02-18-2022, 01:43 PM
Fess Wrote:The concern is level IV body armor. By definition, it can withstand 30-06 steel-cored AP. To give an idea, one source stated that basic level IV is about 16mm (about 5/8") of RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armor) plate. The numbers that I have seen indicate that RHA is just a little bit weaker than AR500. Both 6.5 CM and 260 Rem have been tested (the latter by the French Special forces) and they could not penetrate to a great enough distance. My guess is that the goal of defeating level IV at 600m is just too ambitious and will be reduced.
It is important to note that all of the NGSW rifles have some type of recoil mitigation other than suppressors. This of course, makes them more complicated and expensive. The video above mentions that the SIG has roughly the same recoil as a FAL and in another video he mentions that the RM277 that shoots the polymer round has low recoil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBOuv6qJNU
So far, the US has not had the problem of opponents wearing modern body armor. That will not last long, and the shit will hit the fan the first time we encounter someone else wearing armor close to our own. 5.56 tungsten cored AP from M4's usually can't get through Level IV, although sometimes rifles with 20" barrels can (at least according to some youtube videos that I have seen). Modern body armor is becoming less expensive. For example, level IV is being worn by both sides on the Syrian conflict, and Syria is not a wealthy country.
edited to add: Level IV spec: 30-06 M2 AP bullet (166 grains) at 2880fps
Fess:
There are some pretty big differences between ceramic and laminated body armor and RHA. And the DoD has standards for RHA. Yes, I understand that it is convenient for people to use RHA for testing and being able to penetrate X amount of RHA is a common first step before testing it against the target material in the requirements document. Cheaper to buy RHA than laminated or ceramic body armor I guess. Only caveat is you better have the RHA certified by DoD.
Another issue is that flexible armor absorbs shock a lot better than rigid armor so you will find differences in outcomes if you test your ammo against more flexible body armor. And when you test against armor you have to be careful about the degree of obliquity the round impacts the armor. I can't recall the figures involved but if that round hits armor on an angle, it is like penetrating armor much thicker.
Ever shot 30-06 at AR-500 plates? Not as good as you may think. Downright anemic I thought. A nice dimple and some marking on the back of the plate but ball ammo did damn near as well. Could have been the fact that the 30-06 AP was probably sixty years old and the powder had decayed.
Have shot the issued SAPI plate with M-855 green tip, M-80, M-118 SB and issued 9mm. All at 25 meters. The closest to penetrating was the Green tip. None did but it came the closest. Then M-118 SB, then M-80.
All I am saying is this. If you want to market an AP round you tout will defeat some sort of armor, you will get no arguments from anyone if you use the actual armor in your testing.
As for the 6.5 Creedmoor for a, issued round of ammo. Taking a step backwards in the Soldiers Burden I believe. Basic load has to weigh the same as 7.62. Rifle needs to be longer and heavier too. And with all the crap a guy is wearing these days, it may be better to pump the money into exoskeletons so Joe can carry the stuff more than a hundred meters.
LR-55