/k/ - Weapons

I made a post about this topic on another thread and am too lazy to hunt it down and copypaste or screencap it yet, so I'll try to be quick in a rebuttal.

- weapons today at range are used for suppression, yes the machine gun is best for this job, but the individual rifleman with his IW plays a roll here too,

- low morale soldiers such as conscripts and soldiers who are green and/or poor soldiers might be suppressed by certain volumes of inaccurate fire at range, but hardened and/or good soldiers will show resilience against inaccurate fire and fail to be properly suppressed, being able to get out of being pinned to retreat, to assault and take the advantage, or actually aim shots and gain a firepower advantage, meaning in many cases relying on inaccurate suppression may lead to combat disadvantage

- even if the average solider can't hit the man at 600 yards with a battle rifle, his ability to put the shots in volume close to his target alongside his machine gunners helps to create that accurate suppression fire that can maintain or take the advantage in long range fire, even if those rounds are always directly hitting the specific target (the enemy) but hit close to him and his cover

- too small a cartridge and too short a barrel has lead to the old schools being proven right, and begrudgingly the battle rifle has returned to combat service under the guise of "designated marksman rifle", because the deficiencies of small calibers at range have been real life issues, despite the 1950's theory of "nobody shoots past 200 yards anyway ha ha". OP's theory in and of itself is ironically dated and has had its flaws drawn out by real conflict

- current "optimizations" have actually deoptimized certain aspects, close range combat can be vicious and stopping enemies fast before they can fire back or blow themselves up at close range is important, small calibers with short barrels that are "super duper optimized for close quarters" have shown poor terminal performance. One can argue that the pursuit of making the carbine shorter and shorter, and only relying on that ONE standard to determine the ability of the carbine or rifle has reached a point of ridiculousness. "We need a 10 inch barrel carbine as standard to clear rooms better because they can maneauver easier in tight spaces, to FUCK with any other combat situation" has validity only in the world of the laboratory on paper with autists playing with numbers of averages.

- even if the solider plans to use his IW to directly hit enemies at closer range because that's all he can hit at, and in many cases close quarters is where he is mostly going to fight, we still cant' forget that combat importance of his indirect suppression fire and his affect of fire shock and relative accuracy at range, and the fact that "nobody will fight outside a city anymore" is also bullshit. IN some instances some soldiers may be doing more field operations than anything else.

- Heavy weapons platoons and heavy support from air and artillery are indeed best, but what happens when your own side can't/won't send them? The west has enjoyed air superiority in every fight they have had since the mid WW2 era, especially since WW2. We don't know what its like to fight without it. Mortars can't do everything, and as we saw in Afghanistan artillery waiting to be used in support of troops on the ground sometimes can be called in and simply won't support. The whole "I'll just hide with my M4 and let the light, medium, heavy machine guns and big guns do the work and I'll just wait of the enemy to crawl within 400 yards before I can fight back" thing is a bit dangerous

- smaller cartridges aren't being introduced to increase controlled rates of fire at close range for "increased leathality" they are introduced purely to save weight on the solider and reduce material usage and shipping costs

>>602113

It works, with a couple caveats. First, if your IW is too short ranged and can't reliably make lethal hits up to 400m (like the M4), you've defeated the entire point, because you've just made a specialist weapon the primary tool of generalist troops. The M16 fits this role much better than the M4, which is effectively a very potent SMG.

Second, if you're based in mountainous territory, or have some other reason to believe that a majority of engagements will take place beyond 300m, then it makes sense to equip the average grunt to deal with that. HOWEVER, this is only true if you train infantry to be accurate at that range, if you can't or won't get your grunts accurate enough to do so, then you may as well leave them with assault rifles and just focus on training a greater number of specialists, ie machine gunners, DMs, mortars, etc.

High-powered squeeze bore rifled airguns.

No recoil, stupidly simple, only real weight would be the bottle of compressed air, no ejection, no cartridges, no fouling, no moving parts.

You could have mag size fitting the bottles amount of full pressure shots you can fire.

Squeeze bore would give you the extra speed needed while putting less strain on the barrel than normal ammo.

While you would need stocks of compressed air, any vehicle can produce it, any soldier too if you give them a decent pump, so all you would need to move is a shitloads of bullits and the occasional barrel logistic wise.

Also this isn't a firearm…

>>602117

>1950's theory of "nobody shoots past 200 yards anyway ha ha"

This was actually "nobody hits pasts 200 yards <with rifle>"

>but what happens when your own side can't/won't send them?

>i can outshoot BMP-3 with muh Garand

>and I'll just wait of the enemy to crawl within 400 yards before I can fight back" thing is a bit dangerous

If they heavy weapons and you don't this is much more valuable strategy than trying useless 400+ yards potshots only to be BTFO by 100mm canon.

>smaller cartridges aren't being introduced to increase controlled rates of fire at close range for "increased leathality"

Actually during development of 5.56, .223 prototypes outshooted M-14 during field experiments (inside 300 yards). x1.4 better hit rate and x2 number of hits per time.

>>602136

>223 prototypes outshooted M-14 during field experiments

That doesn't say much M-14 were always terrible rifles.

They were quite officially adopted with the LEAST precision requirement in all the rifles the US has ever fielded. A bog standard M16 is a more precise gun than a bog standard M14 but so does a M1 Garand…

>>602117

Reducing a firearm's effectiveness inside its usable and lethal range for intangible suppression that may or may not do anything and which can already be covered by something better suited and dedicated to suppression is retarded.

Whether what we have actually has increased close-range effectiveness is another conversation, but this post is pretty dumb my dude.

>>602113

I'll throw it in here, it's a bit off topic, but there is some interesting research

http://abesguncave.com/general-purpose-combat-cartridge-revisited/

>>602113

Additionally, why expose yourself to detection (and thus indirect fire support) by doing slow and usually fruitless long range small arms duels? You could leave the long range shooting to mortars and snipers and remain undetected.

If - in another scenario - you are getting shot at from past 300 m (and thus with poor effect), why would you not break contact and seek to fight on your own terms? To stick around in long range firefight only provokes them to call for fires on you or to maneuver to your flank.

Long range firefights are relevant when one party or both parties lack fire support, but also doesn't want to close with the enemy out of casualty aversion. That's when fruitless long range harassing fires happen.

Long range small arms firefights are a tactical malpractice.

So we agree with auto shotgun during the first 300m, then explosive round for over-300m?

>>602172

No in-production shotgun is even decent at 100m, much less 150 m. There's simply no 300 m shotgun.

>>602113

correct, this is why "intermediate" cartridges came into existence.

I have a feeling this is going to be another 5.56 thread.

>>602175

>cartridge

rounds*

>>602172

There's no way you could possibly carry enough ammo for more than a brief skirmish. 8 shotgun shells fit into the same space as 30 medium rifle cartridges.

>>602168

The riflemen don't engage in "long range duels", they suppress and advance. Come on now, this is basic infantry tactics.

>enemy with battle rifles opens up on you at 500m

>this forces you into cover, because even "inaccurate" long range suppression still has a very real chance of hitting and killing anybody dumb enough to stay in the open

>can't shoot back effectively because 5.56

>having eliminated your mobility, the enemy is now free to either surround and overrun your position (the advantage of a lighter round isn't going to help much here) or call in fire support

>>602197

No. I honest to god cannot describe my contempt for you types of people. How much effort does it take to search up 'TRADOC' or even 'us military doctrine' into google you mindbendingly dumb nigger. What compels to you spew about something you know nothing about

>(2) Machine gun gunner fire—

>The FPL or PDF, if signaled to do so.

>At groups of five or more in the primary sector (from farthest to closest).

>At crew-serwd automatic weapons.

>At groups of five or more in the secondary sector.

>At unarmored vehicles.

>(3) Automatic riflemen fire—

> Along the FPL, if signaled to do so.

> At groups of five or more in the primary sector (closest to farthest).

>At soldiers in the primary sector.

>(4) Grenadiers fire—

>• At light armored vehicles in sector.

>• At groups of three or more in sector.

>• At groups of three or more in secondary sector.

>• At individual soldiers in sector, using M16 rifles.

>• At dead space in sector (if occupied by the enemy).

>• At other targets as directed by squad or team leader (illumination

>or smoke on order).

>(5) Riflemen fire—

>• In their primary and secondary sectors.

>• Nearest to farthest, starting on flank and working toward the

center —

>• At leaders.

>• At RATELOs.

>• At individual soldiers.

>>602198

>everything from m38 to m249 is shooting 5.56

>grenades are crappy and have no range

So to counter an enemy fireteam armed with battle rifles, you need to bring a crew served heavy machine gun. Fucking moron.

>>602198

>>602201

>HMG

Which by the way are mostly found in platoons. So given open ground, the enemy can pin down your squads with his fireteams.

Step one in five easy steps to losing a war.

There's a reason why most countries field full sized ammo at the fireteam level.

Disagree.

The battlefield in firepower is a contest in force projection. You don't intend to kill your enemy with a basic rifle at these distances, of course, but what you do need to do is provide relatively accurate firepower for supporting your indirect fire that is able to actually deal damage. If your bullets are flying very inaccurately and very slowly when they are even getting close, you aren't projecting your firepower well enough against the enemy than full power cartridges would.

Suppress your enemy better than they are trying to suppress you by fire and maneuver so that indirect fire can decide the winner.

I'd also like to note that by optimizing for <150m is going to give you a very major disadvantage that the enemy WILL exploit, but the disadvantages for having a longer barrel or slightly more powerful round for these possible situations is far, far, far less consequential than essentially losing out most hope of any force projection at those distances.

This idea of optimizing for <150m distances is also forgetting the entire original point of the assault rifle, and reverting back to early to mid 20th century firearms where we will just be firing off 5.56 instead of 9mm out of unbelievably short barrels.

>>602198

Such theory is pointless.

Infantrymen hardly ever see any opposing infantry in battle. So anyone who sees an enemy will shoot at him with whatever can be used tos hoot. Morevoer, the sectors covered by the infantrymen (not all are supposed to look at the same direction) are in practice vastly more relevant than categorizations.

It's very hard to ID the category of infantry threats in battle before that fleeting target is gone anyway.

Last but not least; the squad or fire team leader is controlling the fires - and needs to have the freedom to control as he deems it best - damn such peacetime doctrine lists.

So what you listed was a list of mostly worthless theory.

>>602209

Pff, just make a merc corp and hire /k/.

>>602209

You fell for the SF glorification propaganda.

SF personnel isn't that good.

Moreover, any such expensive training would inevitably lead to small infantry numbers.

The vast majority of infantry losses are losses to indirect fires - not small arms. Your extreme infantry training would not have much other effect than to deprive the combined arms forces of infantry real quick.

>>602201

What do you think I am trying to say? Did you even read my post? Or do you unironically think that LMGs are useless because they fire 5.56?

>>602206

>The platoon leader never waits for the squad in contact to develop the situation. Anytime a fire team makes contact, the platoon also begins taking action

>>602213

You're right, flexibility is key. That does not disregard the fact that differing elements are better at differing things, and that the ideal organizational template is based around the advantages and disadvantages of said differing elements.

