# Heavy Ordnance



## Patriot

*This Thread used to be the .50BMG vs. 20mm thread, but I've changed the title to discuss all things "heavy metal." Tanks, artillery, military aircraft, warships, or any of the ordnance they use is up for discussion here. Small arms and calibers are fair topics also.  *

EDIT: 8-24-09
Posts 1 and 2 have been reversed so that the index appears up to. This post was originally the post #2

*

Index page covering the main topics by page.



Page1
**.50 cal, 20mm, M1 Garands

**Page 2
**Tank armor, M1 Garands, Phalanx (CIWS), Battleships

**Page 3
**Battleships, Railroad guns, 16" guns

**Page 4
16"guns, APC's, Railroad guns, Apache Helicopter, AR-15 and 8x56R talk, M1 Garands, Small caliber talk.

**Page 5
Small caliber talk.*


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

*This Thread used to be the .50BMG vs. 20mm thread, but I've changed the title to discuss all things "heavy metal." Tanks, artillery, military aircraft, warships, or any of the ordnance they use is up for discussion here.  *

EDIT: 8-24-09
Posts 1 and 2 have been reversed so that the index appears up to. This post was originally the first. 





Old vs. New Aircraft Armament 

I’m not sure how many people will find this interesting but I know we have firearm enthusiasts here and probably a few airplane and technology buffs too. 

I happened to be reading up on WWII aircraft, as anything associated with military hardware is one of my past times. Aircraft, tanks, artillery, ships, are all fair game. I happened to look up at my book shelf at an assortment of ammunition sitting up there and I wanted to better understand the advantages of a single Gatling-style aircraft gun as compared to multiple, single barrel, heavy machineguns, like the systems used in WWII and Korean era aircraft.

Having fired at least a thousand rounds from the M2 heavy machine gun I’m always impressed with the energy it’s able to deliver down range. 50BMG can crack and zip through engine blocks, crush brick and granite and chews down stacks of sand bags like no other small arm can. It’s almost funny that it’s considered a “small arm” as it’s really in a whole different category from anything else I’ve experience in portable full-autos weapons or even larger tripod fired machine guns like the Vickers, Browning .30, or MG42. I’m amazed to think of the firepower when 6 or 8 forward firing M2s were combined in aircraft to concentrate their firepower onto one spot. Having said that I’ve got to think the GE M61 type Vulcan must be one heck of a weapon system that it could replace 8 M2s firing at 800+ rounds (non boosted) per minute each. 

I wanted to see if I could put to paper some calculations to help me see the differences more clearly and that’s mainly all this thread is about. 


*Lets start with the specifications of each gun type. *

*Browning M2 Heavy Machine Gun. (AN/M2 for our example)*
Recoil operated. (short recoil technically)
Air-cooled
.50 MBG
750-850 rounds per minute (non-boosted)
84 lbs

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_M2



*General Dynamics M61A2 Vulcan (Previously a General Electric product) *
Pneumatically or hydraulically operated
Six-barreled, air-cooled
20mm PGU-28
4000-6600 rounds per minute selectable
202 lbs (A2)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m61.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn9Lp...eature=related





*A look at each cartridge.*

*.50 BMG*
622 grain API round (frequently used at that time in fighter aircraft)
2910 feet per second muzzle velocity


*20mm PGU-28B (previously the M50 series)*
1543 grain (3.5oz) (100gram) semi-armor (soft core) piecing high explosive incendiary 
3450 feet per second muzzle velocity



The two rounds (this particular 20mm is of the 50 series not the low-drag PGU) very close to actual size. 








…and another which you flashlight folks can relate to. (very close to actual size)
Left to right, CR123, .223, .308, .300WM, .50BMG, 20mm








*A look at each aircraft:*

I wanted to use the P-47 Thunderbolt because it was one of the most heavily armed fighter aircraft of its day with 8 x .50cal M2s, four in each wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47_Thunderbolt

I’ll use the F22, and F18E since they both use the A2 variant of the gun. The A1 variant had more rotating mass and thus limited the gun to about 6000rpm. The A2 because of its lighter weight barrels has the side benefit of increasing the rate of fire to 6600rpm. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F22_Raptor



*The math:*

I’m going to keep this simple because I’m not very good with math and although I can calculate muzzle energy I’m not interested in doing that. Instead I’m going to use a “Power Factor” (PF) formula, which uses the weight in grains of a given projectile x its velocity in feet per second. 

Now there are all sorts of different loads available for every caliber so you ballistics gurus can settle down if it looks like I’ve undercut the performance of your favorite cartridge…lol. Obviously hand loading certain calibers, especially in the case of rifles rounds will usually allow for more performance. I’m simply going to use some generalist examples for Power Factors of well-known small arms ammo to set the stage for the big boys. 


Power factor charts (weight x velocity)

If the numbers seem to big, just abbreviate them by dropping what’s behind the first decimal. As you can see, the 50BMG and 20mm rounds are in a class of their own.

.22 Long Rifle 46,000
9mm Luger 142,600
.40 S&W 180,000
.45APC 207,000
.357 Mag 221,000
.44 Mag 336,000

5.56 x 45 170,500
7.62 x 39 282,900
7.66 x 51 382,200
300 Win Mag 540,000

.50BMG 1,810,020
.20mm 5,326,350


In order to compare the relative performance of 8 x .50 caliber guns to the 20mm Vulcan we have to multiply the firing rate of a single gun x 8. 

8 x M2
800 round per minute x 8 guns = *6400 rounds per minute*

M61
A single M61A2 fires at *6600 rounds per minute*



Now we multiply each gun’s rate of fire x the energy of each individual round, but first we’ll reduce the numbers since they become too large. We’ll convert grains to lbs for that. 

.50BMG
622grain x 2900fps = *1,810,020 (PF)*
622 grain = .088 lbs
.088lbs x 2910fps = *256.08*

.20mm
1543grain x 3450fps = *5,323,350 (PF)*
1543 grain = .218lbs
.218lbs x 3450fps = *752.10* (roughly 3 times the energy of the .50BMG)


*Conclusion:

Since 752.10 divided by 256.08 = 2.94, it’s about right to say that the M61 produces 294% more gun energy than a P47 with 8 x .50cal M2s. In other words it would take 23.52 M2 machine guns to match the firepower of a single M61. This only applies to muzzle energy, since the more range increases the more the gap will grow between the two due to differences in retained energy.*



Just for fun, let’s look at the weight of projectiles leaving the aircraft. This of course doesn’t factor in velocity, only projectile weight per second at each caliber’s respective speed. 

*8 x .50BMG*
6400 rpm divided by 60sec = 106.67 rounds per sec x .088 lbs = *9.39* lbs per second of projectiles 

*20mm*
6600 rpm divided by 60sec = 110 rounds per sec x .218 lbs = *23.98* lbs per second of projectiles


[FONT=&quot]That’s it for now. Later I’m going to compare the GAU-8 30mm gun, (the one the A-10 Thunderbolt II / Warthog) to the GAU-19 tri-barreled .50 caliber, which is rumored to replace the commander’s M2 on a few M1A2 SEP tanks for testing. [/FONT] 
__________________
*-Patriot- *"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington-


----------



## MarNav1

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

No comparison.


----------



## KC2IXE

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

got to bring my .50 cal round home so I can take it's photo next to a GAU-8 round (I have a training round)

Quick hint - the round for the GAU-8 looks just like a .308 win - but is as long as my forearm!


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



KC2IXE said:


> got to bring my .50 cal round home so I can take it's photo next to a GAU-8 round (I have a training round)
> 
> Quick hint - the round for the GAU-8 looks just like a .308 win - but is as long as my forearm!




But you're going to spoil my fun....lol. Just kidding with ya. Please post a picture as you may beat be to it. The 30mm looks like a shiny coke bottle.


----------



## da.gee

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

My brother brought a (30mm) dummy round back from England when he was posted there in the Air Force in the 80's. We were just playing with it the other day. It is huge. I think it's what the A10 Warthogs use in their gatling gun set up. IIRC from a TV special I saw that gun has 8 rifled barrels about 21 feet long and is accurate out to 20+ miles!! Hello 72 virgins!

EDIT: Thanks Owen for correcting me on the round used! It was definitely bigger than the .30 cal we were shooting that day!


----------



## Owen

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

A-10s use 30mm cannon at ~4000rpm. I think they only carry enough ammo for about 20 seconds continuous at that rate, but that's still serious firepower. 

No sense of "gunshots", just a continuous roar. Used to hear Vulcans doing live fire pretty frequently, and they sound like bullfrogs off in the distance. 

There's just not many things cooler than a "Gatling" gun.


----------



## LukeA

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

KE = (1/2)m(v^2), so your power factors are in fact underrating the faster calibers like .50BMG and 20x102.


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



da.gee said:


> My brother brought a 50 cal dummy round back from England when he was posted there in the Air Force in the 80's. We were just playing with it the other day. It is huge. I think it's what the A10 Warthogs use in their gatling gun set up. IIRC from a TV special I saw that gun has 8 rifled barrels about 21 feet long and is accurate out to 20+ miles!!




.50cal M2 is .50x99mm and fires a .088 lbs slug
30mm PGU13/B is 30x173mm and fires a slug over 1lb, and travels much faster.
Also the GAU-8 is has 7 barrels and the max effective range about 4000M.






> LukeA
> KE = (1/2)m(v^2), so your power factors are in fact underrating the faster calibers like .50BMG and 20x102.


Thanks Luke, I used PF instead of ME to aviod favoring the faster calibers. For example, if we take the .223 and 44mag and compare them by ME vs PF

ME 
.223 = 1282 ft/lbs
.44 mag = 1650 ft/lbs

PF
.223 = 170,500
.44 mag = 336,000

As you can see, ME really favors velocity and penetration. If the target is hard enough ME is more accurate, otherwise PF works well enough for informal comparisons and it's easy to calculate quickly.


----------



## Illum

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

20mm...

it reminds me of shooting field mice with .45....should it be used against people as an anti-personnel strafe


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Can you factor in the energy delivered to the target from the exploding 20mm projectile?

Bill


----------



## FrogmanM

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Man that is some serious firepower, scary stuff!



da.gee said:


> Hello 72 virgins!


:laughing:

-Mayo


----------



## alpg88

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

there was a program on tv about p51, one pilot that flew during ww2 said, it was matter of preference of individual pilot how those 8 guns were aimed, some liked wide spray, some liked single(almost) poi.
personaly i'm familar with 12,7mm, (nsv) 14.5mm, and 23mm. can't really comment on .50bmg or 20mm. from numbers i,d say russian 12.7 has a bit more punch than .50bmg, and 23mm has a lot more punch than 20mm. but in reality if a plane gets hit with either it is bad news

also from what my grandfather (ww2 bomber pilot) told me, very few of rounds fired actually hit the plane. flack it the most dangerous, aaa might fire slow but they had huge rounds 75-88mm. one round explosion close enough can easy bring plane down.


