Replacing the .50BMG

>>31575388
.375 chey tac

>>31575388
What about 14.9mm SOP?

>>31575388
All new .50 cal cartridge that fits the same performance into a package about half the size, otherwise it's not worth upgrading.

File: Jigoku No alice Shuu aiming SVT.jpg (207KB, 501x501px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 501x501px

>>31575407
You're dumb.

>>31575388
.60 BMG

>>31575523
>>31575407
A smaller round doesn't have the same load.

>>31575388
I think I want a SLAP incendiary trader round made.

SLAPIT. Yes. That shall be the name.

File: HERPADERP retarded bomb.png (297KB, 1692x867px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1692x867px

>>31575783
Here. This is for you.

>>31575792
enjoy the 20 rounds that your 75 inch barrel will last for.

>>31575388
And why exactly do we need the same load?

.50BMG is overkill for soft skinned vehicles, and wholly incapable of defeating modern armor even in LAVs. It lacks sufficient penetration to be used as an anti-barricade/anti-bunker round and that role's better suited to HEDP 25/30mm autocannons or 40mm AGL's anyway.

So we could go to a lighter, smaller caliber with a higher BC for the range and lack of recoil, enabling our HMG's to shoot faster further more accurately with less wear on components and mounts. And not give up a damn bit of capability.

>>31575913
>And why exactly do we need the same load?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97a_1435638005

>>31575800
Top

Fucking

Kekarooni

Thanks Phiz

File: brg15.jpg (16KB, 400x248px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x248px

>>31575388
15.5x155mm developed for the FN BRG-15

The standard ball round could penetrate 10mm of steel, at 30 degrees out to 1350 meters (1500 yards ish), almost double what a .BMG penetrates at that range using AP rounds (not SLAP).

You can beat that with the BMG, but you need to use tungsten penetrators like SLAP rounds (which can penetrate 19mm at that range)

>>31575708
That's not what your mom said about my "round" and load last night.

>>31575955
So you can live vicariously through internet videos while studiously avoiding the truth that about a dozen other rounds can do the same thing at the same range while doing other shit better?

mmkay.

>>31575523
OR.. a .50ABMG (as in Advanced).

Basically give it everything we have in the fields of physics, metallurgy, chemistry, the works.

Increased propellant power
Better aerodynamics
A minimum of 40% increase in penetration at range.

I want the .50ABMG to hit like a 20mm, be as accurate as the best .338LM, but still maintain the same weight of round.. hell, one step further, make it a CT (caseless telescoping) round as well so it will be slightly lighter.

>>31575708
I didn't say a smaller round. I said a package half the size. Same bullets, better propellant, possible a telescoped design if viable. The performance is fine, but it's been a century we have better propellants and metallurgy, we can trim some fat off this hog. We could also bump performance a bit too I guess.
>>31576041
What this guy is talking about basically.

>>31576103
You mean... kinda the big bore equivalent of the 30-06 and the .308? Or even the 7mm-08?

>>31576103
Pretty much 30-06 to .308, but possibly more like .30-06 to 7.62 CT from the LSAT program. Even if sticking with traditional metal cartridges I half remember a company that was pitching a new propellant in traditional cartridges to the army a few years ago that was getting increased performance out of I think 50%ish smaller cartridges for .223. Wish I still had the write up on that one, but last saw it several years and a couple laptops ago. And all the experimental ammo shit I can google up now is LSAT or M855A1.

>>31576147
Shit, I missed
>>31576208

File: 2011-10-26_18-19-04_25.jpg (2MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1840px

>>31575913
Because the damn gun pretty much ain't going anywhere in its M2 variation. Area is 1830m that's an absurdly long distance to see anything without having some optic to spot like the TOW optic. It along with the MK19 are meant for the fortifications, lighter armor, personel roll. a 50 a MK hell even 81s unless dropped directly onto the top hatch of a up-armored vic isn't going to take it out. It to shred the outsides obstruct it from spotting and allow the AA to fire a missile. We aren't going to invent another mass produced round like the 50 that has the same 'stand the test of time' reliability at least in the HMG roll

>>31576208
Yeah that's because they were basically running a high explosive in the case.

