Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by dontoe, Mar 3, 2005.
link no workey
Bye bye, rag-head...
Am I reading this right? .50 cal swaped out with a 25mm or just under 1 inch? 25.4 mm/in is the conversion. Holy crap!
could use this
cartridge size comparision: .50 BMG (top) and the 20x110mm Hispano (below)
Steyr 15.2mm cartridge compared to 7.62mm NATO (.308 Wichester) cartridge
Steyr 15.2mm cartridge schematic
but that is bigger.
i think it would hurt
That is a beautiful thing.
I just have visions of a suddenly empty camel saddle at 2500 meters
thats bad yet funny
I think I'm in love.....
God the things I could do with that. I'd make Hampton, Va. a nice place to live LOL
I dont sound like a wacko do I?
Portable Apache firepower with autoranging and light armor piercing capability. Be very, very glad your not the enemy. If you've ever seen footage of an Apache firing on enemy soldiers...well it isn't pretty.
i have never held an Apache 25mm round in my hand.. but Ive seen lots of pics... and those look smaller than the Apache ones. Are they using a 25mm diameter projectile in a smaller case or is it supposed to be 100% identical to the apache's 25mm round? Either way, thats serious firepower. Anything that is hand-held and fires a normal bullet and yet can take out a light armored vehicle or a chopper (!) is pretty freakin kick azz. "allah is great" this.
Cut & pasted - italic emphasis is mine...
"The centerpiece of the XM-109 system is the 25mm HEDP ammunition it fires. A scaled down derivative of the low velocity 30mm HEDP M789 ammunition fired by the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the MX-109's 25mm ammunition has been judged to be 2.5 times more effective at destroying targets than a .50 caliber armor-piercing round. It is expected that this ammunition can penetrate nearly 40mm (an inch and a half) of armor plating at 500 meters, or blast open doors from around the corner. In other words, it gives the Soldier breaching capability on fortified positions, while minimizing exposure to enemy fire, thanks to its effectiveness at greater distances. Also in the works are a number of specialized rounds, ranging from solid core AP ammunition to non-lethal/ crowd control munitions utilizing inert rubber balls, and RC agents."
And here's a pic. Notice the size of the round, then compare it to the M16-standard pistol grip on the lower receiver. Also note that the exposed part of the projectile is longer than the entire case (not much powder volume).......
Now where I'm confused is where they say the weapon will lethally engage light armored vehicles out to 2500m... but the HEDP round (High Explosive Dual Purpose) is projected to defeat 1.5" armor at 500m. To my line of thinking, 1.5" is light armor (for an armored vehicle, that is), so where's the magic that'll punch that sucker through light armor at 5X the distance???
oh ok, didnt read the whole thing... definitely looked short for an aircraft mounted canon though. Dunno why I thought the apache had a 25mm... doesn't the bradley have a 25? maybe thats what I was thinking of. With that small of a powder capacity, I can't imagine that thing attacking targets at that long a range... but on the plus size, that kind of girth does allow for the use of explosive ordanance which is definitely an advantage over 50 cal weapons.
Personally, I'm waiting for scientists to master anti-matter containment... then you'll have .177 caliber weapons capable of blowing a battleship to scrap metal.
1.5", I'd say, of solid steel, is not "Light" Armor. Compared to the 27" thick front of an M1, maybe....but compared to whatever the thickness of the side of an M113 carrier is...I'd say 1.5" is pretty thick.
That said, I'm going to agree with you anyway, and you'll see why in the 2nd half of this post.
Yes, the Bradley does have a 25mm gun.
The range of AP rounds, IIRC, is 2,000 meters, and 3,000 for HE. That said, the barrel is LONG, probably twice as long as the above shoulder rifle.
I'd say that their claim of destroying even a light target at 2500 meters are beyond optimistic.
Whether it will penetrate armor t 2500 meters or not, its still a bad a$$ gun. It should do a great job of clearing a PITA from behind a wall. Keep in mind that 2500 meters is 1 1/2 miles. I doubt that a soldier on the ground will be taking too many shots at that range.
pretty sure an M1 doesnt have 27" thick frontal armor. I mean, there is no armor on the USS Missouri that is over 18" thick... and its a freakin battleship. If the M1s really is 27" thick, I over estimated how good those ceramic armors are...
Instead of trying to reply to all the posts to help clarify some issues i will attept to do it in one post.
-The average soldier on the ground won't every use one of these rifles it will be used by sniper teams. Yes 2500 meters is a long ways away but, a canadian sniper team recorded a confirmed 2400 meter chest shot in afganistan with a mcmillian .50 cal rifle. A Marine sniper recent just made a 1000 meter shot in iraq with a .308 rifle. The end users will be capable of engaging targets at the rifles maximum range if not further.
-performance of the round VS. armor. A .50cal Mk 211 (raufoss round will penatrate 1" of face hardened armor at a 45 degree oblige at 1000 meters. this round travels at about 3000 fps. A typical light armored vehicle has a basic construction of about 1" thick, some are up armored and have other options. In the case of a m113 ithe armor consists of a aluminum/ magneseum body that is designed to stop a 14.7mm soviet round, and is about 14mm thick. With the payload of the 25mm in this weapon system it will do what it says.
as for the armor on an M1 and why its so thick....well a 105 mm HEAT round travels at 5000fps and is nothing more than an long skinny heavy nail made of depleated uranium. so when you think of that 27" isnt all that thick. and probally not thick enough.
thats all off the top of my head without combing over individual posts.
Fired from what? I don't think the rifle pictured above has the barrel length the M2 has, and with a larger, heavier bullet, it's going to take more powder, and more barrel, to accelerate that bullet to the same velocity as the .50 BMG. Also--I believe that if there were any reasonable amount of powder volume with that big of a rifle, the recoil might be uncontrollably abusive. Therefore, I don't think that rifle is capable of generating the necessary velocity to engage a target of 1.5" thick armor at 2500 meters sucessfully.
That is just my conclusion drawn from comparison of these two weapons. I could, and very well might be, wrong...but from what I see over here, that's how it appears to me.
its not about velocity and it pushes the ogive "bullet" out at 2500fps out of the 109, and they dont use powder like your thinking.... and its not a bullet persay its a cased shape charge
as for recoil the recipricating action of the barret and the muzzle brake work very well, think along the lines of a very stiff 10 guage.
I want one.
Separate names with a comma.