Tony WilliamsActually, rifles in .50 (12.7×99) and the Russian equivalent (12.7×108) are now commonplace, being used in the long-range sniping, EOD and anti-materiel roles, particularly by special forces. The rifles typically weigh 12-15 kg (26-33 lbs).
Rifles are also made in 14.5×114 calibre, despite the cartridge being almost twice as powerful as the .50. The Hungarian Gepard M3 weighs in at 46 lbs and the South African Mechem NTW-20 is available with interchangeable barrels, for either the 14.5mm or the 20mm round from the MG 151/20. Weight is around 60-65 lbs.
There are a couple of other 20mm rifles, the Finnish Helenius being chambered for the old 20mm ShVAK aircraft gun round, while the Croatian RT20 fires the 20×110 Hispano (with the help of some gas being ducted to the rear to reduce recoil).
All of these guns have big muzzle brakes to reduce the recoil, and usually have some sort of recoiling-absorbing mechanism.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by GarryB
[BFor many armies due to translations problems or errors the distinction is very blurred, with rifle calibre weapons called cannons or large calibre weapons called machineguns (30mm-40mm).[/B]
The low-velocity 30mm and 40mm automatic grenade launchers are generally called that – AGLs – or GMGs, for grenade machine guns. They are really a separate category from MGs or cannon, which would both be defined as high-velocity automatic weapons.
[i]It is generally a common sense thing… look at the weapon involved, its ammo, and its usage. A 20mm anti material rifle could be called a cannon, as it uses a cannon round, though a 14.5mm rifle is not called a HMG. So technically the difference is the use of a rifle calibre or a cannon shell… with HMGs being considered rifle calibre… [/B]
I’ve never seen such a usage, as a cannon is by definition fully automatic, and is always mounted rather than hand-held. The term ‘rifle calibre’ refers to the standard military rifle calibre, i.e. up to 8mm; the term HMG is reserved for larger calibre weapons, in practice between 12.7 and 15mm.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsWell, the history is a bit complicated. The following more detailed extract from another book of mine, ‘Rapid Fire’, might help:
“The current usage of these terms has only become generally accepted since the Second World War. Before then, the term “machine gun” was used to describe a relatively small-calibre weapon normally firing solid projectiles while larger weapons were called “automatic guns”. The name “cannon” was in English usage an obsolete term for artillery, which by that time were known as guns or howitzers depending on their function. The situation changed in British practice with the selection for the RAF of the French Hispano moteur-canon in the late 1930s. Anglicised as “cannon”, the name became adopted for the Hispano and subsequently for all other automatic shell-firing guns of 20mm or more calibre.
Different nations had different practices; in Germany, automatic weapons of up to and including 20mm were known as machine guns (Maschinengewehr) with larger calibres being known as cannon (Maschinenkanonen), leading to the MG and MK prefixes. In addition, designations based on function were used for particular applications, whether or not the weapons were automatic. A gun intended for the anti-aircraft role was called Fliegerabwehrkanone (sometimes given as Flugzeugabwehrkanone or Flugabwehrkanone), for the anti-tank role Panzerabwehrkanone and for mounting in armoured fighting vehicles Kampfwagenkanone; FlaK, PaK and KwK for short. The BK (Bordkanone) designation was used for very large calibre (37+mm) airborne cannon intended for ground attack.
Nomenclature also varied between services. In Sweden, the Air Force called their m/39 12.7mm and 13.2mm guns automatkanon, presumably because they were larger than usual for aircraft guns at the time, while their Navy called the m/32 25mm a kulspruta, (which translates as machine gun), presumably because this was a small weapon by naval standards.
Since the war the definition of a cannon as any fast-firing automatic weapon of 20mm or more has become generally accepted, at least in NATO. “
It has generally been the case that MGs fired solid bullets while cannon fired shells filled with HE, but there have always been many exceptions. In aircraft armament, even rifle-calibre guns have fired HE bullets, while cannon still fire solid shot as well as HE shells.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsFrom ‘Flying Guns: World War 2’ by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:
“Incidentally, there is no hard and fast rule about the difference between HMGs [heavy machine guns] and automatic cannon; national naming practices have varied. By more or less common consent, the term HMGs is nowadays applied to high-velocity machine guns with a calibre of between 12.7 and 15 mm. Current examples use bullets of similar construction to RCMGs [rifle-calibre machine guns]. Automatic cannon have calibres of 20+mm and usually fire projectiles with separate driving bands instead of bullet jackets.”
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by Vortex
Not really, the 25mm Vulcans used for the Harrier is relatively new too….it’s probably more effective. Since they’re going to use a smaller version of the guns, this should be a better gun to squeeze it down to 3 barrels to use caliber to make up for the loss of rps.
Well, the 25mm GAU-12/U is considerably heavier than the M61A2, let along a three-barrel version of it. There was an experimental GE325, which was a three-barrel version of the GAU-12/U capable of firing at 2,400 rpm, but it still weighed 120 kg (M61A2 = 92 kg, for six barrels). I presume that the interest in a three-barrel M61A2 is simply that it’s a small, light aircraft so they wanted a small, light gun.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by Vortex
according to some websites, the barrels on the M197 is shorter…and the pictures verifies that. Hence the one on the A-50 should be a 3 barrel version of the lightweight version of the M61.
