Firearms advanced technologies successful and failed


Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Again you source sales.
Not documentation.
So here
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And they did, all of 4% Wow a whole 4% of the round. With such a low percentage it didn’t make a difference at the time because its such a small amount not to matter.
Before you break into a victory lap modern AP tungsten cored rounds are 84% Tungsten.
M2 AP will punch 10.6mm in a 22.2mm RHA plate at 91m

A modern 5.56x45mm M995 Tungsten cored round will penetrate 12mm of RHA at 100m

A M993 7.62x51 Tungsten cored AP round penetrates 16mm of RHA at 400m a 20mm RHA plate at 100m
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wait so a 5.56mm round will go deeper than a 30.06 round!! My god in heaven


You keep coming back and listing 30.06 yet I keep pointing out that the M2 is the inferior round now moved goal post. The 7.62x51mm AP round has a much higher Tungsten content than the M2 30.06.
Vs Any Ammo type below this Level IV plate and it’s equivalents are all but invincible. You need to go to .338NM to penetrate.

Next Okay So TE that does not mean that 6.8 “Bleed-moor”would AP any better than a 7.62 or 5.56x45mm
A good quality Level IV M995 round at 100m.
M995 5.56x45mm has a penetrator that weights 2g Yet against some lower quality Level IV plate it will. The reason it’s just a little to light. But for consistency you need more weight more tungsten but the 5.56x45mm round doesn’t have much room to grow.
A M993 7.62x51 Tungsten cored AP round has a penetrator weight of 5.4g. Clearly enough mass.
It will defeat Level IV armor this is however an older round. Meant to be replaced by XM1158 which has an even larger core.
Okay so? A 6.8mm round is a low drag round with higher velocity than 5.56mm it can hold a larger Tungsten Penetrator in theory it should weigh as much as 7 grams that gives The potential for a 5g penetrator which is why I say it should penetrate.
Again, I never said that the 30-06 AP is superior to every AP round out there, including the M993. I did say that the weight of the tungsten penetrator is only one of several variables that determine whether or not it can penetrate level 4 armor. In other words, just because the M993 can penetrate level 4 doesn't mean a smaller 6.8mm AP with high tungsten content will also penetrate level 4.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #32
That’s where Aerodynamics, drag coefficient and pressure/ Velocity comes into play.
29228B44-BC5E-4793-98AF-F411EF30FAE6.jpeg
This where it gets interesting. The 6.8mm was chosen to bridge performance between the long lived 7.62x51mm and the 5.56x45mm rounds. They were said to have investigated a Verity of rounds between 6mm and 7mm including both 6.5mm and 6.8mm
They chose a very low drag 6.8mm and then packed it with pressure for Very high velocity.
6.8Spc usually pushes a 2,500 f/s it normally drops like a rock past 300m-400m
This new round is said to be speeding out the barrel at 3,200f/s at 140grains from a low drag projectile.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So you have a high velocity, high density aerodynamic projectile. Capable in the conventional form of penetration of barrier targets at 1,000 yards. Add a tungsten core and it’s going through armor. Maybe not at 1000 yards but in infantry ranges.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
That’s where Aerodynamics, drag coefficient and pressure/ Velocity comes into play.

This where it gets interesting. The 6.8mm was chosen to bridge performance between the long lived 7.62x51mm and the 5.56x45mm rounds. They were said to have investigated a Verity of rounds between 6mm and 7mm including both 6.5mm and 6.8mm
They chose a very low drag 6.8mm and then packed it with pressure for Very high velocity.
6.8Spc usually pushes a 2,500 f/s it normally drops like a rock past 300m-400m
This new round is said to be speeding out the barrel at 3,200f/s at 140grains from a low drag projectile.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So you have a high velocity, high density aerodynamic projectile. Capable in the conventional form of penetration of barrier targets at 1,000 yards. Add a tungsten core and it’s going through armor. Maybe not at 1000 yards but in infantry ranges.
This is all well and good, but you still haven't shown the 6.8mm could even theoretically penetrate enough to pierce level 4 armor like the M993; it would of course have to be an apples to apples comparison (i.e. same quality of level 4 armor). To know this you would have to have access to information which you obviously do not have, such as the bullet's ballistic coefficient, the velocity of the AP round (assuming there is even a 6.8mm AP round in the first place), which would certainly not be the same as the ball round, and of course not least of all the penetrator's shape, weight, and composition.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
And you have a point as there is no open source documentation,
YET

