NationStates Jolt Archive

As head of the avamar selective i have been asked to purchase a large number of fire-arms for the avamar militia forces (AMF)
the requested weaponry are as follows

32,670 M4A1 carbine rifle and 9801000 rounds
32,670 browning 9mm handgun and 4900500 rounds
32,700 standard kevlar vests
100,000 M84 Stun Grenades

this should work out as 300 rounds per m4a1 carbine rifle and 150 rounds per browning 9mm. The caliguan empire is willing to pay for all these items in national or international currency of the seller , we can also accept smaller offers/deals

sorryif i ended up spamming this thread but the screen didn't load for it to say that i ahd sent it so i clicked it again a few times . sorry!

Duplicate removed.

This is a roleplay request, not gameplay. Moved to International Incidents.

The Aerospace Logistics manufactures a large selection of protective equipment, from simple work clothes to spacesuits, including a range of armor.

Please specify, how high level of protection would you like from the Kevlar vests? A list of weapons you need protection against would be enough.

Our prices for military Kevlar vests start at $950/item, for Type IIIA Basic Model, and range up to $32,000/item for Type IV+ Advanced Light Infantry Suit (Type III protection for limbs, basic NBC protection, low encumbrance). In this range, there surely will be a model for you, with good price and performance combination.

With respect,
Steven Kaufman,
Aerospace Logistics Sales Department.

what is the currency you use , the caliguan empire will stop at no cost to supply
avamar selectives militia.
as for your request for what type of kevlar armour i would like purchase , the new militia will mainly need protection against small arms fire and maybe low powered automatics , this new militia will mainly be based against in influx of unwanted immigrants , politicians and maybe rebel factions that have risen againsts avamars more authoritarean governance.
since the militia will not be serving heavy duty or full scale military actions i doubt i will need a top quality in battle armour.
on another request will you be able to supply me with around 45,000 reinforced riot shields and helmets including protective gasmask and face gear.

david trapp
prime minister of caliguan empire
head of the avamar selective

We use common exchange N$ dollars. At the moment it equals 1.524 Chutneys.

As an optimum for your militia forces we could suggest the Type III Versatile Suit. It is built of Kevlar, some Nomex and Kapton coating, metal wires and a few small ceramic plates, and provides Type III protection for the chest, which is sufficient against firearms calibers up to 7.62x39. All of the body is protected against knives, regular 9 mm bullets and fire, plus somewhat against gases.

The helmet is included in the suit, and can fully enclose the face, acting as a gas mask if filter is attached. Helmet has "Chameleon" armor glass faceplate, which partially darkens if subjected to very bright light, and is equipped with radio communications microphone and headphones.
The full suit with helmet will cost N$11,000. A simplified version, providing no protection except for the torso, would cost N$6,000. The helmet without the suit costs N$1000.

For officers you might like to order Full Communications helmet, which features head-up display, satellite and multi-band radio communication channels, and avionics-class operation control features, for extra N$4000 per suit. It works only with full suit, as systems are distributed to facilitate operation.

Normal steel shields can be made for just $500 each, and armored glass ones will cost $2000. For heavy shields, 6 feet in height and with option to connect them to form a moveable wall, the steel version with smaller window will be $1500, and steel frame+armor glass $3000.

There are other options available for armor, of course.

With respect,
Steven Kaufman,
Aerospace Logistics Sales Department.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/blaesa/PRA%20junk/PRA.gif

Pale Rider Arms would like to offer the Fumetsu Na Heishi (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505383) battle armor system. Providing nearly universal Level IV+ protection, the Fumetsu Na Heishi armor is state of the art, with full NBC protection and the latest SmartGun uplink system. All this available for only $14,000 per unit! Buy now and receive $200 off of our M25 High Velocity Assault Rifle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9822817&postcount=3)!*

In addition, Pale Rider Arms has a wide variety of products available for riot control. From our non-lethal chemical weaponry (http://wiki.esusalliance.co.uk/index.php?title=KoloBac) to our highly versatile shock bokken (http://wiki.esusalliance.co.uk/index.php?title=Shock_bokken), Pale Rider Arms is he best choice to fill your riot control needs!

*-Discount available on a 1 to 1 basis

Notice from Aerospace Logistics Consulting:
It's up to you to decide, but note that the armor we offer is pure modern tech and not post-modern. It also looks like normal uniform with a police helmet, and doesn't attract attention and preserves human look of the wearer, unlike heavy various battlesuits, which are post-modern analog of full plate armor. Kevlar-based light suits and vests also do not restrict movement of the wearer, and do not require special training to wear.

