/k/ - Weapons

>>681547

They managed to spread memes among themselves.

>>681662

You still need a rifleman capable of those shots, which most people aren't, especially under stress of combat. Also, low velocity hand cast bullets in a 45-70 using obsolete blackpowder can reach out to 1,000 yards in the right hands, better than a high tech jacketed bullet at high velocity in a 5.56 NATO. We think about how great flat shooting high velocity is at closer ranges, we keep forgetting we need big heavy bullets to get good BC and good long range performance.

Go ahead, push a 75 grain match bullet in a .224 rifle at 6,000 fps, considering that's the kind of bullet you will NEED to get long range results, or heavier, and tell me about the recoil. I've killed stuff with a 220 Swift, its in a category different than a 223. Keep punching it up northwards, it only gets worse.

Bigger calibers can achieve better ballistic coefficient. Throw a 168 grain Match King at 5,000, or 6,000 fps, tell me how that feels to shoot? With a 175 MK, how about the heavier 308 caliber offerings? If you get the chance, shoot a 300 super magnum of some caliber, throw a 150 grain bullet at 3,500 fps and tell me how controllable that rifle is, how much it kicks, what kind of massive blast it produces? What kind of barrel you really want to harness that gunpowder. A 125 grain bullet at 5,000 fps will kick harder, buck harder with muzzle blast, and will eventually have WORSE long range performance than Elmer Fuddpucker with his Winchester 70 hunting rifle in 30-06 shooting a 200 grain match bullet at 2,400 fps.

Keep in mind, we want long range performance we don't focus on velocity. What's the velocity of the highest BC 338 Lapua loads? What's the velocity of a long range 50 BMG load? If you can get a high BC bullet to 2,400 fps+, that might be all you need. Long rangers prefer heavier slower bullets, because BC eventually matters more than velocity. And we already have heavy, "slow" loads in many calibers that already kick "too much" or kick hard enough for combat rapid fire purposes.

Also, what kind of accuracy can we get out of 100k psi? Many match shooters already prefer to stay away from the 65,000 psi SAAMI limit for many cartridges they load for, much less beyond. What kind of gunpowder, what kind of effects of pressure will affect accuracy? No point in a bullet that can have theoretical flat shooting to X yards it if can't shoot Y MOA to be effectively accurate at that range.

inb4 "But PALMA shooters use ~150 grain bullets", yes, they make it work, yet everyone else still uses heavy bullets with high BC.

>>681668

this. making small atgms or suicide drones would be superior for long range sniping since you can correct the flightpath midflight.

also offtopic but imagine how small we could make drones. see that fly on the wall? its soviet spy!

>>681295

>externally driven magazine

The hell is that supposed to mean?

>>681681

Not that anon, but an externally driven magazine would be a magazine that uses either recoil or gas pressure to operate a mechanism that advances the cartridges in the magazine one position. A good example would be the pan magazines on early light machine guns.

>>681662

>Standard AK/AKM tested to 140k psi and surviving.

I enjoyed the ".308 in .270 rifle" story and believe that is possible, but no way an AK bolt can withstand that kind of pressure with those locking lugs. They are half the size of the lugs on a Remington 700 which means their total force bearing area is far less than half that of a 700, never mind that of high power bolt actions using three lugs or something like a Weatherby bolt. Peak Fuddlore right there.

No, I will say that a very high quality AK might fire a round and cycle at that kind of pressure. Except it would only do so once because those lugs would be sheered clean off, turning into a one-time-use blowback action.

>>681670

>Strongest material known to man is a meme

>>681685

Modern steel bolt action rifles are quite strong, but plenty of people have manged to fuck that up, too. Interesting that in some official reloading books that they basically tell you that you have some margin of error at the MAP because Mausers and 700's and all in modern steel can safely handle modest amounts of over pressure without danger, basically meaning that 65,000 psi MIGHT not be a complete limitation to them, even if we are all wiser to stay there. Still, you see people making Youtube videos about breaking parts, getting gassed, hurting themselves, hurting their guns from overcharge. Personal anecdote I know about a local fellow who enjoyed a miracle after SHEERING the fucking lugs off his 700 with a bad load, luckily the bolt only had enough force to break his glasses from what I head. "Pedestrians should not confuse right of way with immortality" and "reloaders should not confuse strong actions with indestructability".