>>602221

>The platoon leader never waits for the squad in contact to develop the situation. Anytime a fire team makes contact, the platoon also begins taking action

… that proves my fucking point.

What the hell is your IQ?

>>602224

You don't have a point, assblasted canuck. You're legitimately too mad to even formulate an argument. Even if all LMGs shot ravioli at the enemy, there's still HMGs which don't shoot 5.56 nearby because the entire platoon engages.

>>602113

I think that both the 5.56 and 5.45 are perfectly adequate and perform their jobs perfectly in their respective rifles. Though the M4 should really have an 18" barrel, an extra 3.5" won't harm it. I remember reading somewhere that whoever can throw down the most dakka during a firefight wins. What infantry squads really need are things like knee mortars, rifle grenades, or that french 68mm rocket launcher that could be reloaded about 20 times. Or that neat 76mm shoulder mounted mortar. Relying mainly on rifles is idiotic as explosives are far more effective. You can tear down cover, hit targets hiding in cover through blast & shrapnel, and even threaten light vehicles. Use rifles and machine guns to pin the enemy in position then destroy using explosives the squad has. And if more is needed you move up the ladder.

>>602267

the problem is really the m4, not 5.56

if we went back to 20" 5.56 barrels, everything would be solved.

>>602197

>The riflemen don't engage in "long range duels", they suppress and advance.

In what tactical situation standalone infantry with no support want suppress and advance on enemy positions? Afghanistan? Lol.

1. you are risking lives of first worlders to catch some goat herders. dumb.

2. you may walk into ieds and mines set up to defend their positions. dumb.

3. NATO soldiers are overburdened with gear and never can't catch with retreat of light-footed warriors of Allah.

4. even if by some miracle you catch with them, they can always drop guns and pretend that they are "peaceful" peasants. NATO ROE prohibit to execute them on sight, at best detain and release after.

>>602267

> What infantry squads really need are things like knee mortars, rifle grenades, or that french 68mm rocket launcher that could be reloaded about 20 times.

Pls. Modern infantry is mechanized. Why do you ever want to offload your support weapons from the armored vehicles instead firing them mounted? Infantry squad need fire support of tanks, IFVs, and SP mortars. These thing BTFO anything that infantry can carry in terms of firepower, mobility and survivability.

>>602113

In this thread people refusing to acknowledge that tactics and weapons systems need to change for different environments.

>>602290

Good luck fighting a mechanised war in the Alps or in a city. And obviously you want a different rifle for the Alps than you do for Miami.

>>602290

>Why do you ever want to offload your support weapons from the armored vehicles

Because as much as we have mechanized vehicles can't be everywhere. Do you not remember Afghanistan for the Soviets at all? Superior mechanized support and yet they took heavy losses. Infantry squads are needed to support armour and equipping them with heavier weapons is a good way to give them an edge against other infantry supporting their armour.

>>602295

> or in a city.

>what is Thunder Run

UO is done by mechanized forces using same principles. AFVs provide firepower for infantry. Infantry does close fighting portion (close? hmm.)

>Alps

Mountain warfare is yes, different thing all together. Always was "special operations" and required special training and gear. Helicopters.

But its proportion in military is small.

>>602297

>Because as much as we have mechanized vehicles can't be everywhere.

But they can. Infantry squad rides its own fire support tank. And SP mortar doesn't need to ride everywhere with its range.

>Infantry squads are needed to support armour

You thinking backwards. Armors are needed to support infantry. You see, humans are small and weak, vehicles are big and strong. Can you run across battlefield at 30 mph and precisely fire 25mm chain-gun on the run? Let it sink in for while.

>>602261

>You don't have a point, assblasted canuck. You're legitimately too mad to even formulate an argument. Even if all LMGs shot ravioli at the enemy, there's still HMGs which don't shoot 5.56 nearby because the entire platoon engages.

YOU ARE REQUIRING A PLATOON TO WIPE OUT A SINGLE ENEMY FIRETEAM YOU MORON.

IF YOUR PLATOON HAS TO FOCUS ON THAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REST OF THE >>>>ENEMY<<<< PLATOON IS DOING, WHILE YOU'RE DEALING WITH HIS ONE FIRETEAM?

Mongoloid bastard, dirty fucking nigger, I bet you didn't even pass middle school.

>>602343

>YOU ARE REQUIRING A PLATOON TO WIPE OUT A SINGLE ENEMY FIRETEAM YOU MORON.

Doesn't US doctrine call for at least a 3:1 numerical advantage before committing an attack? So you'd need at least a platoon before engaging a squad anyways.

>>602350

US doctrine is retarded, is the point. Getting a 7.62 neato something at fireteam level is barely the first movement towards the first step of untarding this clustefuck.

And I'm not saying this to put the country down, Canada has its own problems (two man fireteams wtf) and so does every other nation in the world, but we're all kind of looking up to America to at least be good at war.

.280 British got it right many moons ago but the US wanted 7.62 real fucking' NATO before going the other way and switching to a cartridge that has proven too weak.

I think something ~6.5mm straight cased with RDX propellant is the way to go for the foreseeable future with sub-caliber saboted projectiles being an easy adaption to deal with improvements in body armour.

At the end of the day why not make a bullet aerodynamically efficient and if you know you need more energy at point blank you are also going to have more energy at 500m.

>>602350

We dont. We fix things by having a statistical firepower advantage over them.

>>602299

>you don't need infantry to support armour

Have you heard of the Soviet Afghan conflict? Or the Storming of Grozny? You've reached the disappointing level of idiocy here. The "I don't even do basic research" level of idiocy. But I'm sure the 131st motor rifle brigade would love to hear how from you how their armour was going to protect them.

>>602350

Doctrines call for a lot of things, doesn't mean you'll actually have those luxuries though. And in a war my guess is you'll almost never have those luxuries so it's best to plan to make do without.

>>602354

>7.62 neato something

If we go by Russian doctrine, then that something should be a machine gun with a bipod. Then you have to remember that on paper a fireteam of the US Army carries 2030 cartridges, and only 630 of those are in magazines, the rest are 100 or 200 round belts for the SAW. Considering the general lack of foresight they've showed over the decades, methinks they'd just switch the M249 and the belted 5.56 to an M240 and belted 7.62 on a 1:1 basis.

>>602400

I'd prefer UKM-2000, since it feeds from a steel box. Too many times have I seen ammo get tangled in a "lightweight pouch" and cause problems.

And it wouldn't need the same amount of ammo, just give it a switch to step down the rate of fire to compensate. Then carry the same weight of ammo.

>>602410

Why not go the RPK route, and make an LMG that takes box mags, that's cross compatible with your IW magazines? It's easier logistically, and if shit goes sideways your MGs can grab ammo from other squaddies. It also encourages suppression through accurate sustained bursts, rather than spraying and praying, which helps conserve ammo.

>>602419

But that only works if all long arms of the squad fire the same weapon, and in this case they'd all have to switch to 7.62. Which is why it would be beneficial to go for something inbetween 5.56 and 7.62, as you could design a cartridge that can do both jobs well enough. But of course it would have more power and recoil than 5.56, and according to quite a lot of people it means the average grunt couldn't use it for anything.

>>602419

Although putting a casket mag into a FNFAL might be a more lightweight solution, it would lack a lot of the abilities of a real GPMG….. For example the concept of beaten ground isn't really spraying and praying. Also using non-disintegrating belts makes reloading a magazine from a belt pretty simple, or a belt from a magazine. Kind of promotes compatibility while keeping the massive weight of a box of ammo down to a minimum.

By the way Canada did this with the C1A1. We basically turned an FNFAL into a 30-round GPMG, used stripper clips to reload it and everything.

>>602433

Although I think the future is to make everything belt-fed, you could actually make a system of belts, chargers and magazines.

>issue ammunition in belts of 100 (or 150) in boxes

>have 20 (or 30) round magazines

>weapon can be loaded via chargers

>pack 5 (or 10) round chargers with everything like if it was candy

>the belt holds the cartridges in line, so you can push the charger over their rims and pull them out

>the weapon also serves as a loading tool for the magazines

>now you only have to issue belts and chargers to the squad (as long as they have all their magazines)

Of course it only works if the belts and boxes are cheap enough, and it would be quite a hassle in a firefight to take out the cartridges from the belt with the charger and then load them into the rifle. Could somebody upload that webm of the soviets loading the magazines of their AKs from wooden boxes while shooting from a trench?

>>602467

>belt-fed

>bullpup

So far so good.

>extra long barrel

I think ~20" should be enough, and that's not too long, especially in a bullpup.

>able to fire rifke grenades

Nearly every NATO rifle and assault rifle can do that, so it's really nothing special. The difference is that it should be built to actually withstand the stress, and it should have a buffered stock to lessen the felt recoil.

>telescopic 6.5mm ammo

Indeed, it should be telescopic and polymer cased, but I'm getting interested in flechettes, so I'm not sure in the eaxt calibre.

>any underbarrel items to mount

Just a rail or MLOK cutouts for the bipod and foregrip, and possibly a gun shield. Although that might be better off mounted to the top rail.

>Maybe a bayonet or something.

I think bayonets are completely obsolete, but they still can have a psychological effect that shouldn't be discounted. For this reason I'd consider going all out and putting a Mauser-type bayonet mount at the bottom of the forestock, but only if it's possible to cast the whole forestock as one piece. It should be a good 4-5cm away from the barrel, so you could still fire rifle grenades while the bayonet is mounted. But I must repeat that this is autisticly over-the-top.

>>602475

Question Hun annon.I remember somewhere the discussion about how the profile of the modern rifle would be disadvantageous (the mag mainly). Would a solution be to mount the magazine sideways like a sten gun and have bullets eject to the side or behind?

>>602475

Where the fuck are the rifle grenades? Hungary I thought we agreed on rifle grenades?!?!?!

>>602475

>making your casings out of one of the most targeted, fluctuating resources on the planet

The benefits of current CT ammo are good enough without replacing already stable resource chains. wrapping your bullets in dildo-crete is a bad(wasteful) idea and i'll eat my spoon license if the weight savings of the CT powder aren't higher than the savings on the case.

>>602379

if we're going to switch away from the 5.56, let's just go back to 7.62x51 and in AR-10's. We know 7.62x51 can handle the long ranges and will eviscerate niggers in close range, it's already proven itself, if we really do think 5.56 is the problem and not micro-penis barrels, let's just switch back to 7.62.

IMO the real issue is micropenis barrels, we need to go back to 20" barrels.

>>602298

>Mountain warfare is yes, different thing all together. Always was "special operations" and required special training and gear. Helicopters.But its proportion in military is small.

Maybe in Denmark but if you lived in Italy, or new Zealand and your army wasn't made for a combination of mountain and amphibious actions you would be retarded. And if you planned on fighting on the stepps and didn't have a fast mechanised armies you would also be retarded

>>602536

>steppes

Also need a tank capable of crossing a swamp.