OOC: Actually, the Fumetsu Na Heishi is strictly MT. Everything in it can be done rather easily with existing technology. Same goes with the M25.

OOC: Actually, the Fumetsu Na Heishi is strictly MT. Everything in it can be done rather easily with existing technology. Same goes with the M25.
OOC: Rather MT+1, and not strict. For instance, caseless technology is not yet perfected (strength of the propellant must allow fast feeding). And remember that twice the normal velocity requires 8 times more propellant power in perfect situation (4 times more energy delivered in twice less time). It also means 8 times stronger barrel, firing chamber, everything else.
In reality it is even harder to achieve; tanks use sabot for a reason, and, despite the race for their speed, it only reaches 5000 fps (see 125 mm ones for instance; 120 are almost the same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_rounds) ). That's for a thin flechette; with rifle, you'll need something very revolutionary to achieve such velocities.
So at the given specs it is PMT, or, at the very least, it could be MT+1, but that would require effort and some specs sacrificed (weight, size of the gun), or the bullet weight can be lowered.
You haven't specified it yet, so, as far as it is MT, realistic figure would be 30 grains (2 grams) without sacrifices.

For the armor, the weight of 18 kg for full class IV would require some interesting material. But this, theoretically, can fit in MT+1, though would cost way more. At about 25 kg, it would work fine.

I'm ready to discuss and explain reasoning if you disagree.

OOC:

Actually HK had thier caseless ammo working more or less flawlessly about the time of the US ACR competition 1989 and there have been marked improvements since then, msot recently in the LSAT project where they have several caseless 5.56mm designs that have proven remarkably damage resistant.

In terms of muzzle energy the PRA ammo sits at around 7,000Joules slightly more than .338 Lapua magnum and I belive a 6gram (93grain) is used in the 1524m/s (5000m/s) loading.

I do of course admit that putting an AMR power round into an assault rifle is not exactly optimum but it is perfectly possible, although you would be facing over bore issues at that kind of energy level and the recoil would be somewhat frightening.

Oh and the SABOT roudns you posted start at about 5600fps, although some of the latest very heavy US and german APFSDS ammo is a bit lower. SABOTs are all about retaining velocity and allowing for a light round with a high piston area and "conventional" roudns with similar muzzle velocities are perfectly feasible, just not as efficent.

i would like to purchase the items off Aerospace Logistics manufactures , as for the currency exchange rate its better than what i exspected but i hope it is tax free? regardless i will purchase the items from you

I do of course admit that putting an AMR power round into an assault rifle is not exactly optimum but it is perfectly possible, although you would be facing over bore issues at that kind of energy level and the recoil would be somewhat frightening.

OOC: Congrats, you got the specs perfect on the 6x50. :D PRA has somewhat of a bad habit of doing things like this (see the Predator III). While there is a recoil adjustment system in place on the gun (at the time of writing, I didn't know much about the subject, so I believe I only mentioned it in passing), it still kicks like a mule, and I don't really recommend using the burst or full auto settings except when wearing full armor with the gun well braced. Of course, I've seen battle/assault rifles chambered in .45 and .50 calibre, so by comparison, the HVAR isn't really that bad.

"conventional" roudns with similar muzzle velocities are perfectly feasible, just not as efficent.
C'mon, you know me. Since when has PRA been about efficiency? ;) Anyway, the HVAR is designed primarily to defeat heavy armor, whether the Level IV+ armor that's so popular on infantry these days or full blown power suits. Standard rifle rounds tend to be ineffective against either.

i would like to purchase the items off Aerospace Logistics manufactures , as for the currency exchange rate its better than what i exspected but i hope it is tax free? regardless i will purchase the items from you
Yes, Aerospace Logistics operates tax-free. We also normally provide free shipping.

The purchase will be:
Type III Versatile Suits: 32,700 * 11,000 = 359,7 millions

Recommended option for shields:
6", steel frame with armor glass sections - 45,000 * 3,000 = 135 millions.
(other are available, see above)

For helmets, do you need 45,000 helmets, or only enough to complement personnel without suits? If 45,000 helmets are purchased, it is 45 millions.