Everyone should keep in mind that proof loads for strong action rifles with modern steel are way, way, way higher than 65k psi. They keep the actual pressure and loads a secret to the industry to keep retards from getting retarded ideas to do retarded things. A brand new Mauser or 700 or falling block action rifle might actually fire a handful of 140k psi rounds before it leaves the factory for all we know, hearing they have 90-120k psi would not shock me. But with that in mind, remember that a handful to test it will be fine, an attempted lifetime of those pressure loads will mean a short lifespan on the gun, perhaps for the shooter. That being said, it would be interesting to see if anyone in the know could tell us what armorers with AK's of this and that actually use for proof loads and what the maximum an AK can handle before it fucks up kablooey. Increase the pressure, you will fuck up the lugs like you say, far earlier than a good bolt action, but it might survive a high pressure round or two.

Also, keep in mind falling blocks are the strongest of all actions. A Ruger No 1 really hoesntly can't be beat for max pressure outside a test cannon. If there are goofy stories about over pressure rounds not blowing a gun up, it might be a falling block more than a bolt action. They might be able to really, really, really fuck up a load and maybe have that gun survive and keep ticking. Even then you can break something, and hurt yourself. Could I hotload 45-70 for my modern steel 1885 Winchester? I betcha I could. Betcha I won't, either.

tl;dr, Best not to know what a gun can take before it fails from firsthand experience.

>>681682

If the want to use a pan magazine then that's just ridiculous, if it's something more like a box magazine then i don't see how they are going to pull that off.

>>681547

t.butthurt boomermutt

Why do you need higher velocities for CQC? Would it not make more sense to implement this in DMRs or standard rifles to increase ranged proficiency and decrease bullet drop? I would think that in small spaces like room clearing higher RoF is much more important than velocities. What exactly is their reasoning for using this for close quarters?

>>681691

>falling blocks are the strongest of all actions

And now I've remembered that there was already a quite advanced bullpup with a falling block(esque) action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKB-022PM

>>681717

>I would think that in small spaces like room clearing higher RoF is much more important than velocities.

That's not true, most militaries want a relatively RoF of around 600 for their submachine guns, because with a high RoF you just spray your whole magazine into the room with one pull of the trigger, and you'll be lucky if a few shots land on what you were aiming for. To illustrate how important it is, the Skorpion even has this funky czechnology to slow down the RoF.

>>681784

The easiest solution is to just make a belt-fed weapon that has the whole feed system integrated into a replaceable unit, so you can reload life if it was a magazine-fed weapon: https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/urz-plamen-2/

depleted uranium rounds

/out

I'll admit i am a tad curious to how well the tapered barrel would work.

>>681959

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

The theory is solid, and it was invented for hunting rifles. It's basically the same as flechette ammunition, but without any of the downsides. I'd say these are the real questions:

<How hard is it to manufacture the barrel?

<Is barrel erosion significantly worse?

<Does it require projectiles with special construction?

<Is the boost in performance significant enough to warrant switching to this system?

Honestly, I'd try out what would happen if you squeezed a .350 Legend down to 6.5mm from the original 9mm. Maybe you could get rifle-like performance out of any 5.56 NATO weapon simply by switching the barrel and the ammunition (and buying new magazines). Maybe it could even work with simple cast brass bullets.

>>681965

i dont think barrels would be such an issue. i mean fuck they are planning on using it for smgs, right? they dont really need to be even rifled for that.

i guess easilly exchangable barrels would be ideal, but again, locking system would need to be robust as fuck at these velocities.

i am more curious how they plan on making an loading mechanism

>>681959

>>681965

>>681970

I'm working on a squeeze bore barrel design that also uses progressive oval rifling.

the oval rifling doesn't tear up the jacket like progressive cut rifling can, and is easier to clean.

Barrels could be produced by hammer forging or ECM.

>>682030

First a disclaimer: I haven't made a prototype yet, so all of this is just theory right now. I may get a prototype made with ECM later this year. The idea was on the back burner for a while because I thought it needed to be hammer forged, and I don’t have that level of tooling.