Actually pretty much any farmland turns into about a meter deep mud pit with a single rain, or after spring snow melts. 60t tanks only make sense if you live in a desert made of packed clay.

>>602527

We always have aluminum if we need lighter cartridges at the cost of changing industry.

>>602539

So you're saying we need more wiesel fighting vehicles, so we can invade the steppes through the swampy mountain farms?

>>602543

Don't aluminium casings start to melt in automatics? also wont the aluminium oxide be bad for you?

>>602544

I think it depends on length of powder burning and pressures, so 9mm might be fine but 556 might not. There are also alloys and that one gimmick nickel plated casing design http://www.shellshocktech.com/ . I'm very bad at chemistry, so i dunno about oxides.

>>602546

>length of powder burning

Duration*

excuse my retardation, i start to mess wording even in 1st language when i'm sleepy.

>>602478

I think a better solution is to use the URZ's feed system with downward ejecting the cartridges.

http://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/urz-plamen-2/

Instead of only using drums the basic configuration should be just the feeding device in the magwell. Ammunition is then issued in 200 round boxes that the soldier can clip to his belt. Of course, the belt would come out on the shorter side of the box, this way you could hang two of them on one side if you want to. This way you don't even have a magazine hanging out from the bottom of the rifle, just a flexible belt, so you could go as low as the grip allows it. Not to mention that the loaded weapon would be hardly heavier than an empty one. And resupplying a squad would be a lot easier and quicker too, because the boxes could come out from the factory with belts loaded into them, and sent directly to the front line, where they have to just clip them on their belts. Then you can send back the boxes (and even the belts or belt links if you want to) to the factory a few times.

A possible problem is dirt, but I think you could have a strong brush on the feeding device that would cleanse every individual cartridge as they go into the action. A SAW gunner would need a backpack or something similar that can hold a longer belt, but that's still hardly a problem. Also, for patrols or second-line troops you could issue 25-30 round drums with belts inside them that all have a built-in feeding device, just like on the URZ.

>>602481

Although I'm not sure how similar their history is to ours, it's true that my ideal uniform would be somehow similar to theirs.

>>602511

I've mentioned them several times, but we are discussing cartridges and firearms here.

>>602527

Hydrogen and carbon? I'm rather sure that this would be a non-issue if coal liquifidation would be properly developed, especially if you used nuclear energy to cover the energy needs of the process. But that leads to a completely different discussion.

>>602602

So now instead of using a highly strategic resource which can easily be restricted during war time, you need to fund and develop an entirely new strategic industry sector. I know how set you are on having your perfect idea, but im telling you we could have a 90% perfect idea yesterday that is still compatible with conventional ramp type feed systems and bolts. it would mean you could continue to pay $700 for a modern fighting rifle without having to pay companies like heckler-fabriquen-sig an extortionate sum to produce their barely passing grade version of whatever weapon design you want. to sum up, i'd rather have a metallic CT cartridge running through an AR and spend the money that would be used on industrial development of new production lines on a fleet of Wiesels and/or other fun toys.

>>602611

lel, implying that im suggesting it's unobtainium just because i think all of the companies that can produce the rifle will charge you a bad price is a bit disingenuous. also, from the CT thread many moons ago you will remember that you can't, in fact, use just anything to house CT rounds because of case expansion and bullet alignment issues. You need a fairly robust material that can expand in the chamber as normal without without melting or allowing the bullet to re-align when the round is placed under stress. you will find that, actually, the plastics that can do that are quite expensive and high grade. your bullet shells will not and will never be made from the same types of cheap materials you get in TV dinners. you don't just make plastic from crude, or liquified coal, only a fraction of oil can be turned into a specific plastic. so yes, what you are asking for is rarer than you seem to think it is.

im telling you as a matter of fact, that steyr will never sell you that fancy gun for anything like what you can get an AR (or any other) type rifle for, and that it will never ever ever be worth that much money in a bulk order. besides, if you were to drop Polymer why would you even want an ACR when you can use a feed ramp with metallic cartridges? it seems like you think im arguing against cased telescopic in general when i am infact just arguing against a specific material.

>>602527

Fucking how is that a strategic resource? You know this shit can made made from cheap processed garbage oil right? Sure the globalist climate cucks might be kvetching but it's not like they'll be sticking around for another decade.

>>602544

Wiesel has tiny tracks.

>>602530

7.62x51 is incompatible with modern doctrine, it's just too heavy to be carried in the bulk for suppression until air / arty can be called in.

An intermediate cartridge is needed and while I agree longer barrels would help the reason they have gone is to make CQB easier. A solution that has been played with is bullpups and maybe a downward / forward ejection bullpup is the way to go, catch is the mushy trigger but I'm sure a trigger bar can be designed that is rigid enough to solve that.

>>602628

I could be done with the right propellant, I wonder how you would balance it for a longer barreled SAW or would you just cut the SAW down too and sacrifice a little range.

>>602631

Properly designed, the extra barrel length of an LMG wouldn't cause harm with this "super bullet", but you'd design it to be effective in your carbine-length rifle. The extra barrel length of the LMG extends that another 300m, shouldn't cause many problems as long as the internal pressure stays greater than 1atm, which is unlikely unless you're talking an "LMG" with a 2m barrel.

>>602633

You are going to want a whole lot more than 1atm due to the high friction of rifling but I get what you are saying, even if it was designed for decent energy out of a short barrel with a bit of flare but higher energy out of the SAW length.

>>602636

You get it! As a side-bonus, firing our super intermediate cartridge (SIC) out of an LMG would be almost completely flashless thanks to the longer barrel, even without using a suppressor.

6.5mm SIC … I like the sound of that.

>>602622

>it can be made from cheap oil

Yes, plastics in general can, but CT ammo must use the highest grades of plastic (medical grade) in order to function, and regardless of whether or not its made from good oil or bad oil, war always causes a change in the energy market. every time you go to war your bullets get more expensive, even if it's only to the slightest of degrees that's dumb. Climate cucks are not important, name one modern war where one or more sides didn't have their oil infrastructure directly targeted, oil is THE strategic resource.

>>602628

We already have 7.62x39mm with perfect barrel length of 16", it can also be used in shorter barrels without a huge loss of efficiency, or 300blk, if you have an AR. We have 10mm and can have something that flies better if we want an even shorter barrel cartridge.

>The reason 5.56 is havign so much trouble with current bullet designs is that it was originally designed for a 20in barrel.

I always found it weird to have your short range or even CQB weapon use 20" barrel.

>Simply design a bullet for 5.56 (or whatever) that can tumble/fragment reliable

Due to legal retardation armies cannot use expanding/fragmenting ammunition, unless you do it with a 556 FMJ. We could think of something, but the cartridge is still optimized for a longer barrel. Changing cartridge or going bullpup is a better solution Preferably both.

>>602398

>>you don't need infantry to support armour

You thinking backwards. Armors are needed to support infantry.

>Storming of Grozny

>implying UOis not close combat fighting where 5.56 shines

>lol

>>602628

>Simply design a bullet for 5.56 (or whatever) that can tumble/fragment reliable from a 14in bar

>5.56 doesn't tumble from 14.5''

Fake EU news.

All spritzer bullets tumble regardless of barrel length. If anything bullets from shorter barrels generally tumble earlier because of higher flight angle of attacks.

Anyway M855A1 solved all problems. Fragments from 7.5'' barrels and doesn't rely on unreliable tumbling like other military bullets, its essentially fragmenting hollowpoint bullet, very well masked for legal reasons. And the best thing? Europoors and slavs would never have such effective bullet design.

>>602646

>M855A1

Why not just order trucks loaded with .308 for that price? 556 is used primarily because it's a budget choice that allows military to spend money on finding more attractive projects and opportunities to spend money.

>>602647

>Why not just order trucks loaded with .308 for that price?

Do you know M855A1 price? Because if you do you wouldn't write such bollocks.

>>602645

>armies cannot use expanding/fragmenting ammunition

M165(?) fragmented reliably due to a thin projectile jacket for it's size.

7N6 bullet tumbles due to the air gap in the nose.

.303 Mark VII and Mark VIII had an aluminium partial core in the projectile nose, leading to tumbling.

The new M855A1, on expriencing lateral torsion, can split at the join between the brass base and hardened steel nose.

My theoretical design >>602628

should combine the best of all these options.

>>602646

>bullets from shorter barrels generally tumble earlier because of higher flight angle of attacks.

Data from US combat operations says something quite different. M855 does not tumble reliably at range from a 14.5in barrel. Hence the introduction of M855A1 to try and fix this via fragmentation.

>>602649

>Data from US combat operations says something quite different. M855 does not tumble reliably at range from a 14.5in barrel.

Literally fake news.

>>602650

> muh fake news

*yawn*

Page 5:

www.mlefiaa.org/files/ERPR/Terminal_Ballistic_Performance.pdf

Page 3:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

https://www.scribd.com/document/257827885/5-56mm-Projectile-Military-Information

https://www.itstactical.com/warcom/ammunition/military-ammunition-failures-and-solutions/

>>602648

http://www.gunsandammo.com/uncategorized/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/

>>602649

7N6 already offers great tumbling, the problem with it is the complete lack of fragmentation that 556 might theoretically have. That's the main problem, and tumbling is required for it to fragment, along with high speed. Your design has steel core throughout the whole length of the bullet, i think this might prevent fragmentation, as your bullet is basically 7N6 with aluminum.

>Data from US combat operations says something quite different. M855 does not tumble reliably at range from a 14.5in barrel.

Problem is that such short barrel prevents bullet from reaching needed velocities to fragment of ranges longer that 150-300(depending on the bullet, powder load and bullet weight), then it just goes right through.

>>602654

This is more like it, though i think it needs more empty space in the tip, and the steel rod should be flat on top.

I think it might be interesting for you to read this article, it's about designing rounds and how these things affect each other. There is also plenty of basic theory on wound ballistics. I actually started learning the theory from there myself.

>>602145

>>602654

Also, aluminum might add unnecessary complexity, it's easier just to use lead for weight or extend steel rod fro balance/something.

>>602652

*yawn*

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

>nothing about role of the short barrel

>https://www.scribd.com/document/257827885/5-56mm-Projectile-Military-Information

>post pic of tumbled and fragmented m855 to illustrate that m855 doesn't tumble? wut?

>https://www.itstactical.com/warcom/ammunition/military-ammunition-failures-and-solutions/

>Angle-of-Attack (AOA) variations between different projectiles, even within the same lot of ammo, as well as Fleet Yaw variations between different rifles, were recently elucidated by the JSWB-IPT.

www.mlefiaa.org/files/ERPR/Terminal_Ballistic_Performance.pdf

>There is variation from one rifle to the next about how much the bullet will yaw. The bullet leaving one rifle may exhibit more yaw than the

same bullet shot from another rifle.

Now we getting somewhere.

Here is the real ballistic science for your, europoors:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/28/weekly-dtic-fleet-yaw-problem-improving-rifle-effectiveness/

>>602653

>7N6

History today. Russians switched to 7N10M that doesn't have any cavity. Where is you tumbling now?

