|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:It's not like a tank gunner is sniping with the coaxial gun, but it still seems like it's hard to have some precision in timing shots with something like that. Is it actually really fine? No, the tank gunner is actually laser loving accurate with the coax because it's stabilized with the main gun and it uses the main gun's optics. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 23, 2018 |
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:It's not like a tank gunner is sniping with the coaxial gun, but it still seems like it's hard to have some precision in timing shots with something like that. Is it actually really fine? I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it hard to time shots with an electric trigger? Not really, you line up the sights and push the button. Shooting a .50 cal is a very visceral experience. It's a big weapon, a nasty block of metal. When you shoot the whole world shakes a bit. Yes, I know, it's a very precise, accurate weapon with a nice, long range. But when you're shooting it, you line up and push the button and it gets really loud and bounces a bit. You aren't really "walking" the impacts or tracers onto the target - you line up, shoot a controlled burst and if somehow whatever is on the other end isn't dead you adjust a bit and repeat the process as necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
What are the costs and benefits of electrical firing vs... mechanical? (No idea what to call it and “you know like a normal gun” seemed like bad phrasing) Totally not really a gun guy (could you tell from my phrasing), but ignorant, staring into space thinking for five seconds logic would say that electric is always better if you don’t have to worry about a power source since it’s just fewer moving parts. But since power sources are heavy, anything that someone has to carry does it the old fashioned way. How far off is my random guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Grunts don't like electric because it might not work when you get it soaking wet, and being soaking wet is about 90%+ of a grunt's lifestyle. Also, electric is used on vehicles because the gunner can't always reach the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Grunts don't like electric because it might not work when you get it soaking wet, and being soaking wet is about 90%+ of a grunt's lifestyle. Electric was also used for guns at altitude because there was less chance they would freeze/jam, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Wait. Wait. That poo poo isn’t insulated???? What!?!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:That poo poo isn’t insulated???? You can't really insulate a .50 cal in a WWII fighter plane's wing; there isn't space or available weight, and it has to be exposed in order to shoot. Edit: If you're talking about the electric solenoid, like on the backplate I posted above, it's insulated, but that only goes so far when you're living like this:  Cessna fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
We put people on the moon. We can’t put some rubber around that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:We put people on the moon. We can’t put some rubber around that? poo poo's heavy, also I'm pretty sure rubber will itself freeze at altitude
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:We put people on the moon. We can’t put some rubber around that? sure if you want it to not fit in the wing edit: you would also need an active heating element considering ambient temperature at altitude is very, very, very cold
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:We put people on the moon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:We put people on the moon. We can’t put some rubber around that? It is insulated; check out the firing solenoid I posted above. But weapons live a hard life in the infantry. I would not want to trust my life on not accidentally perforating a piece of exposed rubber. Edit: 
Cessna fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Okay, but what about everything that isn’t a plane?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:poo poo's heavy, also I'm pretty sure rubber will itself freeze at altitude this is why no vehicles or other electronic devices work in the winter
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Wait. Wait. Electronic firing refers to the use of an electric current to fire a cartridge, instead of a percussion cap. In modern firearm designs, a firing pin and percussion cap are used to ignite the propellant in the cartridge which propels the bullet forward. The firing pin must travel a short distance, creating a short delay between the user pulling the trigger and the weapon firing, which generally decreases accuracy. In an electronic-fired firearm, however, an electric current is used instead to ignite the propellant, which fires the cartridge.[1] Electrically primed small arms cartridges retain the primer which functions in the same way as a conventional primer. Rather than being struck by a firing pin or equivalent mechanical means, a small electric current serves to detonate the primer which provides the thermal impulse necessary to ignite the propellant which then deflagrates, producing pressure. ----------------- Very little space in a wing... or anywhere else, really. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
It would help if Xiahou Dun was clearer on which thing they think should be insulated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Okay, but what about everything that isn’t a plane? I think we're talking about two types of "insulating" here... Are we talking about protecting a mechanical linkage from freezing on a plane at high altitudes? It's not practical. Are we talking about putting rubber around an electric firing solenoid? It's not durable enough for infantry use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:It would help if Xiahou Dun was clearer on which thing they think should be insulated. Usually the people in the plane will suffice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Electronic firing refers to the use of an electric current to fire a cartridge, instead of a percussion cap. In what I'm talking about - a vehicle mounted .50 cal - it's using an electric relay to trigger a mechanical, um, trigger. The trigger itself is mechanical. But there's a wire that connects a red button that the gunner pushes to that mechanical trigger. Push that button and it electronically trips the mechanical trigger and shoots the gun. Edit: Here's a video of firing a .50 from inside an AAVP-7A1 using thermal sights. It gives a decent idea of what .50 cal gunnery is like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZl3bc2o84 Cessna fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Cessna posted:In what I'm talking about - a vehicle mounted .50 cal - it's using an electric relay to trigger a mechanical, um, trigger. Yes, because it would be impractical for the gunner to reach over and press the trigger on the gun with his hand(s).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Yes, because it would be impractical for the gunner to reach over and press the trigger on the gun with his hand(s). Exactly. Here's another video of inside an AAV's weapons station. He's firing the Mk-19, but you can see the .50 cal on the right. Note how the trigger is even with/up against his right shoulder; there's no practical to reach that when you're sitting in the seat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i3jLbFsQzA
