvious early on that it would have highest felt recoil. I don't know if merely adding a recoil pad to the buttstock is considered an option since traditionally the butt of the rifle is expected to be used as a weapon itself.
One of the issues with a competition like used for the NGSW is that the winner is chosen to be used largely "as is". It is unlikely that only one of the competitors would have ALL of the best ideas. From an engineering standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to develop another generation of weapons using the best of the ideas from the previous submissions. For example, True Velocity claims that their polymer case could handle 80,000 psi. If indeed that is true, it is entirely possible that the wrong case technology was chosen simply because it was submitted with the preferred rifle design.
16-May
nincomp said:One of the issues with a competition like used for the NGSW is that the winner is chosen to be used largely "as is". It is unlikely that only one of the competitors would have ALL of the best ideas. From an engineering standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to develop another generation of weapons using the best of the ideas from the previous submissions.
Absolutely this.
Really I think what would make the most sense is figuring out the case technology and cartridge, then having a new competition where all the manufacturers are given the cartridge (whether its SIG's 6.8 hybrid, TV's neckless polymer, or perhaps a thin wall stainless steel design ala FN .264) and they each design a weapon system around that common cartridge.
And the rifle and LMG competition should be separate, so Company A might have the best Rifle design and Company B might have the best LMG.
17-May
could you have a steel case like the FN, but with a SIG style steel base, to allow high pressures too? or combine the steel base with a polymer case
17-May
The True Velocity polymer case already has a steel base. It would be possible to make a two-part steel case, but that would likely add cost. It would probably make more sense to just design a one-piece steel case that could handle higher pressures.
At this point in time, it is unclear whether raising max chamber pressure is the best option. There are advantages, for example, more work can be done in a shorter distance, meaning shorter barrels for the same velocity, but there is not yet a lot of experience to know the tradeoffs. Some potential downsides are: more expensive materials, reduced service life of components, significant weight increase and sensitivity to dirt, sand, snow, etc.
20-May
Today we take a look at the military's new combat rifle, the XM7.Be sure to save 25% at Sylvan Arms with code "Brandon"Thanks to SDI! Again, it's SDI.edu for...
He mentions several issues with his 13" 7.62x51 version.
-HEAVY. Whereas the NGSW was quoted at 8.38lbs, he says his 7.62 13" clocks in at a whopping 8.9lbs. SIG themselves list the 13" 7.62 at 8.6lbs. Whether this means the NGSW will also be heavier is unknown, but SIG's past issues with the MCX 5.56 platform has been one of ever increasing weight.
-Charging handle is very stiff. The Spear uses a unusual, very long and skinny recoil spring. He describes the T-handle as borderline unusable, while the side charging handle is very stiff. Much stiffer than the 7.62 SCAR 17.
-Magazine over-insertion. This one is surprising - a too firm insertion of the magazine will cause it to over insert and jam the weapon, preventing the bolt from being able to close / chamber a new round. From the video this happens with not all that much force either; well below the level of force one would expect an adrenalized soldier to use in a firefight. This is probably easy to solve, but until it's solved its a potentially lethal flaw.