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.

  • 3361
    MEMBERS
  • 191244
    MESSAGES
  • 7
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 555539 views.
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

13/8/21

I'm going to address point 2 because it's an example of a grievous thinking error brought about by equating combat shooting to shooting fixed targets at a firing range.

The very short answer is not only an EMPHATIC NO on advanced sights reducing "the advantage of HV/STOF rounds", it's actually the case that advanced gun sights provide an even greater NEED for HV and short time of flight rounds!

I don't know if you're aware of this or not but at ranges beyond 500 meters even m855a1 and m80a1 take like a full second or more to get there. In that time even an unaware human can extremely easily without knowing they're being fired upon move out of the way of your round without taking a full step in any direction!

In combat, especially when people know they're being shot at, they can and frequently will move a few yards in that 1 second or longer!

Having an advanced gun sight on something that takes 2-3 seconds to get to the 1000 meters your advanced optic can help you make shots at makes your advanced optic useless for anything other than flat fixed target ranges!

We see this issue much more acutely with grenade launchers whether they are LV or HV so I'm going to use them as an example.

The US military right now is looking to buy something like the xm25 again because they need an HE flinger to service urgent targets up to 1000 meters. So why would they be looking for something with a much shorter time of flight and higher velocity even at the cost of drastically reduced explosive payload and blast radius when they have the fancy striker AGL with very advanced grenade sights which can reach out to way past 1000 meters Tony?

I'll tell you why 

Because TIME OF FLIGHT ALWAYS MATTERS

If your bullet or bomb only gets there after the enemy has left it's worthless and was a waste!

Sten556

From: Sten556

13/8/21

It might be crazy talk on my part, but when I see promising new tech arrive on the scene, I want it to augment current capabilities besides opening new ones... not use it as an excuse to justify intentionally bad cartridges because... because... MAGIC!

Besides HVSC round also have advantages in lethal range, dispersion and wind drift. And if you don't have the new tech scopes, well you still have a superior base cartridge that with the new scope can do even more than the bad one.

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

13/8/21

autogun said:

2. Since advanced sights will soon be available regardless of which rifle is in use, doesn't that significantly reduce the advantages of a HV/SToF round?

It hasn't in any application where this technology has been used previously, no.

autogun said:

3. If the Army is so set against bullpups, why did they not only allow one into the competition but actually select it as one of the three winners to be carried forward? After all, they've had decades to evaluate several bullpups which have seen service, so they know their pros and cons. 

Because Fort Benning isn't Fort Belvoir isn't Picatinny Arsenal?

autogun said:

4. (P.S.) Given the fate of all other attempts to introduce advanced technology small arms, what are the odds on NGSW being adopted?

past performance does not guarantee future results

Msg 7519.1251 deleted
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

13/8/21

All technology is an excuse to stump for bringing back the EM-2.

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

13/8/21

autogun said:

doesn't that significantly reduce the advantages of a HV/SToF round?

I mean you know this, so I'm not sure why you've been playing dumb for 10+ years:

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

13/8/21

Question for Tony, if the US adopts an approximately ~0.28 caliber bullpup rifle as its standard arm, will you consider the legacy of Janson and Enfield complete?

stancrist

From: stancrist

13/8/21

NGSW weapons are exactly .27 caliber, not "approximately" .28 caliber.

  • Edited 13 August 2021 19:37  by  stancrist
stancrist

From: stancrist

13/8/21

QuintusO said:

autogun said: 4. (P.S.) Given the fate of all other attempts to introduce advanced technology small arms, what are the odds on NGSW being adopted?

past performance does not guarantee future results

However, "past performance" is the most reliable indicator of future behavior.

autogun

From: autogun

13/8/21

roguetechie said:

I'm going to address point 2 because it's an example of a grievous thinking error brought about by equating combat shooting to shooting fixed targets at a firing range. The very short answer is not only an EMPHATIC NO on advanced sights reducing "the advantage of HV/STOF rounds", it's actually the case that advanced gun sights provide an even greater NEED for HV and short time of flight rounds!

Let me explain my thinking. The optimum hypothetical solution is a hypersonic projectile which shoots so flat that range estimates are irrelevant, wind drift has negligible effect and the target has no time to move. In this case, advanced sights are unnecessary as the shooter can just aim straight at the target. By far the biggest remaining cause of error would then of course be the shooter, who has to hold the gun steady and press the trigger smoothly.  

As the time of flight increases, so range estimates and wind drift become more important and, as you say, the target has more time to move. An advanced sight can however, deal with range estimates, corrections for shooting up and downhill, and even wind drift (difficult, but a lot of work is being done on that). It is also technically possible, given electronic trigger control, to prevent the gun from firing until the sights have calculated that a hit is probable (thereby minimising shooter control error). The one thing that advanced sights cannot do is improve the chances of hitting a moving target - that's down to the time of flight, as you say. 

So there is no argument that HV rounds have a clear advantage in hitting moving targets whatever sights are used (the shorter the ToF, the better). However, my point is that the other causes of error can be significantly reduced by using advanced sights, even with a standard velocity round.

It would be interesting to conduct some experiments involving different velocity cartridges and sights ranging from simple to very advanced, in order to evaluate the importance of the various factors. Of course, HV rounds will perform better, OTBE, but the question is how much better, and what the additional cost is in weight, recoil and the other issues which have been discussed here at length...

   

TOP