The concept is an attempt to minimize the issues that progressive rifling and squeeze bore have.

problems this rifling system solves:

Jacket damage (problem with progressive rifling)

Progressive rifling tends to tear up jackets because the helix angle changes as the bullet moves down the barrel. This is kind of like cross threading a bolt and can end with the jacket flying off the bullet. With this system the bullet is only deformed so the jacket stays intact.

Ease of mass production (problem with progressive rifling and squeeze bore)

This rifling can be formed by hammer forging. The mandrel will come out nicely because of the taper and lack of hard edges.

Cleaning problems (problem with progressive rifling and squeeze bore)

A smooth bore is easier to clean. Cleaning a non-tapered progressive barrel probably wouldn't be too bad, but a rifled squeeze bore would probably need a few different sized brushes to deal with the taper.

This rifling system also seems to be well suited to ECM. Two problems with ECM: it doesn't do hard, precise edges very well; and it usually needs to be lapped or polished to get a good finish. This system should be fairly tolerant of being slightly oversize since the bullet is getting squeezed down anyway, and lapping will be easy because it’s smooth inside. Lapping should be doable with a soft rope (think the back end of a boresnake) charged with abrasive compound.

>surely what will get us "hypervelocity" is not a different gas expulsion, as is used in modern actual hypervelocity research guns, but some retarded shit welded onto an AR bolt that makes the whole mess become threaded instead of free-sliding will do it

what is wrong with americans? why cant americans into engineering anymore? could they ever??

>>682117

>what is wrong with americans?

Jews.

>why cant americans into engineering anymore?

H1B Pajeets.

>could they ever??

Yes, but you fail to see the point. This abortion wasn't designed to be an effective weapon, but to steal taxpayer money away, just like pretty much every retarded US military program that never seems to go anywhere while wasting ungodly amounts of money.

>>681999

Is there a way to calculate what kind of velocities can be achieved with squeeze bores?

>>682934

There are many ways to apply the squeeze bore idea, so there's not "one way" to calculate what will happen. The basic concept is if you have a given volumetric flowrate of gas, it will have to move faster as the tube it's moving through gets smaller.

About the simplest squeeze bore is Arthur Langsford's design. He re-barreled .22lr rifles with .17 cal barrels. The barrels had an extended forcing cone and faster twist rifling (for the long bullet). This design gained about 200 FPS over the same cartage fired out of a standard barrel. This extra speed combined with the higher sectional density (and probably higher BC) meant that the bullet had much better penetration, could be used at longer ranges, and was less affected by crosswinds.

On the other end purpose built squeeze bore rifles with projectiles designed for it can get velocities over 5000 FPS.

The next stop is light gas guns. They get velocities over 25,000 FPS. I'm done writing for now, so if you want to know more just google it. There's plenty of info.

>>681303

We could just use DU since we have uranium mines

wouldnt the whole project be much easier if they used caseless ammo? no need for extraction, which will get fucked at such pressures.

>>682970

G-11 please come back

>>682952

I wish that gun went somewhere. Combined with its AP ammo and it could shred things up nicely.

Is it because tungsten ammo is expensive or something?

>>683170

Answering here, because we do have a thread for this.

>Why does a squeeze bore increase muzzle velocity?

First and foremost, pushing a projectile that has a bigger calibre with the same amount of gas is more efficient. The problem is of course that you have to push a projectile with a worse ballistic coefficient, and that's why squeezing it down to a smaller diameter helps. Second, the gas has to flow through a smaller hole, and that speeds it up. I don't know the name of the physical phenomena, especially not in English, but the choke of a shotgun works the same way. There is also a custom exhaust system in cars that works on the same principle, but again, I don't know its English name. In Hungarian that part is called a "gas accelerator".

>How does it compare to a smooth bore barrel firing sabotted ammunition?

They are competing technologies, because they do the same thing, that is, pushing a bigger projectile inside the barrel than what will be fired. With a smoothbore you can fire both saboted and full-calibre projectiles, but they have to be fin stabilized. You also have to deal with the sabot, which is quite a challenge. Squeeze bore requires a more complicated barrel, but the technology itself is simpler. You can even make a muzzle device:

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

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/sgun.htm

But as the first article notes you need special projectiles, and that is especially a problem if you already have quite a lot of non-special ones.

