Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 11:10 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 10:28 by graylion
Latest 19/5/22 by schnuersi
Latest 6:41 by schnuersi
Latest 5:32 by poliorcetes
Latest 1:18 by gatnerd
Latest 2-Feb by roguetechie
Latest 1-Feb by roguetechie
Latest 1-Feb by gatnerd
Latest 1-Feb by autogun
Latest 31-Jan by DavidPawley
Latest 30-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 30-Jan by Guardsman26
Latest 30-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 30-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 27-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 27-Jan by stancrist
Latest 27-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 26-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 26-Jan by autogun
Latest 25-Jan by schnuersi
Latest 24-Jan by ZailC
Latest 24-Jan by stancrist
Latest 24-Jan by renatohm
Latest 23-Jan by Apsyda
Latest 21-Jan by graylion
Latest 21-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 20-Jan by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 18-Jan by nincomp
Latest 17-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 14-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 14-Jan by Refleks
Latest 13-Jan by EmericD
Latest 12-Jan by APFSDST
Latest 12-Jan by APFSDST
Latest 11-Jan by RovingPedant
Latest 8-Jan by wiggy556
Latest 7-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 6-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 6-Jan by autogun
Latest 3-Jan by stancrist
10/5/22
graylion said:4.6x30
6.8x51
8.5x63
30x113
IMHO it makes little sense to have 8,5 and 6,8. Both are intended for long range use.
A true intermediate makes more sense. This could be used for rifles and infantry MGs.
8.5 for al other (GP) MGs and possibly sniper and marksman rifles.
I am not a fan of the 30x113. I don't really see the use. If you want HE trowing in a ligthweight package 40 mm HV does that. 30x113 guns will allways be to large and heavy for dismounted use. 40 mm AGLs are far better for this purpose. Maybe design a more modern version with a more streamlined grenade of the same weight to reduce flight time and improve accuracy.
If its about penetration 30x113 isn't great as well. It also has no KE projectile. A 20x139 mm AC is the better choice for that.
10/5/22
graylion said:I come back to 8.5x63 ... ;) as regards 12.7 SAPHEI. what about replacing with 30x113 as has been suggested? Them guns are pretty light.And there are gas powered ones available. So, if starting from nearly scratch, I'd go 4.6x30 6.8x51 8.5x63 30x113
That won't be my winning lottery numbers.
The 4.6 x 30 mm is a handgun-power round that can't be used in a handgun. The company RADAR1957 is making harness for the MP7, to be able to keep it close to the body, but this harness also accept... the MP5. The MP7 is a good replacement for a SMG like the UZI (or the MP5), but it's not the PDW as initially envisioned, that was supposed to be <1.5 kg and <30 cm.
The 6.8 x 51 mm is a "super 7.62 mm NATO", with the same limits as the 7.62 mm NATO (mainly ammo weight and recoil). A good round for a vehicle-mounted MMG, but probably not what I would want for dismounted infantry.
The 8.6 x 63 mm is a superb antipersonnel round for long-range use, but will lack the payload of the 12.7 mm for anti-material job, and will probably offer very little improvement over the 6.8 mm.
The 30 x 113 mm is burning much more powder than any current infantry support weapon, and except for the increased MV and reduced explosive efficiency I wonder if it's very superior to the 40 x 53 mm for infantry use.
My bet would be:
1- a handgun round (choose one),
2- something like the 224 Valkyrie or the 6 mm ARC (but with a truly lightweight case) for most dismounted infantry use (PDW, IW, LMG/SAW/AR),
3- a 8 x 63 mm (or a 30-06 with 190 gr bullets) for MMG/tripod/vehicle/RWS use,
4- a 13 mm HMG (because KE rounds are cheap) and a 40 x 53 mm GMG (or the very good Russian 30 x 29 mm).
10/5/22
EmericD said:- something like the 224 Valkyrie or the 6 mm ARC (but with a truly lightweight case) for most dismounted infantry use (PDW, IW, LMG/SAW/AR),
Do you see any advantage to higher-pressure variants of these cartridges? Not necessarily 80,000psi, but more than the 52,000 psi used by the ARC to protect an AR15's bolt. BTW, Hornady publishes "bolt gun" loads at 62,000psi for the 6mm ARC, but it is difficult to gage the performance increase vs the "gas gun" loads since since they used a 24" (610mm) barrel for "bolt" data and 18" (457mm) for the "gas gun".
