Better cartridge for SMG/PDW/military handgun

I was thinking a lot on this subject, especially since I like the concept of having almost an assault rifle performance in a small handy package, such as the lovely HK MP-7. I think its very neat to have a rifle like performance from a cartridge that can be used in a pistol, i.e. the magazine is fed in the handgrip. This allows really compact size and also provides fast reloads.

The only problem in this concept is the ammo. I think that the current calibers (5.7x28, 4.6x30, 6.5x25) are somewhat weak and do not represet the ideal compromise between size and performance.

I think a stubby 6x27 mm cartridge with a 75 grain bullet would be the best compromise. It would actually look like the Grendel, but with shorter bullets. The cartridge width is around .400 and total length should be around 1.4 inch, to achieve a good capacity per magazine, comparable to 9x19.

The 75 grain bullet is definitely a fair amoint of material, that should be able to do nice damage, provided it is designed correctly and is launched at a good velocity (~2400 fps). Also the bullet would have a BC of .300, which would allow a good trajectory.

In theory the 75 grain bullet launched from a 10 inch SMG should have a useful range of 300 meters with a good AP capability.

Regarding the velocity, 2400 should be achievable, since the stubby round would contain 15 grains of powder. This powder capacity gives twice heavier bullets (150-180 grain) a muzzle velocity of over 1200 fps in a handgun (like the .357 mag).

To me it looks like this cartridge could achieve 2100fps in a 5 inch handgun barell, 2400 fps in a 10 inch barell, or 2500 in a 16 inch barell. That would make it quite appropriate for CQB, for low-recoiling simple rifles for untrained recruits and reserves, light 3 lb PDWs and military handguns.

In this concept, the basic soldier weapon are still Grendel rifles and LMGs, but the 6x27 round would be used in handguns as a secondary weapon, and in SMG/PDWs for non-combat duties, for soldiers who carry a very heavy mission load that prevents them from carrying a full size assault rifle, also for soldiers whose primary weapon is not capable of full auto fire (snipers, rocket launchers..).

What do you think?

I've got another idea that makes the 6x27 round even more usefull.

Since the biggest problem of the OICW system is the weight, why not shave a chunk of it by replacing the .223 lower weapon with a HK MP-7 modified for the 6x27mm? :) This could bring down the weight of the system substantially, since the MP-7 weighs below 3lb.
In this configuration the 6x27mm round, fired from a 12 inch barell, should offer similar performace to the .223 fired from a 10 inch barell. The barell for the 6mm is extended by 2 inches because the magazine is fed in the hand grip.

I think its an instant fit. The smaller AP round will be used for CQB and self defence up to 300m, and the 20mm weapon will be able to reach up to 1000m.

Welcome to the weight performance spiral. At one time I was somewhat informed about the design and evolution of the sub caliber munitions and their associated hardware. The three cartridges that we were primarily concerned with were the 5.7x28 FN which had it's history in a developmental twin pistol grip weapon from GIAT, the 4.6x30 H&K which in 1972 was shown as the 4.7x33 and the 224 BOZ (5.56x23). Begining with three completely different design houses it is interesting to note that cartridge volume and calibers all arrived at very similar points. With the 224 the projectile was defined as a 52 grain unit for anti personnel use and a 50 grain tungsten carbide core projectile was manufactured for anti armor use. Initially it employed a 25mm case which while optimum for performance pushed the size of the weapon platform such that little benifit was seen. Additionaly in a pistol sized weapon the recoil impulse was too high and it was found that joint cartalidge in the firer would enflame after extensive use. (it was hell on the elbows). Terminal performance was created from the tumbling effect of the projectile (had to use FMJ)hence the projectiles were rather long. The 5.7 came at the problem from a different stance. The initial offering was a SMG not a pistol and they adopted to use a longer but smaller diameter cartridge. Initial work concentrated primarily on the velocity and they designed a very unique aluminum and polycarbonate core projectile of only 26 grains. This operated by tumbling and again was rather long. This evolved into a heavier 31 grain steel and aluminum core projectile during testing to increase penetration both in armor and tissue and to increase the number of rotations the projectile performs in tissue. The last is the 4.6. H&K resurected the cartridge for the NATO PDW trials. At the time the OICW was a prime H&K project and the predessesor of the MP7 was very vigorously lobbied as the KE part for the OICW. H&K argued based on weight reduction but the idea was very firmly rejected as it would provide a captive production of both the weapon and ammunition for H&K (very carefully noted as we proceed with the Grendel). The 4.6 employs a steel jacket steel core projectile and interestingly has a near identical base design as the 5.7. The first production ammunition has a RG headstamp. As with the other systems terminal effects come from the tumbling mode. but the emphasis for the design lies in penetration.

It is my opinion that currently the best all round design may well be the 5.7x28. Despite some very vocal detractors of the terminal effects the round offers and the many comparisons of the cartridge to the 22 mag RF the projectile design is superior in the detail and one should note the continued adoption of the caliber. Further a number of overseas nations are now undertaking similar design studies. Field use has shown the cartridge to be effective.

the 4.6x30 H&K which in 1972 was shown as the 4.7x33

FWIW: Actually, I think that you mean the 4.6x36mm. The 4.7x33mm was the G11's final caseless cartridge. The 4.6x36mm was a joint project between CETME and HK dating back to the mid-'60s. The 4.6x36mm case is not related to the current 4.6x30mm case. The base sizes are different. The only real thing that they have in common is the use of Dr. Gunther Voss' Löffelspitz (spoon-nose) projectile design.

At the time the OICW was a prime H&K project and the predessesor of the MP7 was very vigorously lobbied as the KE part for the OICW. H&K argued based on weight reduction but the idea was very firmly rejected as it would provide a captive production of both the weapon and ammunition for H&K (very carefully noted as we proceed with the Grendel).

It is interesting to note that the Swedish Squad Support Weapon project uses a PDW lower as backup to the programmable grenade launcher.

Hey, got a link for information on that squad support weapon?

Its my understanding that the KE part of an OICW ("Oink") is supposed to be for when they get too close to use the frag rounds in the 20/25mm gun. If that is the case, then PDWs would be the order of the day. Either something based on an AP round like the 5.7 FN, or a heavy thumper like the .50 Beowulf would be optimal in the role. I for one would perfer a heavy hitter (full bore, straight cased like the Beo') that even if any body armor worn stops the shot, the trauma inflicted is such that they arn't getting back up any time soon...and of course if you are listening to the "rattatat" of assault rifle fire, and all the sudden you hear the distinct "BOOMBOOMBOOM" of the Oink's KE gun going off, you know your grenider is in trouble.

Frankly I think straight casing the x39 case and plopping a .44 mag slug in it would be a good idea for rifles that couldn't handle the size of the .50 beo shell. But thats me. :D

Hey, got a link for information on that squad support weapon?

2004 NDIA Briefing "The Swedish Squad Support Weapon Program" by Mr. Per G. Arvidsson (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf)


STK's Squad Support Weapon (SSW) candidate (http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=218)

While it's certainly possible to create new PDW cartridges that offer superior range and penetration than 9mm Parabellum, I have to wonder if it is truly worth doing.

For one thing, the overwhelming majority of military personnel who would be armed with a PDW are not likely to be able to use the extra range capability. The small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) rounds make the PDW more of a mini-assault rifle than seems to me to be necessary for personal defense. Remember, most of the individuals who would have a PDW (clerks, truck drivers, etc) normally don't get to spend much time on target practice, so they won't be capable of making good use of a 200-meter effective range. For these people, a PDW that is effective to 50-100 meters is probably more than sufficent.

Also, with the adoption by Russia and China of service pistols in caliber 9x19, that round is now the standard pistol cartridge of virtually every military in the world. To adopt a completely different round that is incompatible with all of those 9mm handguns means adding another caliber to the logistics equation.

Although it ain't nearly as sexy, a more practical approach would be to develop more effective loads for the 9mm cartridge. 9mm bullets can be configured to increase both incapacitation and penetration, at much less cost than designing SCHV ammo and weapons, and would allow continued use of the handguns (and SMGs) currently in the inventory.

However, if greater range and penetration is desired, why not neck down the 9mm Para cartridge? This would enable use of bullets with higher sectional density and ballistic coefficient, yet still be able to fit in and feed from existing 9mm magazines, and require perhaps no more than a barrel change.

Stan

However, if greater range and penetration is desired, why not neck down the 9mm Para cartridge? This would enable use of bullets with higher sectional density and ballistic coefficient, yet still be able to fit in and feed from existing 9mm magazines, and require perhaps no more than a barrel change.

Sure looks a lot like what SIG did with their 357SIG out of the 40S&W.

I know I love the 40's I have, as much for themselves as for the factory drop-in barrels that let me use 357SIG in the same weapon.

Here's 2 of my favorites 40's, the 400 Corbon & 40 Super. The hot rod 40 Super never took off like the "gun rags" thought it would and magazine feeding problems didn't help either, nevertheless it's my favorite bottleneck .40 cal. It's top factory 135 grain load from now defunct Triton Ammo proclaimed 1925 fps, later reduced to a claimed 1800 fps. Of the several people that I knew shooting this round none of us could obtain velocties even close to 1900 or 1800 fps. My best "manageable" 135 grain Nosler loads were in the 1700-1740 fps range using very healthy charges of Power Pistol or 3N37, still not too bad for a short bottleneck pistol round.

400 Corbon 40 Super

http://tinypic.com/6qfwwp.jpg

Mike

I wonder how the Colt MARS would have worked with a super quick twist barrel using the new 90 gr. Sierra?

Bah.

Just issue the troops some good .40cal pistols and be done with it. Today's pistols just don't have enough penetration to make a difference: either you have penetration but no power, or you have power but no penetration, or you have power and penetration but a 15 foot effective range. Well...why not consider that 99% of our enemies aren't wearing any body armor at all...many don't even understand the concept of "cover"! All I ever used the pistol for was to go to the bathroom, look into basements and under vehicles, handle POW's...that's it. It's better than nothing, but it's not a factor really.

Need more than a pistol for a PDW? Great, get a short assault rifle, doesn't matter the caliber, just get one and a red dot sight of some sort, there you go. Examples would be the Russian Krinkov, Galil SAR (poor example of the weight, but other than that it's bang on), M-4 CQB variant, whatever you want, as long as it's a short version of a real assault rifle. No need to make new calibers, no need for ultra fancy expensive systems. No need to compromise heavily on power/penetration. Employ it in semi-auto, with a forward K-grip, and a wrap around sling.

