Main Military Weapon of Your Country: Part 12

[Yes Im Biop]

Are there any man-portable rocket launchers that are capable of locking onto both aircraft and ground vehicles?

Javelin can engage both ground and air targets, in different missile flight profiles.

I'm sure that, in theory, an IR-guided missile such as Stinger may be able to lock onto a sufficiently large IR source on the ground.

Isn't the Stinger a HE-FRAG Warhead though?

[Yes Im Biop]

Does anyone know is Osmium is a good penetratr? I Know it's heavy as hell, Quite a bit more so than Tungsten. I don't know if it's hard though

[Purpelia]

Does anyone know is Osmium is a good penetratr? I Know it's heavy as hell, Quite a bit more so than Tungsten. I don't know if it's hard though

Ain't osmium brittle?

[Yes Im Biop]

Does anyone know is Osmium is a good penetratr? I Know it's heavy as hell, Quite a bit more so than Tungsten. I don't know if it's hard though

Ain't osmium brittle?

I donno is why I asked.

[Aruschern]

Terminated.

[Imperializt Russia]

Javelin can engage both ground and air targets, in different missile flight profiles.

I'm sure that, in theory, an IR-guided missile such as Stinger may be able to lock onto a sufficiently large IR source on the ground.

Isn't the Stinger a HE-FRAG Warhead though?

I didn't say it would be effective, just that it might be capable of locking onto a large groundborne heat source.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Wait, what? No. BC is better HIGHER. HIGHER BC is better than low BC. Where did you get low from?

I...
*hangs head*
Beno, sir.

We all need to take a step back here and learn the basics of ballistics before we dive into the finer points, dont we?

Indeed.

[Yes Im Biop]

Isn't the Stinger a HE-FRAG Warhead though?

I didn't say it would be effective, just that it might be capable of locking onto a large groundborne heat source.

Fair enough. What would those be? The Exhaust of a Tank is all I can think of

[Yes Im Biop]

Assault Rifle: Mk.16SCAR-L
Sniper Rifle: Cheytac M200
Handgun:Desert eagle
Shotgun:Shooters Arms SAS-12
Anti-Tank Rifle:Carl Gustav pvg m/42 recoilless anti-tank rifle
Grenade LaunchersM20 M20B1 M20A1 Super-Bazooka antitank rocket launcher

(Sorry, Still new to Guns)

Switch the DEagle for a M9 or a M1911 and you have a pretty good loadout

[Coltarin]

How come the wiki page says that a 6.8 SPC has a diameter of 7.0mm?

[Yes Im Biop]

How come the wiki page says that a 6.8 SPC has a diameter of 7.0mm?

Actually Beno said this earlier XD

[Bezombia]

How come the wiki page says that a 6.8 SPC has a diameter of 7.0mm?

Also, bullet diameters are almost always larger than bore diameters in order to properly seal the rifling. Cartridge dimensions are 99.9% of the time given with bore diameter, because it's more constand between cartridges than bullet diamter is.

[Coltarin]

How come the wiki page says that a 6.8 SPC has a diameter of 7.0mm?

Also, bullet diameters are almost always larger than bore diameters in order to properly seal the rifling. Cartridge dimensions are 99.9% of the time given with bore diameter, because it's more constand between cartridges than bullet diamter is.

Sorry, I have you under foe still.

[Puzikas]

How come the wiki page says that a 6.8 SPC has a diameter of 7.0mm?

Shot in the dark: Because thats its diameter? Ever see how,regardless of names, cartridges diameters are often quite large differences? 7.62x39mm is actually 7.92/7.93mm, for example. This is because it preforms a proper seal between the rifling and the bullet, meaning spin happens.


We really need to do some learning.

[Tule]

Does anyone know is Osmium is a good penetratr? I Know it's heavy as hell, Quite a bit more so than Tungsten. I don't know if it's hard though

For small arms munitions?

Too brittle.

[Yes Im Biop]

Does anyone know is Osmium is a good penetratr? I Know it's heavy as hell, Quite a bit more so than Tungsten. I don't know if it's hard though

For small arms munitions?

Too brittle.

Tungsten it is

[Bezombia]

Sorry, I have you under foe still.

