Optimising Individual Weapons for Close Range Combat

So we agree with auto shotgun during the first 300m, then explosive round for over-300m?

No in-production shotgun is even decent at 100m, much less 150 m. There's simply no 300 m shotgun.

correct, this is why "intermediate" cartridges came into existence.
I have a feeling this is going to be another 5.56 thread.

rounds*

There's no way you could possibly carry enough ammo for more than a brief skirmish. 8 shotgun shells fit into the same space as 30 medium rifle cartridges.

The riflemen don't engage in "long range duels", they suppress and advance. Come on now, this is basic infantry tactics.

No. I honest to god cannot describe my contempt for you types of people. How much effort does it take to search up 'TRADOC' or even 'us military doctrine' into google you mindbendingly dumb nigger. What compels to you spew about something you know nothing about
center —

So to counter an enemy fireteam armed with battle rifles, you need to bring a crew served heavy machine gun. Fucking moron.

Which by the way are mostly found in platoons. So given open ground, the enemy can pin down your squads with his fireteams.
Step one in five easy steps to losing a war.

There's a reason why most countries field full sized ammo at the fireteam level.

Disagree.
The battlefield in firepower is a contest in force projection. You don't intend to kill your enemy with a basic rifle at these distances, of course, but what you do need to do is provide relatively accurate firepower for supporting your indirect fire that is able to actually deal damage. If your bullets are flying very inaccurately and very slowly when they are even getting close, you aren't projecting your firepower well enough against the enemy than full power cartridges would.
Suppress your enemy better than they are trying to suppress you by fire and maneuver so that indirect fire can decide the winner.
I'd also like to note that by optimizing for

Here's my suggestion, even though it is perhaps impractical or downright stupid:
Take the level and depth of training used for Special Operators and apply it to the rest of the military so that every soldier is not a rookie retard who pisses himself at the slightest sight of combat. Sure this was be expensive, slow and your army would be much, much smaller. But you would have thousands of god-tier killing machines who would achieve K:D ratios 10 times higher than the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front.

Attached: and so we went to war.jpg (207x236, 6.92K)

Such theory is pointless.

Infantrymen hardly ever see any opposing infantry in battle. So anyone who sees an enemy will shoot at him with whatever can be used tos hoot. Morevoer, the sectors covered by the infantrymen (not all are supposed to look at the same direction) are in practice vastly more relevant than categorizations.

It's very hard to ID the category of infantry threats in battle before that fleeting target is gone anyway.

Last but not least; the squad or fire team leader is controlling the fires - and needs to have the freedom to control as he deems it best - damn such peacetime doctrine lists.

So what you listed was a list of mostly worthless theory.

Pff, just make a merc corp and hire Zig Forums.

You fell for the SF glorification propaganda.
SF personnel isn't that good.

Moreover, any such expensive training would inevitably lead to small infantry numbers.
The vast majority of infantry losses are losses to indirect fires - not small arms. Your extreme infantry training would not have much other effect than to deprive the combined arms forces of infantry real quick.

That's actually already happening on a smaller scale in the US military–special forces keep getting more funding and their numbers expanded because SF is the kind of meme that gets Senator's willies hard and tends to get more funding and more optics. All that ended up happening is that SF actually became slightly worse in quality because they had to lower their standards to get numbers up. And overall quality of regular infantry got a lot worse–before, soldiers that were almost but not quite good enough for SF acted as force multipliers for general infantry, because they became sergeants and passed on their superior experience to the grunts. However, now that these types are being sucked into various SF training, there's almost no one halfway competent left in infantry to whip the crayon-eaters into shape.

Also, like the germ said SF die just as quickly to indirect fire as regular guys, or just a lucky shot from the other side, so whatever marginal benefit you gain from up-training your entire army is quickly lost from attrition rates. Oh yeah, and at least in the US most SF training is done commando-style, where their efficacy is proportional to the level of intel and prep time available. So in most infantry roles, where that level of prep isn't available, they're barely better than regular grunts.

Attached: ISIS_speshul_forces.webm (358x640, 2.38M)

What do you think I am trying to say? Did you even read my post? Or do you unironically think that LMGs are useless because they fire 5.56?

You're right, flexibility is key. That does not disregard the fact that differing elements are better at differing things, and that the ideal organizational template is based around the advantages and disadvantages of said differing elements.

… that proves my fucking point.

