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.

  • 3250
    MEMBERS
  • 184479
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 204468 views.
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

1-Jul

It's possible to do substantially more than 3k In 13.8" tubes with a very effective and impressive bc bullet if only people would get over their .223 aversion...

But apparently the absolute state of the industry is still rooted in cargo cult like "understandings" that there's certain magic bullet diameters that are just plain better (there's not) while anything below 6mm should never even be considered much less tried!

Yes it's entirely as stupid irrational and based entirely out of magical thinking educated people shouldn't be susceptible to, but it is what it is.

Meanwhile back out in reality if you just drop down to 5.56 focus on fundamentals and make the slipperiest best bullet you can it's entirely possible to wind up with a high pressure lightweight cased 60 grain projectile flinging monster that gives up nothing you'd miss to M80A1.

EmericD

From: EmericD

2-Jul

It's possible to do substantially more than 3k In 13.8" tubes with a very effective and impressive bc bullet if only people would get over their .223 aversion...
But apparently the absolute state of the industry is still rooted in cargo cult like "understandings" that there's certain magic bullet diameters that are just plain better (there's not) while anything below 6mm should never even be considered much less tried!

Maybe we are stuck in an alternative timeline, but the .223 is used since... 60 years? And in this alternative timeline, did Hornady launched a cartridge called the .224 Valkyrie, and Nosler the .22 Nosler which is very close to the .224 Winchester E5 studied just 58 years ago?

And cartridges with bullet diameter below 5.5 mm were proposed and tested since... more than 120 years?

So what makes you think that "people need to get over their .223 aversion" and that "anything below 6mm should never be considered much less tried"?

  • Edited 02 July 2021 3:48  by  EmericD
stancrist

From: stancrist

2-Jul

roguetechie said:

...apparently the absolute state of the industry is still rooted in cargo cult like "understandings" that there's certain magic bullet diameters that are just plain better (there's not) while anything below 6mm should never even be considered much less tried!

Meanwhile back out in reality if you just drop down to 5.56 focus on fundamentals and make the slipperiest best bullet you can it's entirely possible to wind up with a high pressure lightweight cased 60 grain projectile flinging monster that gives up nothing you'd miss to M80A1.

There's one factor you overlooked:  Tracer performance.  You can't design just a Ball round to equal M80A1 performance.

As I recall, 6mm was chosen for the 1970s SAW program because it was the smallest caliber capable of producing the desired tracer visibility.

6mm XM734 Tracer was reportedly able to be seen out to 1000 yards in bright sunlight.  IIRC, 5.56mm M856 Tracer is not visible nearly as far.

Any caliber "GPC" Ball ammo will necessarily need a companion Tracer round.

Considering the length difference between 5.56mm Ball and Tracer projectiles, is a matching tracer for your "slipperiest best" 5.56mm bullet feasible?

And even if it is possible to make such a super long 5.56mm Tracer bullet -- which would need a very fast rifling twist? -- will its trace be anywhere near as visible as 7.62mm M62?

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

2-Jul

Three letters Stan, OWL

But yeah, that's definitely a concern/potential problem.

While you could in theory do it with OWL's I personally wonder if you would actually always WANT to do it with OWL's.

But it is possible.

There was actually a 5.56 predecessor to 6mm saw that was just *chefs kiss* lovely. But for some reason they abandoned it and outright ignored their own spectrum studies and developed 6mm saw instead of what their studies told them was ideal.

Unfortunately this happens a lot and has cost us a lot of time money and trouble.

What I'm advocating for is that we actually go where the data leads us for once because we have proven time and again that going against the data for a personal preference or what people think might be better just doesn't end up working out.

You know the old saying about how Americans will do the right thing only once all other options have been exhausted?

All other options have been exhausted.

stancrist

From: stancrist

2-Jul

roguetechie said:

Three letters Stan, OWL

But yeah, that's definitely a concern/potential problem.

Indeed.  And it seems to me that it would be logical to resolve the matter before spending a lot of time and money developing a new 5.56mm round.

I did think about OWL tracers when I asked the question.  However, I have not yet seen any reports of them being fully developed and ready for production/adoption/fielding, so therefore I'm unwilling to assume they are a viable option.

roguetechie said:

What I'm advocating for is that we actually go where the data leads us...

I fully agree.

smg762

From: smg762

3-Jul

task and purpous have a new video on YT with much shooting of the sig 6.8.  He notes that the guns is heavy, and even with the supressor it still kicks a lot for a 6.8.  

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

4-Jul

smg762 said:

it still kicks a lot for a 6.8.  

How would he know how much a “6.8” should recoil?

It has heavy recoil because it must, if it’s to meet the performance requirements. There’s not really any way around that.

stancrist

From: stancrist

4-Jul

DavidPawley said:

How would he know how much a “6.8” should recoil?

My guess is he's comparing it to video of a 6.8 SPC rifle being fired.  If you think that's bad, I saw a 6.8 SPC fan on another forum talk about one of the 6.8 NGSW cartridges being "a variant of the 6.8" -- as if having the same bullet diameter makes one cartridge a variant of a completely different cartridge...

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

4-Jul

Is that any worse than Strategy Page thinking 6.8 SPC being the NGSW cartridge? That's not supposed to be a collection of random internet idiots unlike other websites.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

4-Jul

That's entirely untrue for one.

For two, it outright doesn't even come close to meeting the actual important requirements.

TOP