>a barrel with a very slow twist

If you want to fire saboted projectiles, then smoothbore is simply better.

>Could a barrel be squeeze bore and use sabotted cartridges assuming it had a slow twist?

You'd squeeze the sabot onto the projectile, and then it would somehow have to shed it. Not impossible, but you'd make it way too complicated for dubious gains.

>>683411

The shell in that PDF seems to be a full-calibre one, using the same technology in a .410 shotshell wouldn't give us anything useful. It would be just a fancy slug. Maybe you could load it into a .460 S&W case, but even then you'd just have a .460 S&W with a very fancy projectile for smoothbore barrels. To make it .30 calibre you'd have to give it a sabot, and then we are back at Project SPIW.

>>683413

Yeah I'm retarded.

But my original point was it's not a sabot, the only thing that is discarded is the gas seal/wad around the deploy-able fins so they won't try to deploy before they leave the barrel.

And yet they get very good accuracy at long range, granted 2500m for a 120mm isn't exactly long but it's with an ammo that is extremely as inconsistent as it can get (it's density all over the place).

>>683414

Compared with the current standard of solid bullets and rifled bores, I'm not sure what would we gain. Accuracy is not a problem with rifled barrels, and rifling a barrel seems to be simpler than putting moving fins on every single bullet. Maybe it would worth it if a smoothbore barrel made the projectiles significantly faster, but that's not the case if I'm not mistaken.

>>683417

A big problem with rifled barrel at high pressure is that you shoot out the barrels rifling very quickly.

If it's a smooth-bore you risk losing velocity has the projectile won't fit as snug but that's about it.

That's the reason why most of NATO prefers switched to smoothbore for tanks and specifically for kinetics AT rounds, the brits retained rifled barrels as they felt projectile variety was more important than optimizing penetration as it was thought impossible to stabilize non-sabot rounds in a smoothbore until the french and german came up with some (HEAT rounds are even worse they have a counterweight that rotate along the shell).

Note that the big deploy-able fins aren't necessarily mandatory there are other type, they just went with the PG-7 style because it's fool proof and overkill.

>>683428

>A big problem with rifled barrel at high pressure is that you shoot out the barrels rifling very quickly.

>If it's a smooth-bore you risk losing velocity has the projectile won't fit as snug but that's about it.

That's why a squeeze-bore with a replaceable "squeezer" would be perfect. You'd have a smooth barrel with a screw-on muzzle device, but the device contains the taper and the rifled section, not just the compensator/flash hider/grenade launcher/whatever else. Once the rifling is gone you can screw in a new device. And as >>682092 wrote, with progressive oval rifling you can increase the life of the rifling quite a lot. The taper also forces the projectile to fit very well, so that problem is gone. Even more, if the the device is locked in the "PKM way" (that is, it's not that tightly screwed on, and kept in place by a pin) then you could screw in a suppressor that has a rifled section but no taper, and no you can fire full calibre bullets.

>>683411

And that reminds me: are tungsten balls really that much better than steel? Lately every HE shell seems to use them, and it sounds like a waste to me.

>>683449

It's the same thing they put in pure canister rounds. IMHO it's an industrial rationalization or a way to pay up the specific tooling they got to make the tungsten balls form the canister rounds (which no one uses and therefore no one buys).

Pure HE is always better than meme "HE-frag delayed maneuvering rounds". Just put a second one through the hole if you're that worried whatever was hiding behind is not dead.

They picked tungsten over steel for canisters round in a day most cars were still made out of steel and most APC were fairly light skinned (but enough to stop steel).

I have serious doubt about the usage of canister rounds altogether.

Sure in a dense forest where you don't really know where the infantry is, it's a half-decent replacement for a flame-tank. In the fulda gap if you happen to stumble on a MT-LB and trucks convoy? Great.

But outside of that very very specific usage it's nothing a commander MG or a gunner coax can't do if you fire it for a minute…

I don't think one of those have been fired in battle since Vietnam.

Why do we need these concepts when the military refuses to spend money on improving the basics such as artillery such as that canceled NLOS?

