Vicious_CB

13 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

The hull sides are 80mm, the turret sides are ~115mm thick.  But I agree; it's a far cry from being able to defeat the front of the turret, which is 200mm thick, or the glacis, which is even tougher.

 

115mm of armor penetration probably corresponded with the thickest concrete wall they thought they would be shooting this thing at.

Thats disappointing, you would think they would try to put something like a hardened tungsten in the nose cap to increase penetration since its supposed to replace the current HEAT rounds in service. Is the estimated penetration enough to go through modern IFV frontal armor at least? 

But can it still defeat a T-55 turret? Needing to only take 1 round would greatly reduce the logistics burden the next time we go into Syria. 

Unless it comes in case telescopic, caseless or some weird polymer hybrid the .mil will never buy it.

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

People freaking out over .224 Valkyrie is the stupidest fucking thing. The cartridge is great, Federal did a great job. People are entitled.

Good to know its just some internet bullshit. Just looking at the design I kept wondering where Ive seen those proportions before. I had to dig through the internet to find a picture to confirm it. Ive probably said this before but Im a huge fan of the 5.45 design principals. My dream cartridge was a 5.45 necked up to 6mm throwing 90-100gr VLDs at 2800-2900fps with a stretch in case OAL to achieve that which would be the taboo of breaking the AR15 form factor limitations.  I can understand why they chose .224 projectiles(a reloaders wet dream), my only gripe is its lack of shorter barrel performance. 

Interesting, Im not too familiar with .224 Valkyrie's development. Its starting to sound like 6.8 SPC/6.8 SPC II's chambering debacle. Just taking a cursory glance at the cartridge, its looks like a niche SPR type cartridge due to its barrel length requirements even then a 18-20" might still not be enough to get the best performance out of a cartridge like this. Would it make a good MG cartridge? Maybe, it would definitely save some weight over a 7.62 NATO gun.

Putting down civilian uprisings. Especially if they only have access to small arms 

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Almost looks like an A5 tube and stock...

You can ask him yourself, thats RustedAce's rifle in Iraq. He hosts the Cola warrior shooting "event".

11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Repost?

 

 

 

Indeed. 

Also looking up the specs of Russian 43mm grenades they contain 3.5x more boom than your typical 40mm

 http://armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-Russian-GM-94-Grenade-Launcher.pdf

"VGM93.100 – Thermobaric (FAE) round, containing some 160 g of explosive filling. The impact fuze arms approximately 3 metres from the muzzle. The lethal blast radius is 3 metres, and the minimum safe distance from the impact point is approximately 10 metres.8 Upon impact, this round can penetrate up to 8 mm of mild steel or interior wall with its blast, while producing almost no primary fragments. "

VS

45 g Composition A in 40mm HEDP,  because we expect grenadiers to be antiarmor guys by shooting their individual GL into the back of a BMP as it drives by right? 

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/40mm_ammo.html

13 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   GM-94 looks to be handy thing, but it have poblems. I do think they can be upgraded - FCS, maybe make it semi-auto instead of pump action, few other changes.

What kind of problems? Im generally against adding anymore complexity and weight to GL since the best use of a GL is as a secondary or specialty weapon. A completely stripped down M320 in a thigh holster is currently the best option for an individual GL in western forces. I see the GM-94 strapped to back of squad designated grenadier as a much better option than strapping the GL to his rifle or giving the poor guy a Milkor much like a breaching shotgun. 

6 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Well, it is 24 years old modernisation, i think it is time for a new version of GM-94.

Dont think theres much to improve upon. Maybe use lighter weight materials and ditch the buttstock. 

Also russian grenades probably dont use the stupid spin activated fuse like in the 40mm HEDP that eats up half the warhead volume. Actually we should probably fix the 40mm lethality problem before adopting a new grenade launcher. 

On the other hand we got stuck with this monstrosity 

On 11/8/2018 at 12:27 PM, LoooSeR said:

GM-94 could be a good base for many possibilities... although it appears not much work is done with it outside of SF-specific grenade types.

 

Finally someone made a modernized "China Lake" M79 grenade launcher. 

Not as high as I thought but still pretty good. Are you using the all "green" construction for the EPR bullet 57gr bullet? I wonder how much extra case capacity you can get by going with a regular lead filled base instead of copper. Or just do it like the russians with a full length penetrator.. 

Comparing Advertised Ballistic Coefficients with Independent Measurements

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554683.pdf

If anyone needs a reference for "real" BCs. 

On 10/22/2018 at 10:30 AM, Sturgeon said:

5.7mm Hermes would use 5.45 brass cases, blown out and necked (slightly) up for .224" caliber projectiles. Case capacity is 29.5 grs H2O. It's designed to propel a 57gr very low drag VKO bullet at 3,000 ft/s from a 14.5" barrel. 

I like it! Thats quite a long 57gr bullet, it should have some nice flight characteristics and good terminal ballistic potential. Some guys did a doppler radar regression of the 7n6 bullet and the results were quite surprising, it had a BC similar to a 77gr SMK, I need to check my notes to see exactly what is was but it was ahead of its time, basically 5.56 NATO 2.0 but made with shittier materials. 

3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You'd love the 5.7mm Hermes, then.

My search yields information on Two Tone Gold 5.7mm 14k Diamond Cut Comfort Fit Wedding Bands instead of ammunition 

24 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

This is 4.9 inches drop at 200m:

 

That's a 5.5" B8 bullseye target, similar in size to a human heart or vital zone in the head

This is representative of 6.5 Grendel 123gr ammo from a 20" barrel or 100gr Grendel from a 14.5" barrel

The bigger circle is the extreme spread (2.5" at 100 meters), the smaller circle is a representative mean radius (0.865" at 100 meters)

Now, this is a 50% pH at 200m target

 

And you need less than 2.7" drop at 200m to achieve that. M855A1 has 3" drop at 200m with a 100m zero.

Are they still going on about the 6.5G being the universal cartridge and all that? 

Ive always thought 6.5G had it ass backwards. I want flat trajectory at the distances I would typically be shooting at(300m and in) and don't mind more drop further out since past a certain point the difference between a 5 and 6 mil drop at 800m is moot point using the hashmarks on your reticle. IMO the design philosophy behind the 5.45 cartridge is just right.  

Hornady Critical Failure™ Defense Rifle Ammunition. Im surprised they would even put this video on the internet. 

On 9/15/2018 at 11:57 AM, Ramlaen said:

Since he appears to feel strongly about it I guess it would be a good point of discussion on whether the USMC was forced to adopt M855A1 against their will.

I think congress might have been right in this case. M855A1 seems to outperform Mk318 in every literally category. 

For all the ammo nerds out there: Mk318 Mod 1

Anyway, all this talk about a "super SAW"

It already existed...

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

wrong thread

Wow that pretty terrible dispersion. I bet if you told the engineers that the next dispersion test will have you holding the targets that spread would tighten up. 

Nevermind, the $0.76 was from 2013. the 2018 cost for EPR is $0.36.