IMO all this mucking about looking at .22 and .17 caliber bee sting bullets is barking up the wrong tree. At least FN didn't go far off the trail though, but still... besides, have you ever found yourself hunting around for 9mm ammo in the field, when everything that showed up for the consolidation on objective, is 5.56, 762 or 50cal? I have...and all I could think of was that having an SMG just wasn't up to the job! :D

Here's 2 of my favorites 40's, the 400 Corbon & 40 Super.

I remember hearing of the former, not the latter though. Those were based on a .45 ACP but necked down to take a .40 bullet, right?

I have a drop-in conversion for a 1911 chambered in .460 Rowland that's fun... basically a .45 ACP but the brass - special brass - is .10 longer and I've clocked 1600 fps (with 230 grain ball; 180's are even better) but it's not for the faint of heart when fired off a standard 45's frame.

Need more than a pistol for a PDW? Great, get a short assault rifle...
Trouble is, an assault rifle -- even a short one -- is too large and heavy for the PDW role. The reason a handgun has always been used for personal defense is that it is sufficiently compact and lightweight that it can be worn on the person 7/24. An assault rifle will be removed and set down somewhere, and so may not be close at hand when it is needed.

Stan

[QUOTE=spclark]I remember hearing of the former, not the latter though. Those were based on a .45 ACP but necked down to take a .40 bullet, right?

It's a 45 Win Mag case made with a small rifle primer pocket necked down to .40 cal. I managed to get some 135's up around 1780+ fps but the cases were hosed and the muzzle flash was excessive, not exactly what I would call a safe published load. Whereas, 1700 fps was very managable recoil wise. My favorite load was using the 165 gr Rem Golden Saber and Power Pistol powder. I built mine from assorted 1911 parts from Brownells(28 lb recoil spring) and a Jarvis barrel. If I could do it all over again I would have just purchased a complete gun instead building one completely from scratch.


The 460 Rowland is definitely a thumper

>>"The reason a handgun has always been used for personal defense is that it is sufficiently compact and lightweight that it can be worn on the person 7/24."

Having lived like that for six months, I reject that statement. I carried a Canadian M249 that weighed 23 pounds (with a full 200 round belt, the Elcan scope-stupid but not my choice, and the Canadian "Bren grip") around 90% of the time during my tour...and for me, the closest thing to a "PDW" was to switch off and carry a C-7A1, which is basically an M-16A2 with Elcan scope. Yep, 40 inches long, 10 lbs loaded (remember the scope isn't light)...

...and guess what? I felt like I wasn't armed heavily enough if things went bad...

No, I suggest to you that a short assault rifle, say around 5 lbs, 25 inches when all folded up, that's the ideal PDW, whether for military, police or security svc. I understand that many will dissagree...but IMO we really don't need to be inventing a new kind of smallarm, just tweeking the ones we've got.

Look at helicopter and fighter pilots: they seem to agree, and are no longer carrying the HK 9mm Mp5K, even with the fancy suppressor. In fact, many are carrying full length M-16's...because they don't have to carry them far, and because if they DO get downed, they want a full rifle, not a 10 yard squirtgun bee-stinger.

Then there's the logistics issue, of hauling around all these bullets that are never used to kill the enemy, but are squirted up in large amounts by rear esch troops practicing. Then there's the training issue: you still need to train everyone to use all the basic smallarms, now you have to teach an entirely new system to troops that really don't WANT to learn another gun...they just want to get on with getting the meals ready, or finding some grease for routine maint on their trucks. They already know how to use the issue assault rifle, the MG's...they don't want to spend another minute doing "yet another gun to learn". It's the polar opposite mode of thinking from what you'd expect from an infantryman or gun-nut like us.

Again, just my opinion, but I really think that the PDW thing was just an excuse to linger onto the SMG for general military use...when really the only need for SMG's is for suppressed use, which isn't terribly popular today for some reason.

Even police don't seem to want SMG's or "PDW's" anymore...Mp-5 and P-90 sales have been pretty flat for some time now, Ruger's PC-9 isn't doing very hot...all the PD's are buying 5.56 of various kinds. Heck, Remington even took their 870 and made a 5.56 version...think about that for a minute :eek:

>>... Ruger's PC-9 isn't doing very hot...

Yeah, I bought their .40 S&W version; 9's don't throw enough weight.

Thats why I like the design of the MP7. Its small enough to be considered a pistol, but has all the doo dads on it to make it controllable in rapid fire and give you stable shouldered shots. Remeber, a PDW is designed as a personal DEFENSE weapon. A pistol is good, but some sort of carbine is better because shouldered shots are inherantly more accurate than shooting with a "pistol" even single or semi-auto (not to mention burst/full auto). Admittedly, as a SPECOPS suppressed weapon, the PDW is also useful, but thats not my point. A Warthog or Apache pilot has very limited perameters to fit his personal defense weapon into. Something the size of a full sized handgun (around the same size as a M9 or 1911, maybe a little larger) with a pull out, stock that does not add significantly to bulk or additional pouches on his survival gear, and is capable of accurately hitting targets that are a threat to him, would be a blessing. As a sidearm (NOT PRIMARY WEAPON) it would give you a little more wiggle room to "fight your way back to your rifle/machine gun" as it were, with out having to have your machinegunner pack around ANOTHER long arm, or your typical rifleman pack around most of the weight of a second rifle.

That being said, I agree that we have to get away from these "Armor Piercing Pellet Guns". Take the MP7, chamber it for .357 Sig, .357 Mag, .40 S&W, 10mm, .400 Corbon, or .45 ACP, heck chamber it for ANYTHING better than the rather impotent 9mm or any of the bee sting cartriges and try it. Sure, you only get 13 to 15 rounds in the flush mag, but even if they are wearing body armor, they are going to get the stuffing knocked out of them. Want armor piercing instead of just stopping power, use KTW ammo or something.

Physics doesn't Lie, MASS counts.

Oh and for the record, it wouldn't hurt to use the same case head properties as the grendel. Kinda like the dimensions on the .45 ACP are so damn close to the case head of the .308/7.62x51 nato. Then all you need is a barrel swap to go from full power long range rifle to suppressed .40 cal room sweeper. just a thought

The whole concept with the PDW cartridge is to make the ideal compromise between weight, size, range, acuracy and terminal ballistics.

Perhaps the ideal would be a MP7 with a longer barrel (10inch) and with the biggest and hottest cartrige that you can fit inside the handgrip, providing the magazine can hold 30 rounds minimum. I propose something like 6x25mm.

A 6mm 70grain boat tail bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2400fps should equal the performance of an M-4 carbine. I think that is achievable in a PDW. And the weight of the resulting weapon would be less than half of the M-4. An Apache pilot could just strap one on his thigh, and be ready to rumble in a second.

Also the Glock 18 seems like a good platform for modification. Just lenghthen the barrel, add a MP-7 like retractable stock and its ready to go. It would be even smaller and lighter than the MP-7 platform.

The latest PDW bullets from HK and FN seem too tiny. 30 grains are OK for shooting rabbits, but they do not give much confidence when shooting against an enemy armed with a full size assault rifle.

I suggest to you that a short assault rifle, say around 5 lbs, 25 inches when all folded up, that's the ideal PDW...
Okay, now I understand. Your experience is as an infantryman, where minimum weapon size is not especially important. Speaking as a former tank commander, I can tell you that even a compact assault rifle is not suitable for use as a PDW. When it's necessary to "un-ass" a tank in an emergency, nobody is going to take the time to get that assault rifle out of its stowage rack, I guarantee you. In a situation like that, a tanker will only be armed with whatever he has in his shoulder holster, which these days is an automatic pistol. Trouble is, very few soldiers are capable of using a pistol to hit a target at any distance much beyond arms length, when under extreme stress. That's the "why" behind the PDW concept. Something that can be carried like a pistol, but provides combat effectiveness approaching that of an assault rifle.
Even police don't seem to want SMG's or "PDW's" anymore...
I'm not concerned about either police or SMGs, as that only confuses the issue by straying from the discussion of what is an appropriate PDW for military use. Besides, I don't know of any police departments that have ever shown interest in PDWs. (The P90 is a SMG, not a PDW.)
Heck, Remington even took their 870 and made a 5.56 version...think about that for a minute
I'd rather not. :rolleyes:

Also the Glock 18 seems like a good platform for modification. Just lenghthen the barrel, add a MP-7 like retractable stock and its ready to go. It would be even smaller and lighter than the MP-7 platform.
I concur with the concept of a Glock-based PDW, except that I think the Glock 17 would be a better choice. Machine pistols and compact SMGs require lots of practice to be proficient with them, and the typical soldier who'll be armed with a PDW just ain't gonna get that amount of range time. Firing full-auto, in combat, he (or she) would almost certainly empty the magazine on such a high cyclic rate weapon, while getting few hits. If a two-round burst limiter could be installed, maybe a PDW based on the Glock 18 would be okay, but I don't know if that is technically feasible. That's why I'd suggest staying with the semi-auto Glock 17.