----------



## KC2IXE

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Remember that the general ideal of the GBU-8 round is to penetrate the armor (top, which is the thinnest, but) of Sovet Main Battle Tanks (T-62s, and this was pre T-72 in design)


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about with all these impressive looking photos, but why not just use a stinger missile?


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



alpg88 said:


> there was a program on tv about p51, one pilot that flew during ww2 said, it was matter of preference of individual pilot how those 8 guns were aimed, some liked wide spray, some liked single(almost) poi.
> personaly i'm familar with 12,7mm, (nsv) 14.5mm, and 23mm. can't really comment on .50bmg or 20mm. from numbers i,d say russian 12.7 has a bit more punch than .50bmg, and 23mm has a lot more punch than 20mm. but in reality if a plane gets hit with either it is bad news




The P51 had 6 x .50s. Not a big deal but I thought I'd mention it. Most Pilots preferred a 500-1000 yard convergence on their guns and a very few liked them parallel. 

Small Arms of the 20th Century 3rd edition shows 2746fps 681 grains. About the same energy as the .50BMG. 

The 20mm PGU and 23mm are very close in performance also. The Russian round is longer but it lacks powder capacity because it's narrow. Typically shorter, fatter cartridges burn the power more uniformly and velocity is more consistent from shot to shot. 







The 2,3,4 rounds from the right are all GAU-8 rounds, which the A10 and Apache use. 




> *Bullzeyebill
> * Can you factor in the energy delivered to the target from the exploding 20mm projectile?


haha.....it's funny that you thought of that, but know I cant. Since this was just a fun, generic peak into old vs. new, I didn't even touch on that nor did I think anyone would ask. The explosive difference in the projectiles is massive though. Just a 1 - 3 rounds can turn airframes into smoking, blackened hulks. Between the extra ME of the faster projectiles and their explosive potential, the M61A1/2 system is probably for more deadly than the simplistic way I've portrayed it here. Fun to ponder these weapon systems though isn't it. 

Hmmm, I'm trying to find a picture for you ...........

No, luck at the moment. I've got it saved somwhere but it's a helicopter hit by 3 rounds of 30mm airburst ammo. It's nothing but a smoking shell afterward. I'll look for it tomorrow.





> *LuxLuthor
> *I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about with all these impressive looking photos, but why not just use a stinger missile?


We were just comparing gun systems. Old standards vs. new standards. The Stinger isn't used on high speed fighter aircraft but some helicopters use a twin rail mount. They're very limited in range and required more thought during the initial aquisition and firing phase compared to other air to air types but they do provide a bare minimum to lightly armed scout aircraft.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> We were just comparing gun systems. Old standards vs. new standards. The Stinger isn't used on high speed fighter aircraft but some helicopters use a twin rail mount. They're very limited in range and required more thought during the initial aquisition and firing phase compared to other air to air types but they do provide a bare minimum to lightly armed scout aircraft.



Oh I get it. This is all just recreational ordinance.


----------



## KC2IXE

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> The 2,3,4 rounds from the right are all GAU-8 rounds, which the A10 and Apache use.
> ...snip...ft.



Ah, I doubt it - 2 and 3 look like GAU-8 rounds, where 4 does not - plus look at the shoulder to base of shell distance (it's called the Datum line) - for a round to chamber and fire, they have to have either the same datum line, or smaller with a jam fit bullet, and then a reduced powder charge (used to create what are called "improved" cartridges - see the term fire forming)


----------



## alpg88

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> The 20mm PGU and 23mm are very close in performance also. The Russian round is longer but it lacks powder capacity because it's narrow. Typically shorter, fatter cartridges burn the power more uniformly and velocity is more consistent from shot to shot.
> 
> 
> .



??????? 
23x152 is very close in performance to 20mm pgu???????


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



alpg88 said:


> ???????
> 23x152 is very close in performance to 20mm pgu???????




Ah, but you didn't say 23x152 originally, only "23mm" which I naturally took to mean the 23x115.  I don't think 23x152 which is actually called the 23x152B has been in operational service with a world power since the early 1960's but I haven't researched it deeply. I imagine it's still being used in some corner of the world until the supply of rounds is depleted. It's the only 23x152 I'm familiar with so slap me if I've missed the mark. :whoopin: :laughing:









> *KC2IXE
> *Ah, I doubt it - 2 and 3 look like GAU-8 rounds, where 4 does not - plus look at the shoulder to base of shell distance (it's called the Datum line) - for a round to chamber and fire, they have to have either the same datum line, or smaller with a jam fit bullet, and then a reduced powder charge (used to create what are called "improved" cartridges - see the term fire forming)





ah yes, you're right on the money there. I posted the picture to show the difference between the 20x110 and 23x115 rounds. I just glanced over at the others any saw "30mm" and the overall length. The 4th from the right is the Russian designed, old Warsaw pact round.


----------



## MarNav1

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Don't forget the A-10 rounds are likely DU as well. There isn't much you can hide behind. They will shred, and I do mean shred tanks except for the Chobham armor in the front. Even that will get ripped up. .50 cal is an excellent weapon no doubt, but it cannot compare with 20 or 30mm. It's like comparing an M48A5 main gun to an M1A2 gun. Apples and oranges really.


----------



## alpg88

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> Ah, but you didn't say 23x152 originally, only "23mm" which I naturally took to mean the 23x115.  I don't think 23x152 which is actually called the 23x152B has been in operational service with a world power since the early 1960's but I haven't researched it deeply. I imagine it's still being used in some corner of the world until the supply of rounds is depleted. It's the only 23x152 I'm familiar with so slap me if I've missed the mark. :whoopin: :laughing:



it is still used even in russia zsu 23 uses that round, towed twin barrel zu 23 still uses 23x152 round, i've came across that 23mm round more often than 23x115.
but yes my bad there are smaller 23 used in aircraft guns, i forgot to specify.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

As a side note, when the US got into WWII, pretty much one of the first armament changes for our warships was to remove all .50 caliber & 1.1" AA and replace them with (slower-firing) 20mm cannon. Apparently, the 1.1" couldn't reliably stop aircraft while the .50 caliber couldn't even get to altitude in many situations - the MG's had to rely solely on K.E. (which had fallen off considerably at high altitutes) while the cannon needed only minimal velocity 'up there', relying instead on their explosive charge.


----------



## alpg88

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Kestrel said:


> As a side note, when the US got into WWII, pretty much one of the first armament changes for our warships was to remove all .50 caliber & 1.1" AA and replace them with (slower-firing) 20mm cannon. Apparently, the 1.1" couldn't reliably stop aircraft while the .50 caliber couldn't even get to altitude in many situations.



hmm 1.1" is 28mm. 28mm couldn't do the job, but 20mm could?????????

are you sure it was 20mm, not Bofors 40mm?


----------



## 1wrx7

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Great thread Patriot:devil: You didn't factor in power and velocity drop over a distance though

If this is a poll.... I'll take a single point source 20mm to 8X.50's spread across the wings anyday. And the 30mm will actually slow down the A-10 when fired during flight

If I'm ever in AZ expect a PM from me... I'll buy ammo and some beer's afterward:buddies: I can only imagine the kind of shooting you can do in the desert.

BTW... you showed a pic of a M1 Garand once that had the most beautiful wood I've ever seen on a rifle:thumbsup:


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



1wrx7 said:


> Great thread Patriot:devil: You didn't factor in power and velocity drop over a distance though




Quoted in the first post:
*
"This only applies to muzzle energy, since the more range increases the more the gap will grow between the two due to differences in retained energy."*

Red emphasis was already there, so not yelling atcha :wave:





> If I'm ever in AZ expect a PM from me... I'll buy ammo and some beer's afterward:buddies: I can only imagine the kind of shooting you can do in the desert.




How could I ever refuse anyone who's offering to buy ammo?! :thumbsup: If you're ever down this way and time permits, I'll go shooting with you.


BTW... you showed a pic of a M1 Garand once that had the most beautiful wood I've ever seen on a rifle:thumbsup:

Thanks man! Surprisingly my stock is only medium fancy. The upper hand guard and fore-end piece has the most figure while the main stock has a bit less. Some time I'll snap a few shots of some really fancy M1 wood for you.










*Alpg88
*it is still used even in russia zsu 23 uses that round, towed twin barrel zu 23 still uses 23x152 round, i've came across that 23mm round more often than 23x115.
but yes my bad there are smaller 23 used in aircraft guns, i forgot to specify. 

Thanks for the info Alpg. While I realized that the ZSU's fired that caliber I didn't realize that it was still a front line weapon system. It's something like 50 years old now. I've read that it was pretty effective against the Israelis in the Yom Kippur war though. A heck of a round though with a long history. The Russians were using it to strafe thanks back in WWII.


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



alpg88 said:


> hmm 1.1" is 28mm. 28mm couldn't do the job, but 20mm could?????????
> 
> are you sure it was 20mm, not Bofors 40mm?





The Bofors were brand spanking new then so I'm guessing that's what he meant.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



alpg88 said:


> hmm 1.1" is 28mm. 28mm couldn't do the job, but 20mm could?????????


What I was trying to say is that any relatively small bore projectile might have insufficient retained kinetic energy at high altitude, but the 20mm explosive rounds had the advantage of doing considerably more damage upon impact & detonation than FMJ .50 cal and 1.1".

Edit: Aha! Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII usually gives armaments during war service (pretty much all the small AA was 40mm & 20mm during the war), but occasionally provides pre-war armaments:
Enterprise (1936):
16 1.1 inch M.G. A.A
16 smaller M.G

Wasp (1939):
16 1.1 inch AA
24 0.5 inch machine guns

Edit # 2: Regarding the Enterprise:
OK, I was partially incorrect about the exact replacement configurations, the .50's were replaced with 20mm cannon but the 1.1" MG's were replaced by 40mm cannon:
qty.24 .50 cal, 500 rpm, single mounts until Feb - April 1942
replaced by Oerlikon 20mm single mounts, 450 rpm, eventually 50 total by 1945

qty.4 1.1" MG, 150 rpm, quad mounts until late 1942
replaced by qty.4 Bofors 40mm quad mounts, 160 rpm. Installed quantity increased greatly throughout the war.