Also, how many officers do you have? With 1 officer per 20 personnel, Full Communications additions will add only 1,635 * 4,000 = 6,5 millions.

Total for the deal as specified will be 546,2 millions. You can make changes if required. Everything will transported by airlift in 2 days, for no additional cost.


With respect,
Steven Kaufman,
Aerospace Logistics Sales Department.

OOC:
SABOTs are all about retaining velocity and allowing for a light round with a high piston area and "conventional" roudns with similar muzzle velocities are perfectly feasible, just not as efficent.
Yes, and the high piston area is the key here. Force exerted on the projectile is proportional to piston area; sabot "cheats" it to give the same force to the flechette that is given normally to a full caliber shell. You will need 8 times more pressure to accomplish the same without sabot. In other words, you will need 8 times stronger barrel, firing chamber and other parts. And in MT stronger means heavier.

In terms of muzzle energy the PRA ammo sits at around 7,000Joules slightly more than .338 Lapua magnum and I belive a 6gram (93grain) is used in the 1524m/s (5000m/s) loading.
I do of course admit that putting an AMR power round into an assault rifle is not exactly optimum but it is perfectly possible, although you would be facing over bore issues at that kind of energy level and the recoil would be somewhat frightening.
This is not about energy or impulse. In fact, the kick is not so strong - just twice more than with normal M-16. It's about pressure, which is much higher. You see, calculations for gun design are not as complicated as they may seem, if you use real-life empiric data.

M82 has, if I make no mistakes:
Caliber of .50, which means piston area of 0.2 sq.inches;
Barrel length 29", or 2.4 feet;
Muzzle velocity about 2550 fps;
Bullet weight 660 grains, or 660/7000~=0,095 pounds.

At a simplified linear acceleration rule, it would pass the barrel in about 2.4/2550*2~=0,002 seconds, and need to get 2550 fps, avg.acceleration 128000 fps/s, which requires a force of 128000/32=4000 pounds. With 0.2 sq.i. it would be 20,000 psi. The actual acceleration is concentrated in the first moments, and the real chamber pressure is 55,000 psi; so we can assume the coef. here to be 2.75.

Your gun has caliber of 6 mm, or about 28 sq.mm;
Barrel just 550 mm;
Muzzle vel. 5000 fps = 1660 m/s (Why do so many people give metric-imperial specs? It forces everyone to convert, even people used to both systems.)
Bullet, as you give it, is 6 grams.

Again, s.l.a.r.: t=0.55/1660=0.00033 sec; a=1660/0.00033=5e6 m/s^2; force F=5E6*0.006=30,000 N. With 28 sq.mm, the pressure is over 1 GPa, or, compensated, 2.8 GPa. Or 420,000 psi.
Will you tell me what is this gun made of, or should I tell you how heavy is it?

We all know, I guess, that M-16 was designed as lightweight, high-tech weapon. Well - so, just for comparison, its chamber pressure is 52,000 psi. Yours is over 8 times higher. All parts must withstand 8 times higher tensile stress.
It is not relative, it's absolute, as the calibers are close.
Well, and M-16 is not AK. It is a very tight design, and it already has quite strict tolerances. It also has low strength reserve and has proven to be able to explode. M-16 has no full-auto mode for a reason: its barrel is too light and has no reserve for that. So, as you see, there's not much to cut. But, say, you use the strongest steel you get (and it is already strong), lower the tolerances even further, and have even less strength reserve; it won't help much, you can cut 25%. Maybe 40% if you are really persistent, avoid automatic fire, and don't care about service life and safety; really don't. Nothing less, because if you cut 50%, it will explode, always. But the firing part of your rifle, in case of 40% cut, will still weight 5 times more (even without 50 mm of barrel).

For M-16, the lighest, experimental version, the firing parts weight 2 kg. For yours they will weight 10 kg, alone. Add 2 kg for the rest (with UGL), and here's your 12-kg rifle. No, you can't cut it less, it already has as strong steel as possible, and is ready to explode if anything goes wrong. For real combat weapon you'd need 13-14 kg, and for good mass-produced army part with normal automatic fire about 16. Anything less than 12 won't do at all.

That's how it works in MT.

