View Single Post
  #6  
Old 11-11-2011, 09:29 PM
Likon Likon is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Default


Mr. Moonlitin - thank you for the photos!!!

Mr. Raymeketa - for the m993 and m995: i like them if you can call it this way. I like them because off their superior performance. But it is obvious because they are different technology. Not much newer because FFV-Carl Gustaf was experimenting with tungsten carbide/cobalt cermetal AP projectiles in the 60`s, a couple years after the m61 was "born". Those prototypes where very similar in geometry to the now availible Nammo AP8 projectile (american designation m993). The Nammo AP3 (m995) was designed much later. These projectiles are leaps ahead of any steel core competition, but they are also currenty a bit obsolete. Nammo AP4 (5.56mm) and MEN DM31 both have better penetration especially at long range. Nammo AP9 (example of core posted above), MEN DM151, MFS2000 MM-FS (core above), Lapua AP492, all are competition for the m993, and all significantly outperform the m2, t6, t29/m61, fn p80, and all other steel-cores. Thats to be expacted. Modern tungsten carbide/cobalt (nammo is currently switching to iron/nickel binder) cermetals are superior penetrator materials in every respect (well maybe not the cost) to steel.
My dislike toward the t29/m61 originates from my opinion that the t6 was a better performing bullet, not that it was different from the "classic" m2 design.Well I didn`t find any data regarding the requirements of the US army when seeking an AP bullet for 7.62nato, but maybe if it required penetrating soft steel, aluminum armor, concrete, then the m61 can be better. But when it came to penetrating High Hardnes Steel ( or today modern ceramic armor ) the t6 was certainly better. Sir you see the m61 can penetrate softer materials better, because in short it has a sharper more pointed tip. The pointed tip ecounters less resistance when punching through these materials. They "flow" beside it. But that happends only when the material does not start to destroy, erode or shatter the core. In short if the hardness of the core seriosly overmatches the hardness of the target. When not the core is much easier to blunt than the t6. Its slimer, therefore has less structural strenght throught its entire lenght than the t6, which is technically a cylinder with a sharp cone and a boat tail. After impacting a high hardnes steel plate the sharp cone desintegrates and the core is virtually a cylinder, which is inherentlly stronger than a long cone in the t29 design. Machine a long slim cone and a cyllinder of the same diameter with a small cone. Hit them both with a hammer and see whitch is easier destroyed... The most importand thing when penetrating very hard targets is that the penetrator remains undeformed as long as possible. That is why tungsten carbide cored projectiles penetrate soo much better, not because of their density, or some "special properties of tungsten", but beacuse they are not so easily destroyed. Besides the core in t6 is around 1 gram heavier. That 1 gram is "integrall" to the core, and doesn`t disperse during impact like in the t29, which has a lead plug in the base to equalize its core underweight. During impact into a very hard object, the energy of the lead insted of being used for penetration is mostlly wasted when the lead material is diverged sideward by the hard core which is extremely fast decelerating on the hard barrier. It passes on some of the kinetic enrgy but most is wasted. The same phenomenon causes the m193 penetrate hard steel better at close range than m855. The energy is better transferred into the target with the m193 which promotes failure by shear plugging while in the m855 the lead core flows around the smashed penetrator which doubles the affected target area and no failure occurs. In the t6 design the core does all the work.
To get to the point : I am not suggesting that all the years of research where wasted on the t29. Maybe the army wanted a projectile that will defeat softer targets better. Or there were other reasons.
The US military solved many competitions, and research on new weaponry in sometimes weird outcome. For example: the competition for the new service pistol in the 80`s. We all know that the Beretta won but the SIG had two very important advantages: it was more durable with a high round count by means of its design ( the action locking into the ejection port system is well known for durabillity) and it was more ergonomic ( the Beretta is huge, I have relatively large hands but i shot the 92fs not very good... the trigger reach and the grip is too big). But the Beretta was cheaper, and in that time the USA wanted more political influence in Itally soo they let them won the contract and earn cash.
I dont know for certain fact what was the reason of adopting the m61, it was over half a century ago, Maybe some lobby, economy, different requirements? I am just speculating.

I appologize Mr.Raymeketa if I sounded rude or impolite disagreeing with you... I did not ment too. English is not my first language so it may sound this way. You are a very respected person on the net and i respect you also. Just wanted to state my different opinion on the topic.

Regards

Last edited by Likon; 11-21-2011 at 01:23 PM.
Reply With Quote