Weapon Questions

For those who think the 5.45 x 39mm is a fox hunting round:

VARIATIONS ON THE M16 THEME

The Beowulf wasn’t the only AR15/M16-style weapon on the Alexander Arms table. The group also brought its .21 Genghis, and selected the Shoot-out as the venue for unveiling the new .26 Grendel. Fewer than two dozen people had even seen the Grendel prior to the Shoot-out, a company spokesman told AFJ.

Like the Beowulf, the Genghis is built around an M16 operating system, but is chambered for the Soviet-designed 5.45-by-39mm cartridge, the round for which the AK-74 assault weapon is chambered. This round, Alexander Arms personnel pointed out, delivers 20 percent less recoil than a 5.56, yet creates a wound cavity up to 30 percent greater than the M16’s 5.56 round.

The Genghis at the Shoot-out was a semiautomatic version – it lacked three-round and full-auto capabilities; nonetheless, our evaluators found the 11-inch-barreled system a great weapon.
“It’s easy to shoot; very similar to a 5.56 M4,” an evaluator said. “Alexander Arms claims it has better ballistics than the 5.56; the lower cost of ammo is its main appeal over 5.56 use.”

Another found it “a dream to shoot. It has countersniper written all over it. The form and fit were unmatched – what a great gun.”

Alexander Arms sees the lower-cost ammo -officials say 5.45-by-39mm rounds can be purchased for approximately half the cost of 5.56 ammunition – makes the Genghis an attractive training system for M16 users.

“It has no recoil,” another noted. “Comfortable to shoot; easy to keep on target. I’d like to try one on full auto and with three-round bursts.”

“Super-low recoil and smooth operation,” another said.

But at least one evaluator felt the weapon would face an uphill battle in being adopted by U.S. military units. “I’m very much impressed with the weapon,” he said, “but the caliber limits its potential adoption.”

Only a few evaluators got to try their hand with the new Grendel, but those who did liked what they saw. One of them found the 6.5 round “very easy to shoot,” and was impressed by the 120-grain round’s 2,600 fps speed.

“Good integration of the AR-series frame,” another said. He and his colleagues gave the new weapon a resounding thumbs-up.

As learned in Afghanistan and again in Iraq, the M16’s 5.56 round lacks the punch needed for long-range engagements. That’s why Special Operations Command has been toying with the idea of adopting a larger round – something on the order of a 6.8 – for some time. So it’s probably no coincidence that Alexander Arms has adapted an AR15/M16 platform for its 6.5 round, and why company officials demonstrated the Grendel’s abilities from the 600-yard line at Blackwater.

Seems to me the only objection to the 5.45 x 39mm round is political.

For further info and a way cool 76mm shoulder fired gun go to:

http://www.militarycity.com/blackwater/videos.html

(Click on analysis to get the text above)

In the mean time… who has the biggest silencer… here is my submission:

Cool!!!!! I like the look of that!!!! Reminds me a little bit of that FN Herstal P-90… with a mag and pistol grip!

Hooray… it worked.

BTW now that I look at it notice that the magazine housing is level with the scope. If the empty cases are ejected level with the mag this should mean you could fire this weapon left or right handed… presuming that with your eye 2 inches behind the scope for a proper view empty shells should eject in from of your face… as opposed to into your face.

Hmmm, will it work????

I think so.

I just succeeded!

atc pal

Are they sorted now?? Because I want to see this SA-80 carbine!!! C’mon Garry… post the pic!!

P.S There was picture posting problems during the week-end

best regards atc pal

“Teller was suggesting it quite possible to make a 500 or so megaton fusion device weighing 5 tons. “

The real problem with nuclear weapons in space is that they are not as efective in a vaccuum. The only shockwave generated is transmitted by the mass of the original device and any matter it heats and vapourises. Just look at the sun… the biggest nuclear explosion within a light year of Earth and although it does generate a 900km/s solar wind Astronauts on the moon were not in the slightest hurt or effected by it.

I think the two most important features of an anti asteroid weapon would be range… ie distance from earth it is effective, and penetration before detonation (which also requires an accurate idea or model of the target and accuracy of the payload for an impact in just the right place).

A glancing hit will just heat one side of the object, and a direct, perfect hit as it passes the moon will result in a shotgun blast of radioactive material with pieces probably big enough to do more damage than a single big hit… of course it all depends upon whether we spot the target early enough (Early early warning satellites picked up 50 MT blasts in the Earths upper atmosphere… later to be found to be asteroids that are quite regularly hitting our atmosphere)

A very complex issue.

“I’m told it’s theoretically possible to build 10 megaton weapon with a weight of around 1000 kg’s, which suggest no DU in the package?”

The 24 MT warhead of the Soviet SS-18 (R-36M) weighs 7,250kg. I don’t know if DU is used or not. Fission warheads in conventional artillery rounds for D-20 152mm (6 inch) howitzers in the 2KT power range weight only 40kg and backpack nukes with weights down to 20kgs with variable powers of 200-900 tonnes of TNT have certainly been made.

Garry,

With air carried US and UK fusion bombs, the yield can be adjusted by what’s called a dial-a-yield device that looks like an old telephone dialer. Basically it adjusts the amount of trituim gas involved in the reaction thus moderating the eventual yield?