The Glock 18 idea is nice, but the reason I referenced the MP7 is the mechanism is enclosed. As much as I trust my 1911 or USP45 I would not like to have that exposed slide assembly slamming back and forth in front of my face while its shouldered (same reason some of the earlier submachine guns with rear mounted reciprocating bolts were not well recieved). The MP7 is approximately the same size (and shape) as the Mark 23 SOCOM. With a few relitively minor modifications to the design, the two weapons could be somewhat compatable and interchangable. I do agree though that semi auto or limited 2 or 3 round burst should be mandated for controllability and ammo supply issues. After all, its not like your typical pilot or tanker packs 10 spare mags for his PDW. :rolleyes:
The idea of a high velocity round is nice, but the hotter you make the cartridge the more stress on the gun, and the tougher (heavier/more expensive) you have to make it. Eventually you have to bow to the law of diminishing returns. Thats one of the reasons I advocate cartridges such as the .45 ACP and its ilk. The .45 ACP is a "proven fight stopper". Its not fast, its not light, its kinda bulky, but it gets the job done and was developed to take down determined, drugged up fanatics that weren't bleeding to death fast enough from the issue .38 cal weapons of the time. Velocity is not always a replacement for mass.
Also, nobody says you have to carry it with the "High Cap Mag" in the gun. Many a fan of the ParaOrdinance family has pointed out that a P12 can be carried with a 12 rd mag in the grip, but the backup magazine can be from the p14, giving you two extra shots. Same principle was developed with the MP7, to the tune of 20 rds in the "flush fit" mag and 40 in the extended mag (if I recall correctly). I personally would not be upset with a "hot 10mm/.40 cal" pushing around a 200 grain KTW slug (or even sectioned steel/aluminum like the FN 5.7mm pellets, only bigger and sabotted), 15 round flush fit magazine, and 30 round extended magazine. This would give you 5+10 three round bursts with just one extra magazine, or a total of 45 rounds if you take your time and aim ;) .
Again, this is just to take out the guy thats between you and your rifle, not a replacement FOR your rifle, and certainly not to engage anyone past 100 yards (thats what your 6.5 Grendel chambered rifle is for :rolleyes: ). If hes over 100 yards away and you arn't engaging him with a rifle/machinegun/grenade launcher/etc. you probably shouldnt be taking pot shots at him with your sidarm/PDW either. Also, a PDW to help out the poor guy whos primary weapon happens to be attached to a vehicle thats functioning as a bullseye (or no longer functioning at all) or the tanker who opens the hatch only to be face to face with "Johnny Jihad" on the roof. You want something small enough to draw quickly, but with enough punch to knock him on his Keister.

I have to go with Stan and support tweaking the 9x19mm as the simplest solution. Just buy or reverse engineer the Swedish m/39B FMJ round. It uses a steel jacket which is thickened throughout the ogive. It is supposed to defeat most soft body armor with ease. (See Attachment 1)

Converting 9x19mm back to the 7.65mm Parabellum (AKA: .30 Luger) seems like a retrograde solution. Georg Luger is somewhere shaking his head at the thought.

If one insists on a larger caliber, there is an interesting, but exotic, AP solution in .45 ACP...the tubular airfoil bullet. Think of a copper and steel cookie cutter. I really don't know if it would be considered Land Warfare Legal. (See Attachment 2)

Has anyone even tested the more conventional KTW (teflon coated, hardened brass or copper slug loaded to +P or better values) against modern body armor? How about steel or tungstan core pistol cartridges? What about trauma effects underneath the armor? What it seems like most people are forgetting is that just punching through armor doesn't do the trick, its what the bullet actually does to the body that kills or incapacitates the target. You can poke holes in a terrorist all day long and eventually he will bleed to death, but unless you cause enough trauma to kill him or effectively cripple him, he is still a threat. A prime example is the vid from the middle east where "Johnny Jihad" has an RPG on his shoulder and gets cut down by automatic weapons fire. You will note, that while the first bursts probably would have killed him eventually, they only staggered him. The follow up bursts (I'm guessing from a machine gun because I thought I saw tracers in the vid) hit him a second after, and one of the rounds goes through his head. If you watch in the vidio, the whole reason they fired a second volly was because HE DIDN'T GO DOWN. He was obviously hit, probably fatally, but none of the hits were in the CNS, so they didn't stop him. They just went zipping right through. That was out of a rifle (probably 5.56). Hot pistol ammo has been known to do the same thing, especially in military regulation hardball (9mm recently and .38 back in the Phillippines). Again, thats why the spec ops guys and most front line combat troops LOVE thier 1911s for a "PDW". Even the slow, non expanding hardball puts big holes in things, and transfers most, if not ALL of its energy to a target (when a small, streamlined bullet passes through it minimizes energy transfer, thereby wasting alot of the energy because it never imparted it to the target). In a close in fight (where a PDW is nessicary) you want alot of energy dump, and don't need as much range or accuracy. Thats why Buckshot is loved by all for CQB. The reason I like .40 cal and better chamberings is because they give you that mass, but are still viable as a carbine (targets within 100 yards) platform even with shorter barrels.

Okay, thats enough rambling for one morning. :D

Alek wrote: "I propose something like 6x25mm. A 6mm 70grain boat tail bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2400fps should equal the performance of an M-4 carbine."

Alek, please say more about this. Would the bullet would be saboted? Do you predict any feeding problems with a pointy bullet in a pistol? Are you basically "necking up" FN's 5.7 x 28? Has anyone tried anything similar? What about a .221 Remington Fireball necked up to 6mm? Pictures?

John

How about something like a necked down .30 carbine/ necked up 5.7 Johnson Spitfire?

The 5.7 Johnson is very close to the 5.7 FN but the case is actually a little larger diameter. My dad has had a 5.7 Johnson M1 Carbine for as long as I can remeber. Fun to shoot, very accurate, almost NO recoil, and with 14 grains of Unique and (I'm guessing) a 40 to 65 grain projectile, its a real scorcher. I wonder how a "Grendel style" case and projectile combination would do. Wish I had the cash to try it out, as the gas tappet system in the carbine is VERY forgiving to changes in cartridge values (the Spitfire carbine is IDENTICAL to the standard .30 cal carbine except for the necked down barrel and chamber).

Wish I knew more about ballistics...guess I need to take some classes...when I can afford them :rolleyes:

Alek wrote: "I propose something like 6x25mm. A 6mm 70grain boat tail bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2400fps should equal the performance of an M-4 carbine."

Alek, please say more about this. Would the bullet would be saboted? Do you predict any feeding problems with a pointy bullet in a pistol? Are you basically "necking up" FN's 5.7 x 28? Has anyone tried anything similar? What about a .221 Remington Fireball necked up to 6mm? Pictures?

John


I don't think necking up a 5.7x28 to .243 will work because it's not wide enough at the shoulder.

I'll post a 6mm Whisper picture tonight when I get home. Also, I'll attempt to neck up a 5.7x28 to .243.


http://www.sskindustries.com/cartridges.htm

How about something like a necked down .30 carbine/ necked up 5.7 Johnson Spitfire?

The 5.7 Johnson is very close to the 5.7 FN but the case is actually a little larger diameter. My dad has had a 5.7 Johnson M1 Carbine for as long as I can remeber. Fun to shoot, very accurate, almost NO recoil, and with 14 grains of Unique and (I'm guessing) a 40 to 65 grain projectile, its a real scorcher. I wonder how a "Grendel style" case and projectile combination would do. Wish I had the cash to try it out, as the gas tappet system in the carbine is VERY forgiving to changes in cartridge values (the Spitfire carbine is IDENTICAL to the standard .30 cal carbine except for the necked down barrel and chamber).

Wish I knew more about ballistics...guess I need to take some classes...when I can afford them :rolleyes:


http://www.thegunzone.com/carbine-wildcat.html

How about something like a necked down .30 carbine/ necked up 5.7 Johnson Spitfire?

Wish I knew more about ballistics...guess I need to take some classes...when I can afford them :rolleyes:


I have 5-6 books on just "wildcat" cartridges, the book below is a great one to start off with.

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=942114

Mike

Oh, just as a point of interest, our usual loading is something like 13 grains of Unique with a 45 grain ballistic tip. Penetration, expansion, and temporary shockwave effects are fun. Makes squirrils go "poof".

http://www.thegunzone.com/carbine-wildcat.html

You notice the info on the shortened .223 case necked with the .256 win mag die? Sounds like what we are talking about right there. We also already know that the case diameter of the .223 dictates that you get 10 rds in a standard 15 rd magazine. Might be an interesting cartridge for an "Enforcer" style handgun/PDW (an M1 carbine with the barrel cut off just in front of the gas block, with or without a folding/sliding stock). Love to see it with a 90 to 123 grain projectile.

Wonder if you can get 20 to 22 rounds in the 30 rd mags or if the curve would mess with feeding.

The Glock 18 idea is nice, but the reason I referenced the MP7 is the mechanism is enclosed. As much as I trust my 1911 or USP45 I would not like to have that exposed slide assembly slamming back and forth in front of my face while its shouldered...
I agree. I've fired a Beretta M93R and Browning Hi-Power with shoulder stocks attached, but did not feel at all comfortable with the reciprocating slide inches in front of my face. :(

When I wrote about a PDW "based on" the Glock, I had in mind a reconfigured receiver that would enclose the rear part of the slide, like that of the Arm West PDW seen at http://www.defensereview.com/crane1/Arm West PDW_Shoulder Weapon Version _Retracted-Spec.jpg

I have to go with Stan and support tweaking the 9x19mm as the simplest solution. Just buy or reverse engineer the Swedish m/39B FMJ round. It uses a steel jacket which is thickened throughout the ogive. It is supposed to defeat most soft body armor with ease.
It's reportedly been tested by the Army, but -- unlike the Swedish 5.56mm and 7.62mm AP rounds -- has not been adopted. Why? I haven't found any official explanation, but there is conjecture that it's to placate politicians who fear that military armor-piercing pistol ammo might find its way into civilian hands.
Converting 9x19mm back to the 7.65mm Parabellum (AKA: .30 Luger) seems like a retrograde solution.
I guess it is, sort of, but it was offered as a solution that might appeal to those who like the superior sectional density of small caliber projectiles, in a cartridge that would fit existing 9mm magazines.
If one insists on a larger caliber, there is an interesting, but exotic, AP solution in .45 ACP...the tubular airfoil bullet. Think of a copper and steel cookie cutter.
There are two versions of the "cookie cutter" bullet, that I know of. One has the center hole completely through the bullet, and uses a pusher plate that falls away after leaving the muzzle. The other has a solid base. Both have the same type of nose configuration, that is intended to "saw" through Kevlar. One drawback is that the steel core is apparently not very flexible -- a friend in law enforcement fired one of these rounds in his pistol, and split the barrel lengthwise!

Has anyone even tested the more conventional KTW (teflon coated, hardened brass or copper slug loaded to +P or better values) against modern body armor? How about steel or tungstan core pistol cartridges? What about trauma effects underneath the armor?
Several years ago, I got hold of a few rounds of (9mm and .45) KTW ammo with bronze bullets. 9mm effortlessly punched through two layers of Level IIA Kevlar, and three phone books behind the vests, then bounced back and hit my foot. No noticeable deformation of the bullet. Shot another 9mm KTW at 3.5mm-thick steel plate, but only dented it slightly deeper than 9mm Ball. KTW in 9mm and .45 easily penetrated an M1 steel helmet.

