|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 22, 2023, 09:04 PM | #451 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Quote:
Tungsten has a lot of uses. Depleted Uranium isn't quite as versatile.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 24, 2023, 11:46 PM | #452 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 252
|
The US is supposed to have about 750,000 tons of DU and about 200,000 tons of tungsten. According to the estimates in this article: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...blem-tungsten/
The 200,000 pounds, plus what the US could import from friendly nations and reclaim from industrial operations, would only last three years in a major conflict. Supposing DU were to be used instead, it might provide several more years supply of small arms ammunition -- of course, it wouldn't be without controversy and other dilemmas. But how does the 277 Fury factor into this? 308 or even 223 with tungsten penetrators are just as viable against body armor as 277 would be. What's the supposed advantage of the Fury? |
December 25, 2023, 12:56 AM | #453 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Location: About 20 nm from the Big Muddy
Posts: 2,887
|
Could somebody here summarize whether there was generally a Single reason to consider the change From 5.56,
or possibly the two most important reasons? It makes no difference to me (I don't own anything in 5.56/.223), simply curious. |
December 25, 2023, 03:01 PM | #454 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Quote:
2) the money was there to do it with The military spent the best part of half a century tweaking the M16 and its ammo, and it appears that finally, NOW, they have given up on that, and since they never seem to go back to what worked before and was abandoned, they must go forward, with the latest, greatest "new" thing. I can think of no situation where a .277 caliber rifle can provide a significant practical advantage over a .308 caliber rifle. A measurable difference, yes. A significant improvement? I don't see it. Do note that comparisons against the 7.62 NATO are nearly always against M80 ball and standard, current GI ball ammo is not the only loading possible, its just what is in common use. And its was created to replicate the WWII GI .30-06 performance. Sure, the new 6.8 outperforms that in several ways. Makes the 6.8 look really good. What happens when you load the 7.62 NATO up to its potential, using the same kind of "tricks" the 6.8 uses?? The basic problem faced by our military is they want a one ring to rule them all, and don't want to accept the fact that there's no free lunch.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 25, 2023, 04:10 PM | #455 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Posts: 196
|
|
December 25, 2023, 06:22 PM | #456 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,546
|
It sticks in my head that the original plan was for a new machine gun and the rifle just scabbed on later. Common ammo, si. Other features, maybe.
Has anybody compared expensive AP (Say, is it metallic tungsten or cemented tungsten carbide? I sense some confusion and conflation.) and exotic AP (Uranium, really?) with good old WWII hard steel? |
December 25, 2023, 09:07 PM | #457 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Did a little checking, and WWII (and I believe still currently) .30 AP uses a hardened steel core, not tungsten.
Current "plate protection" will stop rifle caliber ball, not sure if it will stop AP, and the plates are not large, and, of course no vest will stop the energy dump. The amount of DU on hand is, essentially only limited by what the govt is willing to spend "refining" it. Literally, all spent nuclear fuel can be refined to remove the Uranium, which makes up over 90% of the mass. Refining the Uranium from the fuel is a strait forward chemical process, and while not cheap to build, one refining plant could process then of thousands of tons a year. We have a LOT of spent nuclear fuel in storage, left overs from Cold War weapon production, spent fuel from Navy reactors and even the fuel from Commerical power plant reactors can be a source for DU. It would be interesting to see some testing results from hitting the "dreaded new body armor" with standard .30 M2 AP. Comparing those results with the 6.8mm against the same armor. And also what might be the results if we "upgraded" our standard .30 AP. Not going to see that, until after we get our hands on what ever the enemy's new body armor actually is, but it would be interesting, I think. I find it somewhat ironic that the 62gr 5.56mm with its steel penetrator insert was developed and fielded to counter the (then new) Soviet pact body armor, that (as far as I know,) we have never faced, to date. Are we doing something similar with the 6.8mm?? Time will tell.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
December 25, 2023, 11:05 PM | #458 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,238
|
I did see a test using both the 277fury and the 6.8 military cartridge on level 4 plates both failed to penetrate on the first hit, I think the military cartridge did get through on the second shot, but neither version had penetrator bullets. Both made a mess of the plates, but the military version packed more punch than the 277fury.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
December 26, 2023, 06:33 PM | #459 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 2, 2018
Posts: 252
|
M2 is hardened steel and it is the standard that all level IV plates are tested to, so by definition, the ammo's performance would have to exceed that of M2 AP (hardened steel penetrators out of .30-06) to defeat level IV plates. 7.62x51 AP (M61) is less capable than M2, so while it may be more prevalent nowadays, there's no point to testing it since level IV plates stop the superior M2.