>>602654

All spitzer bullets have CG of behind COP and therefore tumble. What are you are talking about is increasing distance between CG and COP. BTW you can achieve such much easier making ogive part longer, also with increase of BC. All without multipart bullet construction. Still would be susceptible to fleet yaw though.

>>602662

7n10 is just enhanced penetration round, so whatever. I guess that budget won't be spent itself.

>All spitzer bullets have CG of behind COP and therefore tumble.

The problem is that the tumbling is not enough, that's why it needs to be enhanced. it will yaw a bit, go off course and ice pick through a few cm more of tissue, while we need almost instant yawing when the bullet enters the body.

>>602662

I googled and 7n10 was accepted to reduce lead consumption and increase penetration, so it was like m855, but with added goal of easier manufacturing(or was m855 the same?).

>>602671

> so it was like m855

M855 was introduced to increase effective range of 5.56 from 500m to 1200m. (effective range was defined as range of soviet steel pot penetration). When m855 achieved such penetration at 1200m, NATO generals were of course pissing themselves from glee.

>>602672

Effective range of 5.56 is 300m, 400 with good HP because it relies in fragmentation. M855 decreased the effective range compared to the previous version because it had less velocity which became even worse with the adoption of short barrels.

http://abesguncave.com/why-556-223-is-both-the-best-and-worst-ar-15-cartridge/

>>602674

>reading comprehension

>>602675

this effective range requirement is retarded, go try again

>>602674

are you sure that's right? it would seem very strange to have the effective range of any round stop at 300m. it would mean roughly half of all WW2 engagements would be out of the effective range of the rifle/round. could it be that 300m is the range of accurate fire?

>>602680

I'm pretty sure. The thing is, th effective range of a bullet ends before the point where it hits the ground, this is even more true for small bullets like 556. 5.56 can produce devastating wounds, but only if it fragments, otherwise it will just go right through dealing little damage(ice-picking). To fragment the bullet needs to have sufficient velocity, among other things, so if the velocity drops you lose the main damaging factor of the bullet.

>>602682

Yes, the requirement is retarded, because you need the bullet to fucking kill, not punch holes in armor or paper, and writing NATO on it will not make this any less retarded. Now fuck off, troll.

>>602683

>>602684

>because you need the bullet to fucking kill

According to soviet wounding ballistics M855 has 1000m+ lethal range. FUCKING LETHAL.

>>602481

I only played the original ~15 years ago, but the Helghast rifle had a helical mag and an underbarrel shotgun. It was the ISA's rifle that had a grenade launcher. Also, both rifles were unusable and worthless ingame due to being inaccurate and also doing piss damage.

>>602690

> Effective range =/= lethal range

Nicely autistic bait though.

Should we phase out 5.56 and 7.62 for commercially popular ammo such as 6.5 CM to reduce logistics and to gain better ballistics?

>>602749

IMO, no.

We would have to re-think the entire AR platform. AR with powerful rounds like even the 6.5CM has severe recoil because the platform is so inherently lightweight.

Just go back to 20" barrels, use 69 or 77 grain BTHP ammo for areas requiring long-range energy. Logistically this is a far easier solution.

>>602775

>go back to 20" barrels

Ok, so starting with the premise that this will never happen, how about suggestions for decent fragmentation and/or tumbling projectiles out of a 14.5in barrel.

>>602744

>because you need the bullet to fucking kill

>= lethal range

>>602775

> AR with powerful rounds like even the 6.5CM has severe recoil because the platform is so inherently lightweight.

6.5CM DMR properly set up for its role (scope+suppressor+bipod) will hit at least 9lbs. Guess how much FN FAL weights.

>>602783

>doesn't know what lethal means

>>602776

>will never happen

Then change cartridge. Or change rifle and go bullpup, because you cannot simultaneously have 5.56 out of short barrel and efficiency as a combat rifle. 14.5" barrel already makes it look like a very effective smg, so if you shorten it more just go with one instead.muh light rounds can carry a lot more 9mm than 556

>>602775

If you could have something like 308, but controllable in full auto you could go with a bullpup and have a great all around rifle suited both for long range suppressive fire, CQB and mid range engagements, as well as great barrier penetration. You could also use the same match cartridge for DMRs, combined with proper training and a more precise rifle, or even sniper. Result- easier logistics where your infantry uses a different cartridge only in handguns.

>>602783

I thing denmark is a mutation of leaf at this point.

>>602784

>Doesen't understand what effective range is.

>>602785

Which is why I'd switch cartridge and caliber, or insist at the very least on a completely redesigned projectile.

>>602787

And what is your bubba definition of effective range is again?

Soviet definition for small arms according to GOST: range where target is hit with desired probability (usually 25%+ for small arms, if not probability should be quoted together with range) with single shot or burst.

>>602788

An estimated maximum range at which a weapon reliably and repeatably produces the desired effect a given proportion of the time.

Oh look, pretty much just like the Soviet definition!

Note that this is pretty much always going to be shorter than the lethal range.

I can angle a .22LR to 45 degrees and IF it hits someone, it will kill them when it lands, 2-3km away.

Can you or I effectively do that? Nope.

>>602790

>reliably and repeatably

Now you need to provide definitions of "reliably", "repeatably", "desired effect" to make that definition complete.

>>602791

Are dictionaries that expensive in Denmark? I'm quite certain at this point that you're deliberately shitposting (and not doing a great job of it, you should leave that to us or the Canadians).

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reliably?s=t

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/repeatably?s=t

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/desired?s=t

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/effect?s=t

So, considering that M855 has shown it is inadequate reliable and repeatable killer of humans from a 14.5in barrel, do you have anything pertinent to the discussion or will you merely continue to autistically shitpost?

>>602795

So you can't provide specific "effective range" definition that doesn't includes 3 self moving goal post. i get it. Compare your shit to soviets and see how they have ballistic science and you don't.

>>602805

> Provide me a definition of something that each nation calculates differently.

> Also, accept my definition of "lethal range" despite not providing a definition.

So you can't provide a specific "lethal range" definition that doesn't include multiple moving goal posts and arbitrary definition choices made by you to bolster your weak argument.

No, really, I get it - you're a bad loser, and don't know how to form a coherent statement.

Compare your bullshit to literally anyone else's, and you'll see you've not formed a coherent argument.

GG.

>>602815

>By NATO definition for kinetic projectiles "lethal projectile" is one with 75J of energy.

>Soviet definition: kinetic projectile with specific energy of 100J/cm2.

>Old school pre 20th century: penetration of 1'' pine board (BTW still used today as quick and dirty test for fragmentation munitions, using mannequins made from 3/4 plywood)

Ah, so your confusion stems from not understanding the difference between lethal range and effective range. An understandable confusion from a noguns faggot.

Lethal range > effective range, period.

You cannot effectively use a round to it's full lethal range. This should be self-evident to anyone who has actually shot a rifle, but apparently it's not.

You claimed:

>>602672

>effective range of 5.56 from 500m to 1200m. (effective range was defined as range of soviet steel pot penetration)

Now the effective range of 5.56 could be argued to extend to 500m, depending who is doing the testing, and testing conditions, etc.

>soviet steel pot penetration

…is clearly not effective range but instead appears to be meant to define lethal range in this "test".

BASED commonsense and proper grammar.

BTFO dumbass nogunz faggot larper.

>>602818

>is clearly not effective range but instead appears to be meant to define lethal range in this "test".

This is how NATO defined "effective range" of small arms during that time. Their wording. Complain to them about confusion.

This also explains why everyone jumped on M855 and 5.56 to rearm NATO. (1200m effective range? wow. powerful!)

>>602672

>effective range was defined as range of soviet steel pot penetration

>SSH68 added aramid backing in afghanistan war

Why are you defining effective range as penetrating a helmet not used in over 30 years? Most NATO personnel was in swaddling clothes when that "threat" was upgraded.

>>602819

So, a made-up definition of "effective range" designed to sell the 5.56mm M855 to NATO by showing penetration against a limited-use helmet close to half a century ago? And all this without showing p/Hit of the round?

Damn, son, that's simply amazing salesmanship, especially considering that someone who was not even a twinkle in his father's eye at the time is sold on this fantastical definition and product.

Fifty misses are not firepower. One hit is firepower.

>>602842

Most military rounds don't fragment at all.

>>602853

> a limited-use helmet

Standard soviet Sch-68 helmet. General issue.

>>602846

>SSH68 added aramid backing

There was proposition to modernize helmet but it never become widespread. And kevlar is not something that can stop M855.

>>602780

>guess

I own an AR-10 in .308 set up as a DMR rifle, with a bipod, large muzzle break, and a 20" DMR barrel from Ballistic Advantage. I don't know the actual weight, but it was way, way more than a G3.

and now we're back to the original problem the AR sought to solve, and which causes everyone to bitch about 7.62x51: weight.

without that weight, my AR-10 in normal dressing kicks more than a 300 win mag. You're acting like 6.5 Mememoor is a lightweight, weak round, it's not, it's not that far behind .308 in terms of weight and energy.

>>602776

you won't get decent 5.56 out of a 14.5 inch barrel. You have to straight-up change rounds. For that length, go with 300 blackout and accept the fact that you won't have any long-range capability.

>>602785

I've never shot a bullpulp, so IDK.

Assuming current technology in reality logistics and sheeit means it's not worth it to change the service rifle unless it's using radically different design and technology, i.e. polymer CT ammo, 5.56 (and SCHV in general) works just fine, PROVIDED you have the appropriate barrel length, which is 20". That's what you need for the bullets to be effective at reasonable distances as others have pointed out, and if you want to make a true "assault rifle" that's capable of doing everything an assault rifle is supposed to do, you need those 20". If you want a shorter barrel, just go with 7.62x39 or .300 memeout and come to terms with the fact that you just want a very potent SMG.

>but muh urban combat

It's far easier to adapt a rifle (and especially with collapsible stocks, 20" really isn't that long) to close-quarters than it is to adapt a carbine to long ranges. For the former you just need to give troops a little situational awareness–as long as you know where the muzzle is at all times (as you should anyways for safety reasons) it's not all that difficult to use it indoors. With the latter case on the other hand your limitation are the laws of physics–and it's just a little bit more difficult to train around those.

However if you really want 5.56 to work ammo is a concern–M193 and M855 are just subpar, especially with the modern alternatives available. The best all-around option for projectiles is going to be a bonded-jacket softpoint. That way you get good terminal effect and a "barrier blind" projectile.

