Gunsmithing Theoretical Question

[tepeter1]

Everyone take this with a grain of salt, but curious about other input.

I am a tank commander on the Abrams. These weapons are absolutely amazing, and the main gun when shooting sabot's requires almost no elevation to about 1800M. If the TIS sight fails and you have to bore shoot the weapon with the backup, an individual can hit as far as Line of Sight. This is because of the hyper velocity of the round, and God only knows what the BC of a Sabot is. The M1A1 or 2 both use the 120mm smooth bore gun (M256), and the propellant is probably classified (I don't know what it is), but the whole case burns with the exception of the cap and primer rod. The rounds themselves impart spin, and the weapon uses a smooth bore because velocity=kinetic energy, and our most lethal rounds are kinetic killers. There have been reports of training rounds that are not D/U being issued and penetrating soviet armor 12 to 6 through and through.

Has anyone on this site ever considered building a single shot shoulder fired weapon utilizing a smooth bore, super strong breech, machined steel projectiles, and unorthodox powder to try and mimick the 5220fps unclassified speed of the sabot. I personally believe the rounds shoot much faster than the posted speed, but I am no expert. It seems to me that how far and how accuratly one shoots is directly proportional to the amount that is spent on the equipment, and the amount of time spent training. If one were to design a projectile they could pretty much pick the BC they want and then build the projectile to function ideally at a given speed and build a weapon around it.

I just wondered what some thoughts were. Don't eat my lunch if this is oversimplified, but I don't want to write a thesis.

Thanks

 

[Kells81]

Re: Theoretical Question

5220 might be right, as far as spin it doesnt. Used to have to do fire patrol on the range while other platoons were gunning. When we would have to go out and put out the fire we would find fired Sabots. The fins are straight so that would negate the spin effect.

as far as shooting much faster than the posted speed you might be right. the posted speed of the Abrams series is like 45MPH but we both know thats BS.

It is a neat concept and I think one could pull it off with a 12 guage based round. There is a site here somewhere where people are doing some amazing stuff with the 12 guage based rounds.

 

[bohem]

Re: Theoretical Question

Poke-

It might impart spin, it might not. The fins will look straight to the eye. I've done quite a bit of rocket testing with dumb rockets and you need something like 1 second of angle for a projectile to spin stabilize when it has fins to support it. Not trying argue with you on it looking straight, I'm just offering my experience with them.

OP- It's an interesting concept to think about. I've been toying around with how to do it, the problem lies in being able to make the projectile/sabot fit into a bore that is less than 0.510" in diameter so that it doesn't classify as a destructive device.

Additionally, you start to worry about the enormous recoil produced for a shoulder fired weapon. There are reports of guys who shoot lots of big bore things like 50 BMG's suffering from blurred vision and detached retinae over the years because of their bodies absorbing the recoil from the massive rifles. They're not all that common, but it does happen.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Theoretical Question

Well, if folks are going with 12ga, maybe there's less of a good thing (recoil, etc.) with a 20ga.

The new Savage 220 20ga rifled S/G may be a place to start. The issue would be finding projectiles and sabots.

Projectiles? How about Flechettes?

...and why limit things to a single projectile?

Greg

 

[Keith Johns]

Re: Theoretical Question

Not shoulder fired....

Toyed with the idea of 38mm smoothbore saboted darts made from 3/8 drill rod.
Too expensive. Bout $30 a shot if buying the aluminum. and WAY too time consuming.

...In theory




I dont think anything shoulder fired will reach those velocities until Rail Guns get more funding.

 

[freeride]

Re: Theoretical Question

Steyr made this gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_IWS_2000

 

[Keith Johns]

Re: Theoretical Question

1,450 meter per second... thats fast

 

[WesP]

Re: Theoretical Question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: freeride</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steyr made this gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_IWS_2000 </div></div>

do want!!!

 

[tepeter1]

Re: Theoretical Question

The Steyr is amazing. I can't believe that I had not come across that at some point. That particular weapon was designed for armor penetration. My post was meant to focus on hyper velocity with ideal BC rounds as an exercise in ultimate long range accuracy. Tungsten or D/U penetrators and armor penetration are a byproduct of the velocities. My intent with this thread is more for extreme long range accuracy not an anti armor weapon although I realize that the two are synonymous. If I were personally very wealthy I would try and build a direct fire shoulder fired weapon that could shoot the horizon, just to see if it could be done.

 

[chad3]

Re: Theoretical Question

tepeter1,
I have to say you are one of the rare few that have come on here with a pretty good thought in the first few posts of his career (although long). Good for you, interesting idea. I hope you run with it and get done. I like the guys that come with an out of the box idea, but with facts to back it up, instead of the which is best?
Hope future posts are a here's how.
Chad

 

[tepeter1]

Re: Theoretical Question

Careful there Chad3, you might give me a case of the big head. JK! This is something I have thought about for a long time, and from a money standpoint will probably just continue to think about. One day however......