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Cessna posted:It is insulated; check out the firing solenoid I posted above. Holy poo poo, that M60 can swim!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it hard to time shots with an electric trigger? Not really, you line up the sights and push the button. What I thought you were saying is they have to pull a lever to fire the machine gun inside the tank. I was imagining that pulling a lever down would take just that little bit more time than pulling a trigger. I don't think I understand how it's triggered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:What I thought you were saying is they have to pull a lever to fire the machine gun inside the tank. I was imagining that pulling a lever down would take just that little bit more time than pulling a trigger. I don't think I understand how it's triggered.  You run electricity through a magnet that makes a thingy move.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:What I thought you were saying is they have to pull a lever to fire the machine gun inside the tank. I was imagining that pulling a lever down would take just that little bit more time than pulling a trigger. I don't think I understand how it's triggered. It's basically a button with a lever connecting to it. What you can do if you are about to fire manually is push the lever until it almost depresses the button, then push it the rest of the way to fire. It's not that much of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Siivola posted:
Right, yes. And if that doesn't work you can move to a very uncomfortable position and push that green lever to fire it mechanically/manually. This is not preferable, but at least the gun isn't entirely reliant on electricity to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
What ammo were they firing on the USAAF fighters in ww2? I got the impression they vastly preferred a bunch of .50s to even small autocannons but did they ever mix up the ammo besides adding tracer rounds?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:What ammo were they firing on the USAAF fighters in ww2? I got the impression they vastly preferred a bunch of .50s to even small autocannons but did they ever mix up the ammo besides adding tracer rounds? HE, HE-I, Ball, Practice, AP, AP-I, I. Not sure if they had anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
The Forgotten Weapons guy actually has a video about an electrically primed/fired rifle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qP6Q9ZEsEo The long and short of it appears to be that while it does technically have some advantages over a traditional firing-pin system, those advantages are so minor and specific that it's just not really worth the price/effort for small arms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
That reminds me of a lot of the complaints people brought up with "smart guns" (IE, guns with ID locks), although without the whole anti-gun control angle. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/08/473581490/episode-694-the-gun-that-wouldnt-shoot
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:
In the case of the Spitfire the guns were actively heated due to significant problems on the Mk1 with the guns freezing at high altitude (apparently the jammed guns also had a dangerous habit of loosing off the 'stuck' round on landing as they defrosted and were jolted). The Spitfire was especially prone as the guns were mounted lying on their sides in order to fit into the slim wing, while the Hurricane could mount them in the proper orientation which reduced the freezing problem. The Spit was redesigned with ducts to direct hot air from the radiator into the gun compartments and later ones had a dedicated exhaust/air heat exchanger. Both the Spit and the Hurricane had their gunports covered with fabric patches each time they were rearmed to help keep the guns warm and to stop moisture getting in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:but did they take a .50 cal? checkmate atheists NASA figured the astronauts didn't need a gun to fight any aliens they found on the moon because they already had Buzz Aldrin. No need to pack a redundency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:NASA figured the astronauts didn't need a gun to fight any aliens they found on the moon because they already had Buzz Aldrin. No need to pack a redundency. didn't buzz bring a gun anyway? just in case they couldnt come back and had to take the quick way out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
The soviets did take an autocannon into space...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The soviets did take an autocannon into space... To act as an emergency propellant?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:NASA figured the astronauts didn't need a gun to fight any aliens they found on the moon because they already had Buzz Aldrin. No need to pack a redundency. Armstrong was a government-approved alternative to a nuke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Tomn posted:To act as an emergency propellant? https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18187/here-is-the-soviet-unions-secret-space-cannon/
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18187/here-is-the-soviet-unions-secret-space-cannon/ 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
Supposedly that cannon violently shook the station, to the point of probably harming it. Hence the choice for recoil-less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Now I have an idea for a sci-fi book for an alternative future in which the USA and USSR have a short space battle and shoot loads and loads of projectile weapons at each other, and one of the bullets or slugs or cannonballs or whatever, traveling infinitely through the forever vacuum of space, kills an alien 200 years later and starts an interplanetary war. Like all my brilliant sci-fi ideas, this is probably a) already an asimov short story and b) scientifically wrong in one thousand ways but don't tell me because I will not listen
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:50
|
|
