# Ammo load



## qazwsx (14 Mar 2009)

As far as you know, how much ammo do machine gunners and machine gun teams of other countries carry? I know this can vary a lot but there must be standard loads recommended by doctrine and usual loads that would be typical.



NB: I am not asking about what the Canadian military standard load is. This seems to get your thread put into limbo until someone deigns to take a look at it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> As far as you know, how much ammo do machine gunners and machine gun teams of other countries carry? I know this can vary a lot but there must be standard loads recommended by doctrine and usual loads that would be typical.
> 
> 
> 
> NB: I am not asking about what the Canadian military standard load is. This seems to get your thread put into limbo until someone deigns to take a look at it.



How about you go to their forums and ask?


----------



## qazwsx (14 Mar 2009)

I thought of that, but I figured I'd get an answer like:"I'm locking this until one of the more all-knowing Mods has a look at the question." which is what happened when I asked the same question about the Canadian military.



So, if I ask about country X on a forum dedicated to country X, that information is not to be disclosed about military X. If I ask about non-X militaries on a forum dedicated to military X, I get told to go to non-X forums, where they won't want to disclose that information about their own military. Ever read/watched Catch 22?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2009)

So does that mean you're asking what Canadians carry on those other forums?

Why do you want to know?


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> As far as you know, how much ammo do machine gunners and machine gun teams of other countries carry? I know this can vary a lot but there must be standard loads recommended by doctrine and usual loads that would be typical.



I am NOT pissing on anyone's parade here, but quite frankly, IMHO, I really don't think this should be discussed on an open PUBLIC forum.

We know how much we carry, or how much we are capable of carrying. On my tour in Iraq, as an Australian, we had more than enough to get the job done confidently, efficiently, and effectively

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2009)

Here's us 'bombing up' in Kuwait, the evening before our push into Baghdad   ;D

OWDU


----------



## qazwsx (14 Mar 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So does that mean you're asking what Canadians carry on those other forums?
> 
> Why do you want to know?




I haven't asked on other forums. This seems like a pretty informative place and people from other countries don't really care or know much about Canada anyway : )

I want to know because I have an idea for lighter rounds. I already know that a 5.56 NATO round usually weighs 180 to 200 grains and that a 7.62 NATO is usually 380 to 400 grains. I have an estimate of the weight saving per round but to know the overall weight saving, I'd need to know how many rounds machine gunners typically carry. 

I figured information like that wouldn't be extremely sensitive since MGs are unsophisticated small arms and that even the ammo capacity of tanks is freely available.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> ....and people from other countries don't really care or know much about Canada anyway : )



I think that is a foolish thing to say. Canada is at war, and our enemies do read this site.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Here's us 'bombing up' in Kuwait, the evening before our push into Baghdad   ;D
> 
> OWDU



you taking pics and the rest bombing up ....


tsk tsk tsk


 ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> you taking pics and the rest bombing up ....
> 
> 
> tsk tsk tsk
> ...




 :nod:, for the war records, ha!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> I want to know because I have an idea for lighter rounds. I already know that a 5.56 NATO round usually weighs 180 to 200 grains and that a 7.62 NATO is usually 380 to 400 grains. I have an estimate of the weight saving per round but to know the overall weight saving, I'd need to know how many rounds machine gunners typically carry.



Why don't you just work on calculating savings per 200 round belt?

Keep in mind that lightening the bullet will have a variety of ballistic effects leading to changing the effectiveness of the round on the target.  Just using a lighter material may create more problems than it solves.  You might want to investigate the various trials of caseless ammunition, where experiments to decrease the soldier's load by reducing casing material and weight was considered preferable over reducing the weight of the bullet.


----------



## qazwsx (14 Mar 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I think that is a foolish thing to say. Canada is at war, and our enemies do read this site.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> OWDU





I meant that even if I were to ask about Canada on other forums, the people on other forums won't know what Canadian MGers carry because they don't care. The only non-Canadians who might know that are, as you point out, its enemies. But I don't think Canada's enemies would answer anyway.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> I But I don't think Canada's enemies would answer anyway.



Answer?

