Stupid requirement. If the US Gov't want armor pentatration, use AP bullets with penatrators, or just bring back the good ol' guns of WWII that fire '06. If they can go through 1/2" of solid steel, those 150 grain pills will go through any modern ceramic plate.
Gun companies balk at US Army's new requirement
- Thread starter drache
- Start date
No, the G11 had a high rate of fire because it eliminated the ejection cycle completely by using case-less ammo.
Size of bullet has almost nothing to do with rate of fire.
ipscgraz
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
It is not a big deal...two bullets in the same hole happens all the time. Just go to any IPSC qualifier and you will meet 3 or 4 guys during the day who are telling the RO's that the one hole in the target isn't a miss...
"it's two bullets through the same hole."
"it's two bullets through the same hole."
Bah, just put two bullets in the same case. duh.
Duplex!
Makes about as much sense as their requirement...
I'm thinking if they really need that kind of penetration, then they need to upgrade to a new 7.62Nato rifle.
Maybe a Masood. Maybe a SCAR Heavy. Maybe a Swissarms SAPR. Maybe an FN FAL (or SA58 equivalent?). Or one of the new generation of AR-10 grandsons (LMT, Armalite, whatever)
Issue it with a new generation of AP rounds, and it'll put more energy through the same hole than two 5.56 rounds, but do it each and every time.
But honestly, I bet even the AN-94 is not capable of this requirement, even from a sling prone position...even without recoil there will still be bullet dispersion, and the rifle will not be 100% stable between the first and second round. Sure they are very quick after another, but look how important a good trigger pull is, just to have the first bullet go straight, never mind a second one.
Yet in combat, how often is a nice range-perfect stance able to be used? Compared to rapid, far from ideal reactionary quick shots? Yea, the latter is far more common, and that's for aimed fire on a point target...which itself is not that common even in battlefield firefights!
Stupid contract requirement to justify making a big R+D effort, big kickbacks through post-contract job hiring. Even dumber when good designs are being ignored. Even worse once you consider how far in debt...oh never mind
Part of the reason why gun companies don't innovate as much as other technologies, is that certain existing designs actually work VERY well, and much advanced tech is TOTALLY unproven, and very difficult to engineer to be dependable enough for it's customer.
For instance, look at all the criticism on this very board, of certain designs being unreliable...those companies invested tons into making them, imagine if they had to make them even better, but using new unproven designs, instead of rehashing the old proven ones?
Handguns today seem to have many clones or variations of three designs: Beretta/CZ, M1911 and the Glock system. Many innovative designs have long been forgotten, like the Luger and Broomhandle. Makers make what sells. Buyers buy what's dependable. So makers are trying to make things that are dependable, not "advanced". They are giving us what we want, or really trying to anyway!
For instance, look at all the criticism on this very board, of certain designs being unreliable...those companies invested tons into making them, imagine if they had to make them even better, but using new unproven designs, instead of rehashing the old proven ones?
Handguns today seem to have many clones or variations of three designs: Beretta/CZ, M1911 and the Glock system. Many innovative designs have long been forgotten, like the Luger and Broomhandle. Makers make what sells. Buyers buy what's dependable. So makers are trying to make things that are dependable, not "advanced". They are giving us what we want, or really trying to anyway!
Really? Thats pretty cool, I never knew that. What are the main factors that infulence ROF?
Simply put I think firearms tech moves very slowly as well. Look at the dates from bows to muskets to black powder rifles to single shot cartidge rifles to repeaters to semi auto to full auto.
For some there have been very large gaps and others had very small gaps. Generally though it seems it took a serious war to increase to the next level.
The US is a large and advanced military. So to make it switch to something new it will take a losing war.
For some there have been very large gaps and others had very small gaps. Generally though it seems it took a serious war to increase to the next level.
The US is a large and advanced military. So to make it switch to something new it will take a losing war.
Basic physics. Newton's Third Law of Motion. For every action on an object, there is an equal and opposite reaction. C'mon armedsask, you make gun stuff. You should know simple physics principles.
Caseless still recoils. You eliminate a step out of the cycle, but it doesn't mean there is no motion or energy. The bigger the bullet, the more energy needed to push it. The more energy needed to push it, the more it's going to push you, the human operator. Gatling Guns are an example of not requiring a reciprocating gas system for ejection and high rates of fire. Even then, for control by humans, rate of fire has to be reduced (that and ammo usage). While yes, bullet size doesn't matter, the HUMAN factor does. If humans were not such fleshy little things, we could all walk around with 1000rpm 25mm auto cannons and fire mortars from our legs, but we don't. I guarantee you, that if they up the calibre for the G11, it will not fire the purported 2000rpm. It will be more than traditional firearms, but not the same as with 4.7. And also, that rating is on burst. Burst, unlike automatic or single, are more hypothetical than actual. Just like the AN94's 1800rpm.
And speaking of the AN94, to achieve it's 1800rpm 2 round burst, it uses the recoil of the first shot to cycle the the whole action with barrel in which upon rearward motion, strips a cartridge and presets it for chambering, and the forward motion, sets it the chamber. That whole mass of the action, rather than just bolt and bolt carrier, reduces the overall energy felt by the user by a good amount. The G11 does not have this extra mass or reciprocating system. Any recoil is going to be felt by the user.
