Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.


Khand-e

Recommended Posts

If I could telepathically choke all of you for polluting my thread with this, I'd probably be doing it right about now.

 

I don't mind some non serious or slightly off topic posts, I and quite a few others do it quite a bit, but seriously what the fuck is this?

It's unavoidable, and it's nice to get out of your system once in a while with chill dudes. So for gun chat, I present one of the few decent Mosin projects I've seen online:

 

sTEgltul.jpg

 

Mosins converted to fire 45-70, and I want them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unavoidable, and it's nice to get out of your system once in a while with chill dudes. So for gun chat, I present one of the few decent Mosin projects I've seen online:

 

sTEgltul.jpg

 

Mosins converted to fire 45-70, and I want them.

 

those are the stupidest not taticool mosins ive ever seen 

 

then again, 7.62 grows on tree's over here so i guess its an ammo concern for you guys

 

but they still look dumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those are the stupidest not taticool mosins ive ever seen 

 

then again, 7.62 grows on tree's over here so i guess its an ammo concern for you guys

 

but they still look dumb

 Depending on the area, they may want something with a bit more oomph than 7,62X54R.

.45-70 definitely has that when loaded properly, and the MN action is plenty stout, while being inexpensive enough to make it a viable conversion.

 

I have a bunch of articles I should scan in from the 1920's on converting the first wave MN surplus rifles to sporting use.  They have almost as long as history of sporting use in North America as they do in their homeland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45-70 sometimes gets a nod in Alaska - many guides won't take people on expeditions with standard .30 type rounds for rifles and in terms of cheap and easy to find the next most common round in AK is 45-70 that fits the outback bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's unavoidable, and it's nice to get out of your system once in a while with chill dudes. So for gun chat, I present one of the few decent Mosin projects I've seen online:

 

sTEgltul.jpg

 

Mosins converted to fire 45-70, and I want them.

 

I still find it odd how they look almost stock for the most part (caliber conversion aside), but then with the top one, BAM, night sight out of nowhere.

 

To be fair, I use green tritium back/red front night sights on like all my pistols because I have trouble seeing down the black/white contrast sights that many designs use, but it just seems so out of place there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"More than half of the small arms engagements in Afghanistan are beyond 500 meters"

 

However, they are not engagements between soldiers firing old style rifles at each other.  They are engagements between heavy weapons where the infantry basically have to sit on their ass and soak casualties.  I have video from a bunch of engagements, and most have M4 armed soldiers going to ground and negotiating rule of engagement with air power until they can get a kinetic strike in, then finding out their own 60mm did most of the damage. Restrepo showed an action just like that, as did that TV doc that is on now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the bit where the M-14 can shoot through one Viet Cong soldier and kill the one behind it.

 

The 7.62 does have a habit of overpenetrating and just wounding foes, so i would say there might be a chance the first guy just has a neat whole through him

 

*cough*cough*5.45 masterrace *cough*cough*

 

"More than half of the small arms engagements in Afghanistan are beyond 500 meters"

 

However, they are not engagements between soldiers firing old style rifles at each other.  They are engagements between heavy weapons where the infantry basically have to sit on their ass and soak casualties.  I have video from a bunch of engagements, and most have M4 armed soldiers going to ground and negotiating rule of engagement with air power until they can get a kinetic strike in, then finding out their own 60mm did most of the damage. Restrepo showed an action just like that, as did that TV doc that is on now.

 

The same resonates from the soviet experience in Afghanistan, have the battles fought were pretty much solely 14.5mm territory

 

though when the muj got close they usually toke horrendous casulites from the VDV actually getting to flex some of their combat skills instead of just taking turns on the KPV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an absurdly obtuse "article" . I hesitate to even call it that.

 

No reference to the utter soup sandwich of the T-25, no mention of the parallel development of SALVO/SPIW, no mention of the absurd flaws of the M14 design or the issues it had in manufacturing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or did that article have a really abrupt end, almost like the didn't post the entire thing?

Yeah. I kept scrolling down, expecting it to pick up elsewhere or wondering where the Jump to next page link was. I'm assuming the author's lower intestine leaped out of his sphincter and strangled him and the War is Boring guys decided to run the piece anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"More than half of the small arms engagements in Afghanistan are beyond 500 meters"

 

However, they are not engagements between soldiers firing old style rifles at each other.  They are engagements between heavy weapons where the infantry basically have to sit on their ass and soak casualties.  I have video from a bunch of engagements, and most have M4 armed soldiers going to ground and negotiating rule of engagement with air power until they can get a kinetic strike in, then finding out their own 60mm did most of the damage. Restrepo showed an action just like that, as did that TV doc that is on now.