>bullpup

I don't have anything against bullpups in general, and they're a good way to deal with the OAL issue of longer barrels if that's really that big a concern for you. Bullpups are only good however if they're designed from the ground up as bullpups–EM1 and EM2 prototypes are the only designs I know of that do this, just about everything else is an AR-18 with a nigger-rigged trigger. If you can make a design that does this, then sure, go ahead and issue a bullpup

>one general-purpose 6.5mm cartridge

While tempting, I think the issues presented by giving general infantry a bigger cartridge–namely weight and number of rounds carried–outweigh the benefits. However, I think it makes sense to have a single 6.5mm cartridge for everything else–DMRs in 6.5, a single GPMG in 6.5, and so on. And again, muh logistics means that this kind of mass switchover only makes sense if you're introducing a radically new weapon system. So, assuming CT technology, the LSAT program, and all that good stuff gets perfected, I think the ideal re-issue would look something like this:

>GPMGs, DMRs, etc., use CT 6.5mememoor

>thanks to LSAT weight reductions, every infantryman can carry an LMG

>infantry IW is chambered in CT round based on .224 Valkyrie

>>602888

> The best all-around option for projectiles is going to be a bonded-jacket softpoint.

Its m855A1. Soft points lack armor penetration. And they are illegal (if bonded non fragmenting design).

>if you want a shorter barrel, just go with 7.62x39

5.56 beats 7.62x39 dead from 14.5'' barrel.

>>602892

>Soft points lack armor penetration.

Bonded projectiles will go through auto glass and similar intermediate barriers while still having good terminal effect and experiencing minimal POI shift. They won't be as effective against dedicated armor, but they're not meant to be; it's a general purpose round. Dedicated armor piercers will icepick against soft targets, and shouldn't be made general issue.

How is 5.56 out of a 16" barrel?

Any good or better as a range toy?

>>602893

> Dedicated armor piercers will icepick against soft targets

This is why bubbas shouldn't be allowed close to the arms designs.

>>602895

It's better than 14.5 but still suboptimal. The idea that 16"is some kind of happy medium for 5.56 is a post hoc explanation for its popularity, it's just the shortest barrel they could get without paying NFA taxes.

>>602896

M855A1 isn't a dedicated armor piecing round, as evidenced by the way it fragments in your video. And while it's better than M855, there are a host of problems with the round compared to other offerings. 50% less barrel life, feedramp gouging, accuracy, and cost. And while it has decent preparation there's a good amount of POI shift, much more so than bonded projectiles.

>>602880

>There was proposition to modernize helmet but it never become widespread.

Yes it did, it was mass issued to regular army units in the 80s, their helmets had similar protection to our spectras in the 90s they were just heavier. Simple glass isn't bulletproof, but putting a vinyl sticker on the other side makes it resistant to handgun rounds. One would assume that if simple steel is already pretty tough, gluing aramid fiber to it would improve that. I can guaranfuckingtee it wouldn't be penetrating at 1200m that sounds retarded.

I was going to take your posts at face value but you're putting out too much crap.

>>602896

WHAT RANGE

WHAT BARREL

NATO is claiming what, 14 inches and 1200m? You think its going to yaw at that situation?

14 inches steals 200fps of your base velocity. At 1200m its dropped to 850fps. That's 115 foot pounds of energy, which while granted is bigger than .22 short (85ftlb) is much smaller than .22 long rifle (150ftlb). And it's not expanding like some .22lr rounds, so it's not only less energetic, it's also weaker at delivering the energy.

The only way this was penetrating any helmet is if it was a WWII aluminum reproduction helmet by Cold Steel.

That test had to have been faked.

In the end I'm more scared of a hollowpoint .22 short at point blank range than I am a 5.56 at 1200m, even if all I have on my head is a plastic bucket.

>>602935

Literally take a 5mm steel icepick and tape or glue it to a cheapo surplus russian helmet. Drop 100lbs on it from about a foot up. It's not a difficult thing to test.

>>602888

>giving general infantry a bigger cartridge–namely weight and number of rounds carried–outweigh the benefits

Tbh today all this 556 they carry almost encourages spray and pray, especially given the lack of efficiency of 5.56 on longer ranges. We spend 200k rounds on a single enemy today, compared to 20k during ww1, iirc. The weight can easily be somewhere between 308 and 556 and can be decreased further by using steel or even aluminum cases, all without new CT rifle and ammo designs.

>go with 7.62x39 or .300 memeout and come to terms with the fact that you just want a very potent SMG

They are not that bad tbh. 7.62x39 has effective range similar to 556, at least with bullets in current use. Sure, 556 has flatter trajectory and carrying a longer and heavier barrel might be easier than carrying heavier ammo, but these rounds are still pretty comparable.

>>602942

Rate of fire is the most important thing.

M16 - 475 rounds per 30 seconds continuous fire

Mag - 0.11 kg

30 rounds - 0.354

16 mags for 30 seconds of fire = 7.424kg

Total - 11kg

AKM - 300 rounds per 30 second continuous fire

Mag - 0.25 kg

30 rounds - 0.489

10 mags for 30 seconds of fire = 7.39kg

The entire cartridge war is utter bullshit. Training your soldiers to shoot less, or even stepping down assault rifles to 300rpm would provide way more weight savings thank sinking BILLIONS on rearming with a retarded cartridge. I think Russians were tricked into spending more on rearming with 5.45, it's completely pointless.

>>602339

Fucking this. Bigger rounds are being desired lately because they turn most cover into concealment, which is a huge advantage. That's what's changing people's minds about 5

56.

>>602968

m855 makes short work of cover, that's why it was created.

The real issue is long-range energy. This is solved by 20" barrels and 75-77 grain BTHP ammo.

Whoever came out with the 16" barrel meme in the military for 5.56 and made it the standard should be brought out tomorrow on the front lawn of the White House and shot in the face.

>>602968

And one more thing: if most firefights take place under 300m, then a rifle with a 300m point-blank range should be great at increasing the accuracy of the average soldier. Now, for 300m point-blank range requires quite a lot of power, and with a well-shaped bullet you could harness that power to increase the maximum range of the firearm too. So this should be adequate for marksmen, yet the basic rifleman would also benefit enourmously from the performance of that cartridge.

>>602209

Trying to get regular infantry up to operator level is a waste. SOF are good but a lot of things about them are memes. What makes them even special?

>Extensive shooting exercises for specific scenarios (aka something line infantry will not encounter 95% of firefights)

>Expensive equipment which can not be handed out to the entired army

>Specialized training and unit set up for specific situations like LRRP, Hostage rescues, Assassinations, etc.

>Combat experience which you can only get from being line infantry yourself for years

>>602991

>Plain steel Ssh-68 was finally replaced everywhere in Russian military around 2010

SSH-68 had several variants, which from 1980 to 2010 had increasingly heavier composite liners, and were mass issued. Only border cops wore pure steel helmets in the 80s.

>kevlar is not rifle bullet proof medium.

First of all, they used vnivlon not kevlar. Vnivlon is a full aramid fiber, not a para aramid fiber like kevlar. The Russian equivalent of kevlar is fenylene.

Second of all, helmets should not be bulletproof, the point of the helmet is to be resistant to fragments not bullets. Retarded philosophy of making helmets resistant to bullets is making helmets cover smaller and smaller portions of the head to save weight, until most of the skull is exposed under modern helmets. By your logic a kike hat helmet resistant to a nuke is somehow useful.

And last of all, none of this is important, you are purposely hiding from the point like a coward. The point is that a steel helmet is far less resistant than an aramid backed one, ergo using simple steel helms in testing is retarded. Even M855A1, which was still being shot at Soviet pure steel helmets in 2008 after russians adopted complete composite design 6B7-1M.

>>602993

In the same comment you say it acts like hollowpoint, fragmentation and yaw. Which is it? You don't even care about making mutually contradictory statements.

At extreme range it doesn't act like anything, it bounces of WWI helmets because its impacting sideways and at 850fps. I'll believe it can penetrate a pop can full of juice at that range when I see it with my own two eyes.

The answer is 7.92x41 CETME. I know some of you anons have the tooling to experiment on recreating it and I for one would blow every last cent I had towards making it a reality. Any competent /k/omrades want to redevelope the best cartridge ever made?

>>604022

Also I know very little about machining but I've done some very basic gunsmithing and understand a bit about ballistics and dimensions, if anyone is as serious about this as I am. It'd be a dream come true to crowdsource the perfect cartridge with you fags.

Let us also not forget that fragmentation of a rifle round alone is proof positive of terminal effectiveness, thus a simple fragmentation threshold being surpassed does not per se make it an effective round.

>>602896

M855A1 certainly has potential, and it does create better wound channels than M855, its far from being super impressive in this test, moreso considering this is at 10 feet to target. Its certainly and improvement upon other 5.56 NATO designs, but int his 16 inch barrel test certainly not earth shattering. It looks similar to real life 62 grain soft point shorter range wounds on small game with similar size barrel, a small and shallow permanent stretch that tears up a bit of tissue, certainly better than the ice pick or tumbling. But let us remember this is almost point blank.

Let us remember that permanent stretch is dependent on energy and velocity to create its damage. At close range in 16 inch barrel, it creates a small permanent stretch cavity. But at longer range and/or with shorter barrels issues will arise, even if the fragmentation threshold is reached the damage will be minimal, it will reach a point of diminishing returns to a place where there will be no hydrostatic shock/permanent stretch at all, or so little it may be of little value. Even if it does have some fragmentation at theorized 1,700 fps the lack of energy might mean no useful extra damage to speak of. In fact in handgun rounds fragmentation is the worst of all possibilities, and in rifles its only superior in military affairs because it beats yaw and no expansion at high energy levels. At lower energy the fragmenting bullet will do little to nothing, in fact there is reasonable fear that at range the bullet will fragment too easily in flesh and perhaps lose its energy and not punch deeper, or have a low energy core that won't hit vitals or bones hard enough after entering the body. There is a point when you DON'T want fragmentation of any kind in even military rifle terminal ballistics, that low threshhold may actually be a problem, not a feature.

Overall, a 6.5mm-7mm intermediate cartridge with a similar performing bullet will far outdo the 5.56 NATO in any case, especially at range. The 7.62x51 with similar build bullet will perform in another category by itself, both in terms of hard barrier and terminal performance in tissue.

The bigger concern is that short barrel performance with even these impressive M855A1's is good, but potentially lacking, and with shorter barrels and longer ranges its limits are very, very real. 5.56's problems at range continue in terminal performance for reasons I stated; even if you can get a bullet that will fragment, once the energy drops enough increases in performance will drop eventually back to zero. Lack of energy with short barrels and longer combat ranges remains a constant concern, a limitation of the caliber, not the bullet.

>>603991

>four hundred dollars less

I call absolute bullshit on this. the current replacement cost of an a2 is around 600 dollars, i simply don't believe you can produce a sufficiently rugged and quality military firearm capable of firing bullets for less than the ticket price of a hi-point carbine. the article is also incapable of listing neither the 80's cost of an m16 nor the cost of the steyr itself. The ACR you are referring to, as you know, fired flechettes. those flechettes weighed barely over half a gram, and you cant expect me to believe that a similar design firing a bullet at minimum twelve times heavier (with a denser powder charge) will cost anything like the same amount. next you'll tell me marlin or ruger has a .22lr rifle that can also take .223.

forgive me if i seem rude, but that article has me feeling far more incredulous than i was before.

