Re: Rail guns (was: US SOCOM desires...)

[Shawn Mulock <gurkha@xxxxxxxx>]

Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> > characteristics we can therefore make the weapons more accurate. We don't
> > need a new propellant technology to do this, as is evidenced by the .408
> > CheyTac "Intervention Rifle" and its being expected to be able to engage a
>
> <grumpy old man hat ON>
>
> While the .408 CheyTac has a lot of people all excited, I don't, not
> particularly.  Sometime, take a look at the arquebuses used by Gustavus
> Adolphus.  Most were chambered around an .80 cal and propelled by
> enormous powder charges.  The round shot was supersonic by the time it
> left the muzzle.

While the Arquebus was a leap forward in delivering damage, it was rather a
clumsy weapon by today's standards.

> In the last almost four hundred years since Maurice of Nassau modernized
> warfare by adding arquebuses, we've done no better than to double the
> velocity of the round.

The shape of the round has been a major step forward, we have improved
penetration/damage characteristics as well as manipulating the drag to give an
overall better ballistic performance.

> Minie invented spin-stabilization (Minie ball) in the mid-19th century.

The addition of gyroscopic stabilization was a major breakthrough for firearms,
no argument here, although I had no idea who had applied this concept, until
now.

> One of the finest weapons I've ever used was an antique 8mm Mauser
> Kar-98 rifle, dating back from just before the turn of the century.
> It'd been restored and the owner was putting it through its paces at the
> range.  It was a very sweet weapon, with fairly good accuracy.  I would
> actually prefer it over a post-1964 Winchester 70.

Preference, I am familiar with that. I am in a similar boat with my preference
of the SLR over the first issue of SA80s.

> The first assault rifle, the StG-44, influenced a great many designs,
> including the AK-47 which came along just a few years later.  The AK is
> almost sixty years old, and it's still a perfectly acceptable bit of
> kit--I wouldn't use it for precision shooting, but there are any number
> of Third World and Eastern Bloc countries that will give the AK family
> glowing reviews.

The Kalashnikov series of weapons are extremely reliable, and having had the
opportunity to use them, cannot say anything against them. Spetznatz Operators
are expected to maintain a high degree of accuracy with said weapon. No small
task, but doable (let's be honest, there is a reason why the Kalashnikov goes to
automatic first from safe). The StGW44 (called the MP-44 for political reasons)
also influenced western designs, for example the CETME and HK offerings in
roller Delayed Blow back, not to mention the British EM-2 & 4.58 rejected in
early NATO trials for the selection of a new weapon/cartridge.

> Okay, so the .408 CheyTac is thought to extend engagement range another
> few hundred meters by the time development is complete.  Fine, great,
> another triumph of engineering.  Two things, though:
>
> 1.  Given most engagements occur well within 300m, why is it so
> important to have a rifle that can reach out to 1500m?  Even for
> snipers, I question the wisdom--a Marine Sniper friend told me several
> years ago that while Marine Snipers practice at ranges up to 1km, they
> like to get considerably closer than that for the kill--less to worry
> about with wind gusting, with bullet time of flight, with your target
> moving his head between the time you pull the trigger and the time the
> bullet impacts, etc.  If Marine Snipers prefer to work well within 1km,
> why are we so ecstatic over a rifle with 1500m range?

I was not indicating any ecstasy over a weapon that can engage a human size
target at 1500-1600m, it was a statement of what I have been told/gleaned from
what little I know of the weapon. At that range the weapon is mostly an AMR
anyway.. much as the L115 is (Maximum Range to engage vehicles is ~1500m I
believe). It is simply there to back up my argument that the application of new
propellant technology is not really required to bring us to new levels of
accuracy. Besides, the same Marine will say they like, but may not get the
chance to. Most of the SPECFOR Snipers I know/knew as well as a few SOCOM guys
would be keen on such a range versatility. I was never a sniper, just the guy
who told the sniper team go/no-go. If a troop leader can minimize the number of
letters he has to send out after an operation, you can bet he will.

> 2.  Will the reality live up to the theory?  Often, it doesn't.

It has apparently already come very close to hitting targets of human size at
those ranges. Check the web site.

> ... If you want to talk about real advances in firearms technology, I'm
> hard-pressed to think of any in the last fifty years.  Caseless
> ammunition could've been a wonderful advance, but it seems to be dead on
> arrival.

Any leaps and bounds in Firearms Technology have already been made, I agree. Now
we tweak and gain better understanding of it, and thus make the weapon better.
It is a shame about the Caseless concept though. Maybe give it a few years...

S.




__________________________________________________________
Get Premium UNLIMITED Internet Access across CANADA for 
JUST $9.95/MONTH at http://www.get3web.com/?mkid=emt123