• Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think the proper term for these are anti-materiel rifle. Made for stopping vehicles.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I like the plan, and it looks good, but I just feel that dual wielding them may not work.

  • Jackiedoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think this is how you get Americans back interested in helping Ukraine. Girl with ridiculously big guns.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Could also be massive muzzle brakes. That rifle must kick like a horse on five different kinds of steroids.

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        A muzzle brake is not a closed cylinder. There would also be no reason to make it that long.

          • Eheran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I have to ask: You are aware that you have no idea what you are talking about, yet you felt the need to answer him? Can you explain why? This is an extremely common thing for people to do, so it is very interesting to hear (if possible) what your train of thought was.

            • tal@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m not sure that beating up on someone who decides to say that they aren’t familiar with something and are retracting an earlier suggestion is a good idea. Seems likely to lead to people not retracting things even when they think that they might not be correct.

              • Eheran@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                I simply want to understand the thought process. I appreciate that they acknowledge it to begin with.

        • CrowAirbrush
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Since we’re all going off what is visible and nothing more: the outer bits seem to be fabric, maybe those are dirt covers?

          • Nasan@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            Suppressors tend to get very hot very quickly. This produces a mirage effect when looking through the scope. Wraps made of high temperature materials help mitigate that and also allow the shooter to remove the suppressor without having to wait until it cools down.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      They are suppressors (a.k.a. silencers). They work just like your car’s muffler and both were invented by the same guy: the grandson of the inventor of the Maxim machine gun.

      It will certainly not make these monster guns movie-quiet but it reduces their massive sound and flash signature making it harder to locate where they were shot from.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        They work just like your car’s muffler and both were invented by the same guy: the grandson of the inventor of the Maxim machine gun.

        Well that’s a cool TIL.

    • ChrisLicht
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Flash suppressors. Snipers are very high-value targets.

      • vsh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Removed by mod

    • Hopfgeist@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Certainly looks that way. As if it wasn’t big enough already. In most pictures I have seen they have only muzzle brakes, but in some they clearly have suppressors. A useful side-effect may be to reduce the visible muzzle fire for night operation.

  • Gork
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    That thing looks like it can cause some serious damage, even to things that are relatively well hardened.

    Like, what would happen if a sniper fired that gun into the barrel of a T-80 that had an HE shell loaded?

    • Fatmaninalilcoat@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t have to hit the barrels they usually aim for weak spots hoping for penetration then the round bounces around inside taking everyone out.

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        Anti-material rifles were initially designed to take out tanks. However all modern tanks have thick enough armor to deflect its bullets.

        Now APC’s, trucks, vans, and most engines and electronics are destroyed by these rounds. Hence the anti-material label now.

        • Treczoks@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Given some of the antique tanks the Russians pulled out of the moth ball heap, it might still be an anti-tank-weapon occasionally …

        • worldsayshi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Would it be possible to ruin the barrel by shooting at it from the side? Or would it just ricochet?

          • The_v@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            8 months ago

            The barrel is thicker than the armor on tanks. Usually they weigh in at over 2 tons of steel. The circular shape also makes it very likely to deflect the impact like sloped armor.

            It might make a little ding in the paint.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      It would be hard to get the angle just right to get the bullet all the way down the barrel without it impacting the sides of the barrel

      • Hopfgeist@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Bullets are deflected along surprisingly sharp bends in a barrel (or any other pipe), so it would be sufficient to hit the tank gun muzzle roughly from the front, and it would probably hit a loaded projectile.

    • Treczoks@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Technically, it would be sufficient of they lodge a bullet into the barrel. As soon as the tank fires, the bullet will wedge between the shell and the barrel, destroying - at least - the barrel.

      • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        You’d have to be pretty lucky for a bullet to enter from the front in a way that it wouldn’t just get blown back out by the shockwave before the shell reaches it.

  • Mandy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    thats some anime type shit here. What happens when you fire that thing? are you gonna be flung back loneytoons style?