Military Review

Arrow bullets: the path of false hopes or a history of lost opportunities? Part of 2

71



Among the experimental work of the recent past, one of the most promising and promising projects was the development of cartridges with feathered sub-caliber bullets for rifle bullets. weaponsthat have been going on for a long time both here and abroad. But cartridges with OPP (feathered sub-caliber bullets) have not been put into service either here or abroad. So what was it, why didn’t it take off? This article focuses on the subject and stories of these developments and is largely based on data from the monograph "Small arms ammunition" Vladislav Nikolaevich Dvoryaninov.

The success of any development is ultimately evaluated only by the results achieved. For small arms - the effectiveness of fire, the evaluation of which is consistently composed of three main factors: 1) to hit the target, 2) to break through the defense of the target, 3) to hit the target. And in the specified sequence. Professionals are well aware that taking separately, even such important indicators as scattering when firing single shots or the penetration effect of a bullet are NOT direct indicators of efficiency, but only one of the common set of all factors that have an impact on the final result. Paraphrasing the classics, we can say that “efficiency issues are the most difficult issues in the world” ...

The organization of firing on efficiency is a rather troublesome event, since to obtain reliable results it requires professionalism, a large amount of testing and material support, including the availability of streamlined weapons and an appropriate number of cartridges with stable characteristics. For shooting by experienced cartridges in Izhevsk on the basis of the SVD and PC, smooth-bore SVDG sniper rifle and a PKG machine gun, shown in the figure, were developed. It is interesting that there were no special requirements for weapons to increase the effectiveness of shooting. On the contrary, experienced smooth-bore machine gun and rifle should correspond as much as possible to their staff counterparts in order to objectively assess the impact of the new cartridge. For the same reason, the question of the case of the new patron of the “modern form” was not raised without a protruding lip.

Arrow bullets: the path of false hopes or a history of lost opportunities? Part of 2


On the ground tests for evaluating the effectiveness of shooting in 1973, the first and simply fantastic results were obtained for the sub-caliber: “An experienced machine-gun complex, thanks to the best flatness of shooting, significantly surpassed the regular complex - when shooting single shots - by 1,6 and 8,7 times, in particular, by hitting the target. When shooting bursts from the machine - from 2,47 to 12,6 - 21,3 times for the frequency of hitting the target". The shooting was carried out at a distance of 700, 900 and 1000 meters, at targets No. 8 and No. 11 ... And this is despite the fact that at that time the smooth-bore machine gun was inferior to the standard machine gun in accuracy of combat using experienced cartridges in the area of ​​dispersion, on average, twice. However, only the results of firing by single shots were recognized as fairly reliable due to the limited amount of testing in firing by bursts, which is quite correct.

At the preliminary tests in the fourth quarter of 1980 g (at the TsNIITOCHMASH test site, before the extended field tests) similar results were obtained. At the same time, the volume of firing also did not give an opportunity to call these results completely reliable. But the main, most positive fact was not the multiplicity of superiority, but the actual and significant increase in the frequency of hits. Therefore, the developers with rather reasonable enthusiasm expected the results of extended field tests at the Rzhevsky testing ground, which were planned for the 1981 year. And the main, the main purpose of which was to conduct comparative firing at effectiveness.

But domestic studies on machine gun and rifle cartridges with a feathered subcaliber bullet were finally discontinued in the 1983 year, not least on the basis of the results of these tests. So what happened? Why "suddenly" was the work that was promising and lasted for such a long time and took away a lot of effort and was closed?

If today we evaluate the main reasons for such a decision, then it becomes clear that the fate of the project was predetermined before the tests, by the sum of several processes within the GRAU, 4 GU MOP and enterprises in the industry that took place in those years. Here are the main ones:

At first, the development of cartridges with feathered sub-caliber bullets by Western experts did not lead to anything, nothing like that was adopted and was not planned. And the main reasons for the failures there were called problems with lethal action and accuracy. But the main thing - there was no one to catch up this time.

SecondlyIt is worth remembering that the 1980 - 1983 years were the peak in the USSR, the heyday of the "period of stagnation." The management of Glavka and the enterprises of the cartridge industry rejected the degree and volume of innovations that would have to be implemented in order to master the mass production of new cartridges. The motivation for innovation, as they would say today, was close to absolute zero.

Thirdly, domestic patrons are to blame themselves ... Petr Fedorovich Sazonov, a very competent and experienced designer, who for many years was deputy chief engineer of TsNIITOCHMASH and head of the institute’s entire cartridge direction, in 1975, offered the option of an 6-mm caliber rifle cartridge, his calculations met the requirements for a promising machine-gun complex, primarily for ABS. This domestic project is now called the “six”, or “6х49 rifle”, although initially the length of the sleeve was 54 mm. By 1981, the Six has gained a sufficient number of supporters in the GRAU, in the High Command and in the leadership of TsNIITOCHMASH, especially considering the first two reasons given above. Typical and proven in the industry manufacturing technology of all elements of the cartridge, the classic design. Yes, it is inferior to the swept in all parameters, but it must fulfill promising requirements. It seems to be a completely convenient compromise.

All authors and ideologists of a cardinal change in the direction of work on the new machine-gun complex were absolutely sure that the “six” could be quickly brought to mind and put into service. Therefore, the bid was made specifically for this project. And that is why, in the conclusion of the Rzhev landfill, the 1981 test report of the year said: “Given the futility of many years of efforts to provide any acceptable technical characteristics of swept-arrowed bullets, with sufficient damaging effect of the latter, work on the possibility of creating a rifle cartridge with a swept bullet it is advisable to stop. With the substantiation in the report itself of another main claim - the unacceptable danger of the expansion of the sectors of the pallets for their troops.

As so, the attentive reader will ask, where did the accuracy of those two “sniper” games go (OP 02-81-61 and OP 03-81-61) why “suddenly” the opinion about the danger of scattering the sectors of pallets changed, and that showed comparative firing at effectiveness? The answers are surprising and, unfortunately, very simple: They did not consider it necessary to indicate in the report and in the final results the data of the shooting “sniper”. Effectiveness firing, which was the main target of the tests, was not carried out at all. A detailed "analysis" of the content of this report, especially considering the past 36 years, is of little interest, but some key points require comment.