I have no info on post-penetration trauma.

Actually I was asking about non penetrating hits. Even with level IVa armor I wouldn't want to get hit in the chest with something moving just over the speed of sound and weighing around 200 grain. People always reference how 9mm used to go through German helmets during WW2 but .45 would "bounce off". Frankly I don't think the German with the crease in his helmet from the .45 was in any condition to fight after that hit. Fight stopping power doesn't always mean you have to penetrate the armor. Getting hit in the chest with a .44 mag or .45 ACP or (fill in your cartridge of choice) that doesn't penetrate your armor can still break your ribs and leave you with internal injuries that make you unable to fight.

To bad we don't have any test data on the standard hard Kevlar fiberglass that helmets are made out of. I'd be tempted to test it on the vehicle operator helmet I have (i just happen to have access to some .45 KTW) but right now I have no way to replace the plate if I damage it, and I am keeping it around for other projects.

Oh, does anyone know how thick, or what kind of steel saw mill blades are made of? My dad tested some KTW on an old warped one back in the 70s. The hardball barely dinged it, but the KTW went almost all the way through.

I don't think necking up a 5.7x28 to .243 will work because it's not wide enough at the shoulder.
[/url]

Actually, I believe that you could neck the 5.7x28mm or 4.6x30mm all the way out for .284" projectiles. There is an Italian proprietary round known as 7x28mm Penna which has similar dimensions.

http://www.thegunzone.com/carbine-wildcat.html

The author plans to update that article soon. Marty ter Weeme of Teppo Jutsu has played with a variation on the 7.63mm Mini-Whisper (7.62x25mm pistol cases loaded with rifle bullets) in the M1 Carbine. There was also a French proprietary round called the .30-222 Gévelot (cut down .222 Rem, necked out for .30" projectiles) designed to circumvent French restrictions on the possession of military cartridges and the arms which chamber them. In this case, it allowed for conversions and civilian sales of surplus M1 Carbines.

Getting hit in the chest with a .44 mag or .45 ACP or (fill in your cartridge of choice) that doesn't penetrate your armor can still break your ribs and leave you with internal injuries that make you unable to fight.
That seems rather unlikely. Years ago, the Second Chance catalogs had numerous photos of bare-chested cops who'd taken hits from various handgun rounds, as well as descriptions of the circumstances and calibers involved. There were always one or more good-sized bruises visible, but I recall no instances of broken ribs or internal injuries.
To bad we don't have any test data on the standard hard Kevlar fiberglass that helmets are made out of.
Take a look at Timothy Mullins' book, Testing the War Weapons. He shot PASGT helmet and vest with several different rifle and pistol calibers. Here are some of the results:

.45 ACP Ball -- No penetration, helmet or vest.
9x19mm NATO Ball -- No penetration, helmet; penetration, vest.
9x19mm Czech Ball (steel core) -- Complete penetration as well as exit on helmet; complete penetration as well as exit on vest. :eek:

I stand corrected, I was able to neck the FN 5.7x28mm up to .264 but it then has virtually no shoulder when done so. Pictured is the FN necked to .243 with the smallest 6mm pill I have on hand, a 58 gr Hornady VMAX.

http://tinypic.com/6sqvir.jpg


The Micro-Whisper uses the 30 Luger cartridge and the Mini-Whisper the 30 Mauser as parent cases.

Just when you thought it was safe to hide, here's some real thumpers in 458 SOCOM.

http://tinypic.com/6srqtk.jpg

350gr Rem RN

500 gr Barnes Solid

600 gr Barnes Original

Take a look at Timothy Mullins' book, Testing the War Weapons. He shot PASGT helmet and vest with several different rifle and pistol calibers. Here are some of the results:

.45 ACP Ball -- No penetration, helmet or vest.
9x19mm NATO Ball -- No penetration, helmet; penetration, vest.
9x19mm Czech Ball (steel core) -- Complete penetration as well as exit on helmet; complete penetration as well as exit on vest. :eek:
No mention of .45 ACP KTW or steel core?
Thats my point. Even .45 hardball is known to be a pretty good fight stopper. You might get SOME overpenetration, but if the steel core 9mm did so well, why wouldn't .45 cal?

I'm just saying, instead of using an already zippy cartridge that has shown itself to be an iffy fight stopper to begin with, why don't we use something thats been shown to be a somewhat effective fight stopper and figure out away to augment it with armor piercing capability?

Oh, and what good is going through both sides of the vest or helmet? Once it leaves the body you arn't doing any more damage. :D

No mention of .45 ACP KTW or steel core?
Nope. He seemed to be concerned with readily available ammo.
You might get SOME overpenetration, but if the steel core 9mm did so well, why wouldn't .45 cal?
Well, the fatter .45 bullet is also moving at slower speed, so armor penetration will be significantly less than the smaller, faster 9mm bullet.

.45 ACP is fatter and slower, however, the KTW rounds are hot loaded (not sure how hot pressure wise) to be just over supersonic out of a 1911. Its conceivable that .45 KTW in the +p or +p+ range would have enough penetration. Notice I said ENOUGH penetration. Going through both sides of the target is wasteful overkill. You only need to get through one side of the armor with enough force to penetrate and do damage to the human body, specifically vital internal organs. Punching holes is nice, but punching a bigger hole and actually imparting all of the energy to the target and leaving a chunk of teflon coated metal in its body cavity is better.
Just like tests with cars, we need "armor test dummies" to not only test the penetration, but the damage done to whatever is in the armor.

And as accurate as our soldiers seem to be lately, unless they are wearing the modern equivalent of full plate armor, most targets have soft spots ...like thier face ;)
"He's wearing armor" "What about his face? Is his face armored?"

.45 ACP is fatter and slower, however, the KTW rounds are hot loaded to be just over supersonic out of a 1911. Its conceivable that .45 KTW in the +p or +p+ range would have enough penetration.
At the time, I only had three rounds of .45 KTW available to me, not enough to allow chronographing and still do the penetration testing. The fired cases showed no indication of higher than standard pressure, so I'm certain that muzzle velocities were little or no greater than typical for conventional bullets of the same weight.

About 10 years ago, Paul Kopsch (the "K" in KTW) told me that he had some .45 KTW in storage, so conceivably it could still be possible to do the kind of test & evaluation you've discussed, if one had the proper test facilities, and the permits needed to buy and possess AP ammo.

However, I don't know if Kopsch is still alive, or even if he is, if the ammo is still available.

I wonder how body armor would react to the new .460 S&W mag. 200 grains at Mach 2 :eek: ...thats gotta leave a mark :D

Thats why I like the design of the MP7. Its small enough...controllable in rapid fire and...[allows] stable shouldered shots.
The MP7 is a nice design, but there are four things about it that I don't care much for:

1. It's gas-operated, which makes it more complex than a service pistol.
2. It has grown in size and weight, the MP7A1 being over a pound heavier than the first version of 5-6 years ago.
3. The .18 caliber cartridge fires a teensy-weensy, ultra-lightweight projectile that has dubious incapacitation potential.
4. The 4.6x30mm ammunition is not usable in existing service pistols.

I think a better, much more practical choice is the MP9 http://www.mp9.ch

The MP9 is significantly shorter, lighter, and -- being recoil operated -- less complex than the MP7. It also fires NATO-standard 9mm ammo, which is available almost any place on the planet.

Stan

Interesting. The basic mechinism looks very similar to the Beretta Cougar - which has excellent accuracy and muted recoil.

Isn't that the Steyr TPM (Or whatever acronym it was, I get it, and the semi-auto civilian counterpart confused)? Only three or four things I would change about it.
Stowable forgrip (like the MP7)
Straight pull stock (Like the MP7)
Reduce the size and "square" profile as much as possible (its a little bulky for a sidarm)
Make it .40 cal (but thats a personal preference, I still think the 9mm is just to weak)

Isn't that the Steyr TPM (Or whatever acronym it was...)?
Yes, it's a modified Steyr TMP (Tactical Machine Pistol).
Only three or four things I would change about it.
Stowable forgrip (like the MP7)
That adds to the complexity and cost, and the hinge offers a weak point. More importantly, in my opinion, is that the shooter doesn't have to take the time to deploy the fixed foregrip. Plus, the foregrip is always in the same position, which is better for "muscle memory" when using the weapon under stress.
Straight pull stock (Like the MP7)
That would be nice, I agree, but it'd require a complete redesign of the receiver, whereas adding a folding stock needed only a simple change to the receiver rear.
Reduce the size and "square" profile as much as possible (its a little bulky for a sidarm)
The MP9 receiver is a little wider than that of the MP7, but no taller. The MP9 looks boxier than an MP7 because the MP9 is so much shorter. In any case, what you desire is not feasible because of the internal construction.
Make it .40 cal (but thats a personal preference, I still think the 9mm is just to weak)
Changing to .40 cal would take us right back to one of the drawbacks to the MP7 -- it isn't the same caliber as the 9mm service pistols currently in use worldwide.

Okay, maybe not a flip down forgrip, but a removable one for when its being used as a sidearm. I'm looking at this as a replacement for the M9. No need to have two weapons in inventory that do basically the same job and tell me there is a marine out there that wouldn't like to add full auto to his issue sidarm for those "sticky" situations.
Same principle as the Glock17/18 family, better execution.

As far as the shape/size, I was just talking about rounding off the "corners" a little more. Sure plastic is nice and all, but steel reinforced plastic can be made a touch smaller.

Your argument for NATO standard ammo also has one flaw. We are currently discussing going away from it already, hence all the interest in the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC. If we go to .40 cal and 6.5G, whats to say NATO won't follow us?

One option for the fixed forgrip I would say is better is something like the FN P90 for grip. Its lower profile and would be less likely to snag on a holster. Also, something else that came to mind is an underbarrel rail like the Berretta Cx4 carbine for mounting lights and lasers.

Yea ok, I like the idea of the TMP/MP9 as a PDW...that makes a lot of sense for those situations where you need a PDW or SMG or concealed assault wpn.

There's some good vids on their site, looks very controllable, very fast reacting.

I'm looking at this as a replacement for the M9. No need to have two weapons in inventory that do basically the same job...
I think that even if the MP9 or similar weapon were to be adopted as a PDW, it's very likely that a conventional pistol would be kept in the inventory. A pistol is better-suited to the needs of high-ranking officers, military police, and criminal investigators, to note some examples. Where symbolic armament, or concealability, is required, a PDW would be more gun than necessary or wanted.