And while yes, it had the velocity, it had a whole shitload of issues.
>barrel life was 10% of standard 5.56
The very fast, very hot explosive propellant #rekt chambers and throats
>extraction was dogshit
Rimless, straight-walled round that headspaced off the case mouth coupled with fragile brass due to containing a no-shit explosion instead of the deflagration that normal smokeless powder is
>inconsistent pressures
For some reason despite getting reasonably consistent velocities pressures varied by as much as 20%, and they had multiple KB's in testing
>accuracy was horrible
The no-shit explosion was deforming the base of the bullets and they couldn't shoot anything even resembling a group.

>>31576250
...care to try that again in an intelligible manner? I literally don't know what you're trying to say.

>>31576208
Are you talking about the straight walled .223 that supposedly had the same or better ballistics as normal 5.56x45?

That would have been the shit. supposedly you could fit 40-50 rounds in a normal stanmag, and it only weighed a few ounces more.

>mfw imagining 40 round casket mags with the 1.5-2x capacity
>mfw riflemen with 80-100 round mags
>mfw I have no face because the NON-STOP WARFARE dissolved it

>>31576278
I don't get what's so hard to read there. the gun and round are fine. It's not changing. The 50 was made when tanks were 'tin cans' and now will never be for defeating heavy armor. we have systems that do that today with greater ease then any type of firearm we could invent until the next generation of rail, anti matter, partial bullshit comes a long.

>>31576290
Yeah, but apparently this dude:
>>31576264
Remembers some details that emerged after I stopped following the program.

So, apply the lessons learned there (maybe less high explosives? No high explosive? More?), through LSAT (better propellant and CT polymer case construction), and elsewhere in the past century (not to do racisms?) to the .50BMG and then design a new, lighter, more whatever replacement to the M2 around that.

>>31576317
>I don't get what's so hard to read there
Perhaps the giant run-on sentence with horrible punctuation that's missing key words, that also flip-flops its position on whether the M2 is good or not three different times?
>a .50 a MK hell even 81's unless dropped
>it to shred the outsides obstruct it from spotting
Does it go the rifling in place as well?

But yes, now that I've deciphered it, you are mostly correct.
>we are not nor will be using it in an anti-armor role
Smaller lighter rounds with the same or longer range fulfill the APERS role though.
>[you can use] it to shred the outsides [and] obstruct [the crew] from spotting and allow [I'm assuming somebody, NFI what AA is] to fire a [anti-armor] missile
You can do this with a fucking m249 too. In fact probably better because it doesn't have a ridiculously low cyclic rate, unlike the M2. Hell a belt-fed 9mm would shred any sensors and fuck up the windows on any of the current armored vehicles.

But, yes, we're not going to invent a new HMG without going to caseless or C-T ammo because there's simply not enough room for improvement with current cased ammo to be worth it.

>>31576015
I know being pretentious is fun but you have to have mentioned the "dozen other rounds" before I can have avoided their truth.

File: enchim9.jpg (49KB, 740x449px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 740x449px

>>31576330
This is what I was referring to, and pretty sure what he was as well.

The ONE thing the Russians got right with the x39's is the tapered body and fairly steep shoulder. Gives it good extraction in austere conditions and a very positive headspace.

For a belt-fed weapon, going to something resembling the short/fat match rounds of today (PPC line, BR line, whole shitpot full of wildcats, 6/6.5x284, Ackley Improveds, etc) because they're very efficient. The .308x1.5" Barnes produces higher MV's with the same bullets when compared to .308 Winchester, yet is over an inch shorter COAL and only marginally fatter. The .22 PPC is literally half the length of .223Rem and generates higher MV's with less powder (though it is considerably fatter, being a .221 Fireball derivative). We could probably go with a .37 or .40cal bullet in a significantly shortened .50BMG case with normal body taper and a 40* shoulder and get ~3000fps MV with a 450-500gr bullet, giving us a higher BC and equal or better penetration compared to .50BMG while having a fat enough bullet that any API/T, Raufoss, or other "filled" round would actually be useful.

