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.

  • 3346
    MEMBERS
  • 190028
    MESSAGES
  • 25
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 519722 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

26/1/22

gatnerd said:

US = M14 1959-1967 --> 1967 M16

W. Germany = G3 1959-1997 --> 1997 G36

So thats a full 30 years of G3ing past when the US swapped out the M14 for an assault rifle. And while the US was slow to see the merits of the Assault Rifle, the Germans actually invented it, yet the W. Germans didnt issue one until 1997.

The Germans originally wanted to use the StG44, but were prevented from doing so by the Americans, and initially had to use surplus M1 Garands.

Later, the G3 was adopted because the 7.62x51 was forced upon NATO members by the Americans, not because the Germans wanted a battle rifle.

The Germans didn't field an assault rifle until 1997 because the G3 was in service, and its planned replacement (the G11) had been jn development.

And I wouldn't make a big deal out of the Germans adopting a 5.56x45 rifle three decades after the Americans did.

In the early 1960s, the US Army did not want the AR-15, which they were forced to buy by the Secretary of Defense. 

Prior to that action, the Army's leadership had been committed to fully equipping the entire force with the M14 rifle.

If not for the SecDef interference, the M14 may have remained the standard issue rifle for as long as the German G3.

EmericD

From: EmericD

26/1/22

gatnerd said:

So thats a full 30 years of G3ing past when the US swapped out the M14 for an assault rifle. And while the US was slow to see the merits of the Assault Rifle, the Germans actually invented it, yet the W. Germans didnt issue one until 1997.The 1980 declaration of the Federal Republic of Germany, made after the NSMATCC evaluation, summarize this position: “FRG Position a) Will not field the second NATO round in either the individual weapon or light support weapon role but will adopt the G-11 circa 1987. The steel core SS109 type round as specified in NATO STANAG 4172 is too complicated and expensive for manufacture. b) FRG internal position of the test impact and FRG future rifle/machine gun plans are as follows: The NSMATCC evaluation weighted the 5.56 mm cartridge so heavily (because of its low weight and volume) that the 7.62mm cartridge was at disadvantage before the tests even started. However, the results of the shooting test have proven without doubt the superiority of the cal. 7.62mm and thus reinforce the FRG position that two calibres will be required
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
JPeelen

From: JPeelen

26/1/22

Hi Emeric,

your message text is somehow irritating the forum software and therefore only shown in small fragments outside the actual message area (on Firefox at least). 

I would hate to miss it. Could you please try again? It looks as if you copied/pasted a pre-formatted text that confuses the software.  Thanks a lot.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

26/1/22

Yes something about that text has done something to the forum, text is now floating over and sideways to the post. 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

26/1/22

I think I managed to copy most of Emerics info, I hope this works:

The 1980 declaration of the Federal Republic of Germany, made after the NSMATCC evaluation, summarize this position:

 

The NSMATCC evaluation weighted the 5.56 mm cartridge so heavily (because of its low weight and volume) that the 7.62mm cartridge was at disadvantage before the tests even started.

 

However, the results of the shooting test have proven without doubt the superiority of the cal. 7.62mm and thus reinforce the FRG position that two calibres will be required: for the infantry rifleman as small as possible within effective terminal ballistics limits and light machine gun in 7.62mm calibre.

 

In consequence, the only logical result is to take advantage of the G11 4.7mm caseless technology which reduces volume of the cartridge in comparison to 5.56mm by over one third and reduces weight by about one half. At the same time, the 4.7mm caseless ammunition, during side by side test with the SS109, shows equal test results as that

recommended for the SS109.

Thus, the final decision would be to complete development and produce the G11 to have it ready for mass production in 1985, for

eventual introduction into the FRG Armed Forces starting in 1987, continue with a light machinegun in calibre 7.62mm developing a caseless machinegun in that same calibre for MG / light machinegun utilization.”

EmericD

From: EmericD

27/1/22

gatnerd said:

I hope this works:

Yes it does. Thank you!

As you can bet, with this kind of official annoucement, Germany was not going to adopt the SS-109 until all the nails were put in the G11 coffin.

I think that's a good example of the difference between the US's view and the German's view on this topic.

The US wanted a "universal cartridge" for the squad, and the SS-109 was considered sufficient to deal with ligtly armored targets up to around 550 m.

For Germany, the 5.56 mm was not able to cover all the roles of the LMG, so 2 rounds were needed, and the 5.56 mm was "overpowered" for only "protecting the LMG".

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

27/1/22

EmericD said:

For Germany, the 5.56 mm was not able to cover all the roles of the LMG, so 2 rounds were needed, and the 5.56 mm was "overpowered" for only "protecting the LMG"

Thanks for sharing that info. Definitely a different perspective. 

Its a shame they didnt take a closer look at the Austrians, who also used the MG3, and then protected it with 5.56 AUGs.  Cold War 1984 goes hot, Austria really had the best mix of anyone - MG3's, AUGs, and Glock 17's. 

In terms of a less "overpowered" caliber, it would have been interesting had they pursued the 4.6x36 /HK36 more. Work on reducing bolt impact to improve FA contolability, bump capacity to 36-42 (something divisible by 3 for 3rd burst) and equip it with an optic. Could have been a low recoil, lightweight, 1200rpm 3rd burst launcher. 

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

27/1/22

Micro-calibers are very prone to the water in the bore problem, and the smaller the bore, the more serious is that problem

They also are very ineffective against improvised cover, such as walls, earth/sand berms etc

EmericD

From: EmericD

27/1/22

gatnerd said:

In terms of a less "overpowered" caliber, it would have been interesting had they pursued the 4.6x36 /HK36 more.

They did, but in a caseless form... the G11 was the "product improved" version of the HK36, with an even lighter round, a "less strange" magazine (still impractical because it was too long), and better full-auto stability.

If you want to revive the "micro caliber fever" of the 70s, you could reload a .17 WSM with a scaled-down "balle D", you will end with a 29 gr bullet with a C7 around 0.16 at a MV around 750 m/s.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

27/1/22

"They did, but in a caseless form... the G11 was the "product improved" version of the HK36, with an even lighter round, a "less strange" magazine (still impractical because it was too long), and better full-auto stability."

Yes, its just it didn't work ;-) Of all the downsides to the G11, that ACR report is pretty damning - not only did it not improve hit probability at any distance, but it was markedly worse then a M16 with iron sights. 

Is there any indication of why both Germany and the US were so gung-ho on hyperburst? Had it worked well with test fixtures, and just not translated once put into the ACR trial with real guns? 

TOP