Wow! The way things are going, soon tanks will become as obsolete as battleships and the "grunts" will become the main means of "assault" on the ground.
An infantry batallion equipped with them, stingers, a 50 cal or two and a cell phone to call in airstrikes can overcome anything.
Posts: 10190 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001
So let me get this strait. We move from M16s to M4s becasue they are lighter and handier then the M16. The M16 being the unwieldly contrapion it is. But their are problems, the M4 gives up too much velocity with its shorter them M16 barrel. So the next step is ovious, a gun the size and weight of a car door, with an even shorter .223 barrel. What an inprovement!
quote:Originally posted by cas: They haven't got the funds/supply to train right with straight .223 NOW... so what then.. $12K gun and $25 shells. Right...
Bullshit? Physics and facts don't matter on XBox I guess.
Shoot SS109 out of a 14.5 barrel, you get about 2850fps. Now fire it thru a 20 inch barrel and you get 3100fps. Now fire thur a 12 or so inch barrel and its gonna go faster then either the 14.5inch or 20inch barrel? I dont think so.
Energy comes from velocity and mass. Yes the 5.56NATO is a high velocity/energy round, but it requires a minimum of barrel lenght to acheive it. From a 4inch barrel it would be neither high velocity or high energy, where as from a 20inch barrel it is. The need for a long barrel is clear.
So how do physics work? Explain to me in you less-is-more new math how you plan to get 3100fps out of a 12inch barrel with a ss109 projectile and stay within presure.
Seems to me that what our military really NEEDS at this point is some cross training with some of our metropolitan SWAT teams and some tear gas grenade launchers so they can conduct "the politically correct war" from house to house.
Posts: 10190 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001
quote:Originally posted by cas: They haven't got the funds/supply to train right with straight .223 NOW... so what then.. $12K gun and $25 shells. Right...
.
What if you consider them as a replacement for a mortar round or a 37mm? Although the range is classified, estimates are out to 500 yds. As far as price, the correct analysis would be cost/ benefit. How much does a 50cal round cost the military? If they use 50 rounds to take out a sniper nest, is it cost effective vs one $25 shot? How much does a mortar round cost, or a SMAW missle?
Don't forget economies of scale. As more of these rounds are produced, the cost will fall.
As for the comment about them not working, I don't have a clue, but someone seems to think that they will. If they do, the bad guys are in more trouble than they are in now.
Is this not just an updated version of the M16/M203 concept? Personally I would like to see more use made of the 2"/60mm mortar road and maybe spend the time and money on some hi-tech shells for this...
Posts: 5684 | Location: North Wales UK | Registered: 22 May 2002
quote:Originally posted by Pete E: Is this not just an updated version of the M16/M203 concept?
VERY updated, in that the key element of the design (and the reason for the high cost) is the rangefinder/ballistic computer/electronic fuze setter which in combination indicates to the firer where to aim to get the shells just above the target, and sets the fuzes to detonate when they get there. It can therefore take out people hiding behind cover or even in trenches.
Exactly the same principle is used in the 25mm OCSW which is intended to replace the 40mm AGLs and many of the .50 M2HBs. Of course, similar technology is now being applied to the 40mm AGLs...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Posts: 238 | Location: Derbyshire, UK | Registered: 24 May 2002
![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon}
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}