>>31576381
>>31575979
>>31575913
>>31575515
>>31575407
Just to name a few.

You're really bad at following conversations. Coupled with your inability to write coherently I question your literacy.

>>31576430
>You're really bad at following conversations. >Coupled with your inability to write coherently I question your literacy.

Really? Is it really necessary to turn an academic discussion into an opportunity for you to show what a cunt you are?

In the very first post, I said "fit all the roles".
So if you have a bullet with a load half the size, how is an incendiary version going to do the same job?
Think before being a douche, wouldja?

>>31576456
>a bullet half the size
Nobody's arguing for a .25cal bullet, nor are they arguing for a <300gr bullet. Which is "half the size" in both ways a bullet is measured when compared to a standard .510", 575-671gr .50BMG bullet.

Instead people are arguing for .338-.410", 400gr+ bullets. Which will carry PLENTY of phosphorus to set all the same shit on fire just as reliably.

A smaller bullet can penetrate all the same shit .50bmg can while also lighting it on fire exactly the same way, while doing so with less recoil and a flatter trajectory while *also* having a longer supersonic flight distance. It's literally a win-win-win with no downsides other than triggering your 'tisms.

>>31576426
Yeah, that looks like the thing. I remembered thinking the case design was shit from the proposal, but the claims on the propellants were interesting and I think the plan got the case boiled down to showing off 1/2 capacity and jamming a fuckton of ammo in a mag.
So I take it >Low barrel temperature
didn't happen?

Those are some good case design optimizations, but from how well LSAT (at least the CT side) is working out so far I assume that's going to be the way forward on all military calibers.

>>31576495
Low barrel temps happened, just in the wrong part of the barrel. All the propellant was fully burned (well, exploded) in the first 4-5" of barrel and they were measuring at the gas block (~8" from case mouth). Rifling wear was reduced through much of the barrel but the throats and shoulders were getting destroyed.

And yeah, while we can definitely improve on the HMG with standard brass-cased ammo, HMG's are inconsequential enough in the grand scheme of warfare it would make sense and probably be best to just hold out for the maturation of either caseless or C-T.

>>31576369
Pointing out its short comings against heavy armor and saying "its good it's bad no it's good" is not the same. However you can not do it with a 249 if we are talking anything over a standard pickup. The area for a 249 on a good day is a 1000m and at that point what are you actually hitting that armor with. The API/T or maybe SLAP if you are lucky, have a much better chance actually doing realistic damage.

>>31576534
>throats and shoulders
Throats and leades*. Straight-wall calibers don't have shoulders.

Basically it was exacerbating an already bad issue with headspacing as the spot in the barrel the round headspaced on eroded exponentially faster than standard 5.56.

>>31576492
>Instead people are arguing for .338-.410", 400gr+ bullets. Which will carry PLENTY of phosphorus to set all the same shit on fire just as reliably.

Did you see the Light Medium Machine Gun project from a few years back? They were pushing for a MG in .338 Norma to fill the gap between .308 and .50. I'd like to see that idea com back and push the performance of a .50 replacement a little higher. Transition from .308 and 5.56 to a 6.5CT (not the one they're testing now with the carbine, something a little more towards Grendel than Creedmoor) round for personal weapons and SAWs, MMGs in a .338 Norma tier 8.6CT round, HMGs in a 12.7mmCT or similar actually capable of fucking up most vehicles again. This is the family of cartridges I'd like to see come out of LSAT

>>31575388
Crew served 20mm auto-cannons when?

>>31576492
I like how you say "dozen", then list 5 suggestions, 2 of which are considerably larger than .50BMG necessitating heavier weapons and less shots per lb. carried.