Altitude ceiling at 90 degree elevation:
.50 cal MG: 5000 yds
1.1" MG: 6300 yds
20mm: 3300 yds
40mm: 7600 yds

Also, one specific strength cited for the 40mm above the others was that it had the potential to destroy an enemy aircraft prior to the plane releasing its ordnance.


----------



## Lightraven

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Chobham armor is specific to the M1 Abrams, Leopard and Challenger. Its purpose is to protect against anti tank missiles and rocket propelled grenades while more conventional plate armor (depleted uranium) protects against "cold" threats.


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Lightraven said:


> Chobham armor is specific to the M1 Abrams, Leopard and Challenger. Its purpose is to protect against anti tank missiles and rocket propelled grenades while more conventional plate armor (depleted uranium) protects against "cold" threats.



While the Original Leopard II uses perferated armor rather than Chobham or ceramics, it's true that it was designed to protected against shaped charges, like (HESH), plasma jets, like (HEAT) specifically. Pound for pound, ceramix matrix composites do provide some additional protection from energy/kinetic rounds as compared to RHA/RHS.

Copied from sinodefense.com
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread162738/pg1


The way things are going here I'll to have the change the title to ecompass all "heavy metal"....lol. Seems there are a lot of us interested in weapon systems.


----------



## MarNav1

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

I guess they also have "reactive" armor as well, supposed to break up the jet from heat rounds. Also the angle of the armor plays a big role as well. But I know the 30mm GAU-/8 on the A10 will remove turrets and treads and just about anything else on the top of a tank. It also makes the most godawful sound you have ever heard in your life. I did some searching and found that .50 is made with DU as well, I'm sure it's effective for it's purpose which in it's day probably was tanks. But like I say, not really a fair comparison. Also hard to believe the A10 is a 1970's era system, and the CIWS on the Navy ships is pretty old too. When you see the GAU-8 running you wonder how it doesn't seem to jam. At 3900 cycles its very fast. Some good video's on YouTube.


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Many armor types have been developed in an attempt to deal with chemical energy rounds.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread162738/pg1

As I understand it, loose or blown off turrets are typically a result of exploding ordinance within the tank after a penetrator as entered and set it off, not because of the kinetic energy or chemical energy of the small 30mm itself. I reserve the right for you to change my mind though since you've actually heard the sound of hit's before.


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

I was going to change the name of the thread to "Heavy Ordnance" so that we could discuss all things large and military. The only problem is that I can't seem to change it. I selected, "edit" and then Advanced, but it doesn't let me to the title box. Any ideas?


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Use the first post to make changes to Title.

Bill


----------



## alpg88

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> As I understand it, loose or blown off turrets are typically a result of exploding ordinance within the tank after a penetrator as entered and set it off, not because of the kinetic energy or chemical energy of the small 30mm itself. I reserve the right for you to change my mind though since you've actually heard the sound of hit's before.



yep. exactly.
t72 used autoloader, ammo drum located on the floor, ammo wasn't shielded from the gunner, commander compartment. even powder charge didn't have a metal case, it is semi caseless round, only a small " cup" with punched primer was ejected.
impressive mechanism to look at from inside, but a deathtrap if anything goes wrong.

there are a lot of t72 getting hit videos on TV, Internet. most are empty target, but few are real, if you see hatches popping open, and red flames 15-20 feet high shooting from every hole, that was real, ammo got ignited.


----------



## MarNav1

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

I would say it's a combination of KE and ammo, fuel etc. DU rounds are KE rounds, thats how they work. Mostly a giant shower of sparks and smoke, all that was left was a smoking hulk. Generally the turret was at least off it's mounts but usually on the ground or missing. Tracks and engine shredded etc. But very effective, the main point. Most of the tanks I saw were T54/55 or T60/64's, with some 72's thrown in. A few Abram's were destroyed as well by main cannon fire, the DU rounds went thru both sides (FF). The biggest advance I see now for .50 is sniper rifles mainly. The military has done alot with 20mm as well. I wouldn't want any of em firing at me.


----------



## Lightraven

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

Reactive armor is those "bricks" that appear on tanks such as the T-80 and Merkava. As far as I know, the United States doesn't use reactive armor.

Turrets blow off from the force of the tanks own main gun ammo cooking off, not the penetrator itself. The M1 Abrams has various systems to prevent this. 

However, in the first Iraq war, there was an interesting problem. Killed tanks didn't look dead. The penetrator punched through and through, eliminating systems and/or crew and kept going. American gunners, from the 2-3 kilometers away they sniped, couldn't identify a hit. So, they hit the Iraqi tanks over and over again until they got some visual confirmation of a hit--heavy smoke, fire, blown turret or something. Ordinarily, that would be a massive waste of precious sabots, but under the most lopsided battle in recent history they got away with it. No M1's were killed by enemy fire in that war. 

What anti tank aircraft can do to tanks is very different than what a ground vehicle can do. This is because of the thinner armor on the top of the tank versus the front, sides and back.


----------



## 1wrx7

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*

…and another which you flashlight folks can relate to. (very close to actual size)
Left to right, CR123, .223, .308, .300WM, .50BMG, 20mm






Hi Patriot:wave:

Is the .223 pictured above green tipped or black tipped? If it's black tipped can you point me in the right direction. I wouldn't mind having a small stash:devil:





Patriot said:


> Quoted in the first post:
> 
> *"This only applies to muzzle energy, since the more range increases the more the gap will grow between the two due to differences in retained energy."*
> 
> Red emphasis was already there, so not yelling atcha :wave:
> 
> Saracasm is so hard to get across on the net. I hoped the smilies would explain. I thought you put a lot of effort into this thread and I appreciate it. I've always loved military hardware:naughty: I know you weren't yelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could I ever refuse anyone who's offering to buy ammo?! :thumbsup: If you're ever down this way and time permits, I'll go shooting with you.
> 
> 
> BTW... you showed a pic of a M1 Garand once that had the most beautiful wood I've ever seen on a rifle:thumbsup:
> 
> Thanks man! Surprisingly my stock is only medium fancy. The upper hand guard and fore-end piece has the most figure while the main stock has a bit less. Some time I'll snap a few shots of some really fancy M1 wood for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medium fancy or not... the marbling on the upper is gorgeous I would love to see more. I picked up a Korean era Garand whose previous owner decided to do a flat black job on all of the wood:thinking: Maybe it looks better than the finish that was on it but, I've been drooling over replacing the stockset with some nice wood. Since .30-06 doesn't count... back to our regularly scheduled program....
> 
> Have you seen the pics of the three triagular mounted Dillon gattling guns My co-worker has a pic of it with the caption..."Seriously... get off my lawn" One Dillon is impressive, but three The sound must be incredible.
> 
> Since we've been talking about the sounds from these weapons and explosives... what about the full auto 40mm grenade launcher? I can't remember the number designation, but the thump, thump, thump sound from that thing is hypnotic. I'll bet a second or two later the daze wears off when the rounds go off:devil:


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



1wrx7 said:


> Medium fancy or not... the marbling on the upper is gorgeous I would love to see more. I picked up a Korean era Garand whose previous owner decided to do a flat black job on all of the wood:thinking: Maybe it looks better than the finish that was on it but, I've been drooling over replacing the stockset with some nice wood. Since .30-06 doesn't count... back to our regularly scheduled program....
> 
> Have you seen the pics of the three triagular mounted Dillon gattling guns My co-worker has a pic of it with the caption..."Seriously... get off my lawn" One Dillon is impressive, but three The sound must be incredible.
> 
> Since we've been talking about the sounds from these weapons and explosives... what about the full auto 40mm grenade launcher? I can't remember the number designation, but the thump, thump, thump sound from that thing is hypnotic. I'll bet a second or two later the daze wears off when the rounds go off:devil:





Ok, I'll get some pictures up after this coming weekend. 


Yes, I have seen that tri-mount thing going around in emails but I'm not sure if it actually exists or not. That is to say, I think it was a Photoshop job. I can't find any information about it. Dillion is only a few miles away from me so I was thinking about calling to ask if the email photo is real or not. I've taken buddy tours of Dillon and the last time I was there there were about 10 or 12 M134s sitting on a huge bench undergoing quality control before being placed in crates for shipment. Very cool stuff! :naughty:

You're thinking of the Mark19. There is a big controversy going on about that system versus the XM307 and XM312 air bursting 25mm weapon systems, that are hoped to replace the Mark19 and M2. I guess the thinking is that what the 25mm can't due with size it will make up with flatter trajectory and accuracy. It has a built in fire control conputer and laser ranging which sets airburst delays electronically down to the meter. It blows me away to think that the M2 could go away some day. :mecry: Any changover on that scale would take decades though.


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Bullzeyebill said:


> Use the first post to make changes to Title.
> 
> Bill




Thanks Bill, I did try that but no go. I went to the first post, selected "edit" went to advanced editor A/A button and clicked it. I got into advanced edit mode but the title wasn't selectable for changing. I'll have to go check one of my other threads to see it can be done there. I may have to ask a moderator to change it.


EDIT: I'm a moron Bill! I was clicking the wrong darn button. (shake head) Just shoot me man....lol. 

Thanks.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> (shake head) Just shoot me man....lol.


An interesting thing to say in a thread about .50's & 20mm's...:naughty:

BTW Patriot, interesting about that M1 Garand of yours. I have a CMP Garand with a beautifully figured stock almost exactly like your upper & fore end, but my upper & fore end is rather plain. I'll try to take a photo this evening & post it. And no, I wouldn't want to trade stocks so that I could have matching plain woodwork all-around.


----------



## SFG2Lman

well now that the title is different I can add some kudos for that 30mm Vulcan on the A-10....If you look closely you will notice that the plane is just kind of haphazardly thrown together. Thats because when they built the cannon...they thought "This thing is SO awesome we need to bolt a plane to it immediately." Oh, and it can only fire sustained for 5 seconds because any longer and the A-10 will stall out and crash. A-10s have landed missing engines, wings, and other important pieces, they were almost retired before this war started and now they had proved to be the "Abrams of the sky." 
:bow::bow::bow:


----------



## Patriot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Kestrel said:


> An interesting thing to say in a thread about .50's & 20mm's...:naughty:
> 
> BTW Patriot, interesting about that M1 Garand of yours. I have a CMP Garand with a beautifully figured stock almost exactly like your upper & fore end, but my upper & fore end is rather plain. I'll try to take a photo this evening & post it. And no, I wouldn't want to trade stocks so that I could have matching plain woodwork all-around.





I thought someone would catch the intended relation there...


Thanks Kestrel, I would very much enjoy seeing your stock set. It's easy to pick up two closely matching pieces for your M1 to have it matching. Mines a "shooter" so I wasn't to concerned about it. Looks decent already.