>how that could be done with a metallic cartridge.

it shouldn't be too hard, the powder they use in CT ammo is almost a solid chunk anyway. if you combine that with a standard metal cart the bullet shouldn't shift from its factory centering unless there was a void in the propellant which would have the same capacity for malfunction as on a plastic cased bullet. if you then extend the rear of the case by a few mils you can add a flange for regular extractors to hook onto, thereby giving yourself an entirely universal cased telescopic round which can be fired from any current or future actions and feed types. The only alternative for a universally actionable CT cartridge material i can think of would actually be some form of plastinated rigid organic material.

>>604016

>In the same comment you say it acts like hollowpoint, fragmentation and yaw.

Past 600 meters neither M855 nor M885A1 are going to fragment, because not enough velocity. But it also can be seen that m855 is having >5 degrees AOA past this range, much more than it possibly can have at CQB distances, at high AOA m855 (and any other spitzer bullets) tumble rapidly with short neck.

About M885A1 this is speculation, AOA graph is for M855 but M855A1 probably has similar behavior it is longer bullet fired with same twist, now way it gonna be more stable than M855.

At speed about 1700-2100 fps (400-600 meters range, more exact range is subject for anons testing, dod knows the number but it is classified, btw years ago first anons tests of m885a1 uploaded to the net were literally shut down by GI men) M885A1 acts like fragmenting hollowpoint bullet when hitting fluid like targets (flesh/water/gel)

>>604101

>it shouldn't be too hard, the powder they use in CT ammo is almost a solid chunk anyway.

Nope. In teh interview they said its compressed but not compacted, far from solid chunk of G11 (which was broken to pieces by primer fro fast proper burn, most of the time)

>>604101

Hold up, so according to you I'm actually right in this post >>602611 and it really is possible to make a metallic CT cartridge that works with floating chamber actions? And you are just bitching about the price of a material without any actual data behind you? That's rather annoying.

>the current replacement cost of an a2 is around 600 dollars,

Yes, with modern CNC machines and who-knows-what-else. The AR-15 has quite a complicated receiver that requires lots of machining. The Steyr ACR is just a plastic tube, I assume with some stamped metal parts for reinforcement. As for the guts of the two gun, it looks like the ACR only needs a simple barrel, a fixed bolt, a chunk of steell to act as the chamber, and I also assume that it has an other chunk of steel for a trunion. Everything else seems to be stamped. It really is a simpler gun in every possible way. It's like you think that guns have a fixed price regardless of how they are manufactured. You should learn about British SMGs to see how that is wrong.

>>604575

But you can see with your own eyes in that post that the 40mm is in fact a real telescopic cartdige.

>>603991

>Hungarian is still shilling the caseless meme

>>604590

you see this is quite intersting, the cost of a STEN is by todays money 400 less than an AR, but with cheaper metallurgy built around pistol caliber cartdridges. the trouble is, the pressure and weight difference between 9mm and 6.5 is less than the difference between 6.5 and an ACR flechette, this then means that the ACR must then be bulked up more than a STEN would need to be. therefore, the specific article which i was disagreeing with is likely not correct in the estimation of cost savings over an AR especially when the US would likely insist on production within the US market rather than in steyrs factory.

>hold up

i told you that i was not arguing against CT as a basic concept several posts prior to your metallics post, if you feel your time has been wasted you only have yourself to blame. suggesting that im merely "bitching" about the cost of a material is a bit unfair. the adoption of a new rifle, no matter how cheap or effective is very expensive. it requires restructuring of numerous supply chains, production industries ,and more. suggesting that my argument that an incremental change is better in terms of cost effectiveness than a total change is hardly "bitching".

im sticking to my position, CT ammo should be metallic cased and belted, a new rifle should not be adopted, current rifles should have an upgrade package only after the LSAT has developed initially the supply chain for the upgrade.

>>604592

The Magyar is talking about Cased rounds, not caseless.

>>604594

Shouldn't a round of that size be fine with that nose configuration? The shell requires speed for penetration, and i believe a conical tips main advantage is during the subsonic portion of a projectiles travel. reduced maximum range yes, but shouldn't it have the same effective range?

>>604595

Round nose is terrible for supersonic speeds drag. ( these CTA 40mm HE rounds have muzzle velocity of 1000m/s).

>>604593

>the cost of a STEN is by todays money 400 less than an AR, but with cheaper metallurgy built around pistol caliber cartdridges. the trouble is, the pressure and weight difference between 9mm and 6.5 is less than the difference between 6.5 and an ACR flechette

What I want to say is that it's if you were arguing that thr STEN can't be cheaper than a Lanchester, because both of them are submachine guns. But the STEN really is stupid cheap while the Lanchester is stupid expensive, even though the former is a simplified version of the later that relies more on stamping and got rid of all fanciness. The difference between the AR-15 and the Steyr ACR is even greater, because the later is made of fever parts, and all those parts are simpler. Just look at the BCG of an AR-15 and imagine all the machining operations needed to make it. And then compare it to the ACR that has a solid block of metal for a bolt and an other solid block of metal with two holes and two pins for a moving chamber. It really is orders of magnitude simpler. I don't want to be a prick, but have you ever operated a turret mill or a lathe?

>my argument that an incremental change is better in terms of cost effectiveness than a total change is hardly "bitching".

But if you are so familiar with the ins and outs of manufacturing medical grade polymer, then could you give us some examples for the difficulty?

>CT ammo should be metallic cased and belted, a new rifle should not be adopted, current rifles should have an upgrade package only after the LSAT has developed initially the supply chain for the upgrade.

You write it as if we were behind this project, and not some pencil pushers in the Pentagon.

>>604594

>Nope.

But it is. Although I doubt that there is a well-established definition for telescopic round, but I fail to see how it's not telescopic just because the tip of the round isn't encased in propellant.

>imagine what sort of shitty ballistics it has.

According to a frog here the AP ammunition has 1 MOA accuracy and can penetrate 140mm RHA at 1,5km. That doesn't sound so bad in my opinion.

>>604599

>using le (((((((echoes)))))) maymay

>and in a completely wrong way

To answer your question: no, as far as I know APFSDS shells aren't jewish. But how is that conneected to this discussion?

>>604598

This is the plastic that i think they want to use, i did some looking around after one of the earlier CT threads. I do not, and cannot know for sure though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyether_ether_ketone

it's a cool fucking material, and sounds exactly like what the LSAT devs were talking about, it's even clear just like the LSAT rounds. but, it requires a long reaction time at a fairly high temperature to cook up. im not saying this shit is fucking platinum, but im trying to stress it's a wonder material in terms of function, not cost. you'll need high temperatures to get it into its liquid (or formable) state for manufacture, you'll likely need to have special QA conditions to make sure that no impurites or voids form in the molding or forming process. Just those things are going to add costs above that of simply buying brass stock for stamped casings.

>>604601

those shells can't be jewish, the rounds are being held in the casings foreskin.

>>604610

>you'll need high temperatures

>make sure that no impurites or voids form

reminds me of metal casting tbh, it was facing similar problems but is now cheaper than machining, so if the thing costs much it will be more likely because of raw materials and not manufacture

>>604610

https://www.amazon.com/Polyetheretherketone-Opaque-Off-White-Standard-Tolerance/dp/B00CPRC2BQ

>12,7x304,8mm rod for 57.34$

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-x-12-LONG-BRASS-ROD-C360-SOLID-ROUND-BAR-H2/173288453861?hash=item2858cbf6e5:g:D9gAAOSwYM9bfz0s

>12,7x304,8mm rod for 21$

So on the small scale for a civilian it's three times as much, and both of them are cheaper if you buy them in bulk, therefore that wouldn't make up for the difference. And steel is a lot cheaper than brass. Now I see the problem.

>>604613

im sorry if this discussion took longer than it should, but i didn't want to go posting about the plastic i think it is, precisely because i have no evidence or backing other than drawing purely discription and visual comparisons. it could still very easily be some other plastic material, which is cheaper. this is part of the reason i was worried about the price of oil, since if the prices went up it would likely hurt the supply and demand for less common oil products more than the low end petrols and polyethelenes that the government will think to try and price control. Dont forget that you'd be buying uncoloured plastic aswell, they put alot of effort into the mix of pigment into the plastic which adds to the cost a bit.

>>604593

>the pressure and weight difference between 9mm and 6.5 is less than the difference between 6.5 and an ACR flechette

The chamber pressure of a 6.5 creed and an ACR flechette are actually very close with a difference of only about 3000 psi.

>>602117

This.

You can't win an engagement if the enemy can reach you when you can't reach them. A soldier may not be able to consistrntly hit a point target past 300m under combat conditions, but a squad sure as hell can achieve a tactically significant hit rate with sustained semi-auto fire. Personally, I'd place the barrier for "statistically significant hit rate" closer to 500m than 300m. While I don't think compromising short range effectiveness in pursuit of meeting that goal is worth equipping every soldier with a weapon chambered in a more powerful cartridge, the Vietnam era mix of 7.62x51 LMG and 5.56 infantry rifles was much closer to optimal than today's "all 5.56, all the time" concept. I'd even go a step further and issue at least 2 soldiers per platoon with modernized rifles based on the AR-10 concept in addition to upgrading their LMG/SAW to something chambered in 7.62. A properly designed AR-10 offers at least some parts commonality along with a consistency in the manual of arms between both infantry rifles. Plus, you can treat those issued a "heavy" rifle as backup ammo carriers for the LMG if you adopted a design that could also accept the same magazine as the "heavy" rifle in a pinch.

Let's be honest, the US is the current global Big Bad and every possible opponent is going to optimize themselves exclusively around the weaknesses in American doctrine. Our reliance on 5.56 is one glaring weakness that is easily exploitable with the mountains of cold war Milsurp sitting in caches around the globe. Not only should we close that loophole, we should recognize that it is advantageous to be able to reach out and hit a target using weapons chambered in full power rifle cartridges from more than one position.

>>602410

Adding a mechanism to reduce the rate of fire of an LMG is an idea that has been tried numerous times in the past, proven wildly successful, and then been abandoned for no real reason whatsoever. The best example I can think of is the dual trigger mechsnism on the MG34 that allowed semi-auto fire without the use of a selector switch. Any decent shooter can work a semi-auto trigger accurately at a rate of 120-180rpm which is enough for sustained suppressive fire, just add a second trigger that allows ~400-600rpm and you're golden.

>>604630

>every possible opponent is going to optimize themselves exclusively around the weaknesses in American doctrine. Our reliance on 5.56 is one glaring weakness that is easily exploitable.

We're clearly seeing it with China and Russia and everyone following their patterns of gear.

The US and most of NATO issue more and more carbines, when they keep mass issuing rifles.

