JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
17,471
Reactions
36,484
Gen. Mark Milley, Army chief of staff, told a Senate hearing June 7 that the service and the Pentagon are "progressing on the development of hypersonic munitions."

"Not only missiles, but bullets as well," Milley said, adding that funds are being devoted to research and development.

emphasis added.

Hypersonic = Mach 5 ~ 4000 miles/hour = ~ 5000 ft/sec




Mach 3 is approximately the current standard for rifle rounds.

China Advances High-Speed Ramjet Engine
 
You'd need sabot rounds... something like a 5.56 projectile with a full-charge 20mm Oerlikon case behind it. You're just not getting that kind of Action out of a hand/shoulder weapon, there's too much RE-action for the human body.

In short, Milley either doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground (but that's nothing new for ossifers, especially Ring Knockers and *particularly* the Flag Club) or he's playing Buzzword Bingo (again, in Jim Nabors as Gomer Pyle voice, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!")...
 
That is not entirely true. One could imagine rail guns perhaps or some recoil reduction system. Or a combination of both. 204s are already over 4000fps. You don't have to get that much farther.
 
Okay, MAYBE a 7.62 cased necked down to a .204 projectile. *I* still wouldn't wanna have to carry it into battle... if I wanna wreck my shoulder (again) I'll just pick up an AK (again).
 
This has hardly any recoil

Remember that energy is mass times velocity squared so the mass of the bullet is less important than the velocity. Hyper velocity would be interesting. Probably need new bullet construction.
 
Last Edited:
Some years ago I read an article - I think it was in American Rifleman - about liquid and plasma propellants. The idea was that with an electronic primer that could control the burn rate and burn length, they could get over 5K fps because they could run the pressure up to near max and keep it there the full time the projectile is in the barrel, thereby getting much more velocity from it.

Of course, there is no getting around the laws of physics - there is still considerable recoil and blast. Even with rail guns that don't use a burning propellant - they get quite a bit of blast from the compression of the air in front of the projectile.

Of course, there are recoil reducing devices, from compensators to buffers to 'recoilless' rifles and missile launchers which blow a blast out the rear of the tube.
 
4600 fps here: .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer - Wikipedia

22-Eargesplitten-Loudenboomer-Comparison.jpg
 
If a standard NATO 556 round is say close to 3600ish FPS then wouldn't an increase of 28% (up to 5000FPS) in speed be relatively the same in recoil? I've shot several hundred rounds through a harder kicking rifle than my AR in a day without any issue recoil related.
 
22-6mm on left and .243 on right for comparison. Note that the .243 is a .308 necked down to 6mm.
22.6mmA_zpsqv3hka2z.jpg

The rifle built for the 22-6mm
Crop2_zpsilvxqvvo.jpg

FN commercial Mauser action. 12 ounce Jard trigger. 29" stainless barrel made and installed by Benchmark Barrels, 1 in 8 twist. Glass by Ade / Millett. Boyd's stock.

The rifle was purpose built to shoot the 75 grain Hornady Amax bullet at or above 4,000 fps. The same gun could easily be built with a 1 in 14 twist barrel to shove 45 and 50 grain bullets at or above 5k fps.

5k isn't all that tough to do.

Bill.
 

Upcoming Events

Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top