Sorry, but its about blabbing information which is unnecessary. Like Mike said, figure things out per 200rd belt on whatever calibre, you do the math, ammo weight vs average mans weight, plus weight normal kit carried (rats, frags, h20 etc).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2009)

Perhaps you could tell us, in general terms (so you don't blow your patent application)  ,what your idea is for making rounds lighter.  There are many really knowledgeable people here on the subject of small arms- they might be able to tell you if your idea is a good one without getting into the whole cans of worms about what an average soldier's loadout is.


----------



## qazwsx (14 Mar 2009)

Michael,

Calculating the weight per belt without knowing the number of belts carried wouldn't tell me the expected weight saving (or supplemental ammo carrying capacity) that could gained per man/MG team.

"Keep in mind that lightening the bullet will have a variety of ballistic effects leading to changing the effectiveness of the round on the target."

I'm thinking of something more radical than changing the material although that's involved too. As you point out, reducing the sectional density of the projectile isn't the way to go to lighten the round. 

I'm thinking of a design that would reduce the weight of the bullet while maintaining its diameter and frontal density. This would produce a lighter projectile but would preserve its range and penetration.

Caselessness seems like a requirement for any round that seeks to significantly reduce weight. The only problem I know of with caseless ammo is overheating as one of the fonctions of the case is to absorb heat and extract it from the gun. Without a case, you have to figure out a way to reduce heat if you fire a lot, which is certainly the case for MGs. I have an idea for that as well. 

I started by rethinkting the bullet. With the result I got I rethought the round. With that result I rethought the gun and now I'm at the point where I am trying to see how that would fit with the MGer and the MG team.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2009)

It has been a long time since I took my ballistics course at the Artillery School, but I seem to recall that if you lengthen or shorten the projectile, you will affect the ballistics.  No?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> Calculating the weight per belt without knowing the number of belts carried wouldn't tell me the expected weight saving (or supplemental ammo carrying capacity) that could gained per man/MG team.



It's not like you can't move forward without that final calculation.

Start with an assumption:

_"Assuming a machine gunner carries 2 x 200-round belts of ammunition, and his No. 2 carries 4 x 200-round belts, the weight saving between them would be would be . . . ."_

It's all theoretical until someone actually straps on the ammo.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It has been a long time since I took my ballistics course at the Artillery School, but I seem to recall that if you lengthen or shorten the projectile, you will affect the ballistics.  No?



Similarly, changing the mass but not the cross-sectional area leaves you with a different projectile and ballistic result.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2009)

Yeah, that's what I thought I remembered.  Mucking with the projectile is very tricky work and is likely to have unexpected results...


----------



## qazwsx (14 Mar 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It has been a long time since I took my ballistics course at the Artillery School, but I seem to recall that if you lengthen or shorten the projectile, you will affect the ballistics.  No?





Yes. I am thinking of a design that would lighten the bullet, maintain its diameter, its length and its frontal density*. If you're having trouble wrapping your head around that description, I'm sorry not to be able to give you more details as I have the patent-stealing fears you clearly saw. 




* I use "frontal density" rather than "sectional density" because the latter concept is not applicable to my design. Suffice is to say that as much weight would be behind every square milimeter of frontal surface area as is behind a conventional bullet so that you don't end up with a projectile that quickly bleeds off velocity.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2009)

Well, I can't readily see how you can do that, so I will just have to say- good luck.


----------



## kkwd (14 Mar 2009)

Is your idea anything like this?
http://www.corbins.com/lightwt.htm


----------



## Galahad (14 Mar 2009)

Interesting concept, too bad you can't elaborate further.


----------



## qazwsx (15 Mar 2009)

kkwd,

No, but thanks for the link. The link you provided reduces the weight by reducing the sectional density which means the bullet will lose velocity more quickly through air and that it will have a harder time penetrating cover and targets. 

I wish I could talk about it in detail as I'm sure 99.9% of people wouldn't steal it. But it only takes one person to steal it. 



Would anybody know if guiding fins at the head of a projectile would be non-sensical? I've always seen fins at the end of an object with smaller fins sometimes at the front. I've never seen an object stabilised by big fins at the front only. Is that possible?