We largely issue short barreled LMGs and bare minimum length barrels for sharpshooters (at some point in the late 90's most EU countries had completely abandoned infantry GPMG and HMGs outside of vehicles mounted ones as the NATO goal was to only have 5.56 in dismounted infantry, with the occasional sharpshooter carrying his own match grade ammo on a different logistic network, compared to vehicle MG ammo, which is factory belted anyway. Of course infantry version of 7.62 NATO GPMGs came back with Afghanistan and most snipers have upgraded to .338LM even… because they were getting outshot by the afghans using PKMs, SVDs or vintage Lee-Enfields in .303 British. This shit has ALREADY happened.) they issue extra length barrels for all their specialized weaponry (the exception being Russia buying the new RP-16 with short and normal sized barrels, but the possibility to quick change).

>>604638

They are morans if they think a little more reach is gonna directly impact warfare.

As much as I like bigger boolits, it is better to focus on actual shit that matters like armored vehicles, planes and dare say, power armor.

>>604630

>>604638

>glaring weakness that is easily exploitable with the mountains of cold war Milsurp sitting in caches

How many NATO soldiers were killed in mountains using this milsurp at ranges >500meters again?

>>604687

Given that the average engagement distance in Afghanistan is 700m… probably half the soldiers that died from gunshot wounds (which shouldn't be many, gunshot wounds always was the least dangerous thing in a battlefield, with modern helmet, armor and CASEVAC and enemies that can't aim you need to be really unlucky to die from it).

Afghanistan is a special place, hydrometry, relief and atmospheric pressure condition make for near perfect conditions to have shit fly around.

That's how snipers make stupidly good shot at near impossible distance for their rifle, how AMX-10RC could land direct HE rounds precisely at well over 3000m (despite the fact it stops being accurate at 2500m in France), etc…

>>604725

>Probably

Proof, bitch boi?

>>604687

You do know that it is possible to win an enegagement and/or advance your strategic objectives without killing enemy soldiers, right?

The various guerilla factions in Afghanistan have managed to keep the US bogged down and unable to advance its stated mission in that country because of factors like the disparity in effective engagement distance. There are plenty of other examples of effective asymetric tactics employed over there but you can ask any veteran who experienced combat over there and they'll have at least one story about how a patrol, mission, or even normal base functions were significantly disrrupted by harassing fire from small weapons at a great distance. Every time a patrol has to stop to take cover and call in additional support it costs time, and in the case of US where overkill is always the best kill, an enormous mountain of money. If the enemy can disrupt your ability to effectively operate often enough, eventually the time lost to dealing with the issue is great enough to compromise effectiveness at a strategic level. When the manner in which you "deal with" the issue costs thousands of dollars per minute (air support), it doesn't take much to effect an intolerable economic cost that further compromises your mission.

If you're a guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/etc as long can get an American soldier to duck his head and stop advancing, you're winning the battle even if you fail to land a single hit. If you can do that consistently, you're well on your way to winning the war. Seeing as how the Taliban are potentially being invited to the negotiating table, I think they're potentially going to win the war 9n their terms.

>>604730

We've taken out the antique ANF1 from storage to replace 1/3 of the brand new minimis.

They're literally falling apart (they were refurbished in the 70's and chambered in 7.62 NATO. Some of them definitely served in Algeria) and they have a notorious tendency to fire by themselves (which if always fun when it happens in an APC).

Same way FRF2 sharpshooters should have been replaced by a 5.56 gun (longer famas) yet they're still the most ubiquitous gun. We're talking modified FRF1 which are themselves modified MAS-49. And how shocking they're getting switched for HK 417/G28 in 7.62.

Those guns have all stamps from the 50's.

Yet somehow it's still better than having just weapons that work at 300m…

>>604761

>The various guerilla factions in Afghanistan have managed to keep the US bogged down and unable to advance its stated mission in that country because of factors like the disparity in effective engagement distance.

Actually it is opposit. US troops mission is to survive and call air support. Guerilla mission is to overran US forces before air support arrives. But because of the advantage of US of small arms firepower Guerillas pretty much could never destroy US forces. Instead Guerrilla forces are generally suppressed can't maneuver to destroy US forces and eventually fall back.

>>604785

>If we twist the situation then we are winnig!

So the US forces are there to waste millions on dollars via sitting on their asses and calling in air strikes on rusty PKMs; and also to slowly give back the country to the Taliban? Although now that I typed it down it sounds quite plausible.

>>604785

>Guerilla mission is to overran US forces before air support arrives.

Guerrilla mission is to be a guerrilla IE to use hit and run tactics until the other side is tired and fucks off. Which worked with Obongo fucking off and the talebans are de facto controlling afghanistan from a military viewpoint.

Waiting for CAS is a passive (and therefore losing) tactic and is the definition of "getting bogged down".

Because what the taleban do is a small determined probing attack in a province they time how long it takes CAS to get on station and calculate their strike/withdrawal in consequence.

How to you counter that? Easy soviet counter ambush tactic, instead of flying CAS you fly in commandos on the most likely roads of enemy egress and you trap the enemy between them, the unit that was engaged + it's reinforcement and NOW you call CAS and slaughter them all.

The problem is they actually know that trick too, so they leave copious amount of rear security units, so you're infiltrating small units with limited supplies against vastly superior numbers that will do everything to get out there instead of running at the first sign of serious opposition.

Which means there WILL be casualties on your side, possibly entire squads.

Which means it will make the news which means no one will ever do that because God forbid a few soldiers die when a platoon size elements engage company size elements (and wipe them out)…

>>604810

>Waiting for CAS is a passive (and therefore losing) tactic

Nope. Chasing on foot Taliban in civilian closes riding mopeds is losing tactics. Its all risks with no prize in the end (except huge juicy IED on the approach avenue). There is literally no reason fro infantry patrol to chase Taliban, It is opposite, if soldiers are smart its Taliban who need to come at soldiers, but Taliban can't, they are slaughtered by US small arms fire if try. Lose lose for Taliban.

>>604845

>>604845

>ts Taliban who need to come at soldiers

And they come with 107mm artillery, Mosins and Dushkas which outrange anything which (barring specialist snipers) could be classified as a "US small arms" at this point.

>>604846

>(((outranged)))

Can't even suppress just US rifleman and overrun their positions. Why taliban soldiers is so bad? Is this religions? Or genetics?

https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/

>>604848

Actually it's 60 foot pounds, not 22, it applies to the liner free SSH-68 we're not discussing. Also given that the steel core weight in the round is 15gr and it might not even be hitting tip on…. would be a hard sell.

Text is about renovation of russian police with help from ministry of defense.

>>604850

They're terrorists, why the fuck would they want to "overrun" a US position?

>>604845

>Lose lose for Taliban.

You are aware that basically the half countryside is currently held by the Taliban?

And that every major city in Afghanistan are cut from each others as it's impossible to travel on land without crossing into Taliban territory? And that the country is cutoff from the rest of the planet as every big crossing point into Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban?

Protip if the enemy is controlling all your roads, they're the ones controlling your country not you…

That's the result of the "let the taliban come to us" strategy, it's working great another summer like that and we're about to see it's payoff: Fall of Saigon 2.0, Kabul edition.

>>604765

That's because goddamn french are refusing to issue new rifles.

But the issue of DMR does not mean that standard issue should be bigger boolits.

>>604876

It's better tbh.

Taliban is a pakistan problem, can't solve taliban unless you solve pakistan.

Just leave Afghan to the Taliban, US should quit and deploy its army on the Mexican border.

>>604865

>it applies to the liner free SSH-68 we're not discussing.

But we do. NATO did.

>Text is about renovation of russian police with help from ministry of defense.

F-

>>604898

The point is that NATO is retarded, that's the whole point of the discussion.

NATO small arms doctrine is retarded.

NATO short range doctrine is retarded.

NATO was retarded to throw out 7.62 from fireteam level.

NATO was retarded to rely only on 5.56 for all small arms.

NATO was retarded to shorten barrels on M4.

NATO was retarded to test the M855 against pure steel helmets.

This thread is literally about unfucking it so it becomes a proper global empire, not a halfass piece of shit.

>F-

Your sister gave me an A++ monkey, until I found out she had a penis.

Fucking Brazil.

>>604932

If you don't know the subject you should be silent.

>>604022

How good would be the penetration? I've read that there are bullets with aluminium nose because the layer of aluminium-oxid is even harder than tool steel, but the rest of the projectile would be still rather light and soft. Also, do I assume correctly that it would have no problem with yawing?

>>604981

If you want most penetration you'd better get yourself proper AP rounds, but if you do not want them, thinned bullets generally have better penetration for the same weight. You can also harden built in steel penetrators if the bullet has any. They'd also help shifting balance backwards, it would increase tumbling.

If it was not for regulations, might there be a situation where such tumbling bullet be better than a good proper hollow point, in a general military application? Can an average round be better than a dedicated penetrating or damaging one?

>>604984

>might there be a situation where such tumbling bullet be better than a good proper hollow point

Aren't hollowpoints less effective in rifle calibers anyways? I thought soft-point was the way to go if you wanted a properly expanding rifle round. In any case, I think there might be some weight to the idea that tumbling has certain advantages over expansion–as I understand it at least, tumbling is less velocity-dependent than expansion (though as usual higher velocity will give you better effect), which means there might be some use for tumbling over expansion if you still want a good wound channel at suboptimal ranges/velocities.

Speaking of different bullet types, what about projectiles where the jacket is bonded to the lead core? This guy (https://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/) shills for it pretty hard, and at least from the way he describes it it sounds like a nice "middle of the road" bullet type to give to general infantry, if we ignore the Hague convention for a moment: the bonded jacket means it can go through auto glass and other light-to-medium cover without losing too much lethality or changing trajectory too much, and the soft-point gives it good terminal effect. They sound pretty cool, but I have to wonder if that's legitimate advice or a meme.

>>604987

>I thought soft-point was the way to go if you wanted a properly expanding rifle round.

Generally, yes. Hollow points tend to fragment rather than expand, but some of their designs allow more expansion while staying in one piece, more so than just soft point, they were called something like bonded jacket you described, though i may be wrong. That's why i said GOOD hollow points.

>tumbling is less velocity-dependent than expansion

Tumbling alone does not do that much more damage, it's main benefit is that if the bullet yaws it can fragment which is worse than proper expansion but a lot better than no expansion at all, and to fragment bullet needs to fly at high velocities. I suppose these fragmenting-tumbling bullets would be more velocity dependent than hollow points.

>if that's legitimate advice or a meme

I dunno but i don't remember where i rad about this, maybe here somewhere http://abesguncave.com/9mm-vs-40-sw-vs-45-acp/ . He also recommended xtreme defender for handgun cartridges He also suggested your link so i dunno, but the info he gives on the site is great overall for my understanding.

>>604981

I think poor penetration was one of the reasons the round didn't end up going anywhere.

>>604981

>there are bullets with aluminium nose because the layer of aluminium-oxid is even harder than tool steel, but the rest of the projectile would be still rather light and soft

A very hard surface layer is insufficient. The thin ceramic will shatter and the aluminium behind it will flatten rather than penetrating.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/globalcontent/courses/ebm/mant/materials/properties_of_materials/

>>604989

That Abe guy doesn't know shit. The fact he promotes ARX and Extreme Defender shows he is either a shill or a retard. His meandering winding article kinda looks like he'll make some points of value but it ends up being a poor meandering read and a waste of time.

