AHC: .950-caliber sniper rifle

[Alternate History Geek]

As the title says, the challenge is to make a viable sniper rifle firing a .950-caliber round, such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ round. Due to the weight of the rifle and large size of the round, this would almost certainly be inviable as a standard infantry weapon - but can you make a sniper rifle out of it?

Go for it!

 

[Alternate History Geek]

As the title says, the challenge is to make a viable sniper rifle firing a .950-caliber round, such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ round. Due to the weight of the rifle and large size of the round, this would almost certainly be inviable as a standard infantry weapon - but can you make a sniper rifle out of it?

Go for it!

BUMP BUMP BUMP

 

[Osakadave]

As the title says, the challenge is to make a viable sniper rifle firing a .950-caliber round, such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.950_JDJ round. Due to the weight of the rifle and large size of the round, this would almost certainly be inviable as a standard infantry weapon - but can you make a sniper rifle out of it?

Go for it!

Your own source explains why it's not going to work:

In a 110 lb (50 kg) rifle, this will develop well over 200 ft·lbf (270 J) of free recoil energy if an efficient muzzle brake is not used. This is far beyond the shoulder-firing capacity of nearly all humans, even without considering the difficulty of shouldering such a heavy rifle.

 

[The Kiat]

What would you snipe with that thing? Tanks?

 

[fortyseven]

Prerequisite: Advanced Robotics.

 

[OneUp]

You could use a system similar to the RT-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-20_(rifle)

It seems to me that it would be absolutely useless in an urban environment so have it developed by some country which is relatively well-off enough to invest in something that can handily mission-kill IFV's or APC's but does not want to spend the big money for wire guided missiles.

I would go with something like Sweden developing such a weapon and fielding it during the cold war. They had a lot of weird stuff like that turretless tank and their awesome fighter jets.

 

[BigWillyG]

What about the anti-material rifle role developing during WWII from anti-tank rifles. As it was the Russian's kept the PTRD and PTRS is service till the end of the war. If they held onto anti-tank rifles and developed them postwar you could end up with a weapon in a .90 caliber size.

 

[MattII]

Nah, mod a Denel NTW-20, those things already take 20x110mm rounds, so the .950 (with a 20x102mm parent case) shouldn't have even as much recoil as that. I don't know what the attraction of the round is though, it's rarity alone will make it unpopular, and I doubt it will have the AP punch of the 20x110mm.

 

[DD951]

What about the anti-material rifle role developing during WWII from anti-tank rifles. As it was the Russian's kept the PTRD and PTRS is service till the end of the war. If they held onto anti-tank rifles and developed them postwar you could end up with a weapon in a .90 caliber size.

I suppose it'd be possible, if one can somehow come up with a use that'd justify carrying such a massive weapon around, & it's not even that much of a stretch from a technical - there were several such weapons from WW2 that fired 20 mm cartridges that are in the same class as those used by autocannon of the sorts more typically fitted to aircraft or used as light AA guns- the Solothurn S-18 family, the Lahti L-39, & the Japanese Type 97; according to the genocide article on one of the versions of the S-18, it mentions that the US tested it competitively against a weapon of their own called the T4 which fired a .90 cartridge, but nothing more on point came up through the first couple pages of a google search.

Moving forward to the present day there are a number of anti-material rifles that are fairly close- Barrett makes a weapon that fires a 'short' 25 mm cartridge (short as in being the same case length as a normal full-power rifle cartridge,) the XM109, , another company makes a rifle that's chambered for the same 20 mm cartridge used by the M39 & M61 Vulcan aircraft cannon, & both India & South Africa have anti-material rifles in service which can be configured to fire 20 mm cartridges; one version of the South African weapon fires the same 20 mm cartridge developed for the HS-404 aircraft gun & it's many derivatives.