> *1wrx7*
> I picked up a Korean era Garand whose previous owner decided to do a flat black job on all of the wood:thinking: Maybe it looks better than the finish that was on it but, I've been drooling over replacing the stockset with some nice wood.




Korean....probably stamped "BlueSky" since they were a huge importer.

Regarding the paint, strip it off and see what you've got under there. If it's greasy you can steam the wood or soak it in stripper. Heating in the oven will also press much of the grease and cosmoline out, if it's even needed. Chances are you've got a beautiful chunk of walnut under that paint. My father and I rebuild M1s, Enfields and 03's so we've got a lot of experience with stocks. I was going to send some picures of his stocks when I get the chance.


----------



## Patriot

SFG2Lman said:


> Oh, and it can only fire sustained for 5 seconds because any longer and the A-10 will stall out and crash.




The A10 is certainly a crude exotic. 

The gun thrust thing and stalling is actually just a myth though. It produces about 10,000lbs of recoil thrust or just slightly more than what one of its two 9000lb thrust engines provide, thus the A10 still has 8000+ lbs of thrust remaining to allow it to sustain speed or actually accelerate from a low air speed. Even if the gun were to produce twice the thrust or the engines half the thrust, essentially creating equilibrium, aircraft don't instantly stop moving forward once all thrust is stopped. The kinetic energy allows them to continue flying until drag eventually overcomes lift. After that, since altitude is stored energy, the pilot simply lowers the nose some to regain that stored energy while remaining above stall speed. As you can see, even 5 seconds of gunfire is relatively insignificant. 

Although the pilot could empty the entire magazine if he wanted to, they limit their firing to 1-2 second bursts due to barrel heating. A barrel set only has a life span of about 35,000 rounds or about 5000 rounds per tube. Plastic sleeved ammunition adds to the barrel life but because of the rifling, high velocity rounds and heating, life span is relatively short.


----------



## KC2IXE

SFG2Lman said:


> well now that the title is different I can add some kudos for that 30mm Vulcan on the A-10....If you look closely you will notice that the plane is just kind of haphazardly thrown together....snip...



NOT thrown together at all, but yes, designed around the gun - the next big features - the "Titanium bathtub" - the pilot sits in a VERY thick Ti tub!!

Other features - most parts are interchangeable port/starboard - rudders, ailerons, engines, etc

The Engines are up high so that the airplane can be refueled/rearmed "hot" with the engines running - they are also designed so that they exhaust goes out over the horizontal Stabs, and between the rudders, so that the IR signature is reduced. It's also the first Attack/Fighter to use a high bypass engine to lower the IR signature

It's designed to fly with 1/3rd of the wing missing along with 1 engine, one rudder, and a horizontal stabilizer. Almost all controls are tripple redundant control wise

One little detail - did you know that the gun is off center, so that the barrel that is firing is on the center line of the aircraft. This requires that the nose gear be offset to the other side!!

The Hog has been one of my favorites since I was a kid, when I used to watch wing/engine assemblies be trucked for Republic Airport (Farmingdale Long Island - there is a Costco and a movie theatre where the plant was) out to Maryland

I actually have a Tool Crib chit for the Maryland plant sitting in my tool box.

I also know a few people who worked for Republic back in the days when they were building "the Lead slead" - aka the Thud, aka the F-105


----------



## SFG2Lman

there is nothing cooler than hearing one of those out in the iraqistan, knowing they have your back is always comforting


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> Thanks Kestrel, I would very much enjoy seeing your stock set.


Here you go, sir:







There is a wonderful 'deepness' to the figure that photos can't quite capture, the appearance changes at different viewing angles as though you were looking into the wood. A very beautiful piece and my best-looking stock. Not bad for a $320 CMP issue rifle. 



1wrx7 said:


> I picked up a Korean era Garand whose previous owner decided to do a flat black job on all of the wood:thinking: Maybe it looks better than the finish that was on it but, I've been drooling over replacing the stockset with some nice wood.





Patriot said:


> Regarding the paint, strip it off and see what you've got under there. If it's greasy you can steam the wood or soak it in stripper. Heating in the oven will also press much of the grease and cosmoline out, if it's even needed. Chances are you've got a beautiful chunk of walnut under that paint.


That was my experience as well, the layer of Cosmoline was dried on, appearing almost black. A few hours, some WD40, and some fine steel wool, you can see the result above.:huh:

Edit: I had actually used Hoppe's #9 to remove the Cosmoline, not WD40.


----------



## SFG2Lman

what kind of wood is that? is it the regular wood or did you put a new stock on it? thats gorgeous!


----------



## Kestrel

SFG2Lman said:


> what kind of wood is that? is it the regular wood or did you put a new stock on it? thats gorgeous!


The person who ran our CMP program thought that it was maple, and it is an original issue U.S. Govt. stock.


----------



## Patriot

Kestrel said:


> The person who ran our CMP program thought that it was maple, and it is an original issue U.S. Govt. stock.




Very sweet looking rifle there Kestrel. I really like it. Hopefully it shoots as good as it looks. Any yeah, that is maple. Not only great looking but tough as nails.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## LukeA

Uncle Sam used Walnut pretty much exclusively. (until he ran out, then he used birch).

That could be a maple stock (judging by the lightness of the grain on the bottom of the buttstock), and it could be an issued stock, but I have a tough time believing the factory wouldn't have discarded that blank because of the figuring. Undulating grain patterns cause figure like that and also make the stock's strength unpredictable, especially at the wrist. That said, I'm not saying it wasn't issued. But I've never heard of a maple issued stock. Or a stained issue stock, for that matter.

Now, if you want that rifle to really turn heads, go to Lowe's and pick up a can of Formby's Tung Oil in gloss. Sand the stock to the bare wood and wipe a coat on with a piece of cloth twice a day for a week. After every other coat, rub the stock down with 0000 steel wool followed by a tack cloth. Then follow with some furniture wax.


----------



## Kestrel

LukeA said:


> Uncle Sam used Walnut pretty much exclusively. (until he ran out, then he used birch).
> 
> That could be a maple stock (judging by the lightness of the grain on the bottom of the buttstock), and it could be an issued stock, but I have a tough time believing the factory wouldn't have discarded that blank because of the figuring. Undulating grain patterns cause figure like that and also make the stock's strength unpredictable, especially at the wrist. That said, I'm not saying it wasn't issued. But I've never heard of a maple issued stock. Or a stained issue stock, for that matter.
> 
> Now, if you want that rifle to really turn heads, go to Lowe's and pick up a can of Formby's Tung Oil in gloss. Sand the stock to the bare wood and wipe a coat on with a piece of cloth twice a day for a week. After every other coat, rub the stock down with 0000 steel wool followed by a tack cloth. Then follow with some furniture wax.


Well, as I received the decomissioned rifle directly from the US Govt. Civilian Marksmanship Program, it should be an issued stock. Also, it has the correct Ordnance Department inspector cartouche, also indicating it as such. The action and stock matches the following description perfectly:
Springfield armory:
S/N 4,320,000-6,099,905 June 1953-June 1957 
Department of Defense Acceptance Stamp (Eagle with 3 stars) .50" by .50". Other stamp used on the stocks was the circled 'P' proof mark (with serifs) on the pistol grip. 

I also have all the original CMP paperwork that I received from the US Government which accompanied the rifle.

Regarding the finish, I rather like a matte finish rather than glossy. In addition to keeping it 'as issued', I prefer my rifles to be nonreflective.


----------



## LukeA

Kestrel said:


> Well, as I got the decomissioned rifle directly from the US Govt. Civilian Marksmanship Program, it should be an issued stock. Also, it has the correct Ordnance Department inspector cartouche, also indicating it as such. It matches the following description perfectly:
> Springfield armory:
> S/N 4,320,000-6,099,905 June 1953-June 1957
> Department of Defense Acceptance Stamp (Eagle with 3 stars) .50" by .50". Other stamp used on the stocks was the circled 'P' proof mark (with serifs) on the pistol grip.
> 
> Also, regarding the finish, I rather like a matte finish rather than glossy. In addition to keeping it 'as issued', I prefer my rifles to be nonreflective.



I wasn't denying it wasn't issued. I was just saying that it was uncommon.

Tung oil also comes in matte. According to the CMP (topic 1), tung oil and linseed oil were the finishes used on USGI issued rifles. 

It's a rotten shame to leave wood like that under that USGI dipped finish.


----------



## Kestrel

Patriot said:


> Very sweet looking rifle there Kestrel. I really like it. Hopefully it shoots as good as it looks. Any yeah, that is maple. Not only great looking but tough as nails.  Thanks for sharing.


Doing some online research, I came across a photo of a birch M1 Garand stock (ignore the handguard) that is of similar appearance to my stock (very similar tones & figure, just less pronounced), perhaps my stock is birch after all?


----------



## DieselDave

I didn't notice it mentioned as I read most of the thread but one if not the primary reason for high rate of fire is tracking time. You want to get on target and off as quickly as possible for a few reasons. 1. People will be shooting back at you so the longer you hold a constant angle the easier you are to hit. 2. Keeping your site on target while traveling 400-900 feet a second (depending on aircraft) is not easy. The term is "target fixation", fixate to long and you run out of altitude. It's killed many aviators. With the Vulcan, get the pipper on target, squeeze for 1 second and start your recovery.


----------



## Patriot

I think you guys are both correct about it being birch. The grain looked a lot like maple, it's just that it was darker. I figured it was dark because there was a dark stain on it but birch makes sense now. Good call guys. 





> *DieselDave*
> I didn't notice it mentioned as I read most of the thread but one if not the primary reason for high rate of fire is tracking time. You want to get on target and off as quickly as possible for a few reasons. 1. People will be shooting back at you so the longer you hold a constant angle the easier you are to hit. 2. Keeping your site on target while traveling 400-900 feet a second (depending on aircraft) is not easy. The term is "target fixation", fixate to long and you run out of altitude. It's killed many aviators. With the Vulcan, get the pipper on target, squeeze for 1 second and start your recovery.




Yeah, absolutely. It's almost as if by the vary nature of aerial guns that a high rate of fire is necessary, simply because it's a moving platform. Pitch and yaw of a few degrees plays a large bearing on where rounds impact downrange when considering even stationary targets. Add to that the fact other aircraft are small and fast moving, sometimes at high aspect angles, and it's no wonder the gaps between shots must be kept close together.


----------



## KD5XB

Since this thread is about heavy ordnance, I want to relate what I was told in Marine Corps boot camp back in 1977 -- that somebody had come up with a nuclear hand grenade, but it never went into production because they couldn't find anybody who could throw it far enough --

Maybe we could send some to the bad guys over in the desert...