There may be some confusion with the M195, which was the first helo version of the M61. That had six barrels but they were much shorter (102 cm instead of 152 cm). The M197 has three barrels, but the same length as the M61’s.
You are right that the new gun seems to be a three barrel version of the new M61A2, which has lighter barrels among other improvements. The M197 fires at 750 rpm, the new 3-barrel XM301 for the RAH-66 fires at 1,500 rpm and this new fighter gun manages 3,000 rpm. Basically all the same configuration and appearance, but the differences are in the details.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsI’m sorry but your velocity figure for the GSh-301 is way out. The Russian 30×165 cartridge (shared by the air force, army and navy in different weapons) produces velocities ranging from 860 to 960 m/s depending on the barrel length; the GSh-301 has the shortest barrel so develops 860 m/s. I have this from several different Russian sources. However, this is with a very heavy shell, weighing 390 grams, whereas the GIAT 30M791 shell weighs only 270 grams. The power of the two cartridges, in terms of muzzle energy, is actually identical at 144,000 joules. The effective range of the Russian cartridge is greater, as the heavy shell will lose velocity much more slowly.
The maximum rate of fire of the 30M791, according to GIAT’s own publicity, is 2,500 rpm for a weight of 120 kg. That of the GSh-301 is between 1,500-1,800 rpm for a weight of 45 kg. If you take an average 1,650 rpm for the GSh, three of them would produce around 5,000 rpm for a weight of 135 kg. That represents a far better power-to-weight ratio than the GIAT. It makes no sense to say you should add a seven chamber revolver to the weight of the GSh – it does very well without needing such an encumbrance.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThe best helo?
As has been said, the quality of an ASW helo depends on the electronic kit and weapons it carries (which is also probably the most expensive bit). Logically, that should be chosen first.
Which helo you then fit it into depends on your requirements, especially whether you need to use it on board ships (which may limit size) or if you want to achieve long range and endurance (which pushes size up).
If size isn’t important, and you can afford it, I don’t doubt that the EH.101 Merlin is the best you can get. The NH90 is a two-thirds scale alternative if you want something smaller. I doubt that it makes sense to get anything smaller still, except for shipboard-only use, or if you are only interested in short-range port protection etc. However, that’s without taking cost into consideration…
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThe most efficient armament is the GSh-301 as used in the MiG-29 and Su-27 families. Approximately the same rate of fire as the BK 27, firing equally powerful ammo, but with less than half the weight. For only slightly more weight than one GIAT 30M791 you could fit three of them, with a total RoF of around 5,000 rpm. They’re a bit hairy in operation, however, with smoke and spent cases bursting out of them – there’s a short video of a ground test somewhere on the web.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsThe GIAT weighs 20% more than the Mauser and is bulkier as well (it has a seven-chamber cylinder). And it has a belt-fed ammunition feed instead of linkless. And the ballistics are different so the ballistic computer would need reprogamming. And the different rate of fire would produce different vibration frequencies, so all of the plane’s systems would have to be checked for compatibility….
The shell may have a larger calibre than the BK 27 but the weight is almost the same (270 v 260g).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsThanks for your comments! I’ve never seen any accuracy figures for the Gast-type twins, but as the barrels are fixed there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be as accurate as anything else.
Tony
Tony WilliamsRe: jpkj
Originally posted by PILOTGHT
the best gun who equilibrate the gatling rate with more heavy bullets is the DEFA 791B
this gun is a 30mm , 2500s/mm with explosives bullets that ares designed for armored and aircrafts destroy, it’s a monotube rated as the best in service actually! best because his coller system and high sharpness at hight rate!
Well, the Russian GSh-30 twin-barrel gun fires equally powerful 30mm ammo at 3,000 rpm, and at 105 kg it weighs less than the 30M791 🙂
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by Transall
Thanks for the clarifications, guys.Tony, I’ll be checking out your website, but this question may be of interest to some others here too.
On page 48 of the Typhoon booklet the BK is called a “revolver type cannon “.
Why is it called that? Which is the revolving part? It’s not a multi-barrel gun. Are ther revolving chambers behind the single barrel?TIA, Transall.
Flex said it – the only correction I’d make is that the rotary guns aren’t quite as heavy as he says.M61A1 = 114 kg, M61A2 = 93 kg, GAU-12/U = 123 kg. These weights are for gun only; the US rotaries also come with large and complex ammo magazines and feed arrangements, which roughly double the weight. The Russian rotaries mostly use belt feed and weigh 75 kg for the GSh-6-23 and 160 kg for the GSh-6-30.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by flex297
Yes, 1700, sorry for my misinformation.The main problem of the Mauser could be its rare 27mm caliber, which is pretty much optimised for ideal performance, yet still very uncommon. The GAU-12 is said to be the best Gatling ever produced so this pick does not really surprise me. Why does not the F/A-22 use the 25mm Equalizer as well?
Flex
Availability of existing 25×137 ammunition in US service was one of the cost savings mentioned for the change from the 27mm. I don’t know why it wasn’t used in the F/A-22, I wondered that at the time; the M61A2 has the benefit of a faster spin-up to a higher rate, and it’s lighter, but each hit is much less effective.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Sign In