Experienced cartridges with OPP showed practically the same dispersion when shooting from military weapons, were put to the landfill in the required quantity and nothing prevented the performance of comparative firing at effectiveness, even formally.

The striking and stopping effect of arrow-shaped bullets was higher or equivalent to the standard cartridges with the LPS bullet. And the wording of the conclusion did not correspond to the data of the report itself.

Speaking about the absence of "any acceptable characteristics of technical dispersion of arrow-shaped bullets," the test site was referring to the accuracy of shooting single shots compared to the standard sniper cartridge 7НХNUMX. But calculations of the probabilities of hits when firing ammunition with OPP from a sniper rifle showed that with a accuracy similar to the standard LPS cartridges, at least equal efficiency at short distances (to 1 m) and superiority at greater shooting distances is ensured. A refinement of the experienced cartridge to the level of accuracy of the sniper cartridge 300Н7 additionally increases the likelihood of getting only on 1 - 9% due to the dominant influence of the best flatness of the trajectory.

In addition, tests conducted at the beginning of 60-s of RP-46, SGM and PC machine guns using regular ammunition (LPS) as compared to the target sport cartridges “Extra” showed that more than 10 times smaller area of ​​scattering with single sports shots ammunition does not lead to a practically noticeable increase in the effectiveness of firing with machine gun bursts. Which depends, first of all, on the design of the weapon and the magnitude of the recoil energy.

Determination of the actual area of ​​the pallets on tests 1981, held "with fiction" - the machine gun was made 600 shots in long lines, from the machine, with an angle of elevation 30 degrees. The zone of spreading was determined by the extreme places of detection of fired pallets on the ground (fresh snow), without taking into account bounce. The resulting zone diagram is shown in the following figure to the left. Which does not coincide with the zone of expansion of the same in weight and initial speed of the sectors of pallets, given in the official report 1973 of the same Rzhevsky test site and shown in the figure to the right.



Regions in red in the diagrams denote a zone “dangerous by the effect of the sectors of the pallets on personnel”. The blue sector in the right figure indicates the zone in which 70% of all the shot pallets were detected. In both cases, the same range of the danger zone was obtained - 30 meters from the muzzle, beyond which the sector is safe. At the same time, in the 1981 year, the zone within which the sector of the pallet was considered “slaughter as a fragment” was not identified and highlighted. And then, continuing to lose his speed and energy very intensively, his danger decreased from being able to penetrate uniforms to the ability to inflict a cut or bruise on unprotected skin. This zone, according to the 1973 report of the year, is shown in hatching in the right figure and is limited to removing 14 from the muzzle. The principal difference is shown in the diagrams of the angles of departure - 56 and 22 degrees, which characterizes the magnitude of the lateral departure of sectors from the line of fire and is the main factor determining the probability of finding his fighter in the danger zone. There is also data from the 1978 TsNIITOCHMASH of the SVDG sniper rifle with the installation of vertical screens at different distances perpendicular to the direction of shooting and with the measurement of the maximum lateral deviation from the line of firing holes from the sectors. Their values ​​are shown in red on the right in the figure for 14 and 30 meters. These values ​​are indicative and important because they are more correct than the method of finding the shooting sectors on the ground, and also because there is no fundamental difference in the separation of sectors when firing a machine gun and a rifle. Thus, the initial conclusion about the security of the expansion of sectors for its troops should be considered more reasonable.



Moreover, understanding the undesirability of the expansion of sectors when firing from a machine gun and a sniper rifle, not worse than others, muzzle nozzles for crushing plastic pallets were developed and tested. One of the variants of which is clearly visible in the photograph of the SVDG given earlier. The result of the "work" nozzle is shown in the photo on the left. As shown by comparative shooting, such nozzles did not affect the accuracy of shooting, but their weight, dimensions and survivability were still unsatisfactory, so research in this direction could and should be continued.

But the decision was made and domestic studies on machine-rifle cartridges with a feathered subsaliber bullet were finally terminated in the 1983 year. How can we evaluate this decision and the results of work today?

On the one hand, the transition to the OCD stage was really not ready - the high-performance equipment and technologies for manufacturing all the elements of the cartridge were not sufficiently developed. It was necessary to refine the technology of molding the plastic sectors of the pallet and stabilize their characteristics. The complexity of the manufacture of an experienced cartridge with OPP in 1,8 times the complexity of the manufacture of a regular 7,62-mm rifle cartridge. It was necessary to refine the ordinary and tracer bullets for accuracy of shooting single shots. In other words, it took time, perseverance, and ingenuity to successfully complete the work.

On the other hand, to a large extent all the “natural problems” of the sub-caliber scheme were solved: the required level of accuracy of shooting was almost achieved; equivalent striking and greater stopping effect of 4,5-mm arrow-shaped bullets was achieved; the superiority in penetration action of high-strength barriers and in penetrating action of bullets was ensured. Resource smooth-bore machine-gun barrels exceeded 32 thousand shots.

The “natural advantages” of the subcaliber scheme were also confirmed: high ballistic characteristics were achieved, providing in the dimensions of the standard rifle cartridge DPV (0,5 m) = 615 m, with a smaller cartridge weight on 15% and a smaller recoil impulse. Provided superiority in probabilities of hitting the target, increasing with increasing firing range.

But, as already noted, the success of any development in small arms is ultimately evaluated (more precisely, should be evaluated) only by the result achieved - the firing efficiency. Therefore, not having these figures, obtained with a sufficient volume for shooting accuracy, any statement - both about the huge superiority of cartridges with OPP over the standard ones, and about the reverse - are not correct. Therefore, in any case, the decision to close the domestic project on cartridges with OPP was premature. Having spent considerable time on research, time and effort, it was necessary, at a minimum, to properly carry out all the necessary tests ...