We can infer because from day zero the US Army has said in public this is a response to NIJ Level IV armor equivalents issued by potential peer adversaries.
Because they went through prototyping of ammo and test firing.
Had they just wanted lighter weight ammo they could have stuck with and introduced a “M855A2, M80A2”a M855A1/M80A1 head in a polymer casing that would work with existing hardware or just adopted LSAT based weapons with existing calibers.
They prototyped that cased telescopic ammo in both 5.56 and 7.62.
If it was just range against the Taliban they tested 6.5mm that will reach out to about a 1000 yards they could have adopted that.
But they chose this and they said it was because of the proliferation of Level IV.
So what do we have to doubt it? Are they lying?
As all the Evidence I have is based on statements of the US Army what evidence is there to doubt them here? Does Gun biker dot com have a report disproving this has anti armor potential?
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
And you have a point as there is no open source documentation,
YET

We can infer because from day zero the US Army has said in public this is a response to NIJ Level IV armor equivalents issued by potential peer adversaries.
Because they went through prototyping of ammo and test firing.
Had they just wanted lighter weight ammo they could have stuck with and introduced a “M855A2, M80A2”a M855A1/M80A1 head in a polymer casing that would work with existing hardware or just adopted LSAT based weapons with existing calibers.
They prototyped that cased telescopic ammo in both 5.56 and 7.62.
If it was just range against the Taliban they tested 6.5mm that will reach out to about a 1000 yards they could have adopted that.
But they chose this and they said it was because of the proliferation of Level IV.
So what do we have to doubt it? Are they lying?
As all the Evidence I have is based on statements of the US Army what evidence is there to doubt them here? Does Gun biker dot com have a report disproving this has anti armor potential?
I have read they were unsatisfied with the lethality of the 5.56x45 round based on their experiences in the Middle East (and no doubt before), but I have not heard that their dissatisfaction was because of the proliferation of level 4 armor. Maybe you could cite a reputable, linkable source for this claim.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #36
Cute, and there have been some dissatisfaction with it but if that was the reason the US could have adopted 6.5mm or 6.8 SPC. Many of the issues were fixed when M855A1 came out.
If the US was only worried about fighting in the Middle East this wouldn’t be justification to go to such a round. Even in Afghanistan.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Cute, and there have been some dissatisfaction with it but if that was the reason the US could have adopted 6.5mm or 6.8 SPC. Many of the issues were fixed when M855A1 came out.
If the US was only worried about fighting in the Middle East this wouldn’t be justification to go to such a round. Even in Afghanistan.
So you don't have a source for your claim.

In any case, the M855A1 is not any kind of answer to the US military's lethality concern, nor was it ever even designed to be. In fact it in most cases would achieve the exact opposite effect. The M855 (along with the A1 iteration) is an enhanced penetrator round, though not quite an actual AP round (that would be the M995). It was designed to aid in penetrating certain barriers (e.g. glass) and mild armors (e.g. Soviet helmets). On the other hand its wounding effects against soft targets are DECREASED compared to ball rounds because it transfers less energy to its target due to decreased likelihood of fragmentation inside the body along with increased likelihood of a through-and-through wound. So using M855s or M855A1s against unarmored combatants (in the Middle East or anywhere else) is definitely the wrong tactic in most cases.