What the hell is your IQ?

pic related.
how many people does it take to fly a jet or shoot an a gun?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x301, 161.18K)

You don't have a point, assblasted canuck. You're legitimately too mad to even formulate an argument. Even if all LMGs shot ravioli at the enemy, there's still HMGs which don't shoot 5.56 nearby because the entire platoon engages.

I think that both the 5.56 and 5.45 are perfectly adequate and perform their jobs perfectly in their respective rifles. Though the M4 should really have an 18" barrel, an extra 3.5" won't harm it. I remember reading somewhere that whoever can throw down the most dakka during a firefight wins. What infantry squads really need are things like knee mortars, rifle grenades, or that french 68mm rocket launcher that could be reloaded about 20 times. Or that neat 76mm shoulder mounted mortar. Relying mainly on rifles is idiotic as explosives are far more effective. You can tear down cover, hit targets hiding in cover through blast & shrapnel, and even threaten light vehicles. Use rifles and machine guns to pin the enemy in position then destroy using explosives the squad has. And if more is needed you move up the ladder.

the problem is really the m4, not 5.56
if we went back to 20" 5.56 barrels, everything would be solved.

In what tactical situation standalone infantry with no support want suppress and advance on enemy positions? Afghanistan? Lol.
1. you are risking lives of first worlders to catch some goat herders. dumb.
2. you may walk into ieds and mines set up to defend their positions. dumb.
3. NATO soldiers are overburdened with gear and never can't catch with retreat of light-footed warriors of Allah.
4. even if by some miracle you catch with them, they can always drop guns and pretend that they are "peaceful" peasants. NATO ROE prohibit to execute them on sight, at best detain and release after.

Pls. Modern infantry is mechanized. Why do you ever want to offload your support weapons from the armored vehicles instead firing them mounted? Infantry squad need fire support of tanks, IFVs, and SP mortars. These thing BTFO anything that infantry can carry in terms of firepower, mobility and survivability.

In this thread people refusing to acknowledge that tactics and weapons systems need to change for different environments.

Good luck fighting a mechanised war in the Alps or in a city. And obviously you want a different rifle for the Alps than you do for Miami.

Because as much as we have mechanized vehicles can't be everywhere. Do you not remember Afghanistan for the Soviets at all? Superior mechanized support and yet they took heavy losses. Infantry squads are needed to support armour and equipping them with heavier weapons is a good way to give them an edge against other infantry supporting their armour.

UO is done by mechanized forces using same principles. AFVs provide firepower for infantry. Infantry does close fighting portion (close? hmm.)

Mountain warfare is yes, different thing all together. Always was "special operations" and required special training and gear. Helicopters.
But its proportion in military is small.

But they can. Infantry squad rides its own fire support tank. And SP mortar doesn't need to ride everywhere with its range.

You thinking backwards. Armors are needed to support infantry. You see, humans are small and weak, vehicles are big and strong. Can you run across battlefield at 30 mph and precisely fire 25mm chain-gun on the run? Let it sink in for while.

A few points to consider:
A big boolit that flies far away and still hurts is also good at reducing cover to concealment at closer ranges. Fighting in a city is a lot easier if the enemy knows that they have to run away from the window of a building after a few shots, because your shots will rip through the wall of the building and still have enough energy to injure him.
If you want your troops to effectively fire at long range, then you need to train and equip them accordingly. With a bipod they can go prone and be more accurate while presenting a smaller target, and with a good flash hider (and with barrels and cartridges that are actually optimized to work together) and some basic camo they shouldn't be that easily spotted.
You can train people to be accurate with a rifle, it just requires capable enough people and the willingness to pay the bills. Just look at Switzerland for a good example.

Attached: Stgw57.jpg (1920x1080, 329.77K)

YOU ARE REQUIRING A PLATOON TO WIPE OUT A SINGLE ENEMY FIRETEAM YOU MORON.

IF YOUR PLATOON HAS TO FOCUS ON THAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REST OF THE >>>>ENEMY

Doesn't US doctrine call for at least a 3:1 numerical advantage before committing an attack? So you'd need at least a platoon before engaging a squad anyways.

US doctrine is retarded, is the point. Getting a 7.62 neato something at fireteam level is barely the first movement towards the first step of untarding this clustefuck.

And I'm not saying this to put the country down, Canada has its own problems (two man fireteams wtf) and so does every other nation in the world, but we're all kind of looking up to America to at least be good at war.

.280 British got it right many moons ago but the US wanted 7.62 real fucking' NATO before going the other way and switching to a cartridge that has proven too weak.
I think something ~6.5mm straight cased with RDX propellant is the way to go for the foreseeable future with sub-caliber saboted projectiles being an easy adaption to deal with improvements in body armour.