Caseless still recoils. You eliminate a step out of the cycle, but it doesn't mean there is no motion or energy. The bigger the bullet, the more energy needed to push it. The more energy needed to push it, the more it's going to push you, the human operator. Gatling Guns are an example of not requiring a reciprocating gas system for ejection and high rates of fire. Even then, for control by humans, rate of fire has to be reduced (that and ammo usage). While yes, bullet size doesn't matter, the HUMAN factor does. If humans were not such fleshy little things, we could all walk around with 1000rpm 25mm auto cannons and fire mortars from our legs, but we don't. I guarantee you, that if they up the calibre for the G11, it will not fire the purported 2000rpm. It will be more than traditional firearms, but not the same as with 4.7. And also, that rating is on burst. Burst, unlike automatic or single, are more hypothetical than actual. Just like the AN94's 1800rpm.
And speaking of the AN94, to achieve it's 1800rpm 2 round burst, it uses the recoil of the first shot to cycle the the whole action with barrel in which upon rearward motion, strips a cartridge and presets it for chambering, and the forward motion, sets it the chamber. That whole mass of the action, rather than just bolt and bolt carrier, reduces the overall energy felt by the user by a good amount. The G11 does not have this extra mass or reciprocating system. Any recoil is going to be felt by the user.
And I'm saying smaller bullets achieve higher rates of fire over larger bullets in firearms intended to be operated by humans. Whether it is caseless or not. Saying it shoots fast because it's caseless since caseless has less steps is a gross generalization of a more complex process. I need to write shorter posts. It seems like people only read two or three sentences nowadays.
CarbineOne
Regular
Sheer recoil is not the only reason fire rates are limited. There have been many projects who have attempted to increase rate of fire (with a variety of ammunition sizes), but almost all of them keep coming back to some multiple barrel system. Having the feed system depend almost entirely on the mechanical action of the gun was one of the largest problems. Spring-based magazine systems cannot keep up.
Gatling guns have a high rate of fire because their multiple barrels allow the total cycle time between firings to be cut in third (or half, or a quarter, depending on which system used). Nothing to do with the size of the round.
Gatling guns have a high rate of fire because their multiple barrels allow the total cycle time between firings to be cut in third (or half, or a quarter, depending on which system used). Nothing to do with the size of the round.
So I am curious why some systems with similar cartridges have different firing rates? Etc Browning 1919 and MG-42.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Interesting requirement. Instead of belly aching the manufacturers should buck up and get it done, it's the only way to drive innovation.
I don't know how many of you have taken a minute to do some research on the AN94. It has very complicated internals (IMO), with pulley's and cables and a bunch of other s**t. I can't believe their claims that it is as robust as the '74, just by the complicated mechanism, but who knows for sure?
One thing is for sure, the Russians changed the game (AGAIN) and the U.S. is trying to play catch up.
I don't know how many of you have taken a minute to do some research on the AN94. It has very complicated internals (IMO), with pulley's and cables and a bunch of other s**t. I can't believe their claims that it is as robust as the '74, just by the complicated mechanism, but who knows for sure?
One thing is for sure, the Russians changed the game (AGAIN) and the U.S. is trying to play catch up.
I made not comment on recoil. I was simply trying to say that the small size of the G11 round was not the reason for it's high rate of fire, as your post insinuated. Round size does impact on rate of fire, but is not a cause and effect factor beyond the simple physics of it. Making the bullet smaller does not equal faster ROF. The entire cartridge, sure, just because there is less travel for the bolt. Then again, we're over simplifying things and making broad generalizations, which is why I included "almost" in that sentence.
Also, the G11 action does in fact recoil in the stock, similar to the AN94. In 3 shot mode, all three bullets are out the barrel before the action reaches the limit of its travel. This is helps maintain all three rounds in a tight group.
Thanks for proving my point.
You COMPLETELY missed my point on the gatling gun. I was using the gatling gun as an EXAMPLE of a firing system that DOES NOT use a gas return system to EJECT casings like many current assault rifles and machine guns. And even in those systems, the rate of fire depends on how it is deployed. The 30mm GAU-8 fires over 4000rpm because it is on a plane. Do you think you, a human, can handle firing 4000 rounds of 30mm in a minute? Even the caseless action of the H&K G11 is set back. It's 3 round burst is over 2000rpm, but it's normal automatic setting is 600rpm.
Yes. True.
You still feel the recoil of the three shots after the bullets leave, though
Simply put, the enamour with the G11 seems to forget that it's firing a 4.7x30mm bullet with no real improvement in ballistics over a cased round. If you believe 4.7 is good enough, then more power to you. Personally, I prefer something more substantial.
Metal Storm is capable of delivering over 27,500 rpm or 2 rounds in like what..? A few milliseconds? I don't know jack about ballistics or physics in general but couldn't the second projectile travel relatively calmly in the wake of the first projectile, therefore increasing the likelihood of "2 shots in one hole" within limited distances? Like riding up on the ass of an 18-wheeler on your motorcycle...
- Location
- Not really sure.
Buckshot, there you go, one is bound to hit the same hole or close... and lots of knockdown power too boot .
.
