Raufoss downsized to .308 or even 6.5/5.56/etc

File: 1503450406045.jpg (99KB, 829x1024px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 829x1024px

>>35036870
Self-bump. Also does SLAP have any advantages over the usual copper/tungsten penetrators?

>>35036870
In tar rest Ed bumpp

>>35036921
>>35036921
SLAP tend to have a higher velocity than the standard penetrators, but they ice pick to soft targets. The current penetrators still punch holes in armor fairly well, so there isn't much reason for SLAP anymore. Also kind of the reason why the Raufoss is much more popular than the SLAP rounds.

>>35036870
wet dream. it's too costly to swage rdx and other explosives into a .30 cal or smaller bullet. even still the tungsten penetrator would be too small to really penetrate and do much damage. at that point you're launching a ~160 gr bullet that will inevitably only be using a ~25 gr flechette to kill/maim. you might be able to use raufoss designs to downsize into something larger, but at that point it goes into fucking with the ballistic coefficient. 50 and larger is perfect for it. you use 50 cal to take out mid range armor and the like. pair it with a 40mm and the combo is golden.

you might be able to shove raufoss style components into a round smaller than 50, but it's likely to give the bullet shittier ballistics and will probably not be able to be swaged properly. it's just better all around to run a round with a tungsten core or tip.

>>35036870
There have been complaints about using Raufoss against infantry in relation to their possible violation of Hague 1899, with the main defense being that they generally won't detonate until AFTER entirely overpenetrating a human being. The same could not be said of a rifle-caliber counterpart.

>>35037066
Fuck the Hague. It has no relevance to modern warfare.

>>35037058
Would it be possible to use the open-tip design the military uses then place in the explosive, or would that do as what you said, with the bullet have shitty ballistics and price?

>The SOST bullet uses a “reverse drawn” forming process. The base of the bullet is made first, the lead core is placed on top of it, and then the jacketing is pulled up around the lead core from bottom to tip. Conventional, and cheaper, bullets are made with the method of the jacket drawn from the nose to an exposed lead base. The reverse drawn technique leaves an open tip as a byproduct of the manufacturing process, and is not specifically designed for expansion or to affect terminal ballistics.

Sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Mk318

>>35037066
Wait, why ban a bullet that's more effective at killing people? Do they insist the person shot suffers longer on the field?

>>35037186
Red Cross understands the healing more than hurting.

>>35037186
>Wait, why ban a bullet that's more effective at killing people?

Doesn't the Hague pretty much forbid ammo designed to kill people? I always thought that's why expanding bullets are banned; because they kill much faster and much more reliably.

File: 50 BMG vs 16mm RHA at 1000 yd.png (458KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 480x640px

>>35036995
do you have any penetration statistics on SLAP and 211?

File: bb_nosler_ballistic_tip.jpg (198KB, 745x420px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 745x420px

>>35037186
>Would it be possible to use the open-tip design the military uses then place in the explosive, or would that do as what you said, with the bullet have shitty ballistics and price?
no, you couldn't. the scaling is off which is why the whole process isn't cost effective. the raufoss is made specifically the very same process you described. but you are talking about something that is literally scaled down 60%. you COULD do that with a smaller round, but you could also get similar results from from just a tungsten core or penetrator.

even if you put forth the effort and swaged in a ballistic tip on an otherwise open tip bullet similar to a polymer tipped match round, it's potentially dangerous. if you think about it, the bullet has to hit the feed ramps before entering the chamber. with the 50 cal rounds, they're either loaded a single round at a time with sniping or fed through an rolling block on an m2.

>>35038218
That's dumb though.

>"let's kill people"
>"but not quickly as that's inhumane"

>>35036870
The 308 doesnt have enough mass and volume to make a raufoss round useful.

>>35036921
Significantly longer range and it is much less affected by wind than regular ammunition. Also, it should penetrate better, but not sure on that part.

>>35037186
>why ban a bullet that's more effective at killing people?

it isnt better at killing people, it is, however, better at producing pretty nasty injuries and increase the risk of third parts equally well.

its not so much that it's in violation of the hague convention; it really isn't. its that it is not justifiable to use when you have regular bullets that could do the job equally well.

>>35041579
and really, the raufoss .50 doesnt have enough volume to make it very viable. It's very niche, and is really only good for shooting armoured targets at long ranges (which isn't relevant, as engaging armoured targets with small arms is retarded) and as anti material (cars, mines, etc) which is what it is used for.

>>35038218
>>35037804
>>35037186

Expanding and exploding rounds provide a very small increase to wounding power (especially in rifles) but greatly increase the complexity and effort required to treat the resulting injuries.

There is very little military value to making doctor's jobs much, much harder, so the ban was seen as reasonable. A gunshot wound from a solid projectile removes a man from the battlefield just as well as an exploding incendiary round.


>Isn't the point to kill and mangle people as much as you can?

No, the point is to achieve military objectives.

>>35041622
Some people swear by the supressive and physiological effects it has on targets, I'm not so sure.

>>35041622
>it's very niche
Doubtful, the round itself has been tested by the army for both soft and hard targets. Unarmored fleshy targets will likely either get shredded or punch-holed. Armored targets get a nice blast followed by an armor penetrator. It is essentially a SLAP with a explosive cover.

That said the round is very popular in the army, especially with snipers as the QC for the rounds themselves are high (they have to be).

>>35041642
You're implying that the ball rounds themselves don't cause increased complexity and effort. Take 5.56 M855 for example; the round itself tumbles violently after a few inches as well as almost immeditately. Several wound channels could form from a hit like that. Exploding and expanding rounds will have a sinilar effect to that. Hollow point might be easier to deal with as it wouldn't be fragmenting (varies however).

The military objective is to eliminate the target as quickly as possible. Expanding and exploding ammunition will do that, a solid round that pin prick doesn't, especially against a target that has high adrenaline or stimulant drugs flowing in themselves. If the killing the target requires a bit of apparent overkill to get it done quickly, so be it.

>>35038644
211:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk211.htm

Lookin' for the SLAP, give it a moment. Got this though. Damn, they fly at Mach 3 1/2.

File: IMG_5484.jpg (92KB, 717x551px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 717x551px

>>35042451
Oops forgot the image.