 

Some people will simply not listen to you if you tell them that. Or they'll asininely respond that "of course the soldiers sit on their ass, they're armed with poodleshooter 5.56 carbines!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on this I propose the ultimate universal infantry weapon for all purposes based on our A-stan experience.

 

The 66.8 mm mortar is clearly the ideal solution to allow effectiveness at many ranges and has a carefully chosen caliber to make ballistic reformers happy.

 

You laugh but there is a series of break points with explosive weapons that DO indeed show points where the explosive power versus error rate of hit hit statistical cliffs.  The 40mm is an example of where the line was drawn to far on the other side - the weapon has been shown to be less useful in practical engagements because the error rate of the sights and the weapon is below the threshold of its explosives.  Doubling the weight of the explosives (a 15% increase in shell mass) actually triples casualty causing power.  US forces learned this in Afghanistan and started taking stripped down 60mm mortars into the field, which generate 70% of the offensive power of a unit now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people will simply not listen to you if you tell them that. Or they'll asininely respond that "of course the soldiers sit on their ass, they're armed with poodleshooter 5.56 carbines!"

 

Yeah, and their GPMGs are doing no better at 400 meters.  The issue is like I have been wiring for years, the age of direct fire kinetics except as a local defensive weapon is coming to a close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gas tube versus piston, 6.8 versus 5.56.  It is all too much time on the hands of too many people who have a vested interest in being victorious rather than right in an argument.

 

https://mountainpreparedness.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/the-forgotten-french-history-of-the-all-american-m1-garand-rifle/

 

The famous Garand is just a WW1 French design modified RSC - I love throwing that in when people start saying we should dump the M4 and go with the Garand.

 

Anyway - the 6.8mm is a great round - in 1920.  In 1920 the 6.8 with its shorter profile would have allowed adoption of a compact Rossingol or RSC weapon that could have been a game changer in terms of squad based firepower.  In this age grenade fusing and mortar fusing limited the power of explosives that could be carried in portable weapons and even though small explosives dominated the battle field even then, the 6.8mm would have substantially increased the firepower of squads.

 

Today - the 6.8mm does not increase hit percentage off the range.  The issue is not that the rifle can increase engagement envelopes in Afghanistan, it is that nothing can and we have to figure out how to deliver firepower out past the 200m mark with man portable weapons better at a weight that can be sustainable in combat. 

 

In fact, I see room for the G11 to return.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Vir...

1. 6.8mm is terrible, though the case isn't bad; the projectiles are atrocious.

2. Caseless ammo is bunk.

 

Also, while googling my articles on those subjects, I found this short but funny thread. 

 

Give the 6.8 40 years of .mil backed development; I'll bet you come up with a round that smokes his vaunted Mk 262 as well as tweaks to the platform that address the bolt thrust/reliability issue.

 

 

Someone does not seem to understand the concept of a "mature technology". As in "brass cased ammunition is a mature technology".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You laugh but there is a series of break points with explosive weapons that DO indeed show points where the explosive power versus error rate of hit hit statistical cliffs.  The 40mm is an example of where the line was drawn to far on the other side - the weapon has been shown to be less useful in practical engagements because the error rate of the sights and the weapon is below the threshold of its explosives.  Doubling the weight of the explosives (a 15% increase in shell mass) actually triples casualty causing power.  US forces learned this in Afghanistan and started taking stripped down 60mm mortars into the field, which generate 70% of the offensive power of a unit now.

 

The best jokes have a grain of truth to them, but I will confess I wouldn't want to kick in a door lugging a 60mm mortar. Maybe blast it in with one though. Better weapons are possible but I think the truly universal weapon not necessarily a thing that can be coaxed into existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best jokes have a grain of truth to them, but I will confess I wouldn't want to kick in a door lugging a 60mm mortar. Maybe blast it in with one though. Better weapons are possible but I think the truly universal weapon not necessarily a thing that can be coaxed into existence.

 

That's sort where I'm coming from. GPC advocates don't know what they want, but they claim to want to give the soldier more options. I'm failing to see how replacing two cartridges with one does that. As an analogy, yes, we could replace all .50 caliber machine guns and 20mm cannons with 15mm weapons - but that does not mean it is a good idea. In the hypothetical world of the GPC advocate, there are no compact cartridges for small assault rifles besides pistol rounds, and the next step up from the GPC itself is a .338 Lapua. There is - apparently - no need for anything in between, according to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...