----------



## 1wrx7

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Patriot said:


> Korean....probably stamped "BlueSky" since they were a huge importer.
> 
> Regarding the paint, strip it off and see what you've got under there. If it's greasy you can steam the wood or soak it in stripper. Heating in the oven will also press much of the grease and cosmoline out, if it's even needed. Chances are you've got a beautiful chunk of walnut under that paint. My father and I rebuild M1s, Enfields and 03's so we've got a lot of experience with stocks. I was going to send some picures of his stocks when I get the chance.


 
When I bought the rifle the guy told me it was produced in the 50's. That's what I meant by Korean... I should have said Korean war era or just made in the 50's. It's a Springfield Armory M1. Is this "BlueSky" you mentioned a Korean produced M1... or would I find this stamp somewhere hidden on the rifle. Thanks for the advice of the wood. More on that below.



Kestrel said:


> Here you go, sir:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a wonderful 'deepness' to the figure that photos can't quite capture, the appearance changes at different viewing angles as though you were looking into the wood. A very beautiful piece and my best-looking stock. Not bad for a $320 CMP issue rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my experience as well, the layer of Cosmoline was dried on, appearing almost black. A few hours, some WD40, and some fine steel wool, you can see the result above.:huh:


 
Natural tigerstipes... I love it. 

The black on my rifle is definately paint. It's actually a really nice paint job. The guy knew what he was doing... he also showed me some of his other refinishing while I was there I think I just want the classic look of the Garand for my rifle.


I bought a cheap WASR10 AK47 with unfinished wood on it. Picked up some sandpaper, steel wool and a bombay mohagany stain/sealer and worked on the wood. When I was done some people I showed it to though it was a $1000 rifle I had a lot of fun doing it. I think I'll try redoing the M1 next, the pics you guys showed have pushed me to the brink...

Thanks again for all the advice guys.


----------



## Patriot

A couple of good videos for the 20mm Phalanx (CIWS) in action. Some impressive hits on incoming missiles. There is some tracer footage at the end of the second video. I just they were just doing that for testing possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wArPao03q68&feature=related


----------



## tvodrd

Interesting thread. I built a .50 BMG single shot rifle, and have a piece of 20mm barrel and a few hundred furnace-popped inert slugs. I'll build somthin once I finish my move to Hawthorne, NV.  Hawthorne has an ordnance museum and is more or less surrounded by what was the largest ammo dump in the country.

As to big guns, I got to watch the New Jersey shoot off the coast of Cua Viet in 1969. 






Larry


----------



## KC2IXE

whic .50 did you build? How was the job?


----------



## tvodrd

KC2IXE said:


> whic .50 did you build? How was the job?



~20 years ago I bought a new .50 BMG aircraft barrel from Sarco or Numrich. The first foot or so is stellite-lined and the rest was hard chromed. I machined a breach block from E4340 to screw onto it with male threads to its rear for a 1917 Enfield receiver. (Much modified firing pin.) I dowelled a trunion/pintle assembly to it which mounts the scope, and made an aluminum tripod. Sorry, I don't have a pic. 

It's a crude screw breach with a cable remote trigger connected to a bicycle brake lever assembly. I just wanted to shoot the caliber, and it works.  

Larry


----------



## Patriot

tvodrd said:


> As to big guns, I got to watch the New Jersey shoot off the coast of Cua Viet in 1969.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry






I get sad every time I think of those beautiful ships being decommissioned now.  

Very cool that you got to see it fire in person. When I was youth I was on board the Jew Jersey when it was stationed in San Diego. It must have been around 1978 give or take a year and it was before it was refit with Tomahawks and CIWS and modern fire control. IIRC, most of the twin 5" guns were removed even back then. I believe there were still 3 port and 3 starboard though. Most of the WWII era AA guns were gone too but I can't remember that for sure. I just recall the ship being a bit bare. What a fun experience that was though. I'll have to see if I can find a picture.



I was reading about your .50cal Larry. Sounds like a very interesting project. Are you also an Enfield fan. I'm a huge fan myself and own 1917's ranging from before WWI to nearly 1960. The Lithgow factory was still building them with modern metelurgy and on American Pratt and Whitney machinery. It's a wonderfully build peice of hardware. 


Paul


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



1wrx7 said:


> The black on my rifle is definately paint. It's actually a really nice paint job. The guy knew what he was doing... he also showed me some of his other refinishing while I was there I think I just want the classic look of the Garand for my rifle.


Good luck on that black paint layer, nothing can improve on good ole' walnut, as I think that you are thinking. BTW now I remember that I used Hoppe's #9 and not WD40 for the Cosmoline removal, I just edited my original post to correct that. If you tackle the project, please post before & after pics here, we'd like to see them.:thumbsup:


----------



## Kestrel

Patriot said:


> I get sad every time I think of those beautiful ships being decommissioned now.


+1. Two things I thought that were noteworthy. When the Wisconsin and the Missouri bombarded Iraqi targets in 1991, they were using 16" shells actually made in 1942. Amazing. Also, I can't remember the specific atoll cited, but in WWII it was determined that 95% of all Japanese casualties prior to the amphibious assault were from ship bombardment, while only 5% were from the also-extensive air bombardment. As they found out again in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, sometimes there is just no substitute for...


Patriot said:


> "Heavy Ordnance"


----------



## Mjolnir

I went on a tour of the battleship New Jersey, and I was the only person in our tour group to know why the ship is exactly 108 feet wide...


----------



## KC2IXE

Mjolnir said:


> I went on a tour of the battleship New Jersey, and I was the only person in our tour group to know why the ship is exactly 108 feet wide...



The locks of the Panama Canal


----------



## Starlight

I was on a midshipman cruise in 1967, on the USS Floyd B. Parks, DD-884. I had a chance to be "trainer" on a 5 inch gun, shooting at towed sleds. The "trainer' is the one who manually sets the elevation and then fires the gun. It's very difficult on a rolling ship, but there is a technique if you can figure it out. Get close at the top of a roll, leave it there till the next roll, then make the final adjustment and fire. I managed to hit the sled on the first shot. Has anybody actually pulled the trigger on anything larger?


----------



## Kestrel

Starlight said:


> Has anybody actually pulled the trigger on anything larger?


----------



## Patriot

Mjolnir said:


> I went on a tour of the battleship New Jersey, and I was the only person in our tour group to know why the ship is exactly 108 feet wide...







Panama


----------



## Lightraven

Starlight said:


> Has anybody actually pulled the trigger on anything larger?



My inch to millimeter conversion is a bit rusty. I've fired 105mm artillery and M1 main guns. Bigger than 5 inches?

On the tank tables (qualification courses for M1 gunners), I'd lase the target behind the berm as it was coming up. Your gun and turret were below a dirt berm, but the laser was above it, like a periscope. I'd have a good range to the target and tell the driver, "Driver, forward. On the way." Click. BOOM! I'd hit the target before the timer started. Other officers in my crew said, "Hey, you're cheating. You can't lase behind the berm." But the grader said it was cool and I was the top gunner for my class.


----------



## Patriot

Starlight said:


> I was on a midshipman cruise in 1967, on the USS Floyd B. Parks, DD-884. I had a chance to be "trainer" on a 5 inch gun, shooting at towed sleds. The "trainer' is the one who manually sets the elevation and then fires the gun. It's very difficult on a rolling ship, but there is a technique if you can figure it out. Get close at the top of a roll, leave it there till the next roll, then make the final adjustment and fire. I managed to hit the sled on the first shot. Has anybody actually pulled the trigger on anything larger?




Terrific story Starlight! :twothumbs

My dad tells me stories similar to that. He was on the AO145 Hassayampa. They had 6 x 3" anti-aircraft guns and 2 x 5" guns, one fore and one aft. He has slide film of them shooting at the training sled.

I think I've got you beat with a 8.5" mortar. Ok it doesn't really count since it was just a black power bowling ball cannon...lol.


----------



## Patriot

The 105mm is just over 4" but I enjoyed your gunning story Lightraven. Nice shoot'in tex. The grader probably just considered it improvising.


----------



## Kestrel

Some of my favorite YT videos (short but sweet):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-wE6RdRVI
(makes a crater 38 feet wide)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEqlrWChlS4&feature=related
(15 KT @ 10,000 meters range. One imperfection with this clip is that the audio had to have been altered - there is no way that the sound waves from the distant detonation could arrive simutaneously with the detonation visual. )


----------



## Patriot

Good videos. 

The M203 footage was edited by the nuclear bomb movie Trinity and Beyond. They sound edited all of the older footage.


----------



## Patriot

Kestrel said:


> +1. Two things I thought that were noteworthy. When the Wisconsin and the Missouri bombarded Iraqi targets in 1991, they were using 16" shells actually made in 1942.




My dad's tanker now rests peacefully decommissioned with it's sister ships in Suisun Bay. The newest member to the row is the BB61 Iowa, the name sake of the 4 Iowa class ships that were built. It's kinda sad to see it sitting there along with all these ships destined for scrap. 

http://www.angelwind.com/hassayampa/photo_suisun-bay.html


----------



## Kiessling

Here's my favourite gun ... the legendary DORA 80cm gun. 






The meanest gun ever built. A bit cumbersome and expensive to use, but sure looks impressive. And penetrated 30m of rock with the shells.

bernie


----------



## Kestrel

Patriot said:


> My dad's tanker now rests peacefully decommissioned with it's sister ships in Suisun Bay. The newest member to the row is the BB61 Iowa, the name sake of the 4 Iowa class ships that were built. It's kinda sad to see it sitting there along with all these ships destined for scrap.
> http://www.angelwind.com/hassayampa/photo_suisun-bay.html


Thanks for the link, good photos there. I don't want to see (or even know when) the Iowa gets scrapped.


----------



## blasterman

I say we have the Iowa and her sister BTL ships patrol the gulf of Aden for Somali pirates. Launch one or two full broadsides with those 16 inchers at some of those fast attack skiffs when they get near a container ship, and let em run away.

Watch pirate attacks drop to *zero* after word gets around.

Or, loan the Iowa to the crew of the Steve Irwin, aka 'Whale Wars' and just let them tow her around while chasing the japanese whaling fleet just for intimidation. _'Routers: Japanese suddenly reounce whaling and pursue_ _veganism_'. 

Syrian artillery crews gave the U.S. battleships perhaps their best compliment when in 1984 the New Jersey got a chance to fire in anger while off the coast of Beirut. I recall vividly watching the news and hearing a Syrian commander claim they knew when the Americans were firing at them because not only did the big shells shake the entire city when they detonated, but they were lethally accurate and hit artillery targets that had frusrated Israeli's for days. Hoo-rah.

