11-06-2018, 06:26 PM
LRRPF52 Wrote:British Sniper Platoons in Basra could only engage reliably out to about 800m with their AI rifles in 7.62 NATO, which the insurgents quickly figured out, then placed their mortars and spotters just outside of the range of their 7.62 NATO weapons. Brits dumped the 7.62 NATO from their bolt gun inventory after that and went to .338 LM AIs. A simple barrel change could have put them back into business with one of the 6.5-08 class of cartridges and extended them out to 1200m, while reducing the recoil a bit.
This performance has been available since the late 1800s, with much lower chamber pressure than the ill-conceived .30 cal "Light Rifle" cartridge.
As to this NGSR cartridge, sure they can get those speeds. They are talking about pushing chamber pressure to 80ksi on the premise that if artillery pieces can run at those pressures, then shoulder-fired small arms should be able to also. All it takes is pressure and the containment vessel to make it happen. Without a revolutionary breakthrough in materials science and propellent technology, the thing will weigh and recoil a lot more than an M14. We're talking about smoking the performance of a 26" .270 Weatherby Magnum by at least 200fps, with a copper core, copper jacket, tungsten-tipped projectile.
I think the whole premise of fighting Russians with their body armor in infantry vs infantry combat is insane. If we look at what happened this past February in Syria, where the Russians took 2 armored battalions with artillery and combat engineer support, and launched an assault on some US SOF and Kurd forces at the Conoco Phillips plant over the Euphrates, we get a better picture of how the US deals with motorized and armored ground component forces.
ISR platforms involving every flying platform with sensors feeds into a network, and echelons of fire from B-52H, F-15E, F-22A, MQ-9, USMC 155mm Artillery (they've fired more artillery rounds in Syria than any other Artillery unit since Vietnam), then A-10C and AH-64D. When the Warthogs and Apaches finally got on station, there were only residual thermal signatures of body parts and equipment littering the desert floor like confetti-pilots complained that they would need to bring back their ordnance.
But we need an Infantry Service Rifle that can defeat Russian body armor at 600m because.......who cares about SDZs, shoot houses, and collateral effects doing COIN (the only practical environment for dismounted infantry).
Imagine clearing rooms with this type of weapon, where a 125gr EPR traveling 3400fps from the muzzle, with very high SD and BC just cuts through everything and onto the next row of homes/shacks across the street. Effects on human targets at close range will look more like varmint hunting with a .22-250, with heads and limbs deconstructing instantly from the hydrodynamic force, sending basically liquid matter in every direction, while the tungsten penetrator and copper core continue at normal rifle velocities through whatever was behind the enemy combatants (who will be insurgents or non-uniformed actors 90% of the time if the past 70 years is any indicator).
Commanders will cringe at the thought of the current and next generation of soldiers drawing these things from the Arms Room, because of the overmatching ballistic potential of this type of weapon compared to 20th century shoulder-fired weapons, and since it isn't on tracks and is supposed to be man-portable, they can't control it very well.
Absolutely correct, a Brit sniper rifle L3A1 (?) shoots M-80 ball, not M-118 Long Range. There are limits to M-80 ball. Also, just because the Brits were too stupid to call in counter battery fire with their own mortars doesn't mean a rifle or cartridge is obsolete. Someone shoots at you with a mortar is because they know you can't reach back with a rifle. So you shoot back with another mortar or artillery or air power. Nothing earth shattering about that concept.
Talk about SDZs? How about the SDZ for a .338 Lapua Magnum? They have to be fired on .50 cal or greater ranges. Not too common on most military posts.
As for noise and overpressure created by some sort of future cartridge from a carbine, I bet the same would hold for a 6.5 going 3400 fps as a 6.8 going 3400 fps. And what happened to the use of suppressors in CQB? Of course -- no one has devised one that can take that type of overpressure. Again, no one has devised one -- yet. Mostly because no one has yet to get 3400 fps from a carbine.
Finally, no one here as been able to say why this capability could not be obtained and that is the point of my statement. There is nothing keeping someone from developing some sort of better propellant, firearm, barrel, cartridge that can hit what ever velocity someone is demanding. May not be possible today but given enough time, history has proven that it does happen.
LR55