D:

[Coltarin]

Sorry, I have you under foe still.

D:

I just took you off.
Also which is more correct?
Original New

[Bezombia]

D:

I just took you off.

:­D

Also which is more correct?
Original New

New would be providing you aren't going for a 6.5mm bore.

[Premislyd]

better?

G3 magazine is measured at 25mmx76mmx152mm. Yours, thanks to the size of the 6.5x55, will be about 28x85x160mm.
Just for reference.

Right to scale then.

[Bezombia]

Re-done M1982. DC estimated at 0.22, which is good I presume. 103gr, 2,800fps.

Of course this completely invalidates my big-ass reference post (well...most of it), but that post invalidated itself with bad info.
This bullet holds on to velocity much better than my previous design, and the previous design was only 3gr less!
It crosses the 2,000 fps mark at around 280m, and the 1,000 fps mark at around 750m.
Rifling twist is 325mm for a 1.5x stability. I can't find the thingy to get 1.0x stability but 325mm isn't half bad.
ICly, introduced along with the cartridge itself in 1982, and replaced in 1985 with the M1982A1 and almost immediately afterward the M1985.


Other bullets based on that design:

103gr M1982A1. has a DC of ~0.1, which seems to be very good. Crosses the 2,000 fps mark around 460m, and the 1,000 fps mark...the calculator doesn't say. Odd.
Anyway, designed for longer ranges and superior soft target ballistics with the more rearward center of gravity, promoting tumbling & yaw & shit. Holds on to velocity very well at range, but has slightly less energy then the base M1982 for some reason. Rifling twist is about 310mm.
ICly, saw some service but was produced in far smaller numbers than the M1985, which was introduced at basically the same time.

117gr M1985. Has a DC of ~0.22, same as the M1982 but larger and heavier. Crosses the 2,000 fps mark at about 380m, and the 1,000 fps mark at around 1,050m. Where the M1982A1 is optimized for long ranges and the M1982 is supposed to be for all ranges, the M1985 was designed to be good in intermediate rifle range, and decent beyond that. It outclasses the M1982 at all ranges and the M1982A1's energy at most (although the -82A1 almost always beats it out for velocity), and it hangs on to 2000 FPS just long enough to be outside normal combat engagement ranges, whilst also punching more than either of the two M1982s. Rifling twist is about 280mm, shorter than that of either of the above bullets. Although physically heavier (slightly) and providing a lot more recoil than the other two, the performance enhancements were worth it and ICly the M1985 was the standard loading for the Benomian military from 1985 to 1992 when the cartridge, 7x47 Benomian, itself was replaced.

130gr XM1991. Loaded into a completely redone cartridge, with higher pressures and this bad boy coming out the front. Velocity is mostly maintained even though there's a much larger cartridge. DC of 0.2, lower than that M1985. Very long, very smooth. ~3,060 Joules at the muzzle. Passes over the 2,000 FPS mark at roughly 515m, and the 1,000 FPS mark at roughly 1,380m. Consistently beats out the M1985 in both velocity and energy. ICly underwent testing in the SA90 program, but was ultimately rejected due to the complexity, weight, and cost of the rifle that fired it (the criteria were basically "make a rifle so good that the cost doesn't matter, or make a rifle so cheap that the greatness doesn't matter." A modified Kalashnikov won). Recently (c. 2000s), a surprising market for XM1991 sporting/hunting rifles have appeared, with many new firearms appearing on the civilian market firing what is basically a carbon copy of the round under the name ".280 Mieser M1985A1".

[Coltarin]

I just took you off.

:­D

Also which is more correct?
Original New

New would be providing you aren't going for a 6.5mm bore.

Don't know how to fix that bit.

[Bezombia]

:­D



New would be providing you aren't going for a 6.5mm bore.

Don't know how to fix that bit.

Hmm? What bit?
I was saying that if you were going for a 6.5mm bore then the old worked, but for a 6.8mm bore the new works. I worded it poorly in my reply.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Don't know how to fix that bit.

Fix what bit?

[Coltarin]

Don't know how to fix that bit.

Hmm? What bit?
I was saying that if you were going for a 6.5mm bore then the old worked, but for a 6.8mm bore the new works. I worded it poorly in my reply.

Ah ok.