Best naval gun stories I've heard were from my grandfather who was in the pacific in WWII, and after Japan surrendered their fleet was ordered to return to port *minus* dangerous munitions. So, they got to spend a few days out in the ocean shooting out their barrels at any target they could throw over baord. When they ran out of supply crates and bottles to shoot at they turned their fire, along with AA guns on "poor birds and anything else that moved".


----------



## n4zov

This is an excellent site with volumes of information on aircraft weaponry, comparisons of WW2 aircraft weapon systems, and virtually all automatic weapons ammunition:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm


----------



## Patriot

Thanks N4, I was previously unaware of this excellent site. I just spent 30 minutes there and didn't even learn my way around yet. It's huge!


----------



## Kestrel

blasterman said:


> Syrian artillery crews gave the U.S. battleships perhaps their best compliment when in 1984 the New Jersey got a chance to fire in anger while off the coast of Beirut. I recall vividly watching the news and hearing a Syrian commander claim they knew when the Americans were firing at them because not only did the big shells shake the entire city when they detonated, but they were lethally accurate and hit artillery targets that had frusrated Israeli's for days.


Hi BM,
I've read that the after-action reports from that shelling determined that the accuracy was miserable (since they had no spotters (edit, just recalled the correct term: 'forward observers') (to call the shots, either line-of-sight or aerial), with misses up to six miles away from the targets. I'd be interested to read a citation for the accuracy you mention, I really do love the BB's.


----------



## sunspot

*Re: .50BMG vs. 20mm*



Illum said:


> 20mm...
> 
> it reminds me of shooting field mice with .45....should it be used against people as an anti-personnel strafe


My Son-in-Law was the gunner on an Apache Longbow when the pilot and he saw an insurgent planting an IUD. I think it’s armed with a Hughes M230 Chain Gun 30mm.

A burst turned the bad guy into mist.


----------



## Kiessling

Kestrel said:


> Hi BM,
> I've read that the after-action reports from that shelling determined that the accuracy was miserable (since they had no spotters to call the shots, either line-of-sight or aerial), with misses up to six miles away from the targets. I'd be interested to read a citation for the accuracy you mention, I really do love the BB's.



I have heard that, too. Miserable results, but impressive ships nonetheless. Almost as impressive as the Yamato and Musashi :nana:


----------



## Patriot

Yeah guys, but the Iowa class battleships were using "forward observers" for every fire mission in the form of unmanned drones, launched from the battleship itself. 

The notion that the Mark7 guns firing at targets a mere 15-18 miles were missing by six miles is non-sense. It simply doesn't line up logically with what we know about the accuracy of modern, unguided artillery. Even without modern fire control systems, simple geometry is all that's needed in order to get reasonably accurate first round area hits. Much smaller and less sophisticated land based artillery routinely placed rounds within a 100 yards of friendly forces in Vietnam, when the situation was extreme enough. Even back in the 1940's naval guns made quick work of merchant shipping and achieved great accuracy in the heat of ship to ship exchanges. The Hood and Bismarck for example started firing at over 12 miles and at 10 miles were hitting one another or braketing each other with salvos. Obviously if your getting bracketing splashes the accuracy is on par to hundreds of yards, not thousands or yards or miles for that matter. Very few salvos into the battle, and at a range of about 9 miles, the Hood was hit, the next salvo from the Bismarck struck another hit, which ignited the Hood's magazine and destroyed it with a large explosion. It's important to note that both battleships in the engagement were using WWI based technology, and were firing at moving targets, yet the results were devastating. 

The claims of wildly missed targets in Iraq with a weapon system as proven as the Mark7 against stationary targets just doesn't line up logically, scientifically, historically or militarily. Logically we just know something is the matter with inaccuracy claims even on it's surface because artillery just doesn't miss by 35%. Scientifically, because of the simple geometry involved with known and consistent factors it's impossible to cause such wild inconsistencies unless something is terribly wrong, either with the base calculations or with the equipment. Historically, the claims don't fall in line with what we've recorded in ship to ship exchanges. The Bismarck/Hood battle was just one of many well documented examples in which far less capable weapon system than the Mark7 were used to dispatch one another at near the horizon ranges. Militarily, the Mark7 and all military artillery for that matter would have been proven ineffective long before if these systems weren't effective. The 16" guns of the Iowa class was the final crowning achievement of everything known about naval gunnery up until that point. The exact same principles that made it so effective are the same principles in play that make modern land based artillery so effective and why new systems like the M777 are being developed today. 

Here is a basic test firing map of the Mark7 guns at two ranges with the Pentagon added for scale. As you can see, it's pretty much what one would expect with an advanced fire control system and stabilized guns. 









Here is an older but excellent training video link for what it takes to operate a single gun of the 3 gun turret. This video is actually better than my 3 DVD series, the History of the Battleship. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OmOQs0ziSU&feature=related



Other great videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBnFw751Ik&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMG0Q5_7T94&feature=related


----------



## Kestrel

blasterman said:


> *Syrian* artillery crews gave the U.S. battleships perhaps their best compliment when in 1984 the New Jersey got a chance to fire in anger while off the coast of Beirut. [...] they were lethally accurate and hit artillery targets that had frusrated Israeli's for days.





Kestrel said:


> *I've read* that the after-action reports from that shelling determined that the accuracy was miserable (since they had *no spotters* (edit, just recalled the correct term: 'forward observers') (to call the shots, either line-of-sight or aerial), with misses up to six miles away from the targets. I'd be interested to read a citation for the accuracy you mention, I really do love the BB's.





Kiessling said:


> *I have heard that, too*. Miserable results, but impressive ships nonetheless.





Patriot said:


> Yeah guys, but *the Iowa class battleships were using "forward observers" for every fire mission in the form of unmanned drones, launched from the battleship itself.* *The notion that the Mark7 guns firing at targets a mere 15-18 miles were missing by six miles is non-sense.*
> [...] Vietnam [...] Hood and Bismarck [...] The claims of wildly missed targets in Iraq [...]


emphasis added by K

I am not denying that the Mk7 is accurate, I was saying that I had *read* that the specific fire in Syria in 1984 was inaccurate due to a lack of forward observation capability. We're not talking about artillery in Vietnam, Hood vs Bismark, Iraq, etc.

I do not know if what I had read was correct, but if someone could please offer a citation of accurate 16" fire in Syria due to forward observation, that would put this issue to rest. That is the only thing that I'm talking about here.:thinking:


----------



## Kestrel

After a bit of research:

_"The accuracy of New Jersey's guns was also called into question. An investigation into New Jersey's gunfire effectiveness in Lebanon, led by Marine Colonel Don Price, found that many of the ship's shells had missed their targets by as much as six miles and therefore may have inadvertently killed civilians. Tim McNulty, a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune based in Lebanon said, "Everybody loved the New Jersey until she fired her guns. Once she fired, it was obvious she couldn't hit anything." The inaccuracy is believed to have resulted because the ship's main gun powder had been remixed by the Navy, under the direction of Captain Joseph Dominick Miceli at the Naval Weapons Support Center, and rebagged. Powder lots (an individual production of powder) burn at different rates. Therefore, remixing the powder lots could cause the guns to fire with inconsistent accuracy. The problem was apparently resolved after the Navy was able to locate additional powder supplies which had not been remixed."_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Jersey_(BB-62), with the following references:

Thompson II, Charles C. (1999). _A Glimpse of Hell: The Explosion on the USS Iowa and Its Cover-Up_. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0393047148. , p. 140, Bonner, Kit; Carolyn Bonner and Kermit Bonner (1998-11-19). _Great Naval Disasters: U.S. Naval Accidents in the 20th Century_. Zenith Press. ISBN 0760305943. , p. 57.
Thompson, p. 140, 165. Miceli later led the technical investigation into the USS Iowa turret explosion in spite of the presumable conflict of interest with finding fault with powder that had been mixed and bagged under his direction. Richard Milligan, captain of _New Jersey_ in February 1984, led the first investigation into the _Iowa_ explosion and whose findings were subsequently discredited and discarded.
United States Battleships, 1935-92 by William Garzke and Robert Dulin (revised edition) :

*page 218 :* "Secretary Lehman and Congress were concerned about the 16-inch gunnery inaccuracy that the New Jersey had displayed off Beirut in 1982 (sic). There had been too much dispersion in the gunfire that silenced Syrian Artillery".
*page 236 :* "The CNO indicated that the New Jersey's 16-inch fire had silenced the gun batteries that had been shelling Beirut. Still, her gun performance off Lebanon was much poorer than expected and led to the Iowa's intensive and comprehensive gunnery test program from 1984 to 1988".
*page 287 :* "Gunnery research, conducted on board the Iowa from 1985-88, solved the problem of gunnery dispersion, a problem that the New Jersey experienced in Lebanon and Vietnam."
Iowa Class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons and Equipment by Robert Sumrall :

*page 79 :* "The condition of the powder was the main reason for the lacklustre gunnery performance of the New Jersey off Lebanon in 1984."
From an Office of the Secretary of Defense - Program Analysis and Evaluation report entitled _"Retaining Battleships"_, dated 20 November 1990 :

*page 5 :* All the powder bags have been reweighed, reworked and repacked, because deterioration of the powder was one of the greatest problems with accuracy in the early 1980s (a problem discovered after New Jersey's disappointing accuracy in Lebanon).
A Glimpse of Hell : The Explosion on the U. S. S. Iowa & Its Cover-Up by Charles Thompson :

*Pages 139-140 :* The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to let the battleship [USS New Jersey] fire on December 14, 1983. Eleven 1900-pound high-explosive shells were lobbed into the Shouf Mountains. There were no spotters in the air or on the ground to adjust where the shells fell. The results were pitiful. (...) She was cleared for another fire mission the afternoon of February 8, 1984. The targets -all located by satellite- were Druze and Syrian gun positions near a mountain village about fifteen miles east of Beirut. Again, no spotters were present. For eight hours, the New Jersey hurled nearly 300 sixteen-inch shells. She fired another thirteen shells on February 26 before heading back to her homeport. (...) The results of these two missions were even worse than in December. (...) Marine Colonel Don Price, who had served in combat in Vietnam and was familiar with naval shore-fire bombardment practices investigated the New Jersey's gunnery in Lebanon and concluded that she missed her targets by as much as 10000 yards (about six miles).
Electronic Greyhounds : The Spruance-Class Destroyers by CAPT. Michael C. Potter :


*Page 214 :* _Caron_ and _Moosbrugger_ joined the Sixth Fleet after Operation Urgent Fury and proceeded to Beirut in January 1984. _New Jersey_ bombarded Israeli-designated targets ashore with her 16-inch guns. Her old radars could not locate markers on the coast, so a Mark-86-equipped Spruance-class destroyer did this. The destroyer pinpointed her position with high-precision radar (SPQ-9A) and relayed the target's range and bearing from her. _New Jersey_'s gunnery system tracked the destroyer and triangulated to the target. Without forward spotters, accuracy and effect were unknown.