Your argument for NATO standard ammo also has one flaw. We are currently discussing going away from it already, hence all the interest in the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC. If we go to .40 cal and 6.5G, whats to say NATO won't follow us?
Not sure what "we" you are talking about. Certainly, such options are being discussed in this and other internet forums, but I have seen little indication of official consideration by the armed forces of either the US or NATO to use calibers other than 9mm and 5.56mm.

The Germans have acquired a very small number of MP7s for spec ops, I understand, and the Swedes may be planning to switch from 9x19mm to 5.7x28mm. Otherwise, I've seen no hint of abandoning the two NATO calibers by any country.

That being said, if the US should go to 10mm for pistol and 6.5mm for rifle, then I'd say that, yes, there'd be a very good chance that other countries would follow our lead.

There is mention of a "future handgun" in proceedings from the latest NDIA Small Arms meeting, but the .pdf file is so large that I haven't been able to find out if it gives any specifics as to caliber, or whatnot. For those who have high-speed service, you can check it at http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/wednesday/clarke.pdf

Also, something else that came to mind is an underbarrel rail like the Berretta Cx4 carbine for mounting lights and lasers.
Rails? Yech! I thought we were discussing a PDW. :confused: Start loading it up with all the gadgets and gizmos that spec ops and SWAT teams like these days, and you'll end up with something that's too big and bulky for holster carry. :rolleyes:

I have seen little indication of official consideration by the armed forces of either the US or NATO to use calibers other than 9mm...

There is mention of a "future handgun" in proceedings from the latest NDIA Small Arms meeting, but...I haven't been able to find out if it gives any specifics as to caliber, or whatnot. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/wednesday/clarke.pdf
I was finally able to download this file, and to my great surprise, the "future handgun" shown on page 20 is to have "caliber larger than 9mm"!!!

Less surprising, however, is that the picture is of a Heckler & Koch USP. I'd sure like to know why in hell the Army small arms program people are so enamored of H&K products! What gives? :confused:

The XM8 carbine family is H&K. The XM320 grenade launcher is H&K. The XM25 and XM29 airburst weapons are H&K. And now the future handgun apparently is going to be an H&K. H&K makes some decent guns, but I hardly think they're the best available.

HI
I was thinking more old school.

Why not equip drivers and other non direct combatants with something like a Finnish Jatimatic chambered in 9x23 or if you want to go smaller a .243/9x23 with an approx 75 grain projectile.

Small, light weight, able to be sho and reasonable controlled with one hand because of the way it recoils and returns to battery.

Combine that with 6.5 G weapons for combattant troop and you only have 2 types of ammo to find in the supply chain.
Change the Side arm to 243/9x23 and things become so much simpler.

Big mag capacity, long range ft-lbs on target if required for the drivers and such but small out of the way units that they can wear all the time on an underarm rig and not be caught napping.

just my ideas.

later
P

There is mention of a "future handgun" in proceedings from the latest NDIA Small Arms meeting, but the .pdf file is so large that I haven't been able to find out if it gives any specifics as to caliber, or whatnot. For those who have high-speed service, you can check it at http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/wednesday/clarke.pdf

For future downloads of this size, use a program such as GetRight to download the file to your hard drive. With GetRight, the download can be stopped and restarted at a future time. You won't lose any data as it will pick up right where it left off.

>>>"Less surprising, however, is that the picture is of a Heckler & Koch USP. I'd sure like to know why in hell the Army small arms program people are so enamored of H&K products! What gives?"

It's my belief that it's a backward form of bribe: This soldier promotes the company through the promotion and program management...in the hopes that once he retires from the military, the company will hire him as an "Advisor/consultant", for a really nice package.

Quite frankly, such practices ought to be illegal, and I bet that in some conditions they already are. Witness "Dragon Lady" and her tough negotiating on behalf of US airmen for an entire career...right up until her retirement where she tried to do such a thing with Boeing, and got caught bigtime. Now her rep has gone from the highest, to among the lowest.

It's my belief that it's a backward form of bribe: This soldier promotes the company through the promotion and program management...in the hopes that once he retires from the military, the company will hire him as an "Advisor/consultant", for a really nice package.
You may be right. When General Dynamics was awarded a multi-billion dollar contract for the Stryker 8-wheeled, armored vehicle, that company hired Gen. Heebner before the ink was dry, and paid him lotsa $$$!

... humm...

So they are getting a nice pension AND they want a fat contract too? Well, one simple fix would be to TAX all post-retirement income at the highest marginal tax rate... which is now an insulting 35% here... humm... maybe at about 2x that rate then... http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Perhaps the funds could be funneled directly to the VA, since their need corresponds with the exit of lots of military personnel after the conclusion of a major conflict.

Well, taxing them is one way...but quite frankly I feel that this practice, whether in the military industry, or any other branch of govt contracts...ought to be something that sends people to jail, on both the govt. side and also the industry side. It's flat out conflict of interest involving billions of tax dollars.

But I'm almost certainly being naive about this! :p :D

Two points.

Size: What I am proposing by something MP7 or MP9 style is not nessicarily the same size. Optimal would be similar in size to the M9 but with an extension off the back to house the "slide"/Mechanism so that its not cycling directly in your face and so you have something to attach the sliding/folding stock to. I agree that the Jatimatic is an excellent example of what i am talking about. Best showing of it I have ever seen was the Spesnaz commander in Red Dawn (if you have never seen it, shame on you, go rent it ;) ). He carried his as a sidarm, forgoing the pansy-assed little makeroves of the regular officers. Oh, and its got a flip down forgrip (which acts as a safty and charging handle). Only problem I have with the Jatimatic is the magazine outside the handgrip. Its alot easier to find the mag well for a quick reload if its in the grip, and it reduces the size of the arm a little, but I can ignore these points since it has been show that the Jatimatic is small enough to still fit in the "pistol" envelope, and with proper training the reloads would be a non issue.
Basically I am suggesting that the Pistol and PDW be combined in basic structure like they are trying to do with all the current longarms (90% commonality between all AR variants, and 50% between the AR and SAW longarms). And for the sake of argument, design them so a swap of a couple of parts could allow you to go from 9mm to 10 or 11mm (11mm +.45 cal or pretty close anyway). Remeber, this is a sidarm for your TROOPS. Concealability is not nessicarily an issue. Portability, firepower, and convienience are. Fitting it into the "pistol" envelope would just improve its usefulness.

Rails: I'm just talking about an underbarrel rail similar to what is on most combat pistols. Something you can mount a tac light or laser on (M6 unit would be nice.) Of course, with that I would also say, design a "thumb switch" that acts as a "pulse" trigger for the light, so you can flash the area quickly, without leaving it on and leaving you exposed...same with the laser. Its an optional thing.

Didn't mean to ramble on so much. Hope this clarifies my position a little better.

If we go to .40 cal and 6.5G, whats to say NATO won't follow us?
After further reflection, I'd like to revise my previous answer to this question. Too hard to make a prediction about rifle caliber, but insofar as the pistol caliber is concerned, I'd say there is considerable evidence that NATO would not switch from 9mm to either .40 or .45 caliber.

1. Most European NATO countries adopted 9mm at a time when .45 ACP was still the standard US cartridge. They could've adopted .45, but chose not to. Even the few countries (I think Norway is one) that had .45 caliber service pistols in the mid-20th century, switched to 9mm.

2. Nearly all other countries seem to be quite satisfied with 9mm terminal performance.

3. The Europeans also make more use of SMGs than does the US, and 9mm is a much more practical caliber for that purpose.

4. I read recently (in an NDIA proceeding?) that NATO has decided that there's no real need for a common handgun caliber among member nations.

So, there is no real motivation for them to switch.

In that case, there really isn't area reason for us to stick with 9mm either. Just design it so that a barrel, boltface, magazine swap will convert it to a locally available caliber, and then make sure you swap them over or have the components to swap them over with you in theater. If you can do it with an AR, you can do it with a pistol/PDW/SMG

Alek wrote: "I propose something like 6x25mm. A 6mm 70grain boat tail bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2400fps should equal the performance of an M-4 carbine."

Alek, please say more about this. Would the bullet would be saboted? Do you predict any feeding problems with a pointy bullet in a pistol? Are you basically "necking up" FN's 5.7 x 28? Has anyone tried anything similar? What about a .221 Remington Fireball necked up to 6mm? Pictures?

John

Probably the .221 Fireball is too long to fit in a handgun, but it is a fine cartrige.

I'd say that the relation of the 6x25 to the 5.7x28 is similar to the relation of 6.5Grendel and 5.56NATO. Is uses the same formula: fatter and shorter case, bigger and longer bullet.

I think Remington loads a 6mm 75grain bullet with BC of .330. So i think its possible to develop a 70 grain bullet with a BC of around .300. That kind of low aerodynamic drag would give the bullet much better performance at ranges over 100yards, comparing to 9mm, 5.7mm or 4.6mm.
There is a simple drawing of the round attached to the my first post in this thread.

Regarding the design of the bullet, I would like a simple, effective allround bullet, FMJ filled with lead. The bullet should have a thick jacket/cap at the point, extending inside for 1/4 of the length of the bullet. This gives a hard and light point that increases both penetration and probability for tumbling. The jacket should get extremely thin in the middle and the base of the bullet, to in increase the frangibility.

Alek

I like the RX for the bullet you gave. If a more streamlined bullet were needed, or seating length were a problem, an aluminum rod core extending from the thick point to the base of the bullet would keep the lead back and out towards the centrifugially rich bullet jacket. The strength of aluminum should also cause the lead surrounding it to wrinkle and "bloom" against the jacket as it pushed forward and compressed.

I like it!

Regarding the design of the bullet, I would like a simple, effective allround bullet, FMJ filled with lead. The bullet should have a thick jacket/cap at the point, extending inside for 1/4 of the length of the bullet. This gives a hard and light point that increases both penetration and probability for tumbling. The jacket should get extremely thin in the middle and the base of the bullet, to in increase the frangibility.


It's going to nearly be impossible to find a drawn jacket as such. Also, too thin of a jacket in the bearing surface and the bullet will come apart flight. Projectiles dynamics are full of tradeoffs,the bullet core should be designed to do the work.