The further development of the “six” was entrusted to the author of the arrow-shaped works - V.N. To the nobleman. In his own words, this work unexpectedly and truly fascinated him as a design engineer, evoking professional interest and a desire to understand the causes of previous failures of the “six” ... A new bullet, sleeve, capsule and powder charge were developed. Suddenly, for all the new cartridge has presented many surprises and problems that had not previously encountered. But almost all of them managed to solve at the expense of the original design and technological solutions. The work was brought to the stage of protection of a technical project, after which, at the end of the ROC, the adoption of the product is usually followed ... “Six” was closed in 1991, “just” without concluding an agreement for the final part of the ROC. Many believe that this was caused by the collapse of the USSR. Which, of course, influenced. But the main reason was another change of priorities among customers and the promotion of new favorites in the military science environment with the “correct” requirements for cartridges, in fact, uncompromising adherents of 7.62 caliber, reasoning by analogy with the well-known rule that “a car can be any color if he's black". But that's another story.

In the national history of working out cartridges with OPP, there was another, perhaps the most undervalued by customers, both then and today. At the initiative of the cartridge manufacturers, at the same time as the main 10 / 4,5-mm variant was tested, research was carried out on multi-cartridge cartridges. Moreover, returning to the “golden dream” of a single cartridge for a machine gun and machine gun, a single-cartridge 10 / 3,5-mm cartridge with a high initial velocity (1360 m / s) and a recoil momentum 0,87 kgf · s was developed. And the second version of the cartridge is a three-blade with 2,5-mm arrows. DPV (0,5 m) = 650 and 555 meters, respectively. Shooting from a machine gun and a machine gun could be conducted by any of them, with the conjugation of the trajectories, at least within the limits of ABS. With this solution, an increase in the effectiveness of firing for the machine gun is achieved not by reducing the recoil pulse and, consequently, less dispersion during automatic firing from unstable positions, but at all firing positions due to the volley fire effect. And, in addition to this, due to a significant increase in rejection and other advantages of sub-caliber bullets with a high initial velocity. It is precisely the absence of such a “supplement” in multipulse cartridges of a caliber scheme that did not make it possible to achieve acceptable bullet energies at medium and long ranges, and all attempts to create them in small calibers were considered unsuccessful. In any case, even a “just multi-gun” version of a machine gun and rifle cartridge would be extremely interesting and deserved close attention. The following photo shows all the main domestic patrons figurative of previous and current discussions about the ideal cartridge.



The table shows the main technical and ballistic data of these cartridges, according to their order in the photo. Analyzing and comparing these data, it is necessary to remember that in practice, not only the total energy of the bullet at the target plays an important role, but also the specific energy corresponding to the weight and cross-sectional area of ​​each bullet. And when evaluating the breakdown action for classic bullets, the specific energy of the core itself must be considered. For example, the 10 / 3,5-mm cartridge data does not look as aggressive as a regular rifle cartridge. But the recalculation for specific energy gives a different picture. In addition, today, the requirement for a machine gun cartridge to break through a helmet or fragmentation vest at distances up to 1500 meters is very controversial, given the characteristics of typical targets for their area that had changed from 30-s of the last century and, accordingly, real probabilities of hit. For the “six” (the third cartridge on the left), the table shows the data achieved by the 1981 year, so that you can objectively evaluate “what was chosen from” at that time period. The third to the right shows the mockup of the three-hole version of the single cartridge. The following figure shows the graph of the change in the probability of bursts into the target number 10 "machine gun" when firing from PKM (from the machine, with a mechanical sight) with standard 7,62-mm rifle cartridge and 10 / 2,5-mm three-cartridge cartridges (V0 = 1200 m / s) for different target cores of dispersion CB x SAT on 100 m.



The “Limit for 7,62” line of graphics is an ideal variant, taking into account only the dispersion parameters and the mid-range aiming errors, and all other shooting errors are assumed to be zero. The lower curve corresponds to the calculated values ​​when all the shooting errors are already taken into account. Calculations for multipulse were also carried out taking into account all shooting errors. The difference in values ​​between the two curves for the standard cartridge clearly demonstrates the total effect of errors on the final result. And here in the calculations used data for the "best gunners." The probabilities of hitting “medium machine-gunners” at distances over 700-800 meters, to put it mildly, are even smaller. As can be seen from the graphs, the superiority of the multipulse cartridge of the sub-caliber scheme in terms of the probabilities of hits is very significant and allows you to exceed even the maximum possible values ​​for single-cartridge cartridges. Against this background, almost all the "new" ideas look like children's games in the sandbox ...

The 10 / 4,5-mm rifle cartridge with a sub-caliber bullet, according to the available data, should exceed the “six” to a greater extent than the “six” exceeds the standard rifle cartridge. But the cost of rearmament is huge in both cases. And to decide whether the achieved advantage is sufficient is not easy. For cartridges with sub-caliber bullets, this question is still open. For the "six" more likely the answer is "no, not enough", including taking into account the modernization of the staff cartridge that was successfully carried out in subsequent years.

In conclusion, briefly referring to the discussions on the ways of the further development of modern small-arms rounds, we have to largely agree with the opinion of those experts who say that the possibilities of modernizing the classic-rounds cartridges have now been exhausted. The modernization allowed to significantly increase the range of penetration of high-strength and combined obstacles, including modern body armor. But did not fundamentally affect the probability of hitting the target. It should also be noted that almost any popular idea that is considered promising is still built around the classical, caliber cartridge scheme, therefore remaining within the appropriate ballistic framework and limitations. As a result, it is impossible to obtain a fundamentally new level of efficiency on this path.

Answering the main question of this article, formulated in its title, we can say that the development of domestic cartridges with feathered sub-caliber bullets is, unfortunately, a history of missed opportunities. Sub-caliber scheme, which can combine many modern developments, still remains very attractive with its “natural advantages”. But the final bringing it to mind in all respects is a rather complicated design and technological task. Nevertheless, it is very likely that there will be no other way out for a real increase in the effectiveness of small arms in the future.

