Oh HELL YES! New from NOVESKE! - Page 2

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Oh HELL YES! New from NOVESKE! (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/7/2006 9:01:04 PM EDT

[#1]

It should be banned

Posted: 1/7/2006 10:00:33 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
my 'druthers, for something handy to use at distances of normal social intercourse would be a regular old AR in 300 Whisper -- that is, until I can get a 338S from Marty, then this may change.

Gunz...

Damn, Gunz, that is the best compliment I have had in a LONG time. Ron should be done with the T&E upper, if you want I can send it to you to play and if you like, make you a sweetheart deal.

If the papers for the can get approved, my own version would be the ticket for the type of social interaction you mentioned, that, or 10x10 areas inside steel double-hulls.... I will post pics of it.

If you want brutal (noticed the pic was from Gulf Coast Armory) at one of the shoots that Keith invited me to, there was a 1919 with 8" barrel. Talk about BRUTAL .... yes, it ran with belts and belched lots of flame. It could really have used the KFH

Posted: 1/7/2006 10:13:22 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
my 'druthers, for something handy to use at distances of normal social intercourse would be a regular old AR in 300 Whisper -- that is, until I can get a 338S from Marty, then this may change.

Gunz...

Damn, Gunz, that is the best compliment I have had in a LONG time. Ron should be done with the T&E upper, if you want I can send it to you to play and if you like, make you a sweetheart deal.

If the papers for the can get approved, my own version would be the ticket for the type of social interaction you mentioned, that, or 10x10 areas inside steel double-hulls.... I will post pics of it.

If you want brutal (noticed the pic was from Gulf Coast Armory) at one of the shoots that Keith invited me to, there was a 1919 with 8" barrel. Talk about BRUTAL .... yes, it ran with belts and belched lots of flame. It could really have used the KFH

Papers? We don't need not stinking papers

I am looking forward to the 338S, and all that other crazy/great stuff you are up to in the secret labs or fire and lead... I'll call you tomorrow, I gotta run here now, at midnight I turn into, ahhh, better not to have that image stuck in your mind.

There's a guy in WA that has a 50BMG pistol (real deal) with about a 7" barrel... no one has ever shot it though.

later

Posted: 1/8/2006 12:00:01 PM EDT

[#4]

I don't know. I realize it's an AR10, but I just don't see the big deal about it.

I'm not really impressed. An AR10 with a collapsible stock and a short barrel doesn't trip my trigger for some reason.

WIZZO

Posted: 1/8/2006 12:15:42 PM EDT

[#5]

I like it...and as long as it is 99% reliable.

Posted: 1/8/2006 1:07:01 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I like it...and as long as it is 99% reliable.

One jam in 100 does not sound that great.

Bob

Posted: 1/8/2006 2:47:52 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I was asking AR10 owners what they were getting with 150ish grain loads or even more specifically 155 TAP and the difference in velocity from 20" to 16" AR10 rifles was only 100fps. I would like to do a giant version of my current 11.5" build in 5.56 in a 7.62 16" package if the SBR works out as planned. I think a 16" 7.62 is a better mid range performer from a windage and bullet drop type of perspective but wonder how much velocity you will lose from 16" to 13". I think it probably turns the AR10 into a CQB only type of weapon and while that might be a Dr GR weapon of choice along with 230 grain +P Ranger loaded in a sidearm its just too much gun for me for a CQB rifle.

Are there any velocity figures out for that barrel with 150 or 155 grain ammo?

Not speaking for DrGRK, but I believe he ( and myself ) would say a 6.8SPC for the CQB. The 7.62N in a 16" format would be a support weapon with the additional peneration cababilities along with MR capability over and above the 6.8SPC.

Posted: 1/8/2006 3:18:27 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I was asking AR10 owners what they were getting with 150ish grain loads or even more specifically 155 TAP and the difference in velocity from 20" to 16" AR10 rifles was only 100fps. I would like to do a giant version of my current 11.5" build in 5.56 in a 7.62 16" package if the SBR works out as planned. I think a 16" 7.62 is a better mid range performer from a windage and bullet drop type of perspective but wonder how much velocity you will lose from 16" to 13". I think it probably turns the AR10 into a CQB only type of weapon and while that might be a Dr GR weapon of choice along with 230 grain +P Ranger loaded in a sidearm its just too much gun for me for a CQB rifle.