It's going to nearly be impossible to find a drawn jacket as such. Also, too thin of a jacket in the bearing surface and the bullet will come apart flight. Projectiles dynamics are full of tradeoffs,the bullet core should be designed to do the work.

Well I didn't mean thin enough to come apart in flight, but rather to blow apart on impact. There were some tests of the german .308 military bullet that had a similar design, which reliably produces an explosion of the base of the bullet upon impact. That would be excellent terminal performance. Also a cannelure would help.

A nice page:
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/Fackler/wund8.jpg

I was finally able to download this file (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/wednesday/clarke.pdf), and to my great surprise, the "future handgun" shown on page 20 is to have "caliber larger than 9mm"!!!

Judging from TACOM's 2005 Small Arms APBI (held last month), it looks like they've finally decided to return to .45 caliber. There is even talk of joining the Future Handgun System program with SOCOM's SOF Combat Pistol program. This would then be known as the Joint Combat Pistol.

There is even talk of joining the Future Handgun System program with SOCOM's SOF Combat Pistol program.
Why does SOCOM want a new pistol? After they spent so much time and $$$$ developing the Mk23, they oughta be forced to use it. :D

The presolicitation notice just came out for the Joint Combat Pistol.

The USSOCOM intends to issue a solicitation to obtain commercially available non-developmental item (NDI) Joint Combat Pistol (JCP) system, Caliber .45 (ACP). The Program will use full and open competition to fulfill the JCP requirement. The JCP will be delivered in accordance with specification entitled "Performance Specification Joint Combat Pistol" to be provided with issuance of the solicitation.

Two configurations of the pistol will be required. One configuration will have no external safety and the other configuration will have an external safety. The Combat Pistol System consists of: a Caliber .45 pistol and its ancillary equipment including: Magazines (standard and high-capacity); Suppressor Attachment Kit for operation of the pistol with and without sound suppressor; Holster; Magazine Holder (standard and high-capacity); Cleaning Kit; and Operator's Manual.

The contract type will be an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) issuing Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders. The contract period of performance shall be Five (5)years with an option to extend for an additional Five (5) years. The Minimum Quantity is 24 each Engineering Test Units (ETU's), 12 each with external manual safety and 12 each without external manual safety. The estimated Maximum quantities are: 45,000 no external safety JCP configuration and 600,000 JCP with the external safety configuration; 649,000 Holsters; 96,050 Standard Capacity Magazines; 192,099 High Capacity Magazines; 667,000 Magazine Holders; 132,037 Suppressor attachment kits; Provisioning Item Order, Technical Data Package and associated Data. Transportation shall be F.O.B. Destination.

The solicitation will require, free of charge to the government, delivery of 24 each product samples along with a concise written proposal all due on the closing date stated in the solicitation. The 24-each product sample from the successful offeror may be accepted as the Minimum Quantity. Any subsequent delivery orders for JCP's will order between 50 each and 200,000 each with a maximum monthly delivery rate of 5,000 each. Any subsequent orders for the ancillary items will require delivery to commence within 60 days after receipt of order.

The product samples and written proposal will be evaluated on a best value basis and the Government will reserve the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror and other than the highest technically rated offeror. Product samples from unsuccessful offerors will be returned to the offerors upon request and at the offeror's expense. The Government cannot guarantee the condition of the product samples after testing.

All responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency. The Government intend to issue a draft solicitation. Notifications, Solicitation, and other communication will be posted via FEDBIZOPS.

Hey, got a link for information on that squad support weapon?

Its my understanding that the KE part of an OICW ("Oink") is supposed to be for when they get too close to use the frag rounds in the 20/25mm gun. If that is the case, then PDWs would be the order of the day. Either something based on an AP round like the 5.7 FN, or a heavy thumper like the .50 Beowulf would be optimal in the role. I for one would perfer a heavy hitter (full bore, straight cased like the Beo') that even if any body armor worn stops the shot, the trauma inflicted is such that they arn't getting back up any time soon...and of course if you are listening to the "rattatat" of assault rifle fire, and all the sudden you hear the distinct "BOOMBOOMBOOM" of the Oink's KE gun going off, you know your grenider is in trouble.

Frankly I think straight casing the x39 case and plopping a .44 mag slug in it would be a good idea for rifles that couldn't handle the size of the .50 beo shell. But thats me. :D



coming at it way late, but You can't put a .429 bullet in a blown out 7.62x39. I think a .40 could be done, but event that is pushing it, imo. Hard to control headspacing I think.

A slight bottleneck and a .375 bullet might work better.


By the same token, for the pistol/smg role, I think the 10mm case with a mix of sabot and full caliber rounds might be useful.

Or go to something like the >460 Rowland or .45 super and do similarly.

I was finally able to download this file, and to my great surprise, the "future handgun" shown on page 20 is to have "caliber larger than 9mm"!!!

Less surprising, however, is that the picture is of a Heckler & Koch USP. I'd sure like to know why in hell the Army small arms program people are so enamored of H&K products! What gives? :confused:

The XM8 carbine family is H&K. The XM320 grenade launcher is H&K. The XM25 and XM29 airburst weapons are H&K. And now the future handgun apparently is going to be an H&K. H&K makes some decent guns, but I hardly think they're the best available.

could it be
SOme high ranking officers are looking toward their retirements?

Probably the .221 Fireball is too long to fit in a handgun, but it is a fine cartrige.

I'd say that the relation of the 6x25 to the 5.7x28 is similar to the relation of 6.5Grendel and 5.56NATO. Is uses the same formula: fatter and shorter case, bigger and longer bullet.

I think Remington loads a 6mm 75grain bullet with BC of .330. So i think its possible to develop a 70 grain bullet with a BC of around .300. That kind of low aerodynamic drag would give the bullet much better performance at ranges over 100yards, comparing to 9mm, 5.7mm or 4.6mm.
There is a simple drawing of the round attached to the my first post in this thread.

Regarding the design of the bullet, I would like a simple, effective allround bullet, FMJ filled with lead. The bullet should have a thick jacket/cap at the point, extending inside for 1/4 of the length of the bullet. This gives a hard and light point that increases both penetration and probability for tumbling. The jacket should get extremely thin in the middle and the base of the bullet, to in increase the frangibility.



Look up the LOOONG ballistically efficient bullets developed by CETME and Dr. FOss(?) post world war II. They were very sleek bullets with an aluminum core/tip that put the center of mass well back, to increase tumbling in the target. Also lighter, for less recoil at a given velocity.

Some of the aluminum alloys are as strong as mild steel, I suspect they would give many of the features desired. The aerodynamic bullet would not need as high a muzzle velocity to maintain velocity downrange. Put one in a sabot in a larger case... If you used a 6mm-.25 bullet weighing say 60-70 grains, fired from a 9x23 case...

WIth a barrel change, you might be able to use 9x19 in the same gun.

In 9x23 You could use a heavy 180? maybe even 200? grain or so 9mm bullet as a subsonic load, and have a lot of options in between.

Another option is to adapt the old THV or Arcane designs with the very lightweight VERY high velocity solid copper/bronze bullets if you want AP performance.

The presolicitation notice just came out for the Joint Combat Pistol.



If I had a fortune, I would put together and bid a combination of the Para ordnance P-14 LDA frame with a 5.5 inch extended barrel NCG gas gun conversion, I'd put a muzzle brake on the threaded barrel that acted as an interupted thread locking system for a suppressor. THen I would load it with .45 super brass.

AFAIK, it should still be able to fire conventional .45 acp ammo. WITHOUT change, it should be able to fire loads that are roughly equivalent in power to a .44 magnum.

All with less felt recoil than a normal 1911 with the same loads would provide.

I wonder if Lasergrips could make an infrared/visible "lasergrip" for that pistol?

Alek wrote: "I propose something like 6x25mm. A 6mm 70grain boat tail bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2400fps should equal the performance of an M-4 carbine."

Alek, please say more about this... Are you basically "necking up" FN's 5.7 x 28? Has anyone tried anything similar? What about a .221 Remington Fireball necked up to 6mm?
John, I received a phone call today from someone who said he's sending me a 6mm PDW cartridge that's been developed, and might be placed on the market in the near future together with a "mini-assault rifle" type PDW chambered for the new round.

Am not sure of the case dimensions, but I think it's based on the .218 Bee, which might put it at 6x34mm, with case diameter approx 0.35" -- that would make it longer and skinnier than Alek's proposed concept cartridge, but fatter than the 5.7 FN, and almost the same length as the 6 Whisper.

Stan

Stan, very intriguing! Keep us posted as much as is permissible.

John

after all the discusions here- not one of you guys have even considered the 9x23 I suggested.

Will fit into existing handgun frames has much better terminal performance than a 9x19 and can be made into an effective PDW weapon.

Making it into a 6x23 would allow a good 6mm projectile to be used and same for the pdw version.

You can 1400 fps out of a 147 grain load in 9x23 surely 2100+ fps is avail from a 70 odd grain 6mm projectile form a 6 inch in a pistol and 2300+ from 10 inch in a PDW.

pdw- short enough to fit on a shoulder holster unit under the arm down to the belt. on a reatining lanyard and can be drawn and fired one handed if needed.

just an idea. 15 rounds in a pistol and 30 rounds in a pdw. Double shoulder holster rig that has the weapon on one side a 4 mags and 2 grenades on the other makes a good self protection load out for drivers and arty and FAC etc etc

Just and idea- you want it to work, be reliable, accurate and have knock down power out to 200+ yards.

just my ideas

later
P

John, I'll be happy to provide more info when I get it. Got very little on the phone today. I hope to have some interesting info and pics in the mail by the end of this week or beginning of next.

Ogre, I think your idea has merit. What little I can recall reading about the Jatimatic, it might be a good PDW candidate. Am not sure about the 9x23 cartridge fitting into magazines made for 9x19 -- wouldn't they be 4mm too long? The proposed 6x23 should be able to offer interesting performance, but again, will it fit 9x19 mags?

I fully agree that a PDW needs to be "short enough to fit on a shoulder holster unit under the arm down to the belt." Capable of being fired one-handed is desirable, too.

Stan

Jatimatic was used in the stallone movie Cobra.
can be used one or two handed.
Made of stampings and minimal machining but being Finnish it just worked like Sakos and Tikkas do.
Breech block recoilled in set of grooves that angled upwards to enable to weapon to be very controllable in bursts and much better than normal SMG's in FA.
Forgrip was also the cosking handle and a wire slide in shoulder stock was AFIR avail also.

