Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 7:41 by mpopenker
Latest 7:23 by mpopenker
Latest 7:01 by gatnerd
Latest 5:27 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 3:54 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 1:32 by stancrist
Latest 1:23 by farmplinker2
Latest 1:20 by farmplinker2
Latest 1:08 by farmplinker2
Latest 3-Oct by graylion
Latest 3-Oct by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 3-Oct by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 3-Oct by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 29-Sep by stancrist
Latest 27-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
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 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 16-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 14-Sep by smg762
Latest 9-Aug by farmplinker2
Latest 7-Sep by EmericD
Latest 5-Sep by stancrist
Latest 4-Sep by renatohm
Latest 4-Sep by Mr. T (MrT4)
9/10/20
roguetechie said:I have a feeling that this would be somewhat incompatible and or expensive/requiring more manufacturing steps due to the way modern jacketed ammo is made. But that's just my first impression on it.
It would be possible to crimp the case into a groove behind the body of the projectile and in the front of the boat tail. it could be a quite solid connection and an option if retaining steel cases. Theoretically at least.
9/10/20
The impression I've had from the more recent Army press releases is that mention of penetrating body armour seems to have faded away, with the the emphasis now being about how the excellent ballistics, in combination with the advanced computer sights, are dramatically improving the hit probability at long range.
9/10/20
autogun said:The impression I've had from the more recent Army press releases is that mention of penetrating body armour seems to have faded away, with the the emphasis now being about how the excellent ballistics, in combination with the advanced computer sights, are dramatically improving the hit probability at long range.
Good grief.
I think you're right too; the official army description of NGSW no longer mentions body armor, just a generic 'lethality' and hit probability:
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/fws-cs-2/
The NGSW program significantly increases lethality and probability of hit at the squad level. Due to the nature of the General Purpose ammunition, the 6.8mm projectile will outperform even the most modern 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition. These weapon systems will give Soldiers significant capability improvements in accuracy, range, signature management, and lethality.
Which is nuts, as pretty much any caliber with a Fire Control Unit would have dramatically more hit probability. And there are any number of lighter recoiling VLD cartridge configurations that could exceed 7.62 lethality.
Oy.
9/10/20
Traditionally, small arms ammo relied on neck tension to keep the bullet in place, but if you look at medium-caliber ammo, the case neck is very short, look at the 25x137 mm or the 30x173 mm case.
I think that conventional ammo could be made with a very short neck (so short that it's close to non-existant), and that you could make "neckless" ammo configuration even with brass or steel case, with minimum modification to existing manufacturing process.
9/10/20
gatnerd said:Which is nuts, as pretty much any caliber with a Fire Control Unit would have dramatically more hit probability. And there are any number of lighter recoiling VLD cartridge configurations that could exceed 7.62 lethality.
That's right, but even with a FCU you have errors, and with a high velocity round with a good BC bullet you could accept more errors than a lower velocity round with a crappy BC.
Anyway, you're right that replacing the 7.62 mm NATO with the 6.5 mm Creedmoor or the .260 Rem (or any other other cartridge like the .224 Valk, 6 mm ARC or 6 mm Creed) will already allows to achieve 80% of the single shot effectiveness gain that the 6.8 mm will bring.
9/10/20
EmericD said:That's right, but even with a FCU you have errors, and with a high velocity round with a good BC bullet you could accept more errors than a lower velocity round with a crappy BC. Anyway, you're right that replacing the 7.62 mm NATO with the 6.5 mm Creedmoor or the .260 Rem (or any other other cartridge like the .224 Valk, 6 mm ARC or 6 mm Creed) will already allows to achieve 80% of the single shot effectiveness gain that the 6.8 mm will bring.
Well sort of like we discussed earlier on designing for hit probability, using that wonderful software of yours.
Absent the armor requirement, 'NGSW 2.0'cartridge design could be based on:
-Maximizing hit probability within the FCU framework
-Increasing fragmentation range for EPR beyond 7.62
-Minimizing recoil and cartridge weight while fulfilling above requirement
-Maximizing magazine capacity / belt density
-Using NGSW 1.0 technology to achieve all of the above
9/10/20
Or 570 Supercruise, which would allow you to achieve three times the single shot effectiveness.
9/10/20
gatnerd said:Well sort of like we discussed earlier on designing for hit probability, using that wonderful software of yours. Absent the armor requirement, 'NGSW 2.0'cartridge design could be based on: -Maximizing hit probability within the FCU framework -Increasing fragmentation range for EPR beyond 7.62 -Minimizing recoil and cartridge weight while fulfilling above requirement -Maximizing magazine capacity / belt density -Using NGSW 1.0 technology to achieve all of the above
9/10/20
570 supercruise also has it's stupid short time of flight to any given range which in conjunction with the FCU's will make it even more death laser like than even those charts suggest