Are there any velocity figures out for that barrel with 150 or 155 grain ammo?

Not speaking for DrGRK, but I believe he ( and myself ) would say a 6.8SPC for the CQB. The 7.62N in a 16" format would be a support weapon with the additional peneration cababilities along with MR capability over and above the 6.8SPC.

In some testing we did a few years back for a sniper platform in urban enivornments, 18" was pretty much the point of deminishing returns, below 18, the shortness of the rifle was not worth the traded loss in performance...

Depending on the ammo, the loss of MV per inch of barrel was minimal from around 22" to 18", but under 18" the velocity started to fall of pretty fast.

Posted: 1/8/2006 6:13:38 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I'm old in my ways. 5.56 barrels should be no longer than 16" and 7.62 barrels shouldnt be shorter than 20"

Certain people have a function where a shorter than 20" 7.62N autoloader would be a useful tool.

Posted: 1/8/2006 7:51:09 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
In some testing we did a few years back for a sniper platform in urban enivornments, 18" was pretty much the point of deminishing returns, below 18, the shortness of the rifle was not worth the traded loss in performance...

Depending on the ammo, the loss of MV per inch of barrel was minimal from around 22" to 18", but under 18" the velocity started to fall of pretty fast.

This is exactly the type of testing I was talking about that I have based my usual minimum 18" recommendation on. The curve increased below 18". If things have changed, I'd like to know so I can alter my consideration.

Posted: 1/9/2006 12:31:07 AM EDT

[#11]

So what is the velocity lost from 18" to 16" with 155 grain ammo? It has to be around 50 fps. Thats nothing.

Posted: 1/9/2006 12:50:29 AM EDT

[#12]

WOW when will this be comung out

Posted: 1/9/2006 12:56:47 AM EDT

[#13]

The Noveske website states that for the Leonidas "Average 10 ft velocities with M118-LR 2365 fps." What are velocities for 16in through 20in. with this ammo?

Posted: 1/9/2006 1:11:43 AM EDT

[#14]

SHOT undoubtedly.

Simon

Posted: 1/9/2006 1:16:55 AM EDT

[#15]

Looks good

Posted: 1/9/2006 4:23:04 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The Noveske website states that for the Leonidas "Average 10 ft velocities with M118-LR 2365 fps." What are velocities for 16in through 20in. with this ammo?

That's pretty amazing really, the M40A3 (in the real world) gets about 2560... so that means they are loosing less than 200 fps after cutting 11" of barrel off and adding a gas operating system?

Posted: 1/9/2006 4:30:54 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
So what is the velocity lost from 18" to 16" with 155 grain ammo? It has to be around 50 fps. Thats nothing.

Like I said, this testing was done for sniper systems... depends on the ammo, but as an average about 70fps... that may be nothing for you, but the military's current concern is that the .308 does not have enough ooomph for what they need. The 300WM is doing well, 338LM is a contender and people are testing all sorts of other stuff.

You may have some different ideas from your experiences though... but from what we have seen and heard, 70fps is 70fps and most guys would not be willing to trade 2" of barrel for that.

Posted: 1/9/2006 7:45:02 AM EDT

[#18]

DarkNite wrote: "What exactly is a CQB Support Weapon? . . . Please provide the question that a 13" barreled AR-10 is the answer to."

My question also. The only thing I can think of is they're looking for increased penetration. But then why not chamber 7.62x39 Russian? You'd think the slightly less recoil would be easier to control in CQB. As for needing increased penetration, the latest issue of Leatherneck magazine quotes an after-action report: "Used captured AK47s from time to time, particularly when they perceived a need to fire through walls or ceilings." (If you're active duty Corps, access the full report here www.mccll.usmc.mil.)

New-arguy answers: "I would guess a CQB gun with some ability to provide more adequate penatration to things like walls, vehicles etc."

Wouldn't 5.56 Armor Piercing (M955, isn't it?) give adequate penetration? But if they're not even considering that option, why not? It seems someone's looking for more bullet mass in soft tissue after barrier penetration.

