This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 5:05 by stancrist
Latest 4:00 by graylion
Latest 10-Dec by autogun
Latest 10-Dec by schnuersi
Latest 9-Dec by mpopenker
Latest 7-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 7-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 7-Dec by farmplinker2
Latest 2-Dec by schnuersi
Latest 1-Dec by EmericD
Latest 1-Dec by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 29-Nov by stancrist
Latest 27-Nov by renatohm
Latest 25-Nov by stancrist
Latest 24-Nov by farmplinker2
Latest 23-Nov by schnuersi
Latest 23-Nov by autogun
Latest 23-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 22-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 22-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 17-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 16-Nov by stancrist
Latest 11-Nov by stancrist
Latest 11-Nov by schnuersi
Latest 11-Nov by smg762
In the panic of close combat is an entirely different matter Soldiers can do the craziest things under deadly pressure. Minimising the likelihood of handling errors by standardising controls where possible can only help
Can you cite any instances where having considerably different controls caused a significant problem in combat for UK troops?
Mr. T (MrT4) said:
ar10 and Ar15 are quite generic and NGSW is in ar10 not ar15 size territory
The important part is forward assist less rifles and uppers have been around for a while
I would say the important part is that the NGSW-R (which does not have a forward assist) is meant to replace an AR15 variant which does have a forward assist.
Since the XM7 has a side charging handle, the T-handle is not absolutely necessary and -- like the forward assist -- could be eliminated in order to reduce weight.
You are correct on both ,but in 6.8 you are sized like Ar10 and no one will really replace 5.56 with a full-sized battle rifle at least not whole sale , but like i mentioned its the end user that seems to want these things , manufacturers would surely delete these features in blink of an eye , as the just add cost and complexity.
Mr. T (MrT4) said:
You are correct on both ,but in 6.8 you are sized like Ar10 and no one will really replace 5.56 with a full-sized battle rifle at least not whole sale...
The US Army never planned to replace the M4 with the XM7 wholesale.
The stated intent was to replace the M4 only in the Close Combat Force.
And even there some personnel will continue to be armed with the M4.
Mr. T (MrT4) said:
...but like i mentioned its the end user that seems to want these things , manufacturers would surely delete these features in blink of an eye , as the just add cost and complexity.
Of course. It was the US Army that wanted the M16 to have a forward assist.
And it is the US Army that wanted the forward assist eliminated from the XM7.
If the Army decides to cut weight by eliminating the T-handle, it too will be gone.
stancrist said: Sounds like the French Army has extremely poor training if it trains soldiers to point weapons at team mates when clearing, and also trains them to not remove the ammunition container from the weapon before retracting the bolt to check the chamber and dry firing the weapon.
You said he performed the clearing procedure "just like he was trained to do."
Therefore, I can only conclude that he was trained to:
1. Not care where his gun was pointing.
2. Not remove the ammunition feed device from the weapon before retracting the bolt to clear the chamber.
stancrist said: in my opinion the benefit to training is overrated, and is actually of little or no importance.
Ok, so training is overrated, unless it isn't.
Now you are being quite blatantly dishonest. I did not say that training is overrated.
I said the benefit to training of a "matched pair" of 5.56 and 7.62 rifles is overrated.
Initial order quantities and prices of NGSW ammo. $2.15 for the GP EPR, $12.37 for the SP Special Purpose armor piercing load. The later is listed as War Reserve only.
7.62 ADVAP also continues; note it is a bit more expensive then the NGSW SP despite using a regular brass case (I assume.) Probably the larger chunk of tungsten increases the cost?
nice very informative.
Is there also similar data for 7.62 ball and 5.56 ball and AP (less tungsten and lower cost?). Interesting that the numbers above show roughly 25 times more 6.8 GP rounds than the SP, as you observe due to provision for war stocks (why don't they just call them AP?).
what was the barrel length on the textron rifle. it looks like 16, and yet the round apparently didnt hit 80k PSI
The Textron rifle you're referring to is likely the Textron Systems Cased Telescoped Weapons and Ammunition system, which was developed as part of the U.S. Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program. The NGSW program aimed to replace the M4 carbine and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon with a new rifle and automatic rifle that featured advanced ammunition designs.
The Textron rifle uses a cased telescoped ammunition design, where the cartridge case is completely enclosed by the projectile. The barrel length of the Textron rifle can vary, but it is typically around 16 inches (40.64 cm) in length. This is a shorter barrel length compared to traditional rifles like the M4.
The ammunition used in the Textron system is designed to operate at lower chamber pressures compared to traditional brass-cased ammunition. This is achieved through a combination of factors, including the use of a more efficient propellant and a different case design. While the specific chamber pressure values can vary depending on the exact design, it is generally designed to operate at pressures that are safe for the firearm and consistent with the desired performance characteristics.
The goal of the Textron system, and the NGSW program as a whole, is to provide a lightweight and compact firearm with improved performance and ammunition efficiency while maintaining safety and reliability. The use of cased telescoped ammunition and other innovations in the system help achieve these goals. https://gunsandgadgets.co.za/
I would love to see a comparible velocity curve for M855A1, although I would bet it is classified, if for no other reason than stopping politicians making trouble!
Am I reading too much into it, to suspect that M855 was optimised for the 20 inch barrel of the time, or is it just the way the testing was conducted with the hardware available?