This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 24-Jan by RovingPedant
Latest 4:52 by autogun
Latest 1:00 by Krenske
Latest 21-Apr by ZailC
Latest 21-Apr by Red7272
Latest 20-Apr by stancrist
Latest 20-Apr by QuintusO
Latest 19-Apr by hobbes154
Latest 19-Apr by gatnerd
Latest 18-Apr by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 18-Apr by autogun
Latest 18-Apr by autogun
Latest 14-Apr by renatohm
Latest 14-Apr by roguetechie
Latest 12-Apr by RovingPedant
Latest 8-Apr by Farmplinker
Latest 8-Apr by tidusyuki
Latest 3-Apr by roguetechie
Latest 3-Apr by gatnerd
Latest 31-Mar by larrikin2
Latest 28-Mar by DavidPawley
Latest 27-Mar by stancrist
Latest 26-Mar by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 24-Mar by Mustrakrakis
Latest 24-Mar by poliorcetes
I know the computers help accuracy, but assuming flawless shooting conditions, would the guns dispersion be on par with a good sniper rifle?
Long ago there was a video doing the rounds of a moving US tank putting 10 out of 10 APFSDS into a 30 cm target at 2000 metres. No idea if it was accurate or a propaganda video by a manufacturer. At a high enough velocity fin stabilisation is as reliable as spin so there is no reason for them to not be very accurate.
In GW1 a Challenger 1 scored a kill at 5110 meters. So the accuracy is pretty good.
Engagement ranges is more limited by the terrain type. Tanks, as big as they are, have a relatively low silhouette and even slightly rolling terrain can mask them effectively.
In 2008, Jane's Armor and Artillery Upgrades published the following for the RUAG 120 mm Compact Tank Gun, firing APFSDS at 1150 m:
0.14 mils horizontal standard deviation
0.21 mils vertical standard deviation
This is from only 10 shots. But it should give a raw figure.
HEAT and particularly HESH have a much longer time of flight, reducing hit probability.
Right. I read that the Swedish SLAP in their 762 DMRs had an average of 33% worse accuracy than standard ammo.
And that was recent too, So it suggests bugs still haven't been ironed out. Although those were 5mm bullets not darts
Also have any tanks used APDS with non-flechette projectiles? We're they accurate..?
smg762 said...And that was recent too, So it suggests bugs still haven't been ironed out. Although those were 5mm bullets not darts
Tolerances and aerodynamics don’t scale the same way caliber does, so I wouldn’t read too much into how a small-arms projectile behaves relative to a tank gun.
smg762 said...Also have any tanks used APDS with non-flechette projectiles? We're they accurate..?
Usually fin-stabilised projectiles are defined APFSDS, so APDS usually describes the spin-stabilised version. Chieftain used it and was good for 1500m, so adequately so in that case. The early APDS used on the 6 and 17pdr guns had accuracy issues beyond a few hundred metres so it’s not a universal thing.
Also I read that the ACR rifles used puller Sabots, with someone opining that a cup or spindle sabot would have been more accurate.
Historically virtually no one has achieved accuracy with regular projectiles- only with flechettes (in tanks).
Logically then it would seem a small arm attempt should use flechettes.
I am afraid, the opposite is true.
The U.S. 5.8 mm XM645 flechettes (BRL Report 1810 of 1975) had a standard deviation of about 1 mil, which is roughly 10 times the dispersion of an ordinary spin stabilized small arms bullet (0.1 mils standard deviation). Maybe, more modern designs have reduced this to 5 times the dispersion.
No I meant that the only times sabots have achieved great accuracy is with flechettes (in tank)
Sabots With bullets have never had. Good accuracy.
Therefore perhaps the only hope for small arms sabots... is flechettes
The U.S. xm flechettes were obviously very old. I still maintain that emulating the spindle sabot of a tank is the solution. It would mean a long round. You wouldn't want to match the l/d ratio of current U.S. tank flechettes.... they are comically long. Other countries use far shorter penetrators
Most small-arms flechettes i have seen have stamped fins made on machines similar to ones making nails with similar precision,one wonders to what standard both the smoothbore barrel and the sabot was made to and its no suprise they are less accurate than traditional bullets.
given that a 17 cal bullet could give sabot like performance, perhaps you could design more of a simple 'sheath' to prevent barrel wear. Fouling is a far bigger problem though.
They also experimented with a 4. 32 bullet in a sabot. Accuracy sucked so they tried to just use a regular 17 Remington... but barrel wear was bad.
The project was called the serial bullet rifle and AAI made a prototype.
Google 4. 32 sabot and there's a bunch of old articles on 'Google books'