Doesn't the HK417 in 7.62 NATO have a relatively short barrel? Perhaps Noveske is trying to market a rifle to whoever feels the need for a short barrel HK417?

It's an interesting weapon concept, and I'm trying to discern the mission rationale for it.

John

Posted: 1/9/2006 9:35:47 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The only thing I can think of is they're looking for increased penetration. But then why not chamber 7.62x39 Russian?

I think even from a 13" barrel, the 7.62NATO is carrying quite a bit more momentum and quite a bit more energy than a standard 7.62x39 123gr slug doing 2350fps from the muzzle.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of ~500ft/lbs of energy and ~15 lb ft/s more momentum.

Absent of the ballistics, the Leonidas carbine is likely able to chamber delinked machine gun 7.62NATO in a pinch and the M118LR is already a US Gov't round. Making ammo logistics easier.

Posted: 1/9/2006 9:46:29 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
So what is the velocity lost from 18" to 16" with 155 grain ammo? It has to be around 50 fps. Thats nothing.

From most of the discussions on the FAL Files (where this comes up alot) the general rule of thumb is 50 fps loss per inch of barrel.

I don't have specific load data, or if the curve steepens at some particular length. I imagine it would.

Posted: 1/9/2006 9:48:55 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Project Leonidas

Finally, an AR-10 that I'd consider owning!

I want one.....

Posted: 1/10/2006 12:42:17 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So what is the velocity lost from 18" to 16" with 155 grain ammo? It has to be around 50 fps. Thats nothing.

From most of the discussions on the FAL Files (where this comes up alot) the general rule of thumb is 50 fps loss per inch of barrel.

I don't have specific load data, or if the curve steepens at some particular length. I imagine it would.

But the loss from 20" to 16" is only 100 fps in an AR10. If it were 50 fps per inch it would be 200 fps lost and its not. I also wanted to know if the type of rifling used is helping velocity any in this particular application.

Posted: 1/10/2006 2:55:42 AM EDT

[#23]

Wow. 308 with the ballistics of a 7.62x39

Note to any manufacturer designing new AR-10's:

Use FAL magazines!

It's a shame that Bushmaster discontinued theirs. If I were to ever by an AR-10, it would be that one....with a 20" barrel

Posted: 1/10/2006 4:32:37 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Wow. 308 with the ballistics of a 7.62x39

Note to any manufacturer designing new AR-10's:

Use FAL magazines!

It's a shame that Bushmaster discontinued theirs. If I were to ever by an AR-10, it would be that one....with a 20" barrel

The FAL magazine is the reason BM is discontinuing the .308.

Posted: 1/10/2006 6:17:13 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow. 308 with the ballistics of a 7.62x39

Note to any manufacturer designing new AR-10's:

Use FAL magazines!

It's a shame that Bushmaster discontinued theirs. If I were to ever by an AR-10, it would be that one....with a 20" barrel

The FAL magazine is the reason BM is discontinuing the .308.

Glad SOME PEOPLE are paying attention.

FAL mags are bad news for the rotating bolt of the AR family.

Posted: 1/10/2006 6:28:55 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow. 308 with the ballistics of a 7.62x39

Note to any manufacturer designing new AR-10's:

Use FAL magazines!

It's a shame that Bushmaster discontinued theirs. If I were to ever by an AR-10, it would be that one....with a 20" barrel

The FAL magazine is the reason BM is discontinuing the .308.

Glad SOME PEOPLE are paying attention.

FAL mags are bad news for the rotating bolt of the AR family.

Yep.
Deleting the bottom locking lug on the barrel extension just to accomodate a FAL mag is not a good idea. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to use the inexpensive FAL mags buy a FAL or L1A1 clone. Worked for me.

Posted: 1/10/2006 6:44:45 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Wow. 308 with the ballistics of a 7.62x39

500lbs/ft more energy and 15 lbs ft/s more momentum AND 39% higher sectional density = theoretically superior penetration.

Better ammunition logistics for US troops.

Familiar AR family controls.

Superior optics mounting.

Seems like a win-win for some outfits who may need a small package but heavy hitter.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Oh HELL YES! New from NOVESKE! (Page 2 of 2)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us