It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian super high velocity rifle 6,500fps!!! For when fast ain’t fast enough....

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigDave-AR
Are you tired of those lame 3,000fps rifle rounds? 4,000fps not fast enough for ya? Boy does Russia have the round for you clocking in at an insane barrel burning rifling chewing 6,500fps (


Jalopnik Article




A Russian company is jumping on the hypersonic weapons bandwagon, claiming it can design a high powered bullets that travel nearly twice as fast as current sniper rounds. The company, Lobaev Arms, believes it can field the weapon within a year—with a little government funding, of course. In an article on the Russian state-operated news site RIA News, Lobaev Arms claims it can develop a bullet designed to travel at 2,000 meters per second. That’s the equivalent of 6,561 feet per second, or Mach 5.83. The cartridge would not use gunpowder but instead “detonating chemicals of a special composition”—whatever that is.


I’d be interested to know what this none gunpowder proppelent they’re talking about is along with what the dimensions of round and weight are. That thing has to go through barrels like a beast, I can’t see a barrel standing up to those kind of velocities for more than say 100 rounds before the the throat and crown erosion start to seriously degrade accuracy. So in my eyes this is just a PR stunt as opposed to anything near practical. Now if they made a barrel that can stand up to the velocities while lasting more than a couple hundred rounds I’d be extremely impressed at the metallurgy but I seriously doubt that’s the case.

All you speed freaks your rifle is in mother Russia!


I've read about cigarette lighters that contain high-performance jet fuel (JP-4, JP-8) so that they can cut through anything as an acetylene torch. JP-8 has anti-corrosion chemicals added, so if you replaced the short-chain hydrocarbon gunpowder with long-chain hydrocarbon jet fuel, it would ignite hotter and at higher pressure.




posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Nice cartridge, but not really in the same league.




posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Not sure I agree with that.

The ignition rates of smokeless powder are far faster than something like kerosene (which is what JP-4 is).



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: stormcell

Not sure I agree with that.

The ignition rates of smokeless powder are far faster than something like kerosene (which is what JP-4 is).


Not to mention ignition being a b!tch, find the lighter claim highly unlikely as well.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Nice cartridge, but not really in the same league.


You’re right 7mm mag is better shooting

7mm STW if you’re feeling real froggy



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

I don't even think the expansion is anywhere close either.

Intuition tells me that the expansion characteristics of smokeless powder far exceed those of kerosene (by like several orders).



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Sure, if you like less energy, more drop and slower!



So yeah, I'd agree, nicer shooting...to your shoulder! LOL!

ETA - What's your drop at 300 yds? I'm flat all the way out. Let's see the 7mm mag match that!

ETA2 - BTW, I love this debate (had it many times...especially with the 7mm mag lovers). Don't get me wrong, the 7mm mag is a great cartridge, but it's not the rival of the .270 Wby Mag. 7mm mag is a much more economical cartridge to shoot though, I'd grant that. What's a box of 7mm cost these days, about $40 bucks? If I were to buy a box of .270 Wby shells it'd probably cost about $80 bucks.
edit on 10/4/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Sure, if you like less energy, more drop and slower!



So yeah, I'd agree, nicer shooting...to your shoulder! LOL!

3”@300 zeroed @250 I’ve always had great luck with my 7mm mags round serves me well we all have our babies....

ETA- I’m a fan of the 7mm/.270 calibers in general I was just busting your chops.
edit on 10/4/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Agreed.



I actually don't hunt with the .270 Wby mag, it's just a fun debate because it always comes up. I'm an ought six guy in the field.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Agreed.



I actually don't hunt with the .270 Wby mag, it's just a fun debate because it always comes up. I'm an ought six guy in the field.

Well it is a more valid argument than the tired old 9/.45 debate...



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

...or the .308 vs .30-06 debate.

...or the .223 vs .22-250 debate.

...or the 7.62x39 vs. 5.56x45 debate.

...or the .41 mag vs. .44 mag debate

...or the wheel gun vs semi debate

...or the Glock debate

...or...


edit on 10/4/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: BigDave-AR

I don't even think the expansion is anywhere close either.

Intuition tells me that the expansion characteristics of smokeless powder far exceed those of kerosene (by like several orders).



No thats not true at all. But you do have to understand smokeless powder never explodes. The last thing you want is something exploding in a firearm. Smokeless powder never explodes it just burns quickly.

People think bullets leave the gun because the gunpowder explodes. What happens is we rapidly create gas pressure as the gun powder burns. You could get much higher velocity with an explosion however your rifle would be torn apart as containment of the explosions will continually damage the rifle.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

How about this one...

...the .45 vs 10mm debate! (Now this one can get pretty lively!)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: BigDave-AR

How about this one...

...the .45 vs 10mm debate! (Now this one can get pretty lively!)


Say one cross word about the 10 and I’ll cut ya man!!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

SEE???????






posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: BigDave-AR

SEE???????




Part of it was hamming it up but you did strike a bit of a nerve I’m a big fan of 10.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

the word you is looking for = deflagration



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Ready .......

Aim .........

Dislocated shoulder !!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
As far as the new propellant they are talking about, I looked into this as well and I'm thinking that they might be using the same stuff that make air bags go bang in a car accident, either sodium azide or Nitroguanidine - probably the latter as it wouldn't be able to leave any metal behind from the propellant - like sodium. It should be easy to ignite and I would think there wouldn't be much residue in the barrel either. In another forum we've discussed this a few times and the problem with most compounds that could produce these speeds is that many of them leave behind really nasty oxides (often very acidic) or metal residue(s).



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
As far as the new propellant they are talking about, I looked into this as well and I'm thinking that they might be using the same stuff that make air bags go bang in a car accident, either sodium azide or Nitroguanidine - probably the latter as it wouldn't be able to leave any metal behind from the propellant - like sodium. It should be easy to ignite and I would think there wouldn't be much residue in the barrel either. In another forum we've discussed this a few times and the problem with most compounds that could produce these speeds is that many of them leave behind really nasty oxides (often very acidic) or metal residue(s).

Interesting you’re a smarter man than I!




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join