The 9x23 works in the 38 super mags. I have a picture here somewhere of a 22x23 built on a 1911 with formed brass in the pic. I'll have a look for it tonight. using a 1911 frame an 38 super mags you pic up 3 extra rounds per mag over the 45 ACP and more ft-lbs of energy on the target as well. 40+% increase in mag capacity.

I just thought that making it into a 6x23 would allow more projectile weight and versatility.
77 grain .3 BC Ball projectile for normal use a 95 .4 FBHP (VLD??) for use with a suppressor for supressor use.

I was looking at it from this angle.
6.5G equiped combat forces AR's and LMGs, 6x23 equiped support units and airforce/marine airforce- 2 basic types of ammo in the supply chain and everyones sidearm carries the same ammo.
SF will do what they want anyway as they do now.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Later
P

http://redmistshooting.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10004/zip224.jpg

http://redmistshooting.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10004/224ZIPSIDE.jpg

Stan,
Does this (Post 76) mean they've "turned" you? ;) I rather admired your original (Post 7) stance on the subject:
While it's certainly possible to create new PDW cartridges that offer superior range and penetration than 9mm Parabellum, I have to wonder if it is truly worth doing.

For one thing, the overwhelming majority of military personnel who would be armed with a PDW are not likely to be able to use the extra range capability. The small-caliber, high-velocity (SCHV) rounds make the PDW more of a mini-assault rifle than seems to me to be necessary for personal defense. Remember, most of the individuals who would have a PDW (clerks, truck drivers, etc) normally don't get to spend much time on target practice, so they won't be capable of making good use of a 200-meter effective range. For these people, a PDW that is effective to 50-100 meters is probably more than sufficent.

Stan

I propose something like 6x25mm. . . . A 6mm 70grain boat tail bullet with a muzzle velocity of around 2400fps should equal the performance of an M-4 carbine.
Assault-rifle performance from a pistol cartridge would be a dream come true . . . if it accorded with the laws of physics. Based on the flawed assumption in this statement (assuming a direct proportion between mass, velocity, and energy, when in fact energy varies with the square of velocity)
Regarding the velocity, 2400 should be achievable, since the stubby round would contain 15 grains of powder. This powder capacity gives twice heavier bullets (150-180 grain) a muzzle velocity of over 1200 fps in a handgun (like the .357 mag). I ran the energy figures for the higher figure (180-grain .357 at 1200 fps) and got 575; numerous published loads in the .357/10mm class show similar, high-500s figures. 895 ft-lbs for a 70 grainer at 2400 is a .44 Magnum energy figure; of course, in a necked-down .44 mag case, you'd lose powder capacity and surrender even more energy to piston effect, so to keep the same level of performance you'd have to step it up a notch--to .454 Casull? But wait--case length can't exceed 25mm/1 inch (a sensible limitation within the framework of a magazine-in-grip design)--so the correspondingly-fatter parent case would be, what? Something ending in "WSM" or "RSAUM"? :p Pursue this development road if you want, folks (I'm not overly partial to the specialized PDW cartridge concept myself), but please maintain realistic expectations of what it can do.

Take care,
Mike

Stan, Does this (Post 76) mean they've "turned" you? ;) I rather admired your original (Post 7) stance on the subject.
Nope, doesn't mean that at all, Mike. Just posting info that I thought might be of interest to the group, and to Grendelizer in particular. Awhile back, in another thread, I mentioned hearing about a new 6mm round being developed, and jumped to the conclusion that -- like Grendel, Wulfgar, SPC, and MPC -- it was another alternative to 5.56 NATO. Turns out it was a PDW cartridge.

My opinion on the subject of a PDW and its ammo hasn't changed from what I wrote in post 7. Please continue your admiration. :D

Stan

6.5G equipped combat forces ARs and LMGs, 6x23 equipped support units. . . . 2 basic types of ammo in the supply chain

You can all predict that I like that kind of simplicity and efficiency, as long as it's effective, and I believe it would be.

You say the "6x23" pistol/SMG/PDW round could be based on the .38 Super necked down, but without looking it up I can't remember what current pistol case that's closest to: 9mm, 40S&W, or 45ACP?

John

You say the "6x23" pistol/SMG/PDW round could be based on the .38 Super necked down, but without looking it up I can't remember what current pistol case that's closest to: 9mm, 40S&W, or 45ACP?
John

Nope not on a 38 super case. you use the 38 super magazine in the 1911 frame instead of the 45 acp magazine. Gives you 10+ rounds without making the 1911 a double width frame or the mag projecting from the bottom of the frame.

AFIR the 9x23 round is a .223 case cut to 23mm long. Mr Cooper made it AFIR and winchester adopted it.

Necking it to 6mm was something I was working on doing as a varmint cartridge but I couldn't get a BA small enough to use the round in.
There are heaps of PDW/SMGs that this round could work in and be effective.
Put into an ingram model 10, a steyr TMP, uzi, etc etc etc with a 3 round burst and FA trigger group there is the makings of a PDW weapons system.
Which doesn't require Millions of $$ and lots of years spent developing it and testing it- they are already out there and a known to work.

In the current situation in IRAQ/GWOT I would certainly want the ability to "repell borders" if I was a truck driver or an ARTY unit or engineers etc working out in the field.

The winchester 9x23 is a high pressure version of the 9mm largo round. 124 grain round a 1450+fps from a 5 inch 1911 is a potent PDW round.
necking it down and making it with a sptizer/fmj 6mm projectile makes it into a very potent PDW cartridge.

77 grain 6mm with a BC of .320 @ 2400 fps- +1.0 @100 yards gives about a 145-150 yard zero and about 4.0 inches down at 200 yards with over 600 ft-lbs of energy @ 200 yards.
In a PDF weapon that is capable of keeping 3 round bursts in a 12 inch x 12 inch sqaure at 200 yards that's 1800 ft-lbs on target in the bad guys chest.

enough to ruin most bad guys days.

with a 21 round mag (or greater) you can do 7+ bursts.

This concept is to arm all suport unit personell, tankers, apc crews etc etc with a small easy to use and carry at all times effective self protection weapons package.
Getting out of a disbled APC with a 200 yard range weapon and 150 rounds of ammo under your arm and a couple of grenades IMHO is much better than a 9mm pistol with 50 yard range on it and a couple of spare mags and no grenades.
It wouldn't be very hard to make a low profile vest system that carried spare mags, a couple of grenades, a chicken plate holder in the front , the weapon and a camel back and probably coms and first aid kit.
All while maintaining snag free easy egress in and out of vehicles and cockpits and turrets etc etc.

Just ideas I have been thinking about-

Later
P

Ogre, sounds good! It would be interesting to compare and contrast this 70gr 6x23 based on a .223 case head with FN's 5.7x28.

John

P.S. A .223 case head size is very similar to a 9mm Luger case head. So, basically, a 6x23 is a modified 9mm case.

Another thought is that the Chinese have already done this very thing with a new 5.8 pistol round. I can't remember the case length.

Should we just stick to thumping people with .45 ACP, as it seems the Marines want to do? :D

In the current situation in IRAQ/GWOT I would certainly want the ability to "repell borders" if I was a truck driver or an ARTY unit or engineers etc working out in the field.
. . . .
This concept is to arm all suport unit personell, tankers, apc crews etc etc with a small easy to use and carry at all times effective self protection weapons package.
Getting out of a disbled APC with a 200 yard range weapon and 150 rounds of ammo under your arm and a couple of grenades IMHO is much better than a 9mm pistol with 50 yard range on it and a couple of spare mags and no grenades.
It wouldn't be very hard to make a low profile vest system that carried spare mags, a couple of grenades, a chicken plate holder in the front , the weapon and a camel back and probably coms and first aid kit.
All while maintaining snag free easy egress in and out of vehicles and cockpits and turrets etc etc.

Just ideas I have been thinking about-

Later
P
THIS sounds like a great idea--I hope someday I will be issued, or at least be able to buy, your system.

The winchester 9x23 is a high pressure version of the 9mm largo round. 124 grain round a 1450+fps from a 5 inch 1911 is a potent PDW round.

Also concur. While I have no experience with this round, it sounds like a slightly-slimmer brother to the 10mm, a favorite of mine. The smaller round would offer similar performance with more magazine capacity, lighter weight, and lower recoil.

necking it down and making it with a sptizer/fmj 6mm projectile makes it into a very potent PDW cartridge.

WHYYY?!? :confused: Pistols are shooter-, not SD/BC/trajectory-, limited. Adding a collapsible stock to your 9X23 is bound to improve the accuracy and range of the cornered tanker or REMF, but what does he gain with the neck-down to 6mm? Certainly not this:

77 grain 6mm with a BC of .320 @ 2400 fps

Alek proposed a 70-grainer at this velocity (895 ft/lbs); you propose 77 (985). To attain this energy (1.7 times that of the 9X23 figures quoted), assuming you lose no powder space in necking down (you will) or that the higher-BC bullet loaded to magazine-length OAL won't intrude further into powder space (it will), a powder charge acting on 1/2.25th of the bullet base area will have to generate 3.825 times as much pressure as the parent cartridge. Assuming 9X23's loaded to the same 37k psi as the 10mm, that's 141,525 pounds of pressure! :eek:

enough to ruin most bad guys days.


And most good guys as well! ;)

Keep shooting,
Mike

Stan, very intriguing! Keep us posted as much as is permissible.
Well, I received a specimen of the "new" PDW cartridge today. Turns out it ain't exactly new after all. :(

It's nothing more than a clone of the 6 Whisper* with a different name, from a different manufacturer. However, it does have a new Open Tip Combat bullet similar in configuration to Hornady's Open Tip Combat bullet made for the 6.8 SPC.

I sure wouldn't classify it as a PDW round, nor would I suggest it for that purpose. However, it is a nifty little cartridge that'd probably be loads of fun in an ultra-lightweight, short-barreled, automatic weapon! :D

Did not receive any muzzle velocity, weapon specs, or other data.

Did receive a photo of the 6x35mm carbine. Has an M16 lower receiver, with a proprietary magazine made to accommodate the shorter cartridge (OAL: 1.93"). Upper receiver appears to be a gas piston type, with side-folding stock.