>>605002

I dunno anon, i got plenty of useful info which did not conflict with better sources, at least for ballistic performance stuff, pretty easy to read as well, aside from constant "shot placement" shilling that sometimes even discards statistics. Could you tell us why are ARX and defender bad? Or maybe refute some of his articles' points?

>>605016

Most of all he leaves out penetration in his entire article and focuses purely on expansion, he compares all of these bullets based purely on expansion and not penetration as a major factor. No discussion of the fact that some high expanding bullets in 9mm and 40 have to be written off because they don't pass the 12 inch gel test minimum, the fact that high expanding 45 ACP penetrates well while many high expanding bullets from others are extremely poor. Also his discounting of extra expansion by claiming that the diameter expansion is not important because its only an eighth of an inch and not accounting for the facts of what the final expanded frontal surface area actually is, minimizing the gain or discarding it. Missing is also the full frontal area based on total area expanded area and not just the maximum expanded part of a petal rather than the average expanded area of the mushroom that does most of the damage, but then again this is not calculated or even mentioned in a lot better works on the subject.

MOST of all is his entire idea on the subject, and it basically is "shot placement" to the exclusion to all other factors. His statement that a 500 S&W to the finger is not as good as a 22 to the head is a strawman of strawmen if there ever was. People talk of such nonsense to walk around the fact that a 500 S&W tot he kidney or liver or any other blood bearing vessel or organ is going to be vastly superior than the 22lr. The whole "shot placement is more important than terminal performance" turns into "shot placement is everything therefore terminal performance accounts for zero" is what is being implied. He ignorantly discounts the superior effects of superior rounds by almost claiming nothing but a direct head or spine shot actually means anything in battle (total bullshit) then proceeds to discount the benefits and any values of those performances anyway.

Once again we see the logical fallacy of "shot small, hit big" assuming everyone will hit a squirrel between the eyes at 200 yards with a 22 because of its low recoil in combat but everyone will miss the broadside of a barn at 2 feet with anything bigger because they will automatically snap the gun in half because of fear of recoil. In reality smaller calibers don't automatically mean better shot placement, therefore such an argument is bullshit. Its obvious Abe here is defending his caliber choice and his arguments come from justifying and rationalizing the choice rather than a useful, top down, objective analysis of the subject. He does everything to push the advantages of his choice and even invents advantages that aren't so and minimizes the advantages of others, more of a "my choice is right" rather than a statement of facts and general ideas. It also has dogshit organization and follow through, it meanders aimlessly.

ARX and Defender are engineered to give impressive results in ballistics gel, not perform well in real life. If one looks at the ballistics gel results one can see they may look fancy, but they aren't impressive at all. The permanent stretch they show are actually extremely thin, more razor thin bubbles of permanent stretch that are actually very small and do not destroy much tissue, especially when you look at the gel block from different angles. They look far more impressive than they really are. Also such thin rips are common in other handgun rounds in ballistics gel, and these are the result of a phenomena in the ballistics gel itself and not representative of what it will do in living tissue. In handguns, ballistics gel tends to give accurate soft tissue performance of a bullet, not so much represent the wound channel itself. Small amounts of permanent stretch found in ballistics gel may or may not be present in real tissue; in this case these micro rips will certainly almost never occur in real targets.

Thus we have a bullet designed to maximize visible results in a test medium, somewhat like a car made for a specific race track that won't drive well on a real road in real life, except worse. It won't cause massive permanent stretch cavities like its proponents claim, so Abe is either ignorant or a shill, same with anyone else who makes bold claims to it. Its just a full metal jacket or solid that will perform… like a full metal jacket or solid, save for the flatter face might do better damage than a sharp ogive. Then again, a pure flat face bullet like a wadcutter or semi wadcutter will do better than that.

>>604987

So anyone else have good insight on the infodump Doc Roberts does in the article in >>604987? The way he talks about bonded ammo sounds almost too good to be true but he seems to have a lot of data backing it up.

>>605032

To answer things, >>604989 did a nice job. Soft points are vastly superior in rifles because they hold together and do maximum hydrostatic shock/permanent stretch damage because of superior weight retention, energy use, and shape. Hollow points are used in handguns because they are so weak and lack both power and velocity for proper expansion without it, but rifles don't need this or want it.

Bonded bullets are the cat's meow because they offer all the advantages of a lead core jacketed bullet in terminal performance on tissue while also having excellent cohesion to avoid fragmenting or deforming on barriers. Jacketed lead's biggest problem is often unwanted deformation in barrier, which can be corrected by lead alloy but mostly jacket design, but the second is jacket-core ejection. Golden Saber handgun bullets used to suffer from this before bonding, others did too, and jacket separation leads to rifle rounds fragmenting when you don't want them to, leads to lessened terminal performance, especially if bullets hit barriers. Bonding jacket to core prevents much of this, mitigating a huge problem with this superior bullet.

One time we shot a bunch of throwaway books with my 375 H&H using cheap PPU soft point 300 grainers. Despite all that power and weight, the ;penetration was disappointing, one reason was the thing cheap jacket separated from the soft lead core which smooshed up and did poorly. If you used this factory round against a deer at close range, it will do some pretty serious damage. Try to shoot a grizzly bear and you might be inviting tragedy. By building a better jacket, then bonding the jacket, you can make the bullet a high performer. Use a cheap shit grade rifle bullet for security purposes you might end up watching your powerful rifle bullet break up on a barrier you expected it to punch through, failing completely or just showering the attacker with bullet fragments. Hit a man and have it smash to pieces and fragment you will limit its penetration and damage; hold it together as designed it will maximize.

>>605020

Thank you, that seems pretty reasonable, though i have a few questions.

>claiming nothing but a direct head or spine shot actually means anything in battle

He did say this about weaker rounds, which does not apply to ones like 357 or 10mm, which did seem a little unfair not to mention them, while at the same time claiming that his special bullets will come close in performance. He also adds the cop's story and has an article about damage and one shot stops (http://abesguncave.com/stopping-power-the-simple-truth-of-terminal-ballistics/) where his description is somewhat consistent with this one.

Overall i think this one is not so good, but his articles on general purpose combat cartridge are quite a bit more professional, with statistics and such. The only thing i have found to oppose is that he discarded 6.5 vs 6mm caliber choice without comparing actual data between them, leaving only "hits like .357 point blank at 800m".

Maybe handguns and bullet construction(he did admit this one) are not his field of expertise, at least i hope so.

>>605044

His writing style is poorly organized and not well thought out. Also there is a huge difference between temporary and permanent stretch cavity, one only might disrupt and damage certain tissues in rare circumstances but is largely not a factor in battle, the other physically destroys tissue, often times far more tissue than the bullet physically destroys through its direct crush cavity. Its also called hydrostatic shock, and yes, the term itself is inaccurate and wrong, its so well established that it remains because it is colloquial and accepted, albeit a misnomer. Still, hydrostatic shock is a more accurate commonly used term for what he speaks of instead of "temporary cavity" which he uses in place of "permanent stretch cavity' which means I have even less faith in anything this author writes.

He claims that no handgun under 357 Magnum or 10mm causes temporary cavitation, this is a lie. Even some very weak rounds can cause even a small temporary cavity in tissue, but again, temporary cavities are of almost no use to us. If he is referring to permanent stretch cavity, there is even hot debate wither these high power handguns really cause much of it at all, at least its effect in deeper tissue to stop an attack is certainly not true. The "pulping" we see in high power rifles with soft points or hollow points or optimum fragmentation in some cases is permanent stretch cavity, and the author can't tell between the two. Even if a 357 or 10mm might tear up a little more muscle wall or skin it isn't tearing apart tissue deep inside to the same extent. The real reason why these cartridges work better is because their higher energy allows them to have bullets that both expand reliably and penetrate deeply reliably.

Incapacitation can occur from more than what he lists, probably watches a bit too much zombie flicks. There is such thing as a psychological stop, but in the world of physiology there is more than outright killing or knocking out. In some cases it is achieved through shock and its affect on the person. Other times the person may still be conscious, but they will be physically unable to continue the fight; they have enough blood in them to stay awake but can no longer manage the strength to operate a weapon or continue hand to hand fighting. The author's assertion that "only central nervous system shit" stops an attacker is mostly true, but not really.

As stated bleedout can both end a fight through killing/unconsiocusness but also through weakening the body till the attacker can no longer function. In a protracted gunfight, even blood loss that isn't totally effective in stopping an attacker can reduce his combat capacity. A good bleeding wound that does not kill/knock out or even weaken to the point of complete defeat makes him weaker, more disoriented, less capable of thinking and fighting. Even if your round hasn't ended the fight yet, it will help you continue to win the fight. A boxer "rocks" an opponent, but does not put him out; yet this may ruin the opponent's ability to stay on his feet and fight strongly, it may be the non fatal hit to his performance that lets him slide and get weaker and give you the edge in the ring so you can dominate and win. Don't discount the non fatal/one shot stop bleeders as useless.

Thus high damage is important, you can't always make perfect shots and good shot placement, and these non perfect shots are far better off with high damage results than not. A 45 to the hip is better than a 22lr to the hip. A 308 soft point to the leg or arm may completely destroy the limb to the point it makes it useless, while a full metal jacket or lighter power weapon may allow the limb to be used for fighting. Even in shots to the head, higher power weapons and heavier bullets are more likely to make poor head and spine shots effective, lighter bullets and lower power lead to more a of a chance of glance off, or even the bullet failing to crush the bone after too much energy loss in a deep penetration scenario.

"Shot placement only" is a bit ridiculous in a non perfect world full of imperfect shots and angles. At some point a shotgun slug to the hip might be worse than a 22lr to the stomach. A high power rifle with proper expanding bullets can do such massive damage that it can shock or break up limbs and tissue to the point that even poor hits can be debilitating or fight ending, at least giving you a huge advantage in the rest of the fight.

>>605044

I read that police officer's story a long time ago. Many such stories have happened in real life in modern war and public security. In this officer's case his best hits were his first hits; they were also fired through his patrol vehicle's window and lost huge amounts of energy before they hit the nigger in the vital organs, their damage and effect were minimized by this. This particular incident needs to be remembered with all factors considered, if the officer had scored those good hits outside his vehicle it might have changed the fight. Also to be considered, how did the hits he made affect the criminal? Even if they didn't end the fight immediately, did they help to slow down, confuse, fuck up, lessen the combat capacity of the criminal? If they played a major roll in the fight, were they not important? Would 9mm or 40 changed this? Is the lesson a smart ass "DURRR SHOT PLACEMENT" when we can't perfectly guarantee this in the real world?

Some attackers are very dangerous and won't quit till you quit them. This means we have to do everything we can to stop then. that means we train to make good shots, we also have contingincies like a powerful rifle or shotgun to get the best chance of making the not so great hits count too. 45 ACP or 10mm or 357 Magnum not killing crimianls with multiple hits just shows you that even high performing handgun rounds are REALLY that shit.