In preparing this article the following materials were used:

"Modern Foreign Cartridges", Book-2 monographs "Small arms combat cartridges". V.N. Noblemen. D'Solo Publishing House, Klimovsk, 2015;
"Modern domestic cartridges, chronicles of designers", Book-4 monographs "Small arms combat cartridges". V.N. Noblemen. D'Solo Publishing House, Klimovsk, 2015
Author:
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 23 January 2018 16: 02
    +2
    Such bullets are a matter of the distant future ... and perhaps even when weapons appear on new physical principles (without gunpowder), projects that are not implemented at all, in principle, will not be needed.
    But there were interesting projects of pistols in the USA and in the USSR, sleeveless ammunition ...
    1. Do not care
      Do not care 23 January 2018 16: 40
      +3
      I remember, back in the late eighties, in a journal, science and life read an article about ammunition with AKP. Then it was assumed that the initial velocity of the bullet would be 10 km / s. And it could easily penetrate the armor of the tank. 30 years have passed. The realities of the future turned out to be different.
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 23 January 2018 17: 24
        +1
        Quote: Do not care
        Cartridges with OPP. Then it was assumed that the initial velocity of the bullet would be 10 km / s

        The rest is small) - introduce the new principle of projectile throwing into the masses, since on gunpowder to reach speeds of more than 2800m / s is a real strain)))
    2. Michael_Zverev
      Michael_Zverev 23 January 2018 17: 01
      +1
      Here they wrote once about this gun. https://topwar.ru/33165-avtomaticheskiy-bezgilzov
      yy-pistolet-gerasimenko-vag-73.html
    3. Simargl
      Simargl 23 January 2018 17: 09
      +1
      Quote: NEXUS
      But there were interesting projects of pistols in the USA and in the USSR, sleeveless ammunition ...
      Both the USSR is not entirely sleeveless. Rather - with a flying sleeve.
      Sworn friends have jet bullets.
  2. Simargl
    Simargl 23 January 2018 17: 10
    +4
    We buy a weapon with a paradox chambered for .366, experimenting as much as you like.
  3. Operator
    Operator 23 January 2018 19: 03
    +2
    Compare the characteristics of the most common 5,45x39 mm cartridge with a calibrated gyrostabilized bullet and one of the proposed 10 / 3,5x54 mm cartridges with a sub-caliber feathered bullet:
    cartridge weight - 10,5 / 16,1 grams
    bullet weight - 3,42 / 2,5 grams
    initial speed - 900/1360 m / s
    recoil momentum - 0,49 / 0,87 kgf
    muzzle energy - 141/236 kgm

    It can be seen that, according to the recoil momentum and muzzle energy, a cartridge with a classic bullet has a one and a half reserve for mass gain to achieve the same indicators as a cartridge with a sub-caliber feathered bullet. In other words, cartridges 5x45x39 and 10 / 3,5x54 mm are in different weight categories.

    On the other hand, a 6x49 mm cartridge (located in the same weight category as 10 / 3,5x54 mm) is equipped with a classic bullet weighing 5 grams and an initial speed of 1100 m / s, which corresponds to a recoil impulse of 0,85 kgf and a muzzle energy of 300 kgm. Those. with an equal impulse, it has a quarter more energy. This is the advantage of classic bullets over opera bullets (in the same weight category of cartridges).

    The advantage in the flatness of high-speed sub-caliber bullets over classical bullets is leveled by a large wind drift of the first compared with the second. Measurement of drift at wind speed 1,5 m / s is about nothing (shooting conditions in the dash), the drift should be measured at wind speed of at least 10 m / s (shooting conditions in the field).
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 23 January 2018 20: 06
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      The advantage in the flatness of high-speed sub-caliber bullets over classic bullets is offset by a large wind drift of the former as compared to the latter.

      Uh ... And why is this paradox (greater drift with less “sailing” and less flight time) not observed in sub-caliber and caliber shells?
      1. Operator
        Operator 23 January 2018 21: 06
        0
        In artillery, it is even observed, or rather observed, when the caliber and sub-caliber shells were made of the same material - steel.

        At the moment, BOPS in the vast majority of cases is made of an alloy of tungsten or uranium, the density of which is twice the density of steel. Therefore, the area of ​​the lateral projection of the modern BOPS is almost equal to the area of ​​the lateral projection of the BS of equal mass and, therefore, their wind drifts coincide.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 23 January 2018 21: 14
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          Therefore, the lateral projection area of ​​modern BOPS is almost equal to the lateral projection area

          Even if the lateral surface area was equal (although this is not so), the BOPS would still be subject to less wind drift due to higher speed, and therefore less time that the wind acts on the projectile.
          1. Operator
            Operator 23 January 2018 21: 22
            +1
            Well, firstly, the speed of a bullet of a cartridge of 10 / 3,5x54 mm is only a quarter higher than the speed of a bullet of a cartridge of 6x49 mm with the corresponding difference in flight time to the target.

            And secondly (and this is important), the feathered bullet has an extremely unfavorable distribution of the lateral projection area along the length - the maxim of the area is the plumage, offset from the center of gravity of the bullet, due to which a turning moment from the side wind arises on this shoulder (the bullet does not blow, but leads away from the goal).
            A classical bullet is an aerodynamic body, in which the center of pressure practically coincides with the center of gravity in any projection - the unrolling moment does not arise (the bullet carries out lateral sliding).
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 23 January 2018 21: 44
              0
              Quote: Operator
              due to which a turning moment arises on this shoulder from a side wind (it does not blow a bullet, but leads away from the target).

              Do not confuse the BOPS / rocket with an active projectile in the active path.
              1. Operator
                Operator 23 January 2018 23: 43
                +1
                I don’t confuse anything - we are talking about the unfolding moment from the pressure force of the side wind on the tail of the bullet, and not about the "thrust of the jet engine."
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 24 January 2018 09: 06
                  0
                  A “turning moment" appears only when the jet engine is operating.
    2. axxenm
      axxenm 23 January 2018 20: 11
      +1
      But you keep in mind that weapons designed for shooting OPP (smooth-bore in essence) can have a very large range of different rounds, extremely increasing the flexibility of its use.
      Naturally, this increases the requirements for the level of training of the shooter, and therefore the development of such weapons should be carried out in the area where the user specializes in it - primarily machine guns, sniper rifles and small-caliber guns.
      But nothing to the field of mass weapons such as AKM, AK-74 and the like.
    3. Mrdnv
      23 January 2018 23: 15
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      Compare ... It can be seen that the recoil impulse and the muzzle energy of a cartridge with a classic bullet have a one-and-a-half weight gain margin to achieve the same indicators.