Also, does a 650gr bullet travelling at 3000 fps have more impact and penetrating power than a 425gr bullet moving at the same speed?
I dunno, I hear there's this thing called physics, but you sound like you know everything.

>>31576492
im calling bullshit here
you got facts?

>>31576430
You're also getting into cost per round. That 338 240 sounds awesome until you break it down cost wise. And the brg-15 is also a forgotten gun that tested well but just was shelved. Possibly a mistake, but picking out prototype guns that never saw any real production isn't the same to me. I know how finicky 50s are, and the problems that they run into even the same gun will run fine one day and the next just stop and chug along at a 100rpm.

>>31576549
>have a much better chance actually doing realistic damage
>"the .50, the Mk18, hell even an 81mm mortar unless dropped directly onto the top hatch of an up-armored vehicle isn't going to take it out"
>"to shred the outsides, obstruct it from spotting"
So. Which is it? The .50 doing appreciable damage, or the .50 merely keeping them buttoned up or fucking up their optics/windows?

Because a fucking American 180 will keep them buttoned up at any range you're landing more than 1 in 3 rounds on the vehicle, and you'd better fucking believe an m249 is gonna shred optics and antennae since literally nobody armors those and they're made out of glass, plastic, and aluminum.
>b-but my 1850m range!
You're not going to land an appreciable number of rounds on a vehicle at 1850m, meaning you're not going to "shred" the outside and have a VERY low chance at destroying antennae or window visibility. And coupled with the very low ROF of the M2, odds are decent you wont even force them to button up or even get off any turret gun.

And that's completely ignoring the fact that ALL of the suggested replacements will have the same or greater effective range.

>>31576571
>but the throats and shoulders were getting destroyed.

That's less than ideal, but it's making me wonder how much better the propellant\ bomb would have worked with a decent cartridge design. Bad headspacing can account for most of the issues they saw (that weren't you know obviously because high explosive).

>>31576615
I've landed very good effects on target past 2000 with a 50. If you can shoot with a good turret or a stable mount it's easy. The gun shoots itself and you just adjust off the tracers. Then your dealing with SAWs shooting at APCs or whatever else it maybe. And I'll feel more comfortable shooting a larger boom then a smaller faster boom any day at armor. The ROF is more then fine for any type of work it needs to do. And as for people just sitting there on the guns as 50s lob in it is laughable. A friend told me once "having 12.7 snap by your head is a life changing experience"

>>31576592
>you got facts?
Look up .408 Cheytac or .416 Barrett. There's already factory API, API-T, AP-blacktip, incendiary, match, and SLAP rounds for them. The UK and Canada are already using .375 Cheytac (which also has AP, API, tracer, and SLAP rounds) in a military role as a precision rifle round.

As far as max supersonic range, the .416 Barrett's 398gr bullet stays supersonic to around 1900m (compared to 1600m for the m1022 special long range load in .50bmg or 2011m for the .408 Cheytac's 419gr bullet).

Energy wise both the .408 and .416 exceed the energy of .50bmg m33 ball by 800m.

Penetration wise, .408 Cheytac can penetrate 1/2" (12.7mm) of AR500 steel at 775m compared to 11.4mm at 500m for the mk263 AP .50bmg. I can't find numbers for SLAP rounds for the .408 or .416, but would expect them to be very marginally higher than the SLAP .50bmg as well due to a higher MV and identical ballistic coefficient (they use the exact same penetrator in a different sabot).

>>31576602
We're talking about replacing the M2 HMG, not the M240 GPMG.

Costs would go down as the rounds are cheaper to make than .50BMG.

.50's are finicky because they're old as shit
>we had at least one receiver that was manufactured during WW2
I'm sure none of the internals were that old but the receiver itself was.

We finally got some of the new "improved" .50's with the safety and no-timing barrels and they ran like tops because they weren't worn out.

File: 7.62x39 and 7.62x63.jpg (93KB, 759x1012px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 759x1012px

>>31575792

>>31576826
Is that 20mm?

>>31577741
Probably 20mm vulcan.