{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/16/2010 9:14:20 AM
5
Sniper Rifle Sabot Rounds - Overkill?
The titular ammunition is the round fired by the Halo series sniper rifles, which are actually Anti-Materiel rifles.
The 14.5mm round is in fact a Russian round developed for heavy mounted machine guns and also the PTRS/PTRD anti-tank rifles used in WWII - it is a round still used today by Russian forces and those of former USSR states.
My point is, [url=http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb21710/common/skins/common/blank.gif]this is a picture of the 14.5mm round. The Sabot is the red cylinder protruding between the end of the shell casing and the visible portion of the penetrator round[/url]. Surely, given the small size of the round in comparison to modern weapons firing APFSDS rounds and the clearly minimal size of the sabot, is it necessary for this round to be of APFSDS type? Surely the gain in energy from using a standard 14.5mm round is minimal, and only makes the round complex and expensive to manufacture.
Also, the Wikipedia article on APFSDS states that the term is not applicable to small arms, which encompasses sniper rifles, being an infantry weapon.
A more sensible idea is not the APFSDS type round, but a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Purpose_Individual_Weapon]Flechette type[/url] round - this would appear to be an excellent concept for either the BR55 or MA5 series rifles.
[Edited on 08.17.2010 1:34 AM PDT]
-
Which part of it is? That it's overkill as an ammunition type? Especially in the later stages of the war, a round of the sabot type is just too expensive and complex for the gain in velocity it gets. Low cost and ease of manufacture would be favoured over such a minimal gain, as I stress again and again It'd probably be cheaper to just put an explosive warhead on, which would do more damage. Its only advantage is versus shields, which going by the theory I made a bit back on shields, it would be capable of penetrating them - why shields are capable of being downed in one-shot. The ammunition type is relatively unsuitable for anti-personnel roles, as the round is such high velocity that the wound could be survivable - in CE, the flood are actually invulnerable to sniper rifle rounds based upon this fact, as a combat form finds much of its host's body is in fact unnecessary for survival. An explosive warhead would allow it to counter the flood, hunters and brutes far more effectively than the sabot type round it currently utilises. It may actually be more effective against Covenant armour with explosives, which the sniper rifle has little-no effect against in game.
-
Yeah, well thats just like, your opinion, man.
-
^ that doesn't change the fact that it's really not necessary as a mechanic. The round with sabot is 14.5x114mm, but the penetrator without sabot is probably still around 12.7x114mm (estimation based on the fact that that is .50cal). It has lost some mass, and will have a minimal gain in velocity, and thus minimal gain in kinetic energy. This means, as stated, an APFSDS round is just too complex to manufacture compared to standard armour-piercing rounds due to minimal gain from the dual-stage nature of the round. APFSDS rounds are generally used with sabots because of the difficulty of firing a fin-stabilised projectile, but also because other ammunition types are used. This is not the case with the Sniper Rifle. The only gain from an APFSDS round is more forward velocity is kept, since it does not follow rifling and waste velocity on rotational velocity. And with a round as small as it is in the Sniper Rifle, it just doesn't seem worth it compared to a .50cal or even another .57cal firing standard Depleted Uranium or Tungsten shells.
-
a lot changes in 500 years.
-
Hmmmm...