----------



## Patriot

Thanks for all of the great info Kestrel. Most of it I've never read before...and yeah, I didn't realize we were talking about Syria, and instead was thinking of the Gulf War where drones were present. 




> Patriot
> Scientifically, because of the simple geometry involved with known and consistent factors it's impossible to cause such wild inconsistencies unless something is terribly wrong, either with the base calculations or with the equipment.




It appears that wild inconsistencies were due to something terribly wrong with the equipment, in this case the power lots.


----------



## Bullzeyebill

Sounds like they fixed the problem. Overall the accuracy of the Iowa class 16 inch guns was outstanding.

The M16 had some problems to for awhile and was not considered reliable. That problem was mostly solved with the switch to a different powder with a different burning rate. 

Bill


----------



## Patriot

It's interesting about the power situation. I still fire ammunition from the 1930's and 40's through a styer m95 and Enfields. Every time I go through a box of it I'm amazed that it still works perfectly. Being sealed in the case and kept dry obviously makes all the difference. Power stored in silk bags can deteriorate with moisture and oxygen I suppose.

The M16 sure overcame some initial deficiencies didn't it. Just look at it today. I wonder what's going to be the next standard rifle?


----------



## Kestrel

More interesting stuff:

_"We used a lot of surplus WW II ammo in that war from M-1 Carbine up to 16-inch shells and even aerial bombs._

_



_

_As for the shells in the picture, those 5-foot, 4-inch tall shells painted Olive Drab with the 8-inch wide Yellow band at the nose are 1,900 lb High Explosive (HE) shells (aka Hi-Cap or High Capacity). Those in the background appear to be painted blue but out of range of the flash camera. If blue, then they would be BLP's (Blind Loaded Plugs or Inert dummy shells for practice shooting). If they are black they would be 6-foot tall, weigh 2,700 lbs and labeled Armor Piercing._

_Color markings on the shells are interesting. *Olive Drab shells with a yellow checkerboard band are anti-personnel that carry 400 Bouncing Betty mines in each one.* I have seen Olive Drab shells with a Yellow band of narrow diamonds but never bothered to look up what kind of explosive(s) they carried. It could have been a flare shell. _

_I don't think we ever made any 16-inch shells to carry White Phosphorus but the 5-inchers had some."_


Holy [email protected], can you imagine *16 inch anti-personnel* shells!


----------



## KC2IXE

Bullzeyebill said:


> Sounds like they fixed the problem. Overall the accuracy of the Iowa class 16 inch guns was outstanding.
> 
> The M16 had some problems to for awhile and was not considered reliable. That problem was mostly solved with the switch to a different powder with a different burning rate.
> 
> Bill



Correct, but not the full story. The original powder used to develop the M-16/AR-15 was fine, but McNamara et al had them change powders upon acceptance to save money (bean counting). THAT powder had all sorts of problems, and cost a bunch of lives, but...

Same group who thought it was a good idea that the Air Force and Navy have a fighter based upon the same airframe - the F-111 (yes, they though it was a FIGHTER)

This whole idea REALLY makes me worry about the F-35 (counter example of the F-4/A-7 gives me some hope - a Navy fighter used by the AF, rather than the other way around)


----------



## KC2IXE

Kestrel said:


> ...snip...
> Holy [email protected], can you imagine *16 inch anti-personnel* shells!



Or one of these?






Mk23 Nuke!


----------



## Patriot

I've been reading a lot about the CV90 series or CVWS APCs. It just seems to be far more capable than our M2 Bradley in almost every area. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE&fmt=18

M2 stuck in snow, CV90 motors on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0


Actually I'm most impressed with the specs of the 9035 III with 35x228mm, with upgrade package to 50mm with a new barrel and a few internals. 

The 40mm CTA looks amazing too. I was unaware of case telescoping ammunition. 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/cta.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/wednesday/duckworth.pdf


----------



## Search

I would love to talk about the 40mm, 60mm, and C4 but the ATF and FBI would frown upon this.

In the meantime, how about some more atomic things


----------



## Patriot

Hard to believe there would be a problem talking about 40 & 60mm stuff. Not sure which systems your referring to, whether it be cannons or mortars or something else but nearly every specification is available through defense sources. Obviously they chemical fingerprint of the charges or warheads isn't recipe-ed out for the world to see but info like the yield and destructive radius is all there.


----------



## Search

Patriot said:


> Hard to believe there would be a problem talking about 40 & 60mm stuff. Not sure which systems your referring to, whether it be cannons or mortars or something else but nearly every specification is available through defense sources. Obviously they chemical fingerprint of the charges or warheads isn't recipe-ed out for the world to see but info like the yield and destructive radius is all there.



40mm for M203 and 40mm for Mk19. I've touched my fair share.

Haven't been over to see the 60mm mortar rounds being produced or test fired. That would be fun though. HE 40mm is a nice bang, HE 60mm would be a blast 0_0


----------



## jtr1962

Very interesting, informative thread here about a topic I previously knew very little about. :twothumbs

I found these pics of a Soviet TM-3-12 305mm Rail Road Gun. Thought they might be of interest here.


----------



## Patriot

Nice Railroad gun there. I never really thought too much before about the logistical handicaps up land based super cannons. 305mm is pretty close to a 12" gun, which although still massive, seems small compared to 16 and 18" naval, multi-gun turrets. It's amazing how technology changes when looking at an old iron beast like the 305mm. 

This also reminding me of the one Kiessling posted on page 2. The 800mm gun or about 31.5" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav


----------



## blasterman

Slighty on a different tangent, but just same some recent thermal gunsight footage on CNN from an attack helicopter (Apache?) tracking suspicious individuals planting IED's.

Commander: _"Ok, we'll hit them with a hellfire and follow up with 30mm."_

No B2's in the pattern tonight guys


----------



## blasterman

> THAT powder had all sorts of problems, and cost a bunch of lives, but...


 
Once the A1 hit the lines most of those problems were fixed. The Original M16 with it's lack of resilient chrome lined barrel and swelling ammo was a bad combination.

I've fired a LOT of M16's (non combat of course) but personally I've never really cared for it. Recoil feels mushy and random, and while it has good range it lacks hitting power even with 62 grain ammo. Then again as long as the bad guys are shooting at you with AK-47's.....

For comparison, the Korean Daewoo K2 takes the same round (and magazine) as the M16, and (IMHO) I prefer the K2 over the M16.


----------



## Patriot

I owned a folding stock D2 for a while when they were being imported for dirt cheap. I think I picked mine up for around $400 at the time. To me, it wasn't on par with the Colt A2 I owned at the time. The upper and lower fit was sloppy, the sights were sub-standard, and the bolt handle felt chintzy. There was nothing modular or available to improve the gun any either. My newest renditions of the ar15 are far superior to the Colt I owned back then so imo the D2 isn't in the same league. While I prefer .308s and gas pistons vs. tubes, I appreciate the leap and ongoing modernization that the AR platform has undergone.



I liked your video and hadn't seen that footage before.


----------



## blasterman

The biggest problem I have with the M16 is recoil. Not sure if this is constant on all models, but even though the M16 has very low recoil, the nature of spring recoil tends to produce more circular shot groupings than other guns. 'Kerchung'...'kerchung'.

The Daewoo DR-200 (civilian version of the K2) we own shoots much cleaner than any AR/M16 we've used with a more vertical and less broad shoot grouping. We've tested this against national guardsmen out at the range when they are practicing for qualification. It's like driving a sports car with manual steering vs power steering. I've seen beginners shoot 1" horizontal groupings at 100m with the Daewoo...scary.

Buddy of mine has a classic, bolt action Austrian M95 Styre that was sold with several cans of swastika stamped ammo. That 8x56 round feels worse than a 12gauge in terms of kick.


----------



## blasterman

The biggest problem I have with the M16 is recoil. Not sure if this is constant on all models, but even though the M16 has very low recoil, the nature of it tends to produce more circular shot groupings than other guns. 'Kerchung'...'kerchung'.

The Daewoo DR-200 (civilian version of the K2) we own shoots much cleaner than any AR/M16 we've used with a more vertical and less broad shoot grouping. We've tested this against national guardsmen out at the range when they are practicing for qualification. It's like driving a sports car with manual steering vs power steering. I've seen beginners shoot 1" horizontal groupings at 100m with the Daewoo...scary.


----------



## LukeA

blasterman said:


> I've seen beginners shoot 1" horizontal groupings at 100m with the Daewoo...scary.



Not as long as South Korea is the Korea that has them!

The "rave army" that's on our side as opposed to the highly disciplined and much larger army to the north!


----------



## Patriot

blasterman said:


> The biggest problem I have with the M16 is recoil. Not sure if this is constant on all models, but even though the M16 has very low recoil, the nature of spring recoil tends to produce more circular shot groupings than other guns. 'Kerchung'...'kerchung'.
> 
> 
> Buddy of mine has a classic, bolt action Austrian M95 Styre that was sold with several cans of swastika stamped ammo. That 8x56 round feels worse than a 12gauge in terms of kick.





Your accuracy findings are more likely due to other factors like, ammunition to chamber/barrel fit, since the round has left the barrel long before any perception of recoil occurs. 


oh yeah, I'm familiar with that ammo since it's what I've been shooting. I've got about 600 rounds of the stuff left. It has some nice labels and markings on it.















While it doesn't have solid recoil, it doesn't feel as stiff to me as 7.62x54R in the M44, or 8x57 Mauser in the Yugoslavian Mauser or even .308 in the Spanish Mauser. All the latter's are higher pressure cartridges I believe plus the 8x56R is moving slower at 2250fps. With regards to 12 gauge it really depends on the gun and ammo, since actions and energys can vary so greatly. I would compare the 8x56R recoil to ounce and an eighth, 2 3/4" hunting loads in break action shotguns. 

My 11 year old 2nd cousin fires the M95 pretty well for a little guy. He wanted to carry it deer hunting last year but we didn't let him due to the bullet design. We don't reload that caliber so there was no way of not disappointing him. He got to use the 8x57 Mauser instead with proper, expandable bullets, which was his second favorite anyhow.