 

[pdf27]

Thing is, for most purposes you're better off with something like LAW or Javelin (even a Panzerfaust!). That means you're really looking to have it used in WW2 at the latest, and probably before that. In WW1 the German anti-tank rifle had about 40% of this muzzle energy, and the .55 Boys anti-tank rifle had about 75% of it. Speed up the development of armour and hence anti-tank weapons for infantry between the wars without speeding up anti-tank rockets and you might well see a similar cartridge.

What I can't see is it being deployed in a modern infantry context beyond possibly a very small number of long-range snipers for whom .338 Lapua Magnum is insufficient. Missiles like Javelin are just better than this for any form of armoured target in just about every way, and .338 Lapua Magnum is as good against unarmoured targets.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

What are the ballistics of the .950 round like? How do they compare to something like the .338 over long range?

 

[wietze]

just a nitpick, aren't big calibre guns outlawed for sniping humans? (over 10mm or something) (due to Geneva convention)

 

[DD951]

just a nitpick, aren't big calibre guns outlawed for sniping humans? (over 10mm or something) (due to Geneva convention)

As long as it's a non-explosive FMJ round, I don't think there's anything specifically outlawing it- the question did get raised over the .50 BMG sniper rifles when they were introduced, & such weapons were ruled to be legal in advisory opinions that have raised the subject. (Of course, a 25 mm slug would be serious overkill for a human.) Though IIRC, the relevant treaty governing small arms would be one of the Hague Conventions from the beginning of the 20th century

 

[wietze]

was thinking of this one:

Hague convention of 1907 IV, article 23

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art23

but then again, it can be interpreted in lots of different ways.

 

[marathag]

Your own source explains why it's not going to work:

That's in crew served territory.

In WWI the US used the M1916 37mm infantry gun. It weighed 40kg for the tube and recoil gear, based off the French gun.

It had a 40kg tripod, and a 50 kg wheeled mount, plus an optional 28kg gunshield, so it could be moved around, then emplaced. all to be drawn by a single horse, or pulled by the crewmen.

It also had a small limber for ammo, 144 rounds worth of HE,AP and shrapnel for 245kg

Now there was some effort in making the gun lightweight, but the tripod and all else was all old school iron and wood construction. That limber would have held no surprises for a Union Soldier from 1865.

With the advent of IC engines, you could do something like this for better mobility

not shown are the ammo tubes where the saddle bags would go on the Vespa

 

[Alternate History Geek]

was thinking of this one:

Hague convention of 1907 IV, article 23


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art23

but then again, it can be interpreted in lots of different ways.

A .950 caliber round would cause less suffering than a smaller round, because the .950 round would leave the person hit with it much less time alive to suffer.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The most likely use would be in Larry Correias Monster Hunter universe for taking out gargoyles, minotaurs and such.

In this universe? An invasion of sentient rhinos from outer space? NonASB it cant think of a legitimate use.

 

[NothingNow]

just a nitpick, aren't big calibre guns outlawed for sniping humans? (over 10mm or something) (due to Geneva convention)

Nope, using explosive ammunition with a weight under 400g on humans is a violation of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, and the First and Second Hague conventions. It's about as serious a warcrime as issuing hollow-point ammunition to anyone save MPs.

Using large-calibre solid ammunition OTOH is A-okay, as it will straight up kill someone (and the people behind them) or rip a limb off instead of just leaving horrible hard to treat wounds, like the sort that a small explosive projectiles would cause.

 

[Alternate History Geek]

Nope, using explosive ammunition with a weight under 400g on humans is a violation of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, and the First and Second Hague conventions. It's about as serious a warcrime as issuing hollow-point ammunition to anyone save MPs.

Is that actual mass, or TNT equivalent? I'm wondering if it would be possible to have a nuclear weapon small enough to fit inside a bullet. (Probably not...)

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Is that actual mass, or TNT equivalent? I'm wondering if it would be possible to have a nuclear weapon small enough to fit inside a bullet. (Probably not...)

In a bullet, no. However, there have been nuclear artillery shells. The Davy Crockett round is about near the lower limit of size for fission based weapons.