First off, your math's wrong. 5000 feet is 1524 meters. Lack of metric numbers is a mistake on my part, I've used the 1524 figure in all future designs using that cartridge. This gives a figure of a bit less than 2.5 GPa for compensated pressure, assuming your coefficient holds. This translates to a bit more than 350,000 psi. After weight reductions for differing barrel lengths, calibre, etc, this comes out to about being about 5.7 times higher before taking off up to 40%. With that, it's 3.42 heavier. Admittedly, this is still quite heavy.

However, that's assuming the same grade of steel. Assuming the M-16 uses a steel grade that's close to the minimum required (a fair economic assumption as lower quality steel is generally cheaper, and since I can't find information on the grade used in the M-16, I'm sticking with it), a higher grade of steel could cut the weight by more than a third, leaving the barrel weight only slightly higher than that of the M-16. Assuming the GL uses the same high grade steel, the weight of the M25 isn't too far off, maybe a third of a kilogram too light, which I believe I'll fix immediately...

First off, your math's wrong. 5000 feet is 1524 meters. Lack of metric numbers is a mistake on my part, I've used the 1524 figure in all future designs using that cartridge. This gives a figure of a bit less than 2.5 GPa for compensated pressure, assuming your coefficient holds. This translates to a bit more than 350,000 psi. After weight reductions for differing barrel lengths, calibre, etc, this comes out to about being about 5.7 times higher before taking off up to 40%. With that, it's 3.42 heavier.
I'm sorry. I wasn't running for precision, just going to show the difference. Now I'll take a calculator and use correct coefficient; it's always confusing with mixed specs.
Yes, it's 1524, not 1666 - but still not really wrong. It's not going to change the picture, as 350,000 psi is still 6.7 times higher. BTW, you should not decrease, but rather increase it: you've got 10% longer barrel (550 vs 500) and 8% higher caliber. So it would be the same 8 times, or, at least, stay at 6.7.


However, that's assuming the same grade of steel. Assuming the M-16 uses a steel grade that's close to the minimum required
I've actually already assumed stronger steel in the 40% assumption. The best that is reasonable for a weapon. Getting thay 40% reduction without it would be impossible.
And, as I've said, M16 is not AK. It's as good as is could be done in reasonable limits. The materials used were almost the best available, with little regard to cost.

Increasing strength of steel beyond certain limits is very hard. Money won't help. The harder, the more brittle, the less resistant to dynamic loads, and a weapon has a lot of them. You don't want a weapon which you have to handle as carefully as a glass, and even that won't give much advantage.

If you don't believe me, let's take a look at Barrett M82 instead. It is a $7000 sniper rifle. It already has machining and steel better than the discussed rifle, and it has little reserve, as it is a sniper rifle, not assault one; it doesn't need to fire in bursts; the sniper can handle his weapon better than common army folk. So, I think, you'll agree, that you should, if anything, reduce steel and machining quality comparing to it, and increase reserve.

M82 has 2.12 times the caliber, 1.34 times longer barrel, and chamber pressure of 55,000 psi. OK, we'll cut it 1.34 times for the barrel (although really that's less), and 2.12 for the caliber. Again, with cutting the caliber we must decrease tolerances and raise weight; but let's skip it. The pressure is still 6.36 times higher. Therefore, you need 6.36/2.84=2.24 times heavier parts. Well, we can't get a reduction here by tolerances and steel, because we decrease caliber (thinner = stricter) and decrease price, notably decrease it faster than everything else. But M82 is a sniper rifle, so let's cut 33% from the barrel; less is not practical. We still have to make it 1.5 times heavier.
The M-16 weights 13 kg, and I unfortunately don't know the exact figures for the components, but, at low estimate, the firing part is around 8 kg. Yours will so have to be 12 kg. Or more, as it's auto.

Well, that is heavier, because the 40% reduction in the M16-based calc was actually overestimated, you can't get it just by tolerances, reserve and steel. Still, assuming you will make another trade-off to get rid of these 2 kg, we have pretty much the same result, 10 kg firing part only.
BTW, did you notice that chamber pressure in M16 and M82 is approximately equal? That's not a coincidence; there's a certain reasonable range of chamber pressures, and all guns use it, because more means heavier.

I didn't touch the question of which explosive were you going to use to get this pressure; it is simply so overboard that rifle weight problems become overwhelming.

Again, with cutting the caliber we must decrease tolerances and raise weight
BTW, you should not decrease, but rather increase it: you've got 10% longer barrel (550 vs 500) and 8% higher caliber.
Care to be a bit more consistent here? Can't have it both ways, lowering the calibre either raises the weight or lowers it. And the barrel is 490mm, not 550, meaning my barrel is slightly shorter than that of the M16.