      Broken logic.
      NO today there is no magic "stock" in each class of cartridges in the caliber scheme. All really interesting combinations have already been calculated and tested. Otherwise, if it were not for ours, who are “in sandals”, so in the empires of the sun that has risen, which are uhhhh - it would have stood for years as armed and there would have been no discussion about 50-30. However, we can see the current firsthand ...

      EACH cartridge is the sum of compromises of different characteristics according to the requirements put forward, which not only depend on each other, but also directly contradict each other. To win one you have to sacrifice another. If the automaton cartridge in the classical caliber scheme is “pumped out” according to the weight and speed of the bullet and, accordingly, the recoil momentum, then we get 7,62x39 or something similar. But it will be another cartridge.

      "Six" - rifle cartridge and compare it correctly with rifle 10 / 4,5-mm sabot and standard 7,62x54. Without any "if". The rest is cheats class "thimbles". 10 / 3,5 - NOT SPINKER in its purest form. “One” is a completely different approach in the requirements.
      1. Operator
        Operator 23 January 2018 23: 47
        0
        You yourself posted a table of characteristics interspersed with feathered / gyroscopic bullets and now you are trying to refute yourself - the classic cartridge 6x49 mm was also nominated as a single one.
        1. Mrdnv
          24 January 2018 00: 44
          0
          But from this one should not compare the first and the seventh as from one category. The six has never been nominated as one. Only and specifically as a machine gun and rifle.
    4. Mrdnv
      23 January 2018 23: 20
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      The advantage in the flatness of high-speed sub-caliber bullets over classical bullets is leveled by a large wind drift of the first compared with the second. Measurement of drift at wind speed 1,5 m / s is about nothing (shooting conditions in the dash), the drift should be measured at wind speed of at least 10 m / s (shooting conditions in the field).


      It seems that the sub-caliber "wind blow" is a favorite ... It is so difficult to part with the usual delusion. Give the plaintive book - the fatness of the wind is not the same! It will be necessary in detail.
      The distance that you move the brick depends, other things being equal, on the weight of the brick, the magnitude of the force and the duration (time) of the force. With a flying bullet, everything is a bit more complicated than with a brick, but the basic principles remain.

      With the same range and the same wind speed, the current, putting aside the force by its magnitude will be greater for the arrowhead due to the larger side projection area. And its success (specific value) will also be greater due to the lower weight of the sub-caliber bullet relative to the caliber. But, due to the higher speed of the sub-caliber bullet, the flight time for the same range is less. As a result of a combination of all factors together, it turns out that the result of the effect of the force of the wind is less.

      That is, side wind blown arrow-shaped bullets are smaller than comparable caliber bullets. What is confirmed by the data of calculations and tests ... Since I was asked - at wind speed 10 (ten) m / s the demolition of 4,5-mm OPP on 800 meters is 1,5 times less than that of the LPS bullet.

      So it is necessary to reconcile, as though it would not seem strange and unpleasant.
      1. Operator
        Operator 23 January 2018 23: 53
        0
        With the wind drift of a 2,5-gram bullet of a 10 / 3,5x54 mm cartridge (weighing 16,1 grams) you need to compare the wind drift of a 5-gram bullet of a 6x49 mm cartridge (weighing 16,4 grams) and everything will immediately become clear and pleasant.
        1. Mrdnv
          24 January 2018 00: 37
          +1
          10 / 4,5 and 6х49 are competing rifles. They need to be compared with each other. Including demolition by wind. Without juggling.
          1. Operator
            Operator 24 January 2018 19: 40
            0
            Since we are talking about ammunition for handguns, we need to compare the cartridges with the same recoil momentum.

            But I agree with you that if the disputed wind drift is neglected (at a distance of up to 300 meters, it can be neglected), then cartridges with sub-caliber feathered bullets are more promising than classic ones for one urgent reason - now the striking element must be able to penetrate ESAPI type or 6B43 / 45.
            The only cheap element for such bullets can be hardened steel, which automatically implies their high speed (over 1300 m / s), low weight (to maintain an acceptable recoil momentum) and a reduced body diameter (to increase the specific load at the point of contact with armored obstacle), which is possible only in the OPP form factor.

            In this case, the leading device ("pallet") of the OPP should be made of modern structural plastics (for example, polyamide) with a different attachment to the pool than in the famous Soviet and American ones.
            1. Mrdnv
              24 January 2018 22: 13
              0
              The main advantage of the RPF is efficiency, primarily the frequency of hitting the target. Numbers, even “not authentic”, can’t be simply ignored. Secondly, this is the ratio of the recoil momentum and the energy of the bullet delivered to the target. Astonishing able to solve. Punch is better initially. For example, bullets with met.keramtkoy in the head significantly superior. Technology went to the fact that the bullet was made in two aut. operations, pallet into one. From obvious minuses - pallets, their expansion. But everything is not free, it is necessary to put up with something. According to the method of fastening a pallet with a bullet - we found, it seems, the best option. There is both strength (shear, etc.) and separation and weight / dimension. Every nuance of form, chamfer, mutual tension plays a role and brings. The work is just awesome and gave the result - we received accuracy. But all did not have time, just did not have time.
              As a result, OPP is not an ideal, for it is not. But as an option, with all its pluses and minuses - much more interesting than modern comics. IMHO.
              1. Operator
                Operator 24 January 2018 22: 47
                +1
                Cermets (for example, a powder alloy of tungsten carbide and cobalt) are unsuitable for bullets of gross cartridges of automatic weapons - too expensive.

                The ratio of the recoil momentum and the kinetic energy is an absolute plus of the OPP. But an even greater plus is the high specific load of the OPP at the break-through point of the SIBZ.

                The minus is the unfinished scheme of fastening the pallet and the OPP: the use of a transverse notch clearly weakens the bullet and leads to its fracture and lower penetration (a bullet of large elongation experiences bending loads when penetrating an armored obstacle).

                So the best option for bonding should do without a transverse notch. There will be time, I will draw.

