Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Khand-e

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

Recommended Posts

On 9/1/2018 at 3:34 PM, LoooSeR said:

From Syrian war exposition, photos by Denis Mokrushin

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/twower/pistolety-siriiskih-boevikov-5b8505a12adcea00a9ededb2

orig

 

 

 

 

Nice toy. Literally.

 

Likely one of those 8mm pinfire replicas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hisname said:

In my opinion this is a 9mm blank pistol))

maxresdefault.jpg

A hole for the discharge of powder gases aside, and not into the barrel.

Same-Same, basically uses a teat in the barrel to act as a piston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOCOM buying a shit ton of Mk46's and Mk48's in preparation for their "super 6.5mm SAW" concept? 

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/09/04/socom-orders-more-mk46-and-mk48-light-machine-guns/

 

Honestly, I could care less about the 6.5 mafia and care more about them making cobalt or tantalum lined uber barrels a reality:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2016/armament/18355_Armstrong.pdf

 

message-editor%252F1525970727075-a8691cf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of round would be an ideal machine-gun cartridge for 1930´s, it seems that most of the nations that had 6.5 as a rifle cartridge went for larger calibre's during the period, in hindsight was this really necessary, what was the reason? did .30 MG's have better barrel life or something? another thing that has been bugging me is the comparison between 6.5 Creedmoor and 7.62 NATO as MG cartridges, would the 6.5 have any real advantage over 7.62 NATO for a GPMG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Toimisto said:

What sort of round would be an ideal machine-gun cartridge for 1930´s, it seems that most of the nations that had 6.5 as a rifle cartridge went for larger calibre's during the period, in hindsight was this really necessary, what was the reason? did .30 MG's have better barrel life or something? another thing that has been bugging me is the comparison between 6.5 Creedmoor and 7.62 NATO as MG cartridges, would the 6.5 have any real advantage over 7.62 NATO for a GPMG.

 

Interesting that you ask, as I was just talking about this on a Discord channel the other day:

 

gBzJU8r.png

3YYh5vo.png

 

RC is "relative capacity", i.e. the ratio between the propellant capacity of the case and the area of the bore. In other words, .243 Winchester has a much higher RC than .358 Winchester. Before the post-war era the propellants available made high performance rounds like the 6.5mm Swedish pretty problematic for most nations, and it was deemed desirable to have a larger volume inside the bullet jacket for penetrators, observation material, pyrotechnics, etc.

 

6.5 Creedmoor is a very modern cartridge that achieves performance levels 100-150 ft/s faster than the historical 6.5x55 Swedish Sk. Ptr. m/41 with the same heavy bullets from barrels ~5 inches shorter, despite having almost 10% less case capacity. As a machine gun round it makes quite a lot of sense today (far better trajectory, wind drift, and energy delivered on target than 7.62), but it's not clear that would have been true even 50-60 years ago, let alone at the turn of the 19th/20th century. Historically, nations struggled to field rounds with RCs over 3 - examples being the 6.5x52 Carcano, 6.5x50SR Japanese (both of which are are not much higher than 3), 6.5x55 Swedish. Unsuccessful rounds like the .276 Enfield, 7mm Meunier, and 6mm Lee Navy all also had high RCs comparable to the 6.5x55 Swedish - that the Swedes were the only country to successfully field a very high RC round and stick to it is telling, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

XII international competition of sniper pairs of special purpose units dedicated to the memory of the employee of the RSSN of the FSB of Russia for the Krasnodar region, Major Victor Lisovsky, at the Vorontsovsky training ground.

-pue8FN4-aM.jpg

 

Spoiler

AydPW06KBLE.jpg

 

mHacZgyAYtg.jpg

 

xk_wGjPwCFg.jpg

 

1rVeeNIqmeQ.jpg

 

RWhBUMxIZLA.jpg

 

XRqdNw4KBb0.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A bullpup PK general-purpose machine gun with an EoTech holographic sight for sale in #Idlib, #Syria
This specific weapon has been used by #MalhamaTactical

The asking price is $2500

Dm-xLTJV4AAJPHd.jpg

 

Spoiler

Dm-xMHrUYAA7Ghf.jpg

 

Dm-xNMoUUAMtmtE.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      There are many who feel that the 5.56 NATO is a superlative rifle round. Much has been said about larger alternatives to 5.56, such as various 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds among others. Less has been said about smaller rounds. Off the top of my head, I can recall that there was a German 4.6x36mm round, used in the HK36, and the British 4.85x49mm round. Neither of these rounds managed to gain widespread acceptance. My knowledge of the voodoo that is ballistics is somewhat limited, so I'm uncertain as to whether these failures were caused by flaws with the rounds themselves, or because they were below some lower limit of effective bullet size, beyond which performance decreases rapidly. Could we see a resurgence of these concepts in the future, or do they represent an evolutionary dead-end?
×
×
  • Create New...