Now, using this math, the M82 is 1.5 times longer in the barrel, and the same 2.11 times larger in calibre. 10 kilos divided by 1.5 is 6.67. Circumference of a 6mm circle is 18.8mm, and circumference of a 12.7mm circle is 39.9, 2.12 times larger (not taking into account the actual thickness of the barrel. 6.67 divided by 2.12 is 3.14. Next, simple economics: you don't use a higher grade of steel than you need, unless you're planning on stuffing the barrel full of explosives. This would reduce the weight to about a third, reducing it to just about one kilo, possibly more (I'd give exact numbers, but I lost the figures I was using). Comes out pretty much the same as my previous calcs.

And, as I've said, M16 is not AK. It's as good as is could be done in reasonable limits. The materials used were almost the best available, with little regard to cost.
I'm inclined to disagree. For one, the plastic (in the folding stock at least) is rather shoddy in my experience, and prone to shattering with rough treatment. Secondly, it was constructed by the lowest bidder. As a rule, you don't use higher quality materials than you need to get the job done with a reasonable margin of error. You don't make stools for your workshop out of mahogany, and you don't waste money by using extremely high quality steel on a rifle that will never need it, especially when, as you say, it would make the weapon more brittle.

As for brittleness, it isn't neccessarily that much of a liability. There are various ways to minimize the effect. Off hand, I'd think shock-absorbing barrel sleeves would help quite a bit. Given time (and sleep!), I'm sure I could think of quite a few other ways to compensate quite effectively with a minimal increase in weight. Following this line of thought, it's possible to use a different material than steel as a barrel (alumina, for example), although this would be more expensive and more brittle still. Even so, it could be compensated for with minimal work.

Care to be a bit more consistent here? Can't have it both ways, lowering the calibre either raises the weight or lowers it. And the barrel is 490mm, not 550, meaning my barrel is slightly shorter than that of the M16.
Consistent?
These are completely different situations.
Lowering the calibre while keeping the same energy raises weight.
Lowering the calibre while keeping the same speed lowers weight.
And I took your M-22A2. OK, for M-25 it is 490 mm. So it is approx. the same as M16.
Please read fully. The calculations are real. You can check them. You can check the physics.

Now, using this math, the M82 is 1.5 times longer in the barrel, and the same 2.11 times larger in calibre. 10 kilos divided by 1.5 is 6.67. Circumference of a 6mm circle is 18.8mm, and circumference of a 12.7mm circle is 39.9, 2.12 times larger (not taking into account the actual thickness of the barrel. 6.67 divided by 2.12 is 3.14.
You can divide it.
You will have 3.14 kg barrel.
But your rifle will have the same muzzle velocity, 850 m/s or 2550 fps.

If you want 5000 fps, calcs are different.

Next, simple economics: you don't use a higher grade of steel than you need, unless you're planning on stuffing the barrel full of explosives. This would reduce the weight to about a third, reducing it to just about one kilo, possibly more (I'd give exact numbers, but I lost the figures I was using). Comes out pretty much the same as my previous calcs.
I'm sorry, I do not mean to offend. But I would just really like to know if you took a course in Materials Science. It's OK if you didn't; then you can just check the range of steels available.
If you did, we can discuss it more deeply.


As a rule, you don't use higher quality materials than you need to get the job done with a reasonable margin of error. You don't make stools for your workshop out of mahogany, and you don't waste money by using extremely high quality steel on a rifle that will never need it, especially when, as you say, it would make the weapon more brittle.
The trick is that rifles always need better materials. Weight, weight, weight. The Army doesn't enjoy to have M82 weigh 13 kg; they would happily pay more for the same in less weight, but it is just not possible without huge sacrifices in everything else.
And I've recalculated it using sniper rifle. It is used with care. It is used rarely. Still it gives heavy barrel.

There is no such thing as 3-fold increase inside the same general application class. The best you can squench out is 20, 25% increases, not more.

If you want to propel the bullet with the same force as in M82, the gun will weight as much.

As for brittleness, it isn't neccessarily that much of a liability. There are various ways to minimize the effect. Off hand, I'd think shock-absorbing barrel sleeves would help quite a bit.
That's not as much about brittleness, as about crack resistance and firing shocks. The rifle is under dynamic load.