----------



## StefanFS

The Archer artillery system is pretty heavy ordnance. I especially like the ability to deliver a salvo to hit the target simultaneously.











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCHER_Artillery_System

Future Weapons part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4jnUXUzV2c

Future Weapons part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1j7mJbgDU&feature=related


----------



## Patriot

Hi Stefan, I remember seeing this one on Future Weapons which I see you gave the links to. It's a beautiful piece of hardware and I especially like the design of the muzzle break in this gun. It looks highly efficient and of course this system has the high rate of fire to allow the simultaneous impact method. 

Very Cool! :thumbsup:


----------



## KC2IXE

As I promised somewhere early in the thread - a round for the GBU-8 (slightly bent - don't ask) next to a .300 Sav (almost identical in size to a .308 - enough so that there have been chambering mishaps) and a good ol 30-30


----------



## Patriot

Very cool GBU-8!

The .308 was derived from the .300 Savage btw. 




Here are the M1 Garand pictures I promised. Took these this afternoon. The funning looking knob on the bolt handles are just rubber bumpers so that when they're on the rack the handle doesn't ding the gun next to it. I remembered to remove the protectors for the second photo. The 3 guns with white stickers on the top wood are .308 rifles. 






Stocks 2, 5, 8, 9, from left are CMP stocks. The rest are Fajen or Boyd. 






*EDIT: Picture Added.* The last gun on the right was built from a Fajen extra fancy walnut stock in "form cut" which is pretty crude. It took a lot of sanding through various grits until #0000 steel wool. Dad applied about 15 coats of Master Gel to that stock with a day of drying between each coat. The Metal was polished, blued by a local master bluer who has passed away since. The bolt and gas cylinder are both polished. The bolt is bare jeweled and the gas cylinder was left bare because it's made from stainless. My dad does all of his own wood work.


----------



## jchoo

The wood on the third rifle from the left is just phenomenal. I've seen $5000 violins that didn't have that kind of fiddleback. What is that, Koa? Blackwood? Whatever it is...

:bow:


----------



## Patriot

Thanks jchoo, it's maple.  There are two other rifles in there in which the walnut figuring is even more rare than the fiddleback maple. 1st from right, & 5th from right in my previous post.

Glad that you like them 




EDIT: Here are some croped shots:


----------



## KC2IXE

Well, if you want to get REALLY picky, the T-54 was developed from the .300Sav, and the 7.62x56 from that, and the .308Win from THAT - of course the T-54 is the "prototype" 7.62x56, and the .308 is the slightly (very) different civilian version of the 7.62x56


----------



## Owen

.308 is the same as 7.62x51 NATO with different spec for pressure and headspace.
7.62x56 is the British .303.


----------



## DM51

The British .303 is a rimmed round, 7.7x56R.

The Soviets made a 7.62x54R in addition to the better-known 7.62x39 short - the AK round. The 7.62x54R was the same as NATO 7.62 / .308Win except it was rimmed and had a longer neck. It was a crafty idea, preventing NATO using their ammo, but allowing NATO ammo to chamber in their rifles and MMGs (SKS, Goryunov etc).


----------



## Owen

Edited, since I was being a jerk.


----------



## DM51

I didn't get any of that from Google. I've actually handled those rounds and fired those weapons. How about you?


----------



## Owen

Not the .303. I just have a good memory for nomenclature, and do double-check it. 7.62x56 is the metric conversion for the .303


----------



## KC2IXE

Early AM brain fart - I did mean x51

And I know about the different case capacities of 7.62x51 vs .308 because I've reloaded both - Nowdays I mostly use Norma Brass, but at one point had my hands on a nice collection of Lake City


----------



## Bullzeyebill

Owen said:


> Not the .303. I just have a good memory for nomenclature, and do double-check it. 7.62x56 is the metric conversion for the .303



The metric nomenclature for the .311 caliber 303 is 7.7mmX56R.

Bill


----------



## Owen

Yeah, I was focused on the 56mm part, and ignoring the difference in bullet diameter.

Crap. I'm the one who's so anal about not posting bad info, too


----------



## Patriot

Yikes it got messy....LOL... all good and fun though.  A few corrections/additions.....






> the T-54 was developed from the .300Sav, and the 7.62x56 from that, and the .308Win from THAT - of course the T-54 is the "prototype" 7.62x56, and the .308 is the slightly (very) different civilian version of the 7.62x56


Actually the development cartridge was the .300 Savage was T-65, but by that time the T-65 was the 7.62x51 wholly. Of course almost every caliber can be traced back to a parent cartridge but some like the .300Sav were truly drawn up from scratch using knowledge of the .303 Savage, 30-30, and 30-06. In other words the .300Sav wasn't a derivative of an existing case that was lengthened, shortened, necked up or down, reformed, etc. 








> .308 is the same as 7.62x51 NATO with different spec for pressure and headspace. 7.62x56 is the British .303.


In service it was called 7.7x56R or simply 7.7mm when referring to aircraft guns. In the field with the grunts it was often just called "303" or "303 british." Today, the .303 or "303" has been adopted by sportsman and cartridge manufacturers in the States so 7.7x56R is almost never used. Even the early Enfields were marked chamber marked ".303" and not 7.62x56R. 

The .308 was designed to operate at higher chamber pressures that was was being used in Europe and in the Mauser specifically. Average maximum pressure for the .308 was 62,000psi, while the average maximum pressure for the 7.62x51 nato is 50,000psi. When dealing with older designs prior to 1950 it's recommend that commercial .308 isn't used in chambers marked 7.62 Nato. Safe pressure limits are marginal in these older guns because metallurgy wasn't what it is today. Regarding the headspace, the .308 "go" & "no-go" gauges are 1.6300 and 1.6340. The 7.62x51's are 1.6350 and 1.6405. Very slight differences that are interchangeable as long as both are used in modern arms. 







> The British .303 is a rimmed round, 7.7x56R.
> 
> The Soviets made a 7.62x54R in addition to the better-known 7.62x39 short - the AK round. The 7.62x54R was the same as NATO 7.62 / .308Win except it was rimmed and had a longer neck. It was a crafty idea, preventing NATO using their ammo, but allowing NATO ammo to chamber in their rifles and MMGs (SKS, Goryunov etc).


I'd be curious to know the .303's common nomenclature in Europe since we almost never use the 7.7 designation here. Interesting to think that we goofy Americans use metric designations for our military cartridges but still call it the .303 when referring to the 7.7x56R. I think the .303 language has just become so instilled over the decades. One observation though, I have many example of Enfields ranging from 1915 to 1956 and they're all chamber stamped .303 or .303Brit. I wonder if Europe updated nomenclatures to metric?


It's an often misquoted myth that Russia designed most of their cartridges to not work in NATO chambers but that NATO chamberings can be used Russian chambers. Although this was sometimes (rarely) the case, it's usually not true. For example, the 7.62x54R was designed way before (around 1891-1892) either the .30-06 or 7.62x51. Although the .30-40 Krag was the service caliber developed around the same time frame as the 7.62x54R, the .30-40 was 59mm in case length vs 56mm for the Russian round. So there really wasn't any NATO or US cartridge that the 7.62x54R was designed to swap or "semi-swap" with. Rimmed cartridges were in wide spread use back then because they were easy to headspace, cost effective to manufacture and forgiving in their chamber tolerances. 

.308 in one of my 7.62x54R chambers doesn't headspace and bolt won't close.






Properly headspaced 7.62x54R round fits flush with breachface.






The calibers being discussed right now, just for fun and a size referrence. 

.303, 7.62x54R, .308, 7.62x39











> Early AM brain fart - I did mean x51
> And I know about the different case capacities of 7.62x51 vs .308 because I've reloaded both - Nowdays I mostly use Norma Brass, but at one point had my hands on a nice collection of Lake City


No problem, I do the same thing all the time.  

...and every manufacturer's interior capacity will vary by 1-2 grains. Some overbuild the brass case inside for strength so reloaders will benefit from thicker cases since they last longer. 

For the non-reloaders out there, a case stretches slightly each time it's fired. The reloader often has to trim the mouth of the case a bit for it to fit the chamber. Each time the case is refired it stretches again and thus re-trimming for case proper case length happens again. This cycle thins the walls of the cartridge case until eventually the case develops a crack or splits. Most reloaders discard their brass before splits develop and high pressure rifle cartridge cases have a much shorter life span than lower pressure pistol cartridge cases.


----------



## KC2IXE

And then there is "fire forming" - my current "accurate rifle" is in 6mm BRX - which is a semi-standard wildcat, as that in the hobby, there are standard reamers and drawings, but no factory makes brass, and it's never been a factory option (heck, there are actually 2 different 6mmbr loads - Rem and Norma - that are slightly different). The way you make 6BRX brass? Grab a 6BR, load it jammed into the lands with fairly tight neck tension, and go to the range...

Joke? fired 50 rounds firefroming last time - worst group (5 shots) was .262, and that was without windflags out - one group was a "screamer" in the .0s (don't remember the exact number - I think it was like .094)

Fun having a truely accurate rifle (I bought it used - rifle used to hold the 800yd world record - a few years and just shy of 500 rounds ago)


----------



## william lafferty

A few months ago I was exposed to a new cartridge I had never heard of, and thought some of you might enjoy seeing a picture of it. It is a 950 JDJ rifle cartridge. Apparently this round was invented by JD Jones, who also built a few rifles for it. I have never seen the rifle, but am told it weighs about 70 pounds. 

This particular bullet and the casing were machined from solid brass. I am told one can also use a 20mm casing necked down. The bullet weighs 3500 grains and the primer pocket is swaged out to accept a .50 cal machine gun primer. 

The 950 is pictured below alongside an aluma-bronze Ion, for size comparison.


----------



## Patriot

Thanks William, I didn't even know about this caliber from JDJ. He sure has left his mark on the firearms industry though and his associations are huge.

Here are some of his other calibers including the .950.

http://www.sskindustries.com/cartridges.htm


----------



## Patriot

Time to revive this thread with some fun......

Ultimate Full-Auto Compilation video


----------



## moldyoldy

photo not being stored.


----------



## Patriot

moldyoldy said:


> photo not being stored.



Sorry, don't understand.


----------



## gadget_lover

Thanks for the thread. Some of those guns / cannons are truly amazing. I can not imagine the design decisions that go into creating a 4,000 round per minute canon. How does one figure out that you really need to step up from .50 cal to 20mm for a plane used in a dogfight? Why not 21 or 17mm? 

I was inspired to take my puny .45 pistol and itty-bitty .22 rifle down to the range today, for the first time this spring. A CPF friend accompanied me. It was a load of fun. 

Daniel


----------