* www.sskindustries.com/cartridges.htm

That photo takes me back a long way. Made front cover of Guns and Ammo with the 224 BOZ. The pistol round looks like the run the Swiss made with the 223 VOB. They ran the 9x23 case pulled down to 223 to try and beat us at our own game, but they dropped too much capacity and the thing never ran. I will bow to the 5.7x28 in this battle. Nice balanced design, good all round ballistics and an exceptional pistol. No one ever mentions how reliable it is because it never even hesitated in testing. Pity they changed the bore from .224" to .221" to suit the politicians.

Hi, I've been visiting the forums for a quite a while and decided to finally register.

It has come to my attention that KAC has introduced a new PDW round in the 6x35mm along with a newly designed PDW. Sounds promising at

approx. 65 grains and yields 848 ft.-lbs of muzzle energy at 2425 fps out of the CQB's 10-inch barrel

http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=878

Still waiting for more specifics, particulary pics :)

It has come to my attention that KAC has introduced a new PDW round in the 6x35mm along with a newly designed PDW. Sounds promising...

Still waiting for more specifics, particulary pics
Go to www.sskindustries.com/cartridges.htm for pictures.

The KAC 6x35 is a copy of the 6 Whisper, but given a generic name. The case is the same, although the bullet is different. The KAC 6x35 has an Open Tip Combat bullet similar in configuration to that made by Hornady for the 6.8 SPC. Headstamp shows Hornady as manufacturer of the case, so they probably made the bullet, too.

Hey, I was just rereading that G&A. Still had it on my shelf.

Humm... er... why not just doing an upgrade to the 7.62 Tokarev?...
Or a 6.5x25 Tokarev Wildcat?

Two choices:

7.62 Nato; 7.62 Whisper Supersonic; 7.62 Tokarev

or

6.5 Grendel + 6.5x25 Tokarev

For ALL calibers of the same caliber, same rifling twist.

(Thinking about logistics and production issues too.)

It has come to my attention that KAC has introduced a new PDW round in the 6x35mm along with a newly designed PDW.

Still waiting for more specifics, particulary pics
Ask and ye shall receive. ;)

6x35 (left) 5.56x45 (right)

Ain't the little devil cute? :D

My only question is: Whats the point?

My only question is: Whats the point?
Why, the main point is to make money for KAC, of course. ;)

But, if there were a well-designed, compact, 3-lb assault rifle to fire the 6x35, I'd love to have one. It'd be sort of a modern version of the M-1/M-2 carbine...a ball to shoot just for fun. :D :D :D

Hmmm, I just remembered, I suggested a 6.5x33 in a different thread....
Sounds like KAC did almost exactly what I was thinking about...they just stretched it a little. wonder if you could scale the weapon down to something approaching a C96 "Broomhandle" and still have it somewhat controllable.

Well, it seems that you are going to end up with a Whisper and not a compact cartridge... :rolleyes:

Hey, got a link for information on that squad support weapon?

Its my understanding that the KE part of an OICW ("Oink") is supposed to be for when they get too close to use the frag rounds in the 20/25mm gun. If that is the case, then PDWs would be the order of the day. Either something based on an AP round like the 5.7 FN, or a heavy thumper like the .50 Beowulf would be optimal in the role. I for one would perfer a heavy hitter (full bore, straight cased like the Beo') that even if any body armor worn stops the shot, the trauma inflicted is such that they arn't getting back up any time soon...and of course if you are listening to the "rattatat" of assault rifle fire, and all the sudden you hear the distinct "BOOMBOOMBOOM" of the Oink's KE gun going off, you know your grenider is in trouble.

Frankly I think straight casing the x39 case and plopping a .44 mag slug in it would be a good idea for rifles that couldn't handle the size of the .50 beo shell. But thats me. :D

It could only handle a .40, I think. Though that would be about like the old .401 self loading. :)

I have to go with Stan and support tweaking the 9x19mm as the simplest solution. Just buy or reverse engineer the Swedish m/39B FMJ round. It uses a steel jacket which is thickened throughout the ogive. It is supposed to defeat most soft body armor with ease. (See Attachment 1)

Converting 9x19mm back to the 7.65mm Parabellum (AKA: .30 Luger) seems like a retrograde solution. Georg Luger is somewhere shaking his head at the thought.

If one insists on a larger caliber, there is an interesting, but exotic, AP solution in .45 ACP...the tubular airfoil bullet. Think of a copper and steel cookie cutter. I really don't know if it would be considered Land Warfare Legal. (See Attachment 2)


IMO a two bullet solution is the key. I like 10mm or .45, but...

use a tubular bullet like the old PMC Ultramag. SOlid bronze, iirc the .357 used a 80 or 90 grain bullet at something like 1600fps. Maybe more, it has been a long time.

The trajectory and accuracy would probably be superb, and wounding effects would be about as good as you could get with non expanding bullets. it would actually detach a tube of tissue. Recoil would also be relatively light.

The other bullet would be a discarding sabot steel or tungsten bullet. With some work, both could have about the same trajectory, and if the penetrator was designed just right, it could be expected to tumble in tissue.

if the two bullets were roughly matched in recoil and trajectory, changing back and forth would be easy.

EIther caliber also would allow for a good subsonic suppressed round.

THIS sounds like a great idea--I hope someday I will be issued, or at least be able to buy, your system.

Also concur. While I have no experience with this round, it sounds like a slightly-slimmer brother to the 10mm, a favorite of mine. The smaller round would offer similar performance with more magazine capacity, lighter weight, and lower recoil.

WHYYY?!? :confused: Pistols are shooter-, not SD/BC/trajectory-, limited. Adding a collapsible stock to your 9X23 is bound to improve the accuracy and range of the cornered tanker or REMF, but what does he gain with the neck-down to 6mm? Certainly not this:

Alek proposed a 70-grainer at this velocity (895 ft/lbs); you propose 77 (985). To attain this energy (1.7 times that of the 9X23 figures quoted), assuming you lose no powder space in necking down (you will) or that the higher-BC bullet loaded to magazine-length OAL won't intrude further into powder space (it will), a powder charge acting on 1/2.25th of the bullet base area will have to generate 3.825 times as much pressure as the parent cartridge. Assuming 9X23's loaded to the same 37k psi as the 10mm, that's 141,525 pounds of pressure! :eek:


And most good guys as well! ;)

Keep shooting,
Mike

9x23 Winchester is loaded to 50k psi!!!!!!

oh, and sorry about the repetitive post, I was mostly without internet for three months (family leave after my son was born:)) and forgot which threads I had already posted to, and forgot to check the dates.

Here is a full write up of the KAC PDW

http://www.knightarmco.com/pdw.pdf (www.knightarmco.com/pdw.pdf)

Sounds like they thought everything through and solved alot of problems without skimping on power.

Thanks for the Knight info.

It's the first time I've read this thread. It looks like the Colt MARS (Mini Assault Rifle System) was ahead of it's time. They shortened 5.56x45 and used propellants optimized for a 10-inch barrel and a 300 yard maximum effective range and then shortened the receivers, bot carrier group, receiver extension and stock. Nice little package. Too bad it never took off.

You can all predict that I like that kind of simplicity and efficiency, as long as it's effective, and I believe it would be.

You say the "6x23" pistol/SMG/PDW round could be based on the .38 Super necked down, but without looking it up I can't remember what current pistol case that's closest to: 9mm, 40S&W, or 45ACP?

John
Hi everyone,

I'm new here so please be kind.
Right after WW2, the Russians used 3 main rounds for small arms..
MG: 7.62x54
AR: 7.62x39
SMG and sidearm: 7.62x25

If we have a major revamp of military small arms and the 6.5Grendel is adopted for a general small arms calibre, it would simplify manufacturing, design and logisitcs significantly if we stuck to the same diameter, right?

The Glock 18 is basically a FA version of the G17. You can get conversion kits like the Mech Tec kits, that encloses the moving slide ompletely, improving safety and giving the pistol better recoil control and longer barrel.
I propose a G18 with extended barrel, enclosed action and collapsing stock. The PDW would be chambere for a 6.5x19 round of about 80gr.
I grew up in Africa and we had our fair share of crime. A friend of mine dropped an attacker with a shot from a 9x19 penetrator round that weighed in at around 80gr if I recall correctly.
The G18 is just a template. Personally, I'd prefer a 6.5x23 round based on a cut off .223 case. That may require a redesign of the weapon, but the principle remains the same. A weapon with a 7" to 10" barrel using a round small enough to fit into a magazine that would fit into the grip of the weapon. The user must be able to carry it in a holster. Minimum magazine capacity should be 20 rounds. Weapon must be capable of semi, 3rd burst and FA fire. Magazines must be of a drop free design. If sufficient velocities can be attained by using 19mm cases, it would REALLY simplify magazine and basic weapon structure design/logistics and supply.
I agree that .45 packs more of a punch, but just like the Grendel round proved, bigger is not always better.

thanks for reading

Welcome Afrikaner,

Sounds like you are applying "caliber size up" concept to the really small PDWs that are currently out there.

Much like the Grendel, trying to find a middle ground between the tiny existing PDW rounds and the conventional pistol calibers.

A big part of the new PDW designs is body armor penetration (probably not so much a "personal defense weapon" issue as a military or law enforcement need). In playing around with design, I think you may be on the right track but need to have a possible goal of penetrating a certain level of body armor while maximizing bullet size.

Thanks for the welcome.
The middle ground can sometimes become the high ground.
The Grendel was designed to go for middle ground, but as we all know, it turned out to beat the trusty old 7.62NATO round at range, accuracy and punch.
The same holds true for a pistol/PDW/SMG cartridge of the same calibre, if it is designed correctly.
I would say that the weight of the projectile should be between 85 and 100gr. A 6.5mm 100gr projectile travelling at about 1600fps seems like a heck of an improvement. The absolute easiest solution to all of our problems would be to adopt the 357SIG with penetrator rounds and get it over with, but then you are dealing with a fatter case and a multitude of barrel blanks again.
KISS should be employed as the Russians did with the Tokarev pistol and AK47. Keep the bullet diameters the same. I think we can all agree that the 7.62x25Tokarev is one heck of a round. Imagine if you took that same tokarev case and necked it down to 6.5 - then you'd have more or less what I described. .223 Brass can be used to form 7.62x25 brass as well - just much stronger and will withstand much higer prssures.