Regardless, I don't see how any of this answers the claim that a hypothetical 6.8mm AP round could penetrate level 4 armor.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #38
The claim was never taken seriously. Hence why 5.56x45mm remains in service.
Look up the reasons for the M855A1 and it was to try and stabilize the round more transition to a lead free round and increased barrier penetration.
The lethally claim is more mythical or perception than reality the result of shooting enemy’s loaded up on narcotics or Blood lust much the same as Jura’s question about a knife attacker.
I can produce reports that link armor penetration as the reason for the new NGSW and NGSAR but nothing on perceived effects because that is perception. The fact is that the US has been in combat for 20 years now using 5.56x45mm and if that was as you claim then why didn’t they change back in 2005 for the XM8 program and M4A1 adoption. It would have been the perfect time as 6.8 SPC could be fitted to either of those carbines.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
The claim was never taken seriously. Hence why 5.56x45mm remains in service.
Look up the reasons for the M855A1 and it was to try and stabilize the round more transition to a lead free round and increased barrier penetration.
The lethally claim is more mythical or perception than reality the result of shooting enemy’s loaded up on narcotics or Blood lust much the same as Jura’s question about a knife attacker.
I can produce reports that link armor penetration as the reason for the new NGSW and NGSAR but nothing on perceived effects because that is perception. The fact is that the US has been in combat for 20 years now using 5.56x45mm and if that was as you claim then why didn’t they change back in 2005 for the XM8 program and M4A1 adoption. It would have been the perfect time as 6.8 SPC could be fitted to either of those carbines.
The 5.56 remains in service even to this day due primarily to institutional inertia, logistics, and cost. The failings of the 5.56 have been known for decades and only now is US military finally ready to move on to a larger caliber. The "lethality claim" is about as fact as one can get. Here is a good summary of the history and failings of the 5.56 round as well as the US military's attempts to get as much performance as they could out of an inadequate round:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As for specifically the 6.8SPC, the US military is clearly not satisfied with this specific cartridge, since it would be supremely easy to just slide right in to this well-known and well-used (except in the military) cartridge. This dissatisfaction should be even more underlined by the fact the US military specifically wants a 6.8mm round, just not the SPC version, and it stems from the poor performance of the 6.8SPC at longer ranges, due to its limitations from having been designed to fit inside the magwells of current service rifles like the M4 and SAWs like the M249, i.e. a much larger bullet in a not-much-larger case, comparatively speaking. That is why you see the newer 6.8mm rounds sporting much larger cases than the 6.8SPC ones. The US military essentially wants a more lethal round than the 5.56x45 but with less recoil and less weight/bulk than the 7.62x51.

You say you can link armor penetration as the reason for the new NGSW and NGSAR. Good, let's see them.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #40
You say you can link armor penetration as the reason for the new NGSW and NGSAR. Good, let's see them
Sure lets see you link too things backing your claim.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This one even quotes Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski to the Senate Armed Services Committee's Airland subcommittee
"The current weapon systems that we have are OK in the fight, with respect [to] the war that we are [fighting] currently in both Iraq and Afghanistan," Ostrowski said.

But the current 5.56mm weapons are not capable of penetrating the modern body armor of near-peer adversaries such as Russia and China, he said.

"What these [new] weapon systems are designed to do is to be able to reach out to greater ranges and have the penetrating power in order to defeat threats at those ranges,"
Lookie here budget doc.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Project EP5: This project supports both the Advanced Armor-Piercing ammunition and the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) Family of Ammunition.
Advanced Armor-Piercing (ADVAP): The ADVAP project is a critical technology development in response to the 7.62mm and 5.56mm Family of Ammunition Capabilities Development Documents (CDD). The nomenclature for the 7.62mm ADVAP is XM1158. The overall objective of the ADVAP project is to develop and Full Materiel Release (FMR) both 7.62mm XM1158 cartridge for the M240 machine gun and ADVAP ammunition in calibers below 7.62mm. The objective is to provide overmatch capability to defeat advanced light armored threats within typical machine gun engagement ranges. FY 2019 funding supports continuation of Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) efforts and activities to accelerate the project.
Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) Family of Ammunition: The NGSW ammo is a new ammunition technology under development for use in the Next Generation Squad Weapon systems. The objective is to develop and Full Materiel Release (FMR) the new ammunition. FY 2019 funding supports Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) efforts and activities to accelerate the project for the Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) variant and the Advanced Armor-Piercing (ADVAP) variant. Follow-on development efforts for additional NGSW ammunition variants including tracer ammunition, blank ammunition, and reduced range ammunition will start in FY 2022
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top