Hell the Jews sold us the idea of rail guns being cheap to fire and they ended up costing the tax payer 25,000 dollars a shot. Hell the rail gun program may be canceled at this point

>>683406

>Second, the gas has to flow through a smaller hole, and that speeds it up.

Is this what you are talking about?

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

>If you want to fire saboted projectiles, then smoothbore is simply better.

I thought I had read somewhere that a very slow twist rate was better for sabot separation but now upon searching around I can't find any evidence of that so I might have been mistaken.

>>683454

I take pure HE means the good old fashioned cast steel body filled with HE. Something I'm not sure about: is the killing mostly done by the explosion, and the fragments are just a nice secondary effect?

>HE-frag delayed maneuvering rounds

Nowadays they claim that a modern 81mm mortar shell is just as effective as a 120mm shell from ww2. Is it because they only test the effectiveness of the fragments, and not the "overall destructive potential" of the HE charge?

>They picked tungsten over steel for canisters round in a day most cars were still made out of steel and most APC were fairly light skinned (but enough to stop steel)

In other words, nowadays it doesn't really give you anything, because they can't penetrate modern APCs, and steel balls would still kill the infantry just fine, right?

>>683484

That seems to be what I was looking for. Mind you, I don't know if it actually plays a significant role.

>>683515

>The solution isnt progressive rifling, which is expensive as fuck to machine

That's why hammer forging and electrochemical machining were discussed ITT.

>CLGGs

Maybe the problem is with me, but I can't imagine how CLGG small arms would work with our current technology. I mean, I can imagine something like an airgun that uses propane, but how would you make a self-loading weapon with this technology that is purely mechanical? Would recoil operation work?

>>683517

>Is it because they only test the effectiveness of the fragments

It's a tactic problem, artillery shell complex pattern of fragmentation is one thing because an artillery shell is an indirect fire weapon, that is meant for zone targeting. An artillery battery fire effectiveness is measured by density of projectile per m².

So firing at a bunch of man sized target in a field to measure their effectiveness, while perfectly valid for an arty gun, is beyond retarded for a tank. If a tank ends up in such situation it has two MGs to deal with it. Hell mortars were a thing too at some point.

Because a tank HE shell is used for one thing only… destroying entrenched position (in these day a building) and for that what you need is always the biggest bang, because the very definition of entrenched means a position in which personnel that has taken cover from the fragments flying around, especially since no one field assault mortars guns within engineers anymore. Tank HE shells should have longed been switched for Thermobaric compounds instead of trying to enhance fragmentation or "time-delayed" penetration.

Problem is HE shells, even thermobaric ones, are cheap. Multi-fuzed sensored time-delayed tungsten balled pre-fragmented sleeve? The margin of profits on that are so much higher…

If a even WWII style concrete bunker gets hit by a modern thermobaric 120mm HE round I strongly doubt anyone in it will survive due to the over-pressure. Without all the fancy gizmo to make the shell penetrate, then explode, then fragment (which wouldn't work with concrete everywhere meant to defeat fragments).

>>683517

There is still recoil, the pressure is such impulsion of the gas meeting the air and the projectile leaving does create (even if it's less), but the bullets are the only thing moving so it should not be impossible. The problem is moving/opening the chamber while it need to lock much more perfectly to cause the build up, with a relatively weak action.

>>683517

I've got a design for a propane gun that's all mechanical and uses the camp stove tanks. I don't think you will get any higher velocities with propane.

The important thing about light gas guns is having a light gas. the speed of sound is faster in a lighter gas, or a gas with a higher temperature.

This chart shows the speed of sound in various gasses. Gunpowder should generate mostly Co2.

https://pages.mtu.edu/~suits/SpeedofSoundOther.html

>>681301

>Wouldn't that make the ammo extraordinarily expensive?

>simultaneously BRRRRRRRRTTTS millions of dollars worth of the very same tungsten at anything in or around friendly airspace

Would make one hell of an anti material rifle though if they made it in .50

I really admire American military equipment because it is always the best in the whole world. I try to find some parts of it on https://www.agmglobalvision.com/thermal-imaging/thermal-binoculars and sometimes I am able to find it. Thermal binoculars are really top.

This design actually predates the AAC, although it's nice to see it get revived and taken seriously.