10/5/22
EmericD said:graylion said: I come back to 8.5x63 ... ;) as regards 12.7 SAPHEI. what about replacing with 30x113 as has been suggested? Them guns are pretty light.And there are gas powered ones available. So, if starting from nearly scratch, I'd go 4.6x30 6.8x51 8.5x63 30x113 That won't be my winning lottery numbers. The 4.6 x 30 mm is a handgun-power round that can't be used in a handgun. The company RADAR1957 is making harness for the MP7, to be able to keep it close to the body, but this harness also accept... the MP5. The MP7 is a good replacement for a SMG like the UZI (or the MP5), but it's not the PDW as initially envisioned, that was supposed to be <1.5 kg and <30 cm. The 6.8 x 51 mm is a "super 7.62 mm NATO", with the same limits as the 7.62 mm NATO (mainly ammo weight and recoil). A good round for a vehicle-mounted MMG, but probably not what I would want for dismounted infantry. The 8.6 x 63 mm is a superb antipersonnel round for long-range use, but will lack the payload of the 12.7 mm for anti-material job, and will probably offer very little improvement over the 6.8 mm. The 30 x 113 mm is burning much more powder than any current infantry support weapon, and except for the increased MV and reduced explosive efficiency I wonder if it's very superior to the 40 x 53 mm for infantry use. My bet would be: 1- a handgun round (choose one), 2- something like the 224 Valkyrie or the 6 mm ARC (but with a truly lightweight case) for most dismounted infantry use (PDW, IW, LMG/SAW/AR), 3- a 8 x 63 mm (or a 30-06 with 190 gr bullets) for MMG/tripod/vehicle/RWS use, 4- a 13 mm HMG (because KE rounds are cheap) and a 40 x 53 mm GMG (or the very good Russian 30 x 29 mm).
Hmm,
10/5/22
graylion said:14.5x113
What do you want this legacy round for?
Its overpowered for anti personel use, large and heavy. While its outdated/not powerfull anymore for anti vehicle use.
The 14,5 is very close to a 20 mm AC round. The gun is also of similar size and weight. But it lacks the extra power of the KE round and the payload capacity.The
The 5.7x28 is virtually identical in performance to the 4,6x30. If one doesn't cut it the other won't as well.
To select the right cartidges for your mix you need to define what you want to do with them. Once you do that you get performance parameters that will narrow the selection down. This way the cartidges selected to the mix make sense and complement each other.
It 6,8x51 will become a new standard is currently completly uncertain. As EmericD said its basically a 7,62x51.
10/5/22
schnuersi said:I tend to prefer technical descriptions.
Same here. However, I don't know of anyone else who defines SAW = SCHV LMG.
I know of only two instances of an LMG being called a SAW, and one is not SCHV.
schnuersi said:As far as I knwo the M240 is a GPMG and when its used from bipod its used in the LMG role and if its used from tripod its in the MMG role. MMG being defined by the use of a mount and being rifle caliber.
The US Army considers the M240 to be a MMG, regardless of what type mount is used.
PEO Soldier | Portfolio - PM SL - M240B/L/H 7.62mm Medium Machine Gun (army.mil)
10/5/22
schnuersi said:That is the problem. They are but not in Germany. As far as I know Turkey and Pakistan do still manufacture the MG3 large scale. In Germany only replacement parts are manufactured on demand in small batches... if at all.
Thats a bummer. Shame to see such an iconic and effective design fade away; dont imagine many will go for buying more from Turkey, even if they are a NATO member with solid arms industry.
10/5/22
graylion said:Time to define what we mean by LMG?
Intended to primarily / exclusively be fire from a bipod is my general go to LMG litmus. Whereas if Tripod/Vehicle mounting is common / weapon is well designed/advertised for, then its GPMG.
Example being the MK48 vs M240. Both are 7.62 belt fed machineguns, but the MK48 really is intended for squad bipod use, whereas the M240 is true general purpose machinegun extensively employed on bipods/tripods/vehicles.
...However LMG is a generally 'squishy' definition with some debate (not like the distinction between assault rifles and submachine guns which is pretty settled terminology)
10/5/22
stancrist said:A "SAW" (Squad Automatic Weapon) can be a SCHV LMG; SCHV automatic rifle; full power, rifle caliber LMG; full power, rifle caliber MMG; or full power, rifle caliber automatic rifle. And not all machine guns fired from a bipod are LMGs
The BREN gun is the ultimate confusing one. It straddles the line across all categories:
-Automatic rifle
-SAW
-LMG
-GPMG
There are numerous pictures from WW2 of it being used in all categories.