Nolo
Member
Recently, I posted a thread that's sole goal was trying to perfect the combat rifle's ammunition. If you haven't read it, please do, it's quite interesting, I'm told (by the way, it's in Rifle Country, under the name "Ultimate Combat Round"). One of the things I mentioned in that thread was the concept of the "gun hose".
A gun hose is neither a PDW, nor is it a submachine gun. It is distinct, but similar. What it truly is is an extreme form of assault rifle.
I think that this gives us a pretty clear picture of what a "gun hose" should be. By the way, I think the perfect "gun hose" round (so far) is the 4.6x30mm HK.
Also, a very important thing to consider when choosing ammunition for a "gun hose" is the EPP of the cartridge:
So, here's the thing: the name "gun hose" sucks. It just does. I've always got to put quotation marks around it and it just sounds dorky. So what would be a better name for it? Help me out people.
A gun hose is neither a PDW, nor is it a submachine gun. It is distinct, but similar. What it truly is is an extreme form of assault rifle.
Now, let me explain the "gun hose" concept. You may be asking, why in the world doesn't he just call it a submachine gun? Well, because it's not a submachine gun. Subbies shoot pistol ammunition, a "gun hose", as I conceive it, shoots miniature (very miniature, as small as 4mm) rifle ammunition. Also, subbies tend to (not always, look at the 10-pound Thompson) weigh less than assault rifles, whereas "gun hoses" weigh the same as assault rifles, up to 10 pounds. Also, submachine guns generally use 30- or 50- round box magazines, a "gun hose" uses 75- or 100-round magazines (drum or otherwise), and, depending on the gun, sometimes as much as 200-round magazines. Thus, for a "gun hose", weight of the ammunition is key. It must be small, or else the poor soldier carrying the weapon will be overburdened. Also, "gun hoses" must not only have high rates of fire, they must have extreme rates of fire, preferrably in the 2000 rpm range. When your round only produces 300 ft-lbs of energy or less, you'd better be dishing those puppies out at high rates of fire. Also, burst settings for "gun hoses" should be as large as 7-10 rounds per burst, or else your effectiveness is moot over an assault rifle. Also, "gun hoses" need to be accurate, so that you don't lose any of that effectiveness. So that's a "gun hose", and the differences between it and a submachine gun. Oh, and if anyone can think of a better name for the "gun hose" concept, please let me know.
Some pictures of the weapons that inspired the "gun hose" concept:
The American 180 submachine gun:
Caliber: .22 ILARCO proprietary ammunition
Magazine Capacity: Up to 275 rounds
Rate of Fire: 1500 rounds per minute
The Fabrique Nationale P90 PDW:
Caliber: 5.7x28mm proprietary ammunition
Magazine Capacity: 50 rounds
Rate of Fire: 900 rounds per minute
I think that this gives us a pretty clear picture of what a "gun hose" should be. By the way, I think the perfect "gun hose" round (so far) is the 4.6x30mm HK.
Also, a very important thing to consider when choosing ammunition for a "gun hose" is the EPP of the cartridge:
I figured out a way to evaluate cartridges, especially when mated to their platforms:
Take the size of magazine the rifle will be using (20 for an M14 or FAL, 30 for an M16, 30 for my "dream rifle", 26 for a Grendel rifle) and then multiply that by the muzzle energy of each individual round to find the TME (Total Magazine Energy). Then you take that and divide it by the weight of the magazine (in pounds for me, I like Imperial units) and you get the Energy Per Pound, which you can then use to evaluate your cartridges.
The TME for some cartridges:
5.56 = 1300 x 30 = 39000 ft-lbs
7.62 NATO = 2500 x 20 = 50000 ft-lbs
6.5 Grendel = 1950 x 26 = 50700 ft-lbs
6mm Firebrand = 2000 x 30 = 60000 ft-lbs
This gives you a look at how much power each rifle is dishing out per magazine.
The you just take those figures and divide them by the weight of each magazine (for this experiment, eliminating the weight if the actual magazine and only using the weight of the rounds it contains).
The EPP for the same cartridges:
5.56 = 39000 / (30 x .025 lbs) = 52000 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance
7.62 NATO = 50000 / (20 x .05 lbs) = 50000 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance
6.5 Grendel = 50700 / (26 x .033 lbs) = 59090 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance
6mm Firebrand = 60000 / (30 x .033 lbs) = 60606 foot-pounds of energy per every pound of ordinance
As you can see, surprisingly the 5.56 outperforms the 7.62 NATO in energy per pound of ordinance, but compared to my 6mm design and Grendel (which are very close), it fall significantly short.
Now, this is not the only thing that needs to be considered when choosing a cartridge, but it helps simplify the problem of power. It also tells you how much power a soldier can dish out before he has to change magazines, which is useful. In my opinion, in order to be effective, a 5.56mm rifle has to have a magazine capacity of about 40 rounds to be a true equal to the 7.62, because the soldier can then use the rifle's burst capability (which I would have as a 2-round bursts) with much less sweat on his brow.
Just something to think about.
So, here's the thing: the name "gun hose" sucks. It just does. I've always got to put quotation marks around it and it just sounds dorky. So what would be a better name for it? Help me out people.