                And yet: the plumage is an extra structural element, instead of it you can use a conical aerodynamic skirt or (the most optimal option) a trihedral cross-section of the bullet body with an increased length of the animated part (for shifting the center of aerodynamic pressure back relative to the center of gravity).
                1. Mrdnv
                  24 January 2018 23: 46
                  0
                  Andrei, you just need to read the monograph. Preferably from the first book. I do not show off, just this feedback tape is not intended and can not accommodate.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 24 January 2018 23: 51
                    0
                    I do not have a monograph, and your articles are quite informative.
                    1. Mrdnv
                      25 January 2018 00: 48
                      0
                      Any article is limited. And there is no need to stand in line for books today. On the house will bring.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 25 January 2018 08: 27
                        0
                        I’ve been about fifteen years since I don’t read paper texts.
              2. Svateev
                Svateev 9 February 2018 18: 31
                0
                Quote: Mrdnv
                Of the obvious minuses - pallets, their scatter.

                Did not try to make pallets burning like a bullet of an empty cartridge 5.45mm?
                1. Michael_Zverev
                  Michael_Zverev 10 February 2018 16: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Svateev
                  Quote: Mrdnv
                  Of the obvious minuses - pallets, their scatter.

                  Did not try to make pallets burning like a bullet of an empty cartridge 5.45mm?

                  The "bullet" of an empty cartridge does not burn out, but is destroyed in a special muzzle sleeve for firing with empty cartridges, i.e. for such a solution to the problem with pallets, you will have to make some kind of muzzle device that would destroy the pallets, but would miss the arrows.
                  1. Svateev
                    Svateev 10 February 2018 17: 43
                    0
                    Quote: Mikhail_Zverev
                    The "bullet" of an empty cartridge does not burn out, but is destroyed in a special muzzle sleeve for firing with blank cartridges,

                    Never fired? Burns out. No muzzle sleeve for firing blanks on the AK74 is not worn.
                    1. Michael_Zverev
                      Michael_Zverev 11 February 2018 06: 50
                      0
                      Quote: Svateev
                      Quote: Mikhail_Zverev
                      The "bullet" of an empty cartridge does not burn out, but is destroyed in a special muzzle sleeve for firing with blank cartridges,

                      Never fired? Burns out. No muzzle sleeve for firing blanks on the AK74 is not worn.


                      I don’t know, it seems to me that you are confusing something. A special aluminum nozzle is screwed onto the barrel, passing through which a hollow plastic "bullet" of an empty cartridge is destroyed into dust, giving black smoke at the exit.
                      1. Svateev
                        Svateev 11 February 2018 20: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Mikhail_Zverev
                        A special aluminum nozzle is screwed onto the barrel, passing through which a hollow plastic "bullet" of an empty cartridge is destroyed into dust, giving black smoke at the exit.

                        AK and AKM had such nozzles, where the blank cartridge does not have any bullet, but simply the sleeve of the sleeve is compressed into a "rose". The nozzle is needed to create pressure in the bore for the operation of the reloading mechanism.
                        A blank cartridge AK74 has a plastic bullet, which creates this pressure in the barrel. And in our time (80-ies) the muzzle brake compensator did not change when firing idle. What is the point of making a plastic cartridge, and then suffering from its destruction at the exit of the barrel, if it does not burn out?
        2. andrewkor
          andrewkor 24 January 2018 07: 01
          0
          Demolition of a bullet (shell) by the wind is always present, a competent shooter must take this factor into account constantly, then why are there different types of weathercocks at sporting ranges?
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Northern warrior
    Northern warrior 24 January 2018 01: 45
    0
    Arrow-shaped bullets do not have special advantages over ordinary ones, but they create a lot of problems:
    1. The difficulty of stabilizing the feathered arrow in flight (more or less solvable)
    2. Danger zone in front of the shooter created by flying sectors
    3. The difficulty or inability to create special bullets
    4. The complexity of manufacturing cartridges
    5. Insufficient armor penetration through thick barriers
    6. A large mass of ammunition
  6. andrewkor
    andrewkor 24 January 2018 06: 53
    0
    I can imagine all the horror when making a decision at the end of the 19th century on the transition from Berdanka to Mosinka! Although there is no rumor for Russians, the main rifles changed almost every year to Berdanka!
    1. Northern warrior
      Northern warrior 24 January 2018 09: 14
      0
      The transition to ammunition with arrow-shaped bullets is the same radical innovation as the transition from a berdank to a mosquito, even the creation of cartridgeless cartridges with acceptable characteristics begins to seem an easier task.
    2. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 27 January 2018 19: 18
      +1
      Take an interest in the period of accepting guns for the RIA after the Sevastopol defeat of 1855 until the time Mosin-Nagan was adopted, here is like a multi-part movie with the adoption of many models, because the improvement of weapons was incredibly fast ....
      1. Michael_Zverev
        Michael_Zverev 27 January 2018 20: 22
        +1
        Yeah, "unfortunate gun drama," as Russian War Minister D. A. Milyutin called this continuous leapfrog of adopting new weapons.
  7. prodi
    prodi 25 January 2018 09: 17
    0
    sadly, but it seems really a dead end. The needle is poorly stabilized by rotation, the arrow requires a pallet, accuracy and initial speed require separation to occur even in the barrel. There are no ideas, unless to make the master device from slowly burning gunpowders
    1. Mrdnv
      25 January 2018 21: 00
      0
      Not. You just need to calmly assess the achievements, given the ability of designers to solve the current method of inventions and the like. As the facts and the results of the walked speak for themselves. Foreign developments, for example, remained at the level of domestic 64-65.
      1. prodi
        prodi 26 January 2018 08: 04
        +1
        then for you again I will return to my first idea. If you could create such a "doll" based on the cartridge 7.62x39, this would be a very good achievement. And for stabilization, maybe it’s worth trying just to twist the detachable needle even more, due to the additional “cutting” inside the bullet
        1. Mrdnv
          26 January 2018 14: 33
          +1
          What's the problem? Swept bullet responds very well to aerodynamic stabilization. Plus obliquely set plumage provides "easy" twist on the flight, which has a positive effect. The system is controlled by the size, shape and scale of the plumage.
          What is the purpose of your dolls, not very clear ...
          1. prodi
            prodi 26 January 2018 17: 09
            0
            give a second life to a bunch of weapons at 7.62x39
            1. Mrdnv
              26 January 2018 17: 51
              +1
              This is a bust. In the size of the AKM staff chamber and its rifled barrel, it is impossible to make a compatible sub-caliber, which is at least somehow something.
              1. prodi
                prodi 26 January 2018 20: 13
                0
                In my opinion, this is even simpler than it seems: 3mm - arrow + 1.5mm for the gap and polygonal cutting. Something else from the bullet will remain
                1. prodi
                  prodi 27 January 2018 21: 26
                  0
                  here you are stubborn: a little cut off, up to a 3 ... mm diameter tip - instead of it, a core of the same shape and size sticks out, neglect the step (on the chamber); the core extends to the capsule; initiation - the bullet straggles and pulls the core along, then the core becomes the "weakest link" and accelerates. The main problem is that the separation of the core from the bullet occurs after the gas exhaust bullet passes, but before leaving the barrel, because I do not believe in the “working” plug of the separated core. However, in general, you are right, it is too thin for army weapons
  8. Mrdnv
    25 January 2018 20: 53
    +1
    This is one of those rare cases today when THIS labor should be in the form of a book, on paper. The electronic version does not fit in the standard gadget because of its specificity (text, traces, tables). I tried. It turns out in any way, that is - not readable. I am not interested in earning expectations. Therefore, the legal version of the e-book is not and never will be.
    1. Svateev
      Svateev 9 February 2018 18: 49
      0
      Quote: Mrdnv
      The e-book version is not and never will be.