Given time (and sleep!), I'm sure I could think of quite a few other ways to compensate quite effectively with a minimal increase in weight. Following this line of thought, it's possible to use a different material than steel as a barrel (alumina, for example), although this would be more expensive and more brittle still. Even so, it could be compensated for with minimal work.
In fact, there's really a lot of people working in the arms industry or around, and I can tell that at least in shipbuilding most are quite intelligent; and I'm sure that Colt also has a lot of good engineers. They have time and sleep. They do their job as good as they can. And what we see on the market and in the armies took many thousands of hours to think over, optimize, compensate. Higher muzzle velocity is a plus. In accuracy, in more energy for less recoil. Weight decrease is even more primary goal. If it could be done, it would had been done.
And, if you doubt, there are calculations.


It's not like I'm against you. No, I've seen you also supporting realism of MT. And that's why I'm attempting to explain some of the complications which seemingly slight effectiveness increases bring in MT. I don't ask you to abandon something, just show the practicalities of MT. Of course, in PMT that doesn't apply.

Consistent?
These are completely different situations.
Lowering the calibre while keeping the same energy raises weight.
Lowering the calibre while keeping the same speed lowers weight.
And I took your M-22A2. OK, for M-25 it is 490 mm. So it is approx. the same as M16.
Please read fully. The calculations are real. You can check them. You can check the physics.
Ahah. That clarifies it nicely.

I'm sorry, I do not mean to offend. But I would just really like to know if you took a course in Materials Science. It's OK if you didn't; then you can just check the range of steels available.
If you did, we can discuss it more deeply.
Nope, I haven't. Just been finding as much information on the subject I can. I need to check if the uni library has a book on the subject. Doubt it, as we're mainly an EQS school, but it's worth a shot... Anyway, I had a site with a nice list of steels available and their corresponding tensile strengths, but I lost it due to the fact that this is a library laptop. Will try to find it again.

If you want to propel the bullet with the same force as in M82, the gun will weight as much.
Actually, it's propelling it with a bit more than a third of the force (6989 joules as compared to 18,656 in the M82's 12.7mm BMG cartridge), so does that mean I get away with a third of the weight? ;)

It's not like I'm against you. No, I've seen you also supporting realism of MT. And that's why I'm attempting to explain some of the complications which seemingly slight effectiveness increases bring in MT. I don't ask you to abandon something, just show the practicalities of MT. Of course, in PMT that doesn't apply.
Oh, I get that completely. I just like arguing. :D This has actually been quite informative, and has forced me to get off my ass and dig for information again. And I know I'm going to have to write down some of these formulas... ;)

I'll continue to address some of these points when I've had some sleep. Why can't you keep reasonable hours like a self-respecting Yank like me?

Nope, I haven't. Just been finding as much information on the subject I can. I need to check if the uni library has a book on the subject. Doubt it, as we're mainly an EQS school, but it's worth a shot... Anyway, I had a site with a nice list of steels available and their corresponding tensile strengths, but I lost it due to the fact that this is a library laptop. Will try to find it again.
Well, the general idea is just that, once you get to high-strength steels, the improvements become quite marginal, even if costs - especially these of machining - grow fast.


Actually, it's propelling it with a bit more than a third of the force (6989 joules as compared to 18,656 in the M82's 12.7mm BMG cartridge), so does that mean I get away with a third of the weight? ;)
It would be, in the same caliber. But here's the time and efficiency thing. You provide the projectile with 1/3 of the energy, but, to pack that energy into a lighter bullet, you use higher speed, and need the same power. And here it goes: double the speed - half the time to provide the force; shorther barrel - yet another 33% cut, totalling to 1/3 of the time to provide that force. Besides that, in a smaller caliber it goes even more wild with the pressure. In short, M82 gives that 18,5 KJ in 1.8 milliseconds, and M-25 in 0.7 milliseconds, so power, which is energy/time, is the same. Complications with providing it in a small barrel actually increase weight, not decrease.
Of course, in exchange you get lower recoil per joule delivered.

Actually a feasible solution would be to increase caliber and projectile length to reach the needed power, while keeping speed around 1000 m/s. To keep overall cartridge length reasonable, the charge part can have more diameter, although it will still be not as small as a usual one.


I Why can't you keep reasonable hours like a self-respecting Yank like me?
I always turn out to be busy in the reasonable hours...