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Mar 2009)

Fins on a spin-stabilized projectile are counter-productive and would make the projectile unstable, especially if they were on the nose.

Or are you also considering not spin-stabilizing these theoretical machine-gun rounds, which invites a host of other problems.


----------



## Galahad (15 Mar 2009)

Fins at the front would create drag that would want to spin it around so they were at the back, so it would probably be unstable, as Michael said.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Mar 2009)

It would be unstable, but not for the reasons that you state.

A spin stabilized round (ie one that engages the grooves in a barrel), by definition is stabilized.

Rounds that require fin stabilization are either fired within a sabot to prevent grooved barrels from imparting spin or from smooth bore guns.


----------



## Galahad (15 Mar 2009)

Very true, it would probably be stable, it just might be more stable backwards if the fins were at the front...


----------



## kkwd (15 Mar 2009)

Would there be a problem with tracer versions of your bullet design?


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> Very true, it would probably be stable, it just might be more stable backwards if the fins were at the front...



Have you ever read anything on ballistics?


----------



## Galahad (15 Mar 2009)

Fluid Dynamics: Yes
Ballistics: No

Can't have one without the other though...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Mar 2009)

Galahad-

It shows.  Suggest you post a little less in this thread.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> Fluid Dynamics: Yes
> Ballistics: No
> 
> Can't have one without the other though...



Perhaps, but the fluid dynamics of the air passing the projectile body is a significantly less relevant consideration than the stabilization of the projectile on its three axes.  

I would suggest a broader area of study before jumping in.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> Yes. I am thinking of a design that would lighten the bullet, maintain its diameter, its length and its frontal density*. If you're having trouble wrapping your head around that description, I'm sorry not to be able to give you more details as I have the patent-stealing fears you clearly saw.
> 
> * I use "frontal density" rather than "sectional density" because the latter concept is not applicable to my design.



Wow, I just finished reading the 3 pages here and I'm sure my "frontal density" just went up 14%......maybe you're on to something. :nod:

MOD PART: Unless someone comes up with something useful this thread will self destruct soon.


----------



## KevinB (15 Mar 2009)

I could go on and on... and on.


 This thread hurts my head.


Prior to designing a new round - that is just weight reduction, I would recommend you look at other ideas as well.


For instance a case telescoping round that will minimize chamber fouling.  etc.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Mar 2009)

qazwsx said:
			
		

> As far as you know, how much ammo do machine gunners and machine gun teams of other countries carry? I know this can vary a lot but there must be standard loads recommended by doctrine and usual loads that would be typical.



In the Paras in the UK we carried a belt of 50rds 7.62mm per man in the platoon as an SOP. At that time we had 1 x C6 per section and 1X C6 at Pl HQ with an SF kit. In addition, each 3 man C6 (or GPMG 'Jimpy') team carried 1000rds between them. At 12lbs per belt of 200, you can see the weight start to add up, which is why battle fitness was and is such a big deal in the UK's airborne and commando forces - who planned on being dismounted most of the time.

In addition to this, we carried mags for the SLR and the usual issue of grenades etc, plus, depending on the mission, 60mm & 81mm MOR bombs and 84mm ammo.

This was pretty standard when the IWS came into use too, except, of course we carried the IW & LSW.


----------



## qazwsx (15 Mar 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I could go on and on... and on.



Please do. I like your posts. 

You once mentionned that a non-belt fed machine gun wouldn't be acceptable. Is this chiefly because of ammo capacity? If you could have 100 or even 200 rounds in a magazine, would belt-fed MGs still have a significant advantage?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2009)

The only thing that can add to this thread is a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.  So here you go....


----------



## Teflon (15 Mar 2009)

Once the rabbit with the batter-beret shows up there isn't more that can said about a topic,...

Let's wrap er up boys, start packing up those lighting units, lets go! there's another hundred topics going downhill that need more lighting,

get a move on!


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Mar 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The only thing that can add to this thread is a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.  So here you go....



Teflon, you're right.  Although technically, Oolong was balancing a _dorayaki_ on his head...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2009)




----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Mar 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> MOD PART: Unless someone comes up with something useful this thread will self destruct soon.



Much as its bad karma to quote one's self, methinks the self destruct countdo


----------