      It's a pity. I have 2 books - 3 and 4. But in paper form.
      To solve a problem constantly, I open it on my laptop and start checking with the electronic 1) corresponding instruction of 2) the publication of the Central Research Institute of Information (usually Shereshevsky’s book) and 3) if at home, then with Dvoryaninov, and if not at home ...
  9. Vladimir 5
    Vladimir 5 25 January 2018 23: 02
    +1
    The rejection of small-caliber OPPs (3-4mm) was based on a small stopping effect, with other advantages: flatness, penetration (parapet and others), lack of barrel overheating due to plastic pallets, etc. .. With today's infantry reservation, the properties of sub-caliber bullets get a second birth, especially if it is possible to turn a shot into a salvo ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 25 January 2018 23: 38
      0
      The stopping action of a small-caliber AKP is realized in simple ways - by using the asymmetry of the animating part (flat) and loosening the bullet body (groove)



      The true reason for the rejection of OPPs is their increased cost and the need for costs for the rearmament of the cartridge and weapons industries. But you are right that the AKP became non-alternative after the appearance of SIBZ, impenetrable by caliber armor-piercing bullets.
  10. Svateev
    Svateev 9 February 2018 17: 24
    0
    due to the dominant influence of better trajectory flatness.

    Nikolay, let’s suppose, and you’ll correct, if I made a mistake:
    1. The technical dispersion of the AKP is worse because, to increase the stopping and lethal action, an asymmetric warhead and a recess were made in the middle part of the AKP.
    2. In calculating the probability of an AKP hit, its developers took into account shooting errors, and for a more sturdy AKP trajectory there are fewer errors, therefore the probability was the same as that of a more heap 7Н1. For example, with a more flat trajectory, the influence of the main shooting errors — the errors in determining the range and the rounding errors in setting the scope — sharply decreases.
    3. The calculation of the developers of the OPP in general corresponds to a real battle. But a firing range usually shoots precisely knowing the range to the target and exposing it to the sight. With such a shooting, an OPP with a large technical dispersion would MUST lose.
    So who, after all, abandoned the field testing of OPP? Was this a coordinated decision of the landfill and the developers of the OPP?
    Just do not rush to answer, consult with Vladislav Nikolaevich.
    1. Mrdnv
      12 February 2018 09: 29
      0
      1. Groove and bald affect. But the main factor is the separation of pallets.
      2. Flatness, demolition and flight time. Influenced in the complex. Errors in range and sideways due to wind, especially at medium and long ranges, have the greatest effect on errors. Shereshevsky and the monograph have enough details on this subject for different samples and calibers.
      3. At the test site, range errors are hard-coded, + \ - 10% by setting targets (closer the nominal), which corresponds to their median values ​​in a real situation. OPP did not lose, not in theory, nor in practice.

      In the fourth book there is even the name of these characters and how they decided what. Glavk and GRAU.
  11. Svateev
    Svateev 9 February 2018 17: 57
    0
    The Six were closed in the 1991 year, “simply” without concluding an agreement on the final part of the ROC. ... the main reason was the next change of priorities among customers

    Nikolay!
    1. Last fall, in the responsible Central Research Institute, the responsible comrade told me about the low survivability of the barrel with this cartridge. How sound are such claims?
    2. For the machine gun and machine gun, the “six” is definitely not suitable?
    1. Mrdnv
      12 February 2018 09: 33
      0
      1 .. Substantiated. But the question is exactly what your interlocutor knows and meant. There, everything is not very simple, we have deeply penetrated this problem and the plan of work / solutions was.
      2. The cartridge of the machine-gun and rifle in essence, according to the TTZ
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 12 February 2018 10: 03
        0
        Quote: Mrdnv
        2. The cartridge of the machine-gun and rifle in essence, according to the TTZ

        That is, the task of increasing for the submachine gunners the range of a direct shot at the head target to the point of safely removing their shells from explosions (400m) has not been solved?
        1. Mrdnv
          12 February 2018 10: 28
          +1
          Such a problem would be solved 3,5 / 10 subcaliber, incl. multipuline with high probability of hitting. And the big question will be exactly 400 meters and it is the head target. In general, this topic is limitless and different. Where it is very easy to confuse priorities and start wanting a squirrel in the eye with bursts on 800 with an automatic recoil impulse, weight of the complex and other “requirements of real users”. Let's not knead this clay here again.
          1. Svateev
            Svateev 12 February 2018 11: 02
            0
            Quote: Mrdnv
            the big question will be exactly 400 meters and exactly the head target.