To defeat level IV plates requires tungsten penetrators or something more powerful than .30-06, like 338 Lapua AP485 or 50 BMG API. Uranium is not unprecedented. It has been or is being used in Ukraine and it's use is controversial because it contaminates the area where it is used. Although it is "depleted," it's still radioactive and it can contaminate an area for a very long time. Spraying entire countries with tens of billions of radioactive uranium bullets, amounting to scattering hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste would be disastrous in the very long term on top of what the war itself would destroy in the shorter term. While I don't doubt that DU would be used on the battlefield, I expect it would see greater demand for use in 30mm canons, 120mm anti-tank rounds, 105 and 155mm artillery and more. Consuming it for small-arms use by regular infantry forces (non-SOCOM) seems an unlikely scenario. |
December 26, 2023, 07:46 PM | #460 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,526
|
There are plenty of people being killed or suffering disabling injuries from being shot by small arms cartridges that aren't the new 6.8 common cartridge. But the real killer in Ukraine isn't small arms, it's artillery.
|
December 26, 2023, 09:14 PM | #461 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,679
|
Quote:
|
|
December 26, 2023, 09:46 PM | #462 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,238
|
Artillery is called “The King of Battle” for a reason
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
December 26, 2023, 10:44 PM | #463 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Quote:
I don't see where the slight difference makes the M61 less capable in significant terms. Quote:
Significant parts of the Ukraine are already contaminated, with things much more hazardous than DU, thanks to Soviet era nuclear accidents, particularly Chernobyl. Contamination means a detectable level of some kind of material where you don't want it to be. IT is the levels, and type of contamination that determine if concentrations are hazardous, or not. Radiation detection instruments are extremely sensitive. They will detect level of radiation well below natural background levels. Few people outside the nuclear industry (and nuclear medicine) know much about radioactive materials, and much of what they do "know" is flat out wrong. DU is not a radioactive threat to health and life. Natural Uranium ore is actually slightly worse in that regard. You don't want to breath DU vapor or dust, Uranium fines (dust/small particles) are highly pyrophoric, meaning the catch fire and burn readily, and that's a significant hazard, too. Metallic DU is no where near the threat some people make it out to be.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
December 26, 2023, 10:47 PM | #464 | |||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Quote:
I don't see where the slight difference makes the M61 less capable in significant terms. Quote:
Significant parts of the Ukraine are already contaminated, with things much more hazardous than DU, thanks to Soviet era nuclear accidents, particularly Chernobyl. Contamination means a detectable level of some kind of material where you don't want it to be. IT is the levels, and type of contamination that determine if concentrations are hazardous, or not. Radiation detection instruments are extremely sensitive. They will detect level of radiation well below natural background levels. Few people outside the nuclear industry (and nuclear medicine) know much about radioactive materials, and much of what they do "know" is flat out wrong. DU is not a radioactive threat to health and life. Natural Uranium ore is actually slightly worse in that regard. You don't want to breath DU vapor or dust, Uranium fines (dust/small particles) are highly pyrophoric, meaning the catch fire and burn readily, and that's a significant hazard, too. Metallic DU is no where near the threat some people make it out to be. Quote:
Both terms created centuries before the existence of airpower.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||
December 30, 2023, 01:35 AM | #465 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,328
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
December 30, 2023, 02:03 AM | #466 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,005
|
Quote:
You need to take a deep breath, actually read what's being posted and respond to the content of posts--that's going to be a much more effective tactic than browbeating, repetition and large text. What you're doing is a recipe for how to not be taken seriously. Your response to rickyrick is a perfect example. You either didn't understand his post, or didn't read it, or chose to ignore the content. You posted a response that didn't directly address his comments--not even the very brief portion of his post you chose to quote--and added large text formatting as if that's going to make your response more relevant. It doesn't.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
December 30, 2023, 03:02 PM | #467 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
The use of oversize fonts and special colors is the forum equivalent of shouting or screaming at the top of your lungs.
It is the written expression of the common tactic used by people who don't have a valid argument. You cannot "shout down" your opposition in a written forum, and doing so just makes you look foolish, and actually diminishes the weight people will give to your points.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
December 30, 2023, 03:54 PM | #468 |
Staff
Join Date: March 20, 1999
Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia
Posts: 16,955
|
After 4 1/2 years and 19 pages, this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, bent, spindled, and mutilated. The time to close it down has finally come.
|
|
|