At the end of the day why not make a bullet aerodynamically efficient and if you know you need more energy at point blank you are also going to have more energy at 500m.

We dont. We fix things by having a statistical firepower advantage over them.

Have you heard of the Soviet Afghan conflict? Or the Storming of Grozny? You've reached the disappointing level of idiocy here. The "I don't even do basic research" level of idiocy. But I'm sure the 131st motor rifle brigade would love to hear how from you how their armour was going to protect them.

Doctrines call for a lot of things, doesn't mean you'll actually have those luxuries though. And in a war my guess is you'll almost never have those luxuries so it's best to plan to make do without.

If we go by Russian doctrine, then that something should be a machine gun with a bipod. Then you have to remember that on paper a fireteam of the US Army carries 2030 cartridges, and only 630 of those are in magazines, the rest are 100 or 200 round belts for the SAW. Considering the general lack of foresight they've showed over the decades, methinks they'd just switch the M249 and the belted 5.56 to an M240 and belted 7.62 on a 1:1 basis.

I'd prefer UKM-2000, since it feeds from a steel box. Too many times have I seen ammo get tangled in a "lightweight pouch" and cause problems.

And it wouldn't need the same amount of ammo, just give it a switch to step down the rate of fire to compensate. Then carry the same weight of ammo.

Why not go the RPK route, and make an LMG that takes box mags, that's cross compatible with your IW magazines? It's easier logistically, and if shit goes sideways your MGs can grab ammo from other squaddies. It also encourages suppression through accurate sustained bursts, rather than spraying and praying, which helps conserve ammo.

But that only works if all long arms of the squad fire the same weapon, and in this case they'd all have to switch to 7.62. Which is why it would be beneficial to go for something inbetween 5.56 and 7.62, as you could design a cartridge that can do both jobs well enough. But of course it would have more power and recoil than 5.56, and according to quite a lot of people it means the average grunt couldn't use it for anything.

Although putting a casket mag into a FNFAL might be a more lightweight solution, it would lack a lot of the abilities of a real GPMG….. For example the concept of beaten ground isn't really spraying and praying. Also using non-disintegrating belts makes reloading a magazine from a belt pretty simple, or a belt from a magazine. Kind of promotes compatibility while keeping the massive weight of a box of ammo down to a minimum.

By the way Canada did this with the C1A1. We basically turned an FNFAL into a 30-round GPMG, used stripper clips to reload it and everything.

Although I think the future is to make everything belt-fed, you could actually make a system of belts, chargers and magazines.
Of course it only works if the belts and boxes are cheap enough, and it would be quite a hassle in a firefight to take out the cartridges from the belt with the charger and then load them into the rifle. Could somebody upload that webm of the soviets loading the magazines of their AKs from wooden boxes while shooting from a trench?

Attached: Always sunny in Chechnya.webm (512x360, 4.76M)

Let me try to guess the Hungarian future rifle.
Not sure if there's any underbarrel items to mount. Maybe a bayonet or something.
How close am I?

So far so good.
I think ~20" should be enough, and that's not too long, especially in a bullpup.
Nearly every NATO rifle and assault rifle can do that, so it's really nothing special. The difference is that it should be built to actually withstand the stress, and it should have a buffered stock to lessen the felt recoil.
Indeed, it should be telescopic and polymer cased, but I'm getting interested in flechettes, so I'm not sure in the eaxt calibre.
Just a rail or MLOK cutouts for the bipod and foregrip, and possibly a gun shield. Although that might be better off mounted to the top rail.
I think bayonets are completely obsolete, but they still can have a psychological effect that shouldn't be discounted. For this reason I'd consider going all out and putting a Mauser-type bayonet mount at the bottom of the forestock, but only if it's possible to cast the whole forestock as one piece. It should be a good 4-5cm away from the barrel, so you could still fire rifle grenades while the bayonet is mounted. But I must repeat that this is autisticly over-the-top.

Question Hun annon.I remember somewhere the discussion about how the profile of the modern rifle would be disadvantageous (the mag mainly). Would a solution be to mount the magazine sideways like a sten gun and have bullets eject to the side or behind?

Hungary confirmed as Helghast?

Attached: https_//s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/42/f9/d1/42f9d11285eb583c322af5204a641ee4.jpg (520x390, 83.67K)

Sideways mounting might ruin the balance, top mounted(P90) or bottom mounted, but parallel to the weapon(picrelated, it's a helical magazine in the case).

Attached: 800px-PP-19_Bizon_right_view.jpg (800x534, 63.47K)

Where the fuck are the rifle grenades? Hungary I thought we agreed on rifle grenades?!?!?!

The benefits of current CT ammo are good enough without replacing already stable resource chains. wrapping your bullets in dildo-crete is a bad(wasteful) idea and i'll eat my spoon license if the weight savings of the CT powder aren't higher than the savings on the case.

if we're going to switch away from the 5.56, let's just go back to 7.62x51 and in AR-10's. We know 7.62x51 can handle the long ranges and will eviscerate niggers in close range, it's already proven itself, if we really do think 5.56 is the problem and not micro-penis barrels, let's just switch back to 7.62.
IMO the real issue is micropenis barrels, we need to go back to 20" barrels.

Maybe in Denmark but if you lived in Italy, or new Zealand and your army wasn't made for a combination of mountain and amphibious actions you would be retarded. And if you planned on fighting on the stepps and didn't have a fast mechanised armies you would also be retarded

Also need a tank capable of crossing a swamp.

Actually pretty much any farmland turns into about a meter deep mud pit with a single rain, or after spring snow melts. 60t tanks only make sense if you live in a desert made of packed clay.

We always have aluminum if we need lighter cartridges at the cost of changing industry.

So you're saying we need more wiesel fighting vehicles, so we can invade the steppes through the swampy mountain farms?

Don't aluminium casings start to melt in automatics? also wont the aluminium oxide be bad for you?

I think it depends on length of powder burning and pressures, so 9mm might be fine but 556 might not. There are also alloys and that one gimmick nickel plated casing design shellshocktech.com/ . I'm very bad at chemistry, so i dunno about oxides.

Duration*
excuse my retardation, i start to mess wording even in 1st language when i'm sleepy.

I think a better solution is to use the URZ's feed system with downward ejecting the cartridges.
modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/urz-plamen-2/
Instead of only using drums the basic configuration should be just the feeding device in the magwell. Ammunition is then issued in 200 round boxes that the soldier can clip to his belt. Of course, the belt would come out on the shorter side of the box, this way you could hang two of them on one side if you want to. This way you don't even have a magazine hanging out from the bottom of the rifle, just a flexible belt, so you could go as low as the grip allows it. Not to mention that the loaded weapon would be hardly heavier than an empty one. And resupplying a squad would be a lot easier and quicker too, because the boxes could come out from the factory with belts loaded into them, and sent directly to the front line, where they have to just clip them on their belts. Then you can send back the boxes (and even the belts or belt links if you want to) to the factory a few times.
A possible problem is dirt, but I think you could have a strong brush on the feeding device that would cleanse every individual cartridge as they go into the action. A SAW gunner would need a backpack or something similar that can hold a longer belt, but that's still hardly a problem. Also, for patrols or second-line troops you could issue 25-30 round drums with belts inside them that all have a built-in feeding device, just like on the URZ.

Although I'm not sure how similar their history is to ours, it's true that my ideal uniform would be somehow similar to theirs.

I've mentioned them several times, but we are discussing cartridges and firearms here.

Hydrogen and carbon? I'm rather sure that this would be a non-issue if coal liquifidation would be properly developed, especially if you used nuclear energy to cover the energy needs of the process. But that leads to a completely different discussion.

So now instead of using a highly strategic resource which can easily be restricted during war time, you need to fund and develop an entirely new strategic industry sector. I know how set you are on having your perfect idea, but im telling you we could have a 90% perfect idea yesterday that is still compatible with conventional ramp type feed systems and bolts. it would mean you could continue to pay $700 for a modern fighting rifle without having to pay companies like heckler-fabriquen-sig an extortionate sum to produce their barely passing grade version of whatever weapon design you want. to sum up, i'd rather have a metallic CT cartridge running through an AR and spend the money that would be used on industrial development of new production lines on a fleet of Wiesels and/or other fun toys.

That sector should be developed anyway, expect if you want to rely on horses for a prolonged war.
We could have had idea decades ago. Even more, you could call Steyr today and tell them that you want to buy their ACR rifle, just loaded with a different calibre, and then just use a different polymer for the case. Or if you think that polymer is such a mystic substance that has to be summoned to our dimension in a Lovecraftian ritual that involves sacrificing toddlers and virgins, you could still make a CT cartridge from brass or steel or aluminium, or even cardboard if you really want to. It really is barely different from a rimless shotgun shell, and the weapons firing it wouldn't be arcane devices made of silver and unicorn tears.

Attached: brass_shotgun_shell_with_some_kind_of_a_memeprojectile.jpg (660x440, 104.28K)

lel, implying that im suggesting it's unobtainium just because i think all of the companies that can produce the rifle will charge you a bad price is a bit disingenuous. also, from the CT thread many moons ago you will remember that you can't, in fact, use just anything to house CT rounds because of case expansion and bullet alignment issues. You need a fairly robust material that can expand in the chamber as normal without without melting or allowing the bullet to re-align when the round is placed under stress. you will find that, actually, the plastics that can do that are quite expensive and high grade. your bullet shells will not and will never be made from the same types of cheap materials you get in TV dinners. you don't just make plastic from crude, or liquified coal, only a fraction of oil can be turned into a specific plastic. so yes, what you are asking for is rarer than you seem to think it is.

im telling you as a matter of fact, that steyr will never sell you that fancy gun for anything like what you can get an AR (or any other) type rifle for, and that it will never ever ever be worth that much money in a bulk order. besides, if you were to drop Polymer why would you even want an ACR when you can use a feed ramp with metallic cartridges? it seems like you think im arguing against cased telescopic in general when i am infact just arguing against a specific material.

Fucking how is that a strategic resource? You know this shit can made made from cheap processed garbage oil right? Sure the globalist climate cucks might be kvetching but it's not like they'll be sticking around for another decade.

Wiesel has tiny tracks.

7.62x51 is incompatible with modern doctrine, it's just too heavy to be carried in the bulk for suppression until air / arty can be called in.
An intermediate cartridge is needed and while I agree longer barrels would help the reason they have gone is to make CQB easier. A solution that has been played with is bullpups and maybe a downward / forward ejection bullpup is the way to go, catch is the mushy trigger but I'm sure a trigger bar can be designed that is rigid enough to solve that.

Why not just design your super intermediate cartridge to be specifically designed for a set barrel length, whether that is 16, 14.5, or even 12 inches?

The reason 5.56 is havign so much trouble with current bullet designs is that it was originally designed for a 20in barrel. Simply design a bullet for 5.56 (or whatever) that can tumble/fragment reliable from a 14in barrel even at extended ranges FFS.

Attached: Bullitt.png (293x450, 7.85K)

I could be done with the right propellant, I wonder how you would balance it for a longer barreled SAW or would you just cut the SAW down too and sacrifice a little range.

Properly designed, the extra barrel length of an LMG wouldn't cause harm with this "super bullet", but you'd design it to be effective in your carbine-length rifle. The extra barrel length of the LMG extends that another 300m, shouldn't cause many problems as long as the internal pressure stays greater than 1atm, which is unlikely unless you're talking an "LMG" with a 2m barrel.

You are going to want a whole lot more than 1atm due to the high friction of rifling but I get what you are saying, even if it was designed for decent energy out of a short barrel with a bit of flare but higher energy out of the SAW length.

You get it! As a side-bonus, firing our super intermediate cartridge (SIC) out of an LMG would be almost completely flashless thanks to the longer barrel, even without using a suppressor.

6.5mm SIC … I like the sound of that.

Yes, plastics in general can, but CT ammo must use the highest grades of plastic (medical grade) in order to function, and regardless of whether or not its made from good oil or bad oil, war always causes a change in the energy market. every time you go to war your bullets get more expensive, even if it's only to the slightest of degrees that's dumb. Climate cucks are not important, name one modern war where one or more sides didn't have their oil infrastructure directly targeted, oil is THE strategic resource.

We already have 7.62x39mm with perfect barrel length of 16", it can also be used in shorter barrels without a huge loss of efficiency, or 300blk, if you have an AR. We have 10mm and can have something that flies better if we want an even shorter barrel cartridge.

I always found it weird to have your short range or even CQB weapon use 20" barrel.

Due to legal retardation armies cannot use expanding/fragmenting ammunition, unless you do it with a 556 FMJ. We could think of something, but the cartridge is still optimized for a longer barrel. Changing cartridge or going bullpup is a better solution Preferably both.

You thinking backwards. Armors are needed to support infantry.

Fake EU news.
All spritzer bullets tumble regardless of barrel length. If anything bullets from shorter barrels generally tumble earlier because of higher flight angle of attacks.
Anyway M855A1 solved all problems. Fragments from 7.5'' barrels and doesn't rely on unreliable tumbling like other military bullets, its essentially fragmenting hollowpoint bullet, very well masked for legal reasons. And the best thing? Europoors and slavs would never have such effective bullet design.

Why not just order trucks loaded with .308 for that price? 556 is used primarily because it's a budget choice that allows military to spend money on finding more attractive projects and opportunities to spend money.

Do you know M855A1 price? Because if you do you wouldn't write such bollocks.

M165(?) fragmented reliably due to a thin projectile jacket for it's size.

7N6 bullet tumbles due to the air gap in the nose.

.303 Mark VII and Mark VIII had an aluminium partial core in the projectile nose, leading to tumbling.

The new M855A1, on expriencing lateral torsion, can split at the join between the brass base and hardened steel nose.

My theoretical design
should combine the best of all these options.

Data from US combat operations says something quite different. M855 does not tumble reliably at range from a 14.5in barrel. Hence the introduction of M855A1 to try and fix this via fragmentation.

Literally fake news.

*yawn*

Page 5:
www.mlefiaa.org/files/ERPR/Terminal_Ballistic_Performance.pdf

Page 3:
armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

scribd.com/document/257827885/5-56mm-Projectile-Military-Information

itstactical.com/warcom/ammunition/military-ammunition-failures-and-solutions/

gunsandammo.com/uncategorized/m855a1-should-it-be-the-new-round-for-soldiers-and-marines/

7N6 already offers great tumbling, the problem with it is the complete lack of fragmentation that 556 might theoretically have. That's the main problem, and tumbling is required for it to fragment, along with high speed. Your design has steel core throughout the whole length of the bullet, i think this might prevent fragmentation, as your bullet is basically 7N6 with aluminum.

Problem is that such short barrel prevents bullet from reaching needed velocities to fragment of ranges longer that 150-300(depending on the bullet, powder load and bullet weight), then it just goes right through.

Perhaps this then.

The idea being to get the CG back so that yaw is maximised on penetration.

The BC and SD of this round would be very good if in the 6-6.5mm range, with maybe a 130gr bullet. Basically something like the 6.5x47mm Lapua perhaps, which is known for low recoil and excellent accuracy.

Attached: Bullitt2.png (293x450, 6.58K)

This is more like it, though i think it needs more empty space in the tip, and the steel rod should be flat on top.

I think it might be interesting for you to read this article, it's about designing rounds and how these things affect each other. There is also plenty of basic theory on wound ballistics. I actually started learning the theory from there myself.

Also, aluminum might add unnecessary complexity, it's easier just to use lead for weight or extend steel rod fro balance/something.

*yawn*

armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

>scribd.com/document/257827885/5-56mm-Projectile-Military-Information

>itstactical.com/warcom/ammunition/military-ammunition-failures-and-solutions/
www.mlefiaa.org/files/ERPR/Terminal_Ballistic_Performance.pdf
same bullet shot from another rifle.
Now we getting somewhere.

Here is the real ballistic science for your, europoors:
thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/28/weekly-dtic-fleet-yaw-problem-improving-rifle-effectiveness/

History today. Russians switched to 7N10M that doesn't have any cavity. Where is you tumbling now?

All spitzer bullets have CG of behind COP and therefore tumble. What are you are talking about is increasing distance between CG and COP. BTW you can achieve such much easier making ogive part longer, also with increase of BC. All without multipart bullet construction. Still would be susceptible to fleet yaw though.

7n10 is just enhanced penetration round, so whatever. I guess that budget won't be spent itself.

The problem is that the tumbling is not enough, that's why it needs to be enhanced. it will yaw a bit, go off course and ice pick through a few cm more of tissue, while we need almost instant yawing when the bullet enters the body.

I googled and 7n10 was accepted to reduce lead consumption and increase penetration, so it was like m855, but with added goal of easier manufacturing(or was m855 the same?).

M855 was introduced to increase effective range of 5.56 from 500m to 1200m. (effective range was defined as range of soviet steel pot penetration). When m855 achieved such penetration at 1200m, NATO generals were of course pissing themselves from glee.

Effective range of 5.56 is 300m, 400 with good HP because it relies in fragmentation. M855 decreased the effective range compared to the previous version because it had less velocity which became even worse with the adoption of short barrels.
abesguncave.com/why-556-223-is-both-the-best-and-worst-ar-15-cartridge/

...

this effective range requirement is retarded, go try again

are you sure that's right? it would seem very strange to have the effective range of any round stop at 300m. it would mean roughly half of all WW2 engagements would be out of the effective range of the rifle/round. could it be that 300m is the range of accurate fire?

Attached: 1508720458323.jpg (930x1024, 77.25K)