            By challenging RBU = 400m - one of the few points in the book where I disagree with Vladislav Nikolaevich. 200 was installed in the Great Domestic RBU when our infantry was in trenches. And when in the open (went on the attack), then RBU and in the Second World War was the same - 400 [Instructions of artillery of the Red Army. 1942]. Thus, an effective fire with RBU = 400m is a reasonable task for the entire rifleman.
            According to the head figure. Prior to the AK74, a direct shot was exactly on the head and for a reason. The vast majority of goals are headaches. And the advancing chest targets are not seen at all, the enemy who has taken up defense at least in haste does not have them: he took up positions behind any shelter, conducts fire with emphasis on the parapet and over the parapet is not higher than the main target. Therefore, with RBU = 400 it is necessary to shoot precisely at the main target.
            1. Svateev
              Svateev 12 February 2018 11: 37
              0
              Here is an excerpt from the Red Army Artillery Manual from 1942 (NZO - motionless barrage)
              1. Mrdnv
                12 February 2018 16: 41
                0
                Want is not harmful. It is harmful not to understand, but to continue to want. Physics can not be fooled. What can be clearly seen on modern foreign comics on this topic. DPV (0,5) is a standard term. It can be considered even for a mouse figure, but then it is necessary to clarify this each time, which is not convenient. And in practical terms, no one needs.
                1. Svateev
                  Svateev 12 February 2018 17: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Mrdnv
                  DPV (0,5m) is the standard term.

                  Quote: Svateev
                  Prior to the AK74, a direct shot was exactly on the head

                  The height of the trajectory of the AK and AKM 0,34m, actually in the head, but not in the chest. From the three-ruler, SCS and other things, they also shot straight at the head. And physics did not suffer.
  12. Svateev
    Svateev 12 February 2018 10: 31
    0
    at different target values ​​of the dispersion core

    ? The developers did not know the core of the dispersion and made a calculation of its most probable values? Or could they control the dispersion due to the design? But then why didn’t they do the minimum? For reasons of optimum dispersion associated with shooting errors?
    1. Mrdnv
      12 February 2018 10: 43
      0
      The theory is considered by the theorists, in our case - the efficiency department of TsNIITOCHMASH, one of whose employees was Shereshevsky, after his demob from Rzhevka. They consider a range of options so that designers and customers can see what is necessary to strive for and what is not as obvious as it seems.
      1. Svateev
        Svateev 12 February 2018 11: 13
        0
        Quote: Mrdnv
        what is necessary to strive for, and what is not as obvious as it seems.

        However, the recommendation to do several bursts instead of raising the probability of getting one burst to the probability of getting that the opponent has is not a solution to the problem, even in theory. The enemy leaves us no time for several bursts.
        1. Mrdnv
          12 February 2018 16: 20
          0
          Probability calculations and hit rate data are always given for one shot, a long or a short turn, depending on the type of weapon. Further we add probabilities on known formulas. Only in this way, there should be no tricks.
          1. Svateev
            Svateev 12 February 2018 17: 31
            0
            Quote: Mrdnv
            no tricks should be

            To reduce the trajectory of a direct shot to the height of the target is not a trick, but the basics of shooting.
            Instead, it is proposed to do several bursts with the wrong sight P (the height of the trajectory is higher than the head one). So do not replace the thesis.
        2. Mrdnv
          12 February 2018 16: 22
          0
          So far (and this is good) our probabilities are much higher. This is a fact, not propaganda.
          1. Svateev
            Svateev 12 February 2018 17: 28
            0
            Quote: Mrdnv
            our probabilities are noticeably higher.

            Not true. The likelihood of an AK74 hit with P or 4 sights on the head (dead infantry) is so unsatisfactory that in our Firing Course in no case is a submachine gunner shooting. Not a single exercise. In several exercises, it is directly indicated: for the machine - chest, for SVD - the head.
            And when I pointed out TsNIITOCHMASH, they answered me that they compared the probabilities of hitting with M-16 and that it gets no worse on the BREAST AK74. As if they didn’t understand what was going on.
            In the manual for M-16, the head for the purposes is available.
            1. Mrdnv
              12 February 2018 18: 08
              0
              AK74 hits both targets more often than the M16. Both bursts and single 7H40.
              You are again about yours :-))) The target area, the tactically required range of its defeat and the actual probability of just getting at this range, the installation of the sight, the skills of the shooter, the type of weapon and cartridge, the position for firing and so on. From this it is possible to stir up such a compote of contradictions in the form of the “main question of our time” that no one will ever answer. If you do not look closely at the conditions of the problem and do not include a system analysis with a correctly set goal of the task, the initial data and boundary conditions. But I repeat once again: HERE is not the place for these discussions. I will not, sorry.
              1. Svateev
                Svateev 12 February 2018 18: 42
                0
                Quote: Mrdnv
                AK74 hits both targets more often than M16.

                What kind of targets do you mean?
                Quote: Mrdnv
                HERE is not the place for these discussions.

                I thought so too. However, TSNIITOCHMASH stopped correspondence with me, but V.V. Korablin brought this discussion to the media. I have to respond to the media.
  13. Aster90
    Aster90 27 March 2018 05: 44
    0
    Why is it not mentioned in the article that such ammunition has been used in tank guns for about 60 years? And no one really complained. On the contrary, due to a substantial increase in speed, penetration and accuracy increased. At the expense of OD and defeat. Here is a story from a former tanker who served on the T-62 tank (it uses a smooth-bore gun with BOPS). When he served, they had firing. Usually they fired “substitutes” for real shells, through a special adapter they fired 23 mm shells through the main gun .. But at some reporting firing they were given full-fledged combat shots, and the targets were real tanks. Basically it was a decommissioned T-34 (it surprised me a lot). After firing, they examined the target. And he described. That in itself the inlet was not large (approximately equal to the caliber of the core). But the weekend was just horror: not a smooth hole, just like a piece of the inside of the plate broke off. Fragments covered almost half of the BO tank (if the shell hit the turret, then it suffered, if it was the hull). And most surprisingly, the shell was stitching the tank almost through and through. If there was no jam in the MTO, then an outlet could be found.
    So it’s not necessary to think that a high-speed projectile with high energies is just an awl. Somewhere else I saw an information table for tankers, there were shown the defeat zones of the American M60 tank, from the T-62 cannon. For a confident defeat of the tank, two hits were required. Or one, successful in the casing (so that the shell would go along the casing and cause maximum damage to the internal modules).
    Why so far, have not thought of creating such bullets when they have been using them in tanks for about 60 years, it’s not clear to me.