Ps do you know if modern fusion weapons still use depeleted uranium as an x-ray tamper for the deterium load? I’m thinking of the old multi-megaton Castle Bravo designs which weighted 20 tons of course. I’m told it’s theoretically possible to build 10 megaton weapon with a weight of around 1000 kg’s, which suggest no DU in the package?

One of the most interesting discussions on this subject was a paper by Edward Teller on how to build at massive meteorite smasher weapon, which involved getting as much bang out of 5 tons as possible – five tons is important because it’s the average orbital throw weight of most rockets at the moment. Teller was suggesting it quite possible to make a 500 or so megaton fusion device weighing 5 tons.

I’ll try find this. It was very interesting. I’m sure you’ve seen it?

Just trying to post that SA-80 pic again…

“Sorry to disappoint you but the current AK is 5.45 not 5.56. If they want to stick to fox hunting round they would do better to go for the FN P-90”

I was referring to the AK-100 series that updated the AKM to AK-74M level and introduced both standard and short barrel versions in 5.56mm.

Regarding performance the only testing and evaluation of the Russian 5.45mm round in an M16 based rifle showed it to have half the perceived recoil of the 5.56 and adequate terminal effects that were comparable to the 5.56mm at close range, and also at longer range (with a full length tube the 5.56mm round tumbles and fragments on targets within about 200m. Outside 200m or at any range with the short barrel versions like the M4 the round does not disintegrate at any range and has less than stellar performance on soft targets. The 5.45mm round is designed to tumble on impact and does so at any range.)

Originally posted by GarryB
“Played with a 203 for a fortnight a few years ago. Now THAT’s a weapon.”

If you are going for a change why not go all the way and get the best… the GP-30.

It is smaller, lighter, and is muzzle loaded (the round is like a mortar round so there is not empty case to eject). Also they already have an airburst grenade for it… based on bounding mines.. a small charge blows the grenade back up into the air about 1.5-2m and it detonates there.
Also you can just clip it onto any AK series rifle… it uses the bayonette lug to attach it.
The current model AK in NATO 5.56mm is apparantly quite accurate and has a folding stock that actually reduces the length of the weapon by a significant amount… the “collapsable stock” on the M4 only reduces the length by 3-4 inches… more of an adjustable stock really.

Anyway… I’ll have another go at posting this picture…

Sorry to disappoint you but the current AK is 5.45 not 5.56. If they want to stick to fox hunting round they would do better to go for the FN P-90

“Played with a 203 for a fortnight a few years ago. Now THAT’s a weapon.”

If you are going for a change why not go all the way and get the best… the GP-30.

It is smaller, lighter, and is muzzle loaded (the round is like a mortar round so there is not empty case to eject). Also they already have an airburst grenade for it… based on bounding mines.. a small charge blows the grenade back up into the air about 1.5-2m and it detonates there.
Also you can just clip it onto any AK series rifle… it uses the bayonette lug to attach it.
The current model AK in NATO 5.56mm is apparantly quite accurate and has a folding stock that actually reduces the length of the weapon by a significant amount… the “collapsable stock” on the M4 only reduces the length by 3-4 inches… more of an adjustable stock really.

Anyway… I’ll have another go at posting this picture…

Originally posted by atc pal
Something is missing after the SA-80 😉

Yeah – invnetion and investment. Bloody thing. Hate it. Always have hated it. It doesn’t work, never has, and never will. 😡

Played with a 203 for a fortnight a few years ago. Now THAT’s a weapon. Even just the bog standard 16 would do us, only two bits to clean, and even they’re just wipe dry. 😀

Damn tried to edit the post and repost it before anyone noticed… 😉

Hey Garry! Something is missing after the SA-80 😉

Best regards
atc pal

Variable yield weapons simply means that the power of the blast can be set. It would depend on the individual weapon of course as to whether they could be changed in flight or not.
Very simply a fisson weapon can be varied in power simply by not firing explosive charges inside the weapon. A fission device will explode when it reaches critical mass. Assuming critical mass is say, .8kg, then a ball made up of 20 .3kg masses designed to be explosively crushed together to make a single mass of 6kgs. If half of the charges are not fired then you get a mass of 3kg… which is still heavier than critical mass so there will still be a nuclear explosion, the other 3kgs or nuclear material will just get vapourised and blown away. With a Fusion weapon it is just as simple, the barriers designed to promote the creation of xrays that stimulate the deturium and cause fusion are moved so that not all of the deturium fuses.

Regarding strange guns… check out this (a carbine version of the SA-80):

The soldiers weapon and kit look like pure Hollywood to me. Look above the barrel where it disappears into the main body of the weapon, you’ll see three little missiles poking out.

Variable yield: They are certainly predetermined/fixed. I’m a little hazy if they could be changed in flight. (Aircraft delivered). I think they would be changed to suit the target. (Using the lowest yield possible.) Being quite a pain to move around, you would have more flexibility in your stockpile. I guess USA/NATO predicted they would have to use nuclear weapons on their own turf to stop a USSR/WAPA attack, and was again interested in the smallest possible weapon.

Don’t know about the Boeing